Speaker Peter Milliken gave an historic ruling earlier today in the House in Commons. By all accounts, the eyes of the world were focussed on Milliken’s declaration that the Conservative government of Stephen Harper may be in contempt of parliament. While this may seem a mundane event to many, or at best posturing by the Opposition NDP and Liberals to score political points, the fact of the matter is quite different, and the implications of Milliken’s ruling will ring down through the annals of Canadian history, and indeed the history of parliamentary democracies throughout the world.
The only question yet to be answered: will this ruling lead to real reform, or will it ultimately be labelled as one of democracy’s last gasps?
Do you think that I’m overstating the case? Well, maybe so, but then again, maybe not. Let’s speculate for a moment, shall we, about where things might have ended up if Milliken had arrived at a different ruling.
As you know, the Opposition Parties have asked the Speaker to make a ruling on whether the government’s refusal to provide unredacted copies of correspondence related to prisoner transfers in Afghanistan constitutes contempt of parliament. The Opposition says that, because parliament has demanded access to these documents, if the government won’t make these materials available to elected Members of Parliament for their scrutiny, then the government is in contempt. The Conservative government says that there is a bigger picture here to consider, and that releasing these documents will compromise Canadian security, presumably as it relates to Canada’s and NATO’s role in Afghanistan.
Now that Milliken has ruled, you can bet that the Conservatives will begin attacking the Speaker personally. Remember, although Milliken has served in the non-partisan speaker role since his election by parliament to that position in 2001, Milliken is a Liberal. Clearly, today’s decision will be cast in a partisan light. A safer course of action for Milliken would have been to find in favour of the government, however that approach would have flown in the face of parliamentary tradition, and it would have been one of the final nails in democracy’s coffin. Here’s why:
The Conservatives claim that large portions of key documents are not being made public because of "National Security". So, we Canadians, and opposition members of parliament, don’t know what is in those documents. Maybe there are some real state secrets there which need protecting. Maybe there are just skeletons in the Conservatives own closet. Fact is, we don’t know. We have to trust the government that there are greater issues of National Security based only on their word at the moment.
Yes, the Conservatives have appointed retired Supreme Court Judge Frank Iacobucci to review the documents and determine whether or not the contents of these documents should be made public. Stephen Harper and the Cons believe that this approach will be fair and balanced, and that Canadians will accept the findings of the retired judge. And so should the Opposition, according to Harper.
Of course, this approach has no mandate within parliament. Parliament has asked for the documents, and they have not been delivered. The Opposition believes (as do I, and apparently so does the Speaker) that Cabinet must submit to the will of parliament, and parliament has decided that it wants to see these documents. This fact will not change if Iacobucci makes a finding in support of the Conservative position. And if he does, Canadians will never know why; we’ll simply have to trust Iacobucci as an honest broker without the benefit of knowing what’s in the documents.
Yes, but you may be concerned that some MP’s from all parties might go and leak information to the media after seeing the documents, and that these leaks may jeopardize security interests, or worse, put Canadians in harm’s way. Well, these issues have been addressed in the past when making certain secure documents available for parliamentarians, and the release of these documents could also be handled in such ways, as called for by Milliken. Release to a committee in camera, for example, of contentious documents has already happened.
Again, though, this argument does not change the fact that parliament has demanded to see the documents, and the documents are not being made available. And I personally don't buy it. We elected these MP's to look after our best interests. These are our decision makers. To suggest that they can't be trusted, well, that's really inappropriate.
Had Milliken sided with the Conservatives, and deferred to the process currently underway through Justice Iacobucci, he would have dealt a serious blow to our already-stressed democratic processes. In essence, such a decision would have been a slap in the face of parliament, and a declaration that real power lies only in the hands of Cabinet. And we know that cabinets are controlled by the Prime Minister, right from the get-go of appointments, to managing media messages. In essence, had Milliken ruled differently, it would have been a confirmation that the Prime Minister alone decides what all other elected officials can and can not know.
This would have led to a situation ripe for serious abuse. After all, if you can control the flow of information, you’ve set yourself up to be in a pretty position when the information might be somehow detrimental to you. Why share information with the Opposition in Parliament when you don’t have to? What, exactly, constitutes an issue of "National Security" anyway? I guess as the Prime Minister, unaccountable to anyone except the 50,000 or so electors who vote for him every few years, I suppose he gets to make that decision.
Our Prime Minister is already exercising power beyond that ascribed to his "first among equals" position. I often wonder what might have happened had the Governor General refused to prorogue parliament back in 2008. I suspect strongly that parliament would not have been sitting the next Monday afterwards, despite a negative ruling on Harper’s request. Remember that Minister Baird, a member of Cabinet, suggested that the Conservatives were ready to go over the GG’s head, directly to the Canadian people if they had to, in order to achieve the result that they wanted. This despite the fact that there would have been no parliamentary process to do so.
On the recent request to prorogue, well, no one is really sure why the reset button had to be pushed. Harper said it was so that the Conservatives could spend time refining the budget, but when the budget came out, there was no change of course. Pretty much everyone, including members of Harper’s own Party, realize that all of the reasons stated by Harper and his mouthpieces weren’t the real issues. Shutting the door on the detainee enquiry seems the likeliest reason, although we Canadians will never truly know why our parliament was shut down for several months earlier this year. Let’s hope that it wasn’t just so the PM could attend the gold medal hockey games.
Even these past few weeks we’ve seen Harper accept the resignation of one of his own Minister’s on so-called "serious allegations", and refer the matter to the police. We still don’t know why this Minister resigned. From the sounds of things, former Minister Guergis herself doesn’t know why she resigned, despite the fact that Harper indicated that, given the nature of the allegations, he had no choice but to accept her resignation.
And on the Afghan detainee hearing currently going on before the Military Police tribunal, we have a lawyer for the government claiming to have read the unredacted version of Richard Colvin’s correspondence to his superiors, and claiming that there was nothing substantive which Colvin brought to the attention of his superiors regarding the transfer of prisoners being problematic. Colvin can’t answer this accusation, because he’s under a gag order not to discuss the contents of his own correspondence due to "national security", but the government through its lawyer is free to make statements that there isn’t anything there. And to challenge Colvin to show where, in his heavily redacted correspondence, he was sounding the alarm. Of course, Colvin couldn’t point to the locations in the correspondence because they were blacked out. All of which prompted the tribunal chair to question, then, why the correspondence hasn’t been made public, given that there isn’t anything to it. The lawyer’s response was that he should take it up with his client the government. And that other documents would be delivered to the tribunal when the government was "good and ready" to provide them, and not a moment before, despite the fact that the absence of these documents were holding up the tribunal’s enquiry.
This is all truly bizarre. A ruling by Milliken in favour of the government’s position, that it is not in contempt of parliament, would have added fuel to the fire burning away at our democracy. It would have given carte blanche to the Prime Minister to declare matters to be within the purview of "national security" and to shut down on all discussion in parliament on them, aside from speculation. In some ways, that’s exactly where we are at right now, and I would suggest that this is due to the Conservative’s on-going contempt for the institution of parliament; their contempt isn’t confined to the prisoner detainee issue.
Milliken could have given his consent to the business-as-usual approach to governance as practiced by Stephen Harper, our modern day King John. This is the approach which we see in action today. Instead, the Speaker ruled that the Prime Minister and Cabinet is not above the will of parliament, who are after all, individuals whom Canadians have elected to look out for our best interests. MP’s are in Ottawa on our behalf, and Harper needs to remember this. MP’s and government do not work for Stephen Harper; they work for me and all other Canadians. Milliken’s ruling today should cause Harper to do a bit of a rethink, but I’m not holding my breath. Likely we’ll see the Supreme Court asked to intervene, or have an election before this can go much further. My money is on both outcomes.
But at least the supremacy of Parliament was acknowledged today, and that is a triumph for all who care about the state of democracy in this great nation of ours. Had Milliken ruled differently, well, Canadians would be left wondering what good, exactly, are all of these parliamentarians whom we elect, ostensibly to represent our interests, when the Prime Minister and Cabinet get to determine what can and can not be discussed. Likely the conclusion that just about everybody would arrive at would be: not much good at all. Which would please Stephen Harper to no end.
Thank you, Speaker of the House, for shoring up my eroding faith in Canadian democracy.
And now if we can just get Minister Clement to release the agreement the government made with Vale Inco when Canadian mining giant INCO was sold to the Brazilians for the "net benefit of Canada". Yet another example of the Conservatives telling us to simply trust them, in absence of releasing documents for us to make up our own minds.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Climate Change and Freedom: How the Climate Crisis May Erode Civil Liberties
A few interesting things have been brought to my attention in the past few days which have started to formulate some sort of loose nexus of ideas in my mind. In this blogpost, I’m going to try to weave these threads together, and hope that I come out with a decent thesis.
Climate Wars
Tomorrow night in Toronto, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May and international journalist Gwynne Dyer, will be making a presentation called "Finding Hope: Confronting Climate Wars". Presumably, they’re going to put a positive spin on the thesis Dyer offers in his excellent book, "Climate Wars". In short, that thesis is, climate change is real, has been understated by the international community, and is being taken into consideration by military planners. Some have described his book as "chilling". Certainly it should be a wake-up call to the climate-change deniers out there; and not just because of the science behind climate change, but also because of the seriousness which the coming climate crisis is being treated by military planners.
My wife gave me this book for Christmas in 2008, and I’ve read it twice since then. I’m very much a believer in Mr. Dyer’s thesis, and I am troubled by the social, political and military aspects which will occur as a result of the climate crisis. I saw Mr. Dyer speak about his book when he was here in Sudbury last year. I’m sure that those attending tomorrow’s presentation in Toronto are in for a treat, and I’m a little jealous. There certainly is hope amongst the doom and gloom, and we often forget about things such as hope when we turn our attention to the subjects which are so very overwhelming in scope.
However, let us also keep in mind that while "hope" is a great thing, it can also derail us from taking serious action. When we hope, we often remove ourselves from taking responsibility for action. For example, if we hope that a solution can be found to the coming energy crisis, it may mean that we personally put off doing all of the things that we really need to start doing to prepare for the crisis. I think most people understand this, but sometimes I’m not so sure. Hope can certainly inspire us to action, to "being the change that we want in the world" or something like that. But Hope is a double-edged sword, so we must be careful how we handle it.
Back to "Climate Wars", though, and why the climate change denier types should take a closer look at Dyer’s research. Even if you don’t believe in global warming, you should take seriously what the military planner-types are war-gaming with regards to the near future. In the U.S. especially, there has been a lot of concern about National Security, which many have largely come to think of as under threat by terrorists. A lot has happened in the past decade in the United States in the name of "National Security", including a significant erosion of personal rights and liberties. Today’s government has much more power over individuals than it did before September 11th and the Patriot Act. Many Americans are already concerned about these outcomes, and these concerns are manifesting themselves in different ways.
Dyer contends that national militaries are preparing for the political and military impacts of climate change: since people are going to be displaced due to drought, disease, rising sea levels, etc., and struggles for increasingly scarce resources are going to occur with more frequency, in the name of National Security, it makes sense to prepare for potential negative outcomes. Dyer offers a number of examples, but the one which I remember best (likely because it is closest to home) is what might happen on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Climate change will likely severely impact Central America and Mexico’s ability to produce enough food to feed itself. Given that the rest of the world will also likely not be in a position to export food surpluses which no longer exist, this will lead to a significant number of hungry people who might feel that they don’t have much to lose by migrating to a place which they perceive to be a better location for them. Certainly, throughout history, peoples have done just that.
While the U.S. southwest will itself be suffering from the ill effects of climate change the depletion of the Oglalla aquifer, relatively speaking, it might still seem a paradise to those from Central America who can not feed themselves. How will the U.S. protect itself from those seeking a better existence through illegal entry? Maybe some sort of wall should be built to keep other out. Maybe the wall should be armed with remotely operated weaponry, to deter those who might seek to challenge it. And don’t you think that landowners in Texas and Arizona are going to demand that their federal government take actions to ensure their security? To do so effectively, though, what might those who live in Texas and Arizona have to give up? Their right to assembly? Some of their property, wealth?
Certainly, this part of the world is already experiencing stresses which will be further exacerbated by a changing climate (witness the movement to "re-unify" the southwest with Mexico). Even if you don’t believe in climate change, you should recognize that the military is planning for a future which is going to be impacted by a changing climate.
Why would the military do that if the threat wasn’t real?
Climate Change: Not For Real?
Well, here’s why some people think that the military would be making all of its plans even though it knows that climate change is not real. I have become increasingly disturbed by the followers of Alex Jones and others who hypothesize that national governments, in the pockets of the military-industrial-banking complex, are using climate change as an excuse to stifle civil liberties, with the eventual goal of creating a corporatist world government run by the IMF and World Bank. Sometimes the ultimate goal of population reduction is brought into this belief.
I’m disturbed by this line of thinking mostly because I believe that there is a lot of merit to it, however I do not agree with that part of the hypothesis which suggests that climate change is not happening, and that scientists throughout the world are fudging the data and are part of an international conspiracy to make the rest of us live in fear. I guess I’m disturbed by its merit, because I, like many, don’t like to think about things like this.
That part of about the corporatist global government which is the ultimate goal, however, really does have a lot of merit, and I don’t think that there’s any question that we’re heading in that direction. This may be troubling for many Americans who have come to view their constitutional rights as paramount to all other rights, and that they should not be subservient or beholden to a government which refuses to recognize the U.S. Constitution as paramount. My concern here is that those people who might otherwise be allies in the fight against global warming are being lost to us and claimed by the denial industry.
The fact is that the green movement has a lot in common with the anti-corporatist, libertarian agenda which many in the U.S. and Canada subscribe to. Not all libertarians are right-wingers, and not all who oppose bailing out banks are left-wingers. Indeed, there is a lot of overlap if you go looking. There can also be a lot of opposition, given that the green movement was built out of the peace movement, while many libertarians with an anti-corporatist, anti-government agenda will fight to their last breath to hold onto their guns and ammo.
For all those areas where greens and libertarians might find common ground, it appears that the idea of climate change might turn into a losing proposition, thanks in part to the machinations of our national governments. This might be difficult to understand for those in the green choir, but picture the following scenario.
The President of the United States acknowledges that climate change is real, happening, and needs to be addressed, despite what the media says. The President decides to take action, without the approval of Congress, and announce a plan to do just that. He travels to Copenhagen to announce that America will participate in the creation of a fund wherein the wealth of the developed world can be transferred to those less-developed nations so that they may invest in green technologies instead of brown. The President goes on to say that this must happen because National Security may be jeopardized if we don’t act. All around the President, other international decision makers are talking about how all of this will hopefully lead to a global government.
Video clips go viral on the internet, showing youthful protestors interrupting speeches given by respected climate change deniers, some of whom are in governments. Protestors mindlessly shout down any and all who want to suggest that climate change isn’t happening. The protestors are compared to Hitler Youth and Brownshirts for their slavish actions. Green is seen as the new Black, Red & White; green is the heel of the latest jackboot.
The President is denounced for selling out the American people and the Constitution for his insistence on taking action to address the imaginative issue of climate change. Worse, the fears of many focus on the President’s use of Executive privelege over Congressional law (remember that the President of the U.S. can not make law – that’s Congress’ job. The President can only sign or veto a bill; if Congress doesn’t present the President with a bill to make a law, such as the one needed to address climate change, what legal right does the President have to insist that the government will do so anyway?). With this precedent, what else might the President do to enforce his view over Congress? Where does it end? Remember that the President is also the Commander-in-Chief of the military; the military does not answer to Congress, it answers to the President.
These are not small issues. While it seems that the denial industry has been largely funded by the corporations who appear to have the most to lose if we start to take action to address climate change (the very military-industrial-banking complex referenced above), there is a subset of individuals out there in the U.S. and Canada (and presumably elsewhere) who see climate change as the latest tool to be used by government to erode civil liberties. What bothers me is that I find myself sharing some of their concerns, because one doesn’t have to disbelieve in climate change to see how it might be used by decision-makers to advance a particular agenda. And one can see how that agenda might easily benefit the corporate elites.
Cap and Trade
Certainly a North American or an international emissions trading program is one which will benefit the banking industry and the corporate elite, and disadvantage those who are the least well-off amongst us. We have seen the European Emissions Trading scheme increase the wealth of corporations engaged in emissions trading, while little or no success has actually been achieved on reducing greenhouse gases. While it might be true that a successfully implement cap and trade scheme would eventually lead to a reduction in emissions, will it take us to where we need to be? How long will it take to get us there? And, who will disproportionately benefit in the process?
I’m certainly not optimistic about the timeframes involved in establishing a meaningful cap and trade scheme (by meaningful, I here mean one which actually reduces emissions). Cap and trade would be a great way of achieving intensity targets, and giving pats on the back to the corporations and politicians who are involved. Cap and trade will certainly enrich those who generate money from nothing. There is a lot to fear about cap and trade just from that perspective alone, neverminding the ghg reduction angle (or lack thereof).
Why, then, is this costly, incredibly bureaucratic method of potentially reducing greenhouse gas emissions the preferred method of governments? The answer, of course, is that because people will make money off of it. And by "people" I don’t mean you or me, as we stand to become further impoverished by a scenario which adds a premium to everything we purchase without the corresponding offsets on other taxes. In short, if I’m making the same income and am now expected to pay more for just about everything that I need, why the hell would I ever want to buy into that? And that’s why I don’t.
Now, if it were the only real option available, maybe I would accept this kind of program. But it’s not the only option available. It’s not even the easiest option available to implement. We in the Green Party know that there’s a better option: reducing personal income taxes while putting a premium on products and services which use carbon. This approach, misleadingly labelled a "Carbon Tax" (I say "misleadingly" because calling it a new tax is only half the story; the other side of the new tax is reducing the old tax), is a lot simpler to implement, and if handled correctly (through the provision of income offsets for those least well off amongst us), will end up impacting us much less, and contribute to health of our economy by providing us who are keen on conservation with more income.
A cap and trade scenario won’t do that at all. Instead, it will suck up our income and distribute it to the bankers and financiers who are running the scheme. Potentially, the governments involved will see a little of the dividend, but likely only after the administrators have taken their healthy cut. Look, I’m all for new revenue sources for governments, but I’m also for deciding how best to spend my own earnings.
Anyway, you can see that if you were an Alex Jones Libertarian how you might be very concerned about an international emissions trading scheme. The unfortunate part of it all is that if you were an Alex Jones Libertarian, you won’t be out there advocating for a carbon tax instead of cap and trade, because you’re likely not one to believe that climate change is happening in the first place. And that really makes me angry, because all things being equal, the Alex Jones Libertarians would be natural allies for moving forward a sensible carbon pricing scheme.
To Sum Up
I’m sure I’ll revisit some of what I’ve written here in a more specific format. Suffice it to say, though, that we can expect to hear a lot more about National Security in the coming years, and a lot of it is likely to have to do with climate change. We need to be very careful where these sorts of discussions end up going, and we should be very suspect at joining with those who want to take action on climate change through means which lead to the erosion of human rights and liberties. Yes, the future may be a very bleak one when it comes to human strife and suffering, and if the world for which the military planners are war-gaming for comes into being, we all stand to lose a lot. But let’s not also throw away our human rights in the name of national security.
Let us all also be vigilant with regards to those who would use the climate crisis to further their own agendas, be they governments or the military-industrial-banking complex. The threats to our civil liberties are very real, both in Canada and the United States. We simply can not allow the struggle against climate change to imperil democracy. If you don’t believe that climate change and democracy are inexorably linked, it’s time that you give it a second thought.
Climate Wars
Tomorrow night in Toronto, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May and international journalist Gwynne Dyer, will be making a presentation called "Finding Hope: Confronting Climate Wars". Presumably, they’re going to put a positive spin on the thesis Dyer offers in his excellent book, "Climate Wars". In short, that thesis is, climate change is real, has been understated by the international community, and is being taken into consideration by military planners. Some have described his book as "chilling". Certainly it should be a wake-up call to the climate-change deniers out there; and not just because of the science behind climate change, but also because of the seriousness which the coming climate crisis is being treated by military planners.
My wife gave me this book for Christmas in 2008, and I’ve read it twice since then. I’m very much a believer in Mr. Dyer’s thesis, and I am troubled by the social, political and military aspects which will occur as a result of the climate crisis. I saw Mr. Dyer speak about his book when he was here in Sudbury last year. I’m sure that those attending tomorrow’s presentation in Toronto are in for a treat, and I’m a little jealous. There certainly is hope amongst the doom and gloom, and we often forget about things such as hope when we turn our attention to the subjects which are so very overwhelming in scope.
However, let us also keep in mind that while "hope" is a great thing, it can also derail us from taking serious action. When we hope, we often remove ourselves from taking responsibility for action. For example, if we hope that a solution can be found to the coming energy crisis, it may mean that we personally put off doing all of the things that we really need to start doing to prepare for the crisis. I think most people understand this, but sometimes I’m not so sure. Hope can certainly inspire us to action, to "being the change that we want in the world" or something like that. But Hope is a double-edged sword, so we must be careful how we handle it.
Back to "Climate Wars", though, and why the climate change denier types should take a closer look at Dyer’s research. Even if you don’t believe in global warming, you should take seriously what the military planner-types are war-gaming with regards to the near future. In the U.S. especially, there has been a lot of concern about National Security, which many have largely come to think of as under threat by terrorists. A lot has happened in the past decade in the United States in the name of "National Security", including a significant erosion of personal rights and liberties. Today’s government has much more power over individuals than it did before September 11th and the Patriot Act. Many Americans are already concerned about these outcomes, and these concerns are manifesting themselves in different ways.
Dyer contends that national militaries are preparing for the political and military impacts of climate change: since people are going to be displaced due to drought, disease, rising sea levels, etc., and struggles for increasingly scarce resources are going to occur with more frequency, in the name of National Security, it makes sense to prepare for potential negative outcomes. Dyer offers a number of examples, but the one which I remember best (likely because it is closest to home) is what might happen on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Climate change will likely severely impact Central America and Mexico’s ability to produce enough food to feed itself. Given that the rest of the world will also likely not be in a position to export food surpluses which no longer exist, this will lead to a significant number of hungry people who might feel that they don’t have much to lose by migrating to a place which they perceive to be a better location for them. Certainly, throughout history, peoples have done just that.
While the U.S. southwest will itself be suffering from the ill effects of climate change the depletion of the Oglalla aquifer, relatively speaking, it might still seem a paradise to those from Central America who can not feed themselves. How will the U.S. protect itself from those seeking a better existence through illegal entry? Maybe some sort of wall should be built to keep other out. Maybe the wall should be armed with remotely operated weaponry, to deter those who might seek to challenge it. And don’t you think that landowners in Texas and Arizona are going to demand that their federal government take actions to ensure their security? To do so effectively, though, what might those who live in Texas and Arizona have to give up? Their right to assembly? Some of their property, wealth?
Certainly, this part of the world is already experiencing stresses which will be further exacerbated by a changing climate (witness the movement to "re-unify" the southwest with Mexico). Even if you don’t believe in climate change, you should recognize that the military is planning for a future which is going to be impacted by a changing climate.
Why would the military do that if the threat wasn’t real?
Climate Change: Not For Real?
Well, here’s why some people think that the military would be making all of its plans even though it knows that climate change is not real. I have become increasingly disturbed by the followers of Alex Jones and others who hypothesize that national governments, in the pockets of the military-industrial-banking complex, are using climate change as an excuse to stifle civil liberties, with the eventual goal of creating a corporatist world government run by the IMF and World Bank. Sometimes the ultimate goal of population reduction is brought into this belief.
I’m disturbed by this line of thinking mostly because I believe that there is a lot of merit to it, however I do not agree with that part of the hypothesis which suggests that climate change is not happening, and that scientists throughout the world are fudging the data and are part of an international conspiracy to make the rest of us live in fear. I guess I’m disturbed by its merit, because I, like many, don’t like to think about things like this.
That part of about the corporatist global government which is the ultimate goal, however, really does have a lot of merit, and I don’t think that there’s any question that we’re heading in that direction. This may be troubling for many Americans who have come to view their constitutional rights as paramount to all other rights, and that they should not be subservient or beholden to a government which refuses to recognize the U.S. Constitution as paramount. My concern here is that those people who might otherwise be allies in the fight against global warming are being lost to us and claimed by the denial industry.
The fact is that the green movement has a lot in common with the anti-corporatist, libertarian agenda which many in the U.S. and Canada subscribe to. Not all libertarians are right-wingers, and not all who oppose bailing out banks are left-wingers. Indeed, there is a lot of overlap if you go looking. There can also be a lot of opposition, given that the green movement was built out of the peace movement, while many libertarians with an anti-corporatist, anti-government agenda will fight to their last breath to hold onto their guns and ammo.
For all those areas where greens and libertarians might find common ground, it appears that the idea of climate change might turn into a losing proposition, thanks in part to the machinations of our national governments. This might be difficult to understand for those in the green choir, but picture the following scenario.
The President of the United States acknowledges that climate change is real, happening, and needs to be addressed, despite what the media says. The President decides to take action, without the approval of Congress, and announce a plan to do just that. He travels to Copenhagen to announce that America will participate in the creation of a fund wherein the wealth of the developed world can be transferred to those less-developed nations so that they may invest in green technologies instead of brown. The President goes on to say that this must happen because National Security may be jeopardized if we don’t act. All around the President, other international decision makers are talking about how all of this will hopefully lead to a global government.
Video clips go viral on the internet, showing youthful protestors interrupting speeches given by respected climate change deniers, some of whom are in governments. Protestors mindlessly shout down any and all who want to suggest that climate change isn’t happening. The protestors are compared to Hitler Youth and Brownshirts for their slavish actions. Green is seen as the new Black, Red & White; green is the heel of the latest jackboot.
The President is denounced for selling out the American people and the Constitution for his insistence on taking action to address the imaginative issue of climate change. Worse, the fears of many focus on the President’s use of Executive privelege over Congressional law (remember that the President of the U.S. can not make law – that’s Congress’ job. The President can only sign or veto a bill; if Congress doesn’t present the President with a bill to make a law, such as the one needed to address climate change, what legal right does the President have to insist that the government will do so anyway?). With this precedent, what else might the President do to enforce his view over Congress? Where does it end? Remember that the President is also the Commander-in-Chief of the military; the military does not answer to Congress, it answers to the President.
These are not small issues. While it seems that the denial industry has been largely funded by the corporations who appear to have the most to lose if we start to take action to address climate change (the very military-industrial-banking complex referenced above), there is a subset of individuals out there in the U.S. and Canada (and presumably elsewhere) who see climate change as the latest tool to be used by government to erode civil liberties. What bothers me is that I find myself sharing some of their concerns, because one doesn’t have to disbelieve in climate change to see how it might be used by decision-makers to advance a particular agenda. And one can see how that agenda might easily benefit the corporate elites.
Cap and Trade
Certainly a North American or an international emissions trading program is one which will benefit the banking industry and the corporate elite, and disadvantage those who are the least well-off amongst us. We have seen the European Emissions Trading scheme increase the wealth of corporations engaged in emissions trading, while little or no success has actually been achieved on reducing greenhouse gases. While it might be true that a successfully implement cap and trade scheme would eventually lead to a reduction in emissions, will it take us to where we need to be? How long will it take to get us there? And, who will disproportionately benefit in the process?
I’m certainly not optimistic about the timeframes involved in establishing a meaningful cap and trade scheme (by meaningful, I here mean one which actually reduces emissions). Cap and trade would be a great way of achieving intensity targets, and giving pats on the back to the corporations and politicians who are involved. Cap and trade will certainly enrich those who generate money from nothing. There is a lot to fear about cap and trade just from that perspective alone, neverminding the ghg reduction angle (or lack thereof).
Why, then, is this costly, incredibly bureaucratic method of potentially reducing greenhouse gas emissions the preferred method of governments? The answer, of course, is that because people will make money off of it. And by "people" I don’t mean you or me, as we stand to become further impoverished by a scenario which adds a premium to everything we purchase without the corresponding offsets on other taxes. In short, if I’m making the same income and am now expected to pay more for just about everything that I need, why the hell would I ever want to buy into that? And that’s why I don’t.
Now, if it were the only real option available, maybe I would accept this kind of program. But it’s not the only option available. It’s not even the easiest option available to implement. We in the Green Party know that there’s a better option: reducing personal income taxes while putting a premium on products and services which use carbon. This approach, misleadingly labelled a "Carbon Tax" (I say "misleadingly" because calling it a new tax is only half the story; the other side of the new tax is reducing the old tax), is a lot simpler to implement, and if handled correctly (through the provision of income offsets for those least well off amongst us), will end up impacting us much less, and contribute to health of our economy by providing us who are keen on conservation with more income.
A cap and trade scenario won’t do that at all. Instead, it will suck up our income and distribute it to the bankers and financiers who are running the scheme. Potentially, the governments involved will see a little of the dividend, but likely only after the administrators have taken their healthy cut. Look, I’m all for new revenue sources for governments, but I’m also for deciding how best to spend my own earnings.
Anyway, you can see that if you were an Alex Jones Libertarian how you might be very concerned about an international emissions trading scheme. The unfortunate part of it all is that if you were an Alex Jones Libertarian, you won’t be out there advocating for a carbon tax instead of cap and trade, because you’re likely not one to believe that climate change is happening in the first place. And that really makes me angry, because all things being equal, the Alex Jones Libertarians would be natural allies for moving forward a sensible carbon pricing scheme.
To Sum Up
I’m sure I’ll revisit some of what I’ve written here in a more specific format. Suffice it to say, though, that we can expect to hear a lot more about National Security in the coming years, and a lot of it is likely to have to do with climate change. We need to be very careful where these sorts of discussions end up going, and we should be very suspect at joining with those who want to take action on climate change through means which lead to the erosion of human rights and liberties. Yes, the future may be a very bleak one when it comes to human strife and suffering, and if the world for which the military planners are war-gaming for comes into being, we all stand to lose a lot. But let’s not also throw away our human rights in the name of national security.
Let us all also be vigilant with regards to those who would use the climate crisis to further their own agendas, be they governments or the military-industrial-banking complex. The threats to our civil liberties are very real, both in Canada and the United States. We simply can not allow the struggle against climate change to imperil democracy. If you don’t believe that climate change and democracy are inexorably linked, it’s time that you give it a second thought.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
More Contempt for Parliament: Conservatives Stall for Time on Guergis
I’ve been taking some time off lately, to prepare for Earth Day, which comes early to Sudbury (on Saturday, April 17th, at Market Square! Hope to see you there). So, for those of you wondering what’s become of me in the past few weeks, now you know.
It’s not as if there hasn’t been a lot to blog about. Today, though, I’m going to focus on subject material that I really didn’t have much of an interest in, figuring that the blogosphere has already been quite atwitter over it all already. Yes, I’m talking about ex-Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer and MP Helena Guergis, who was up until last Friday the Minister of State for the Status of Women. I’m not going to re-cap this whole situation for you. Instead, I wanted to focus on events which have taken place since Friday, when the Prime Minister "referred" certain allegations pertaining to Guergis over to the RCMP and Ethics Commissioner. As you know, Guergis has been kicked out of the Conservative caucus, and is now sitting as an Independent in the nether-reaches of the House (actually, I understand that she’s still on a beach somewhere in the tropics).
Since the brief statement late last Friday afternoon, there has been little information regarding what prompted Harper to accept Guergis’ resignation to ask for investigations. Given that the request went to the Ethics Commissioner, Mary Dawson, there had been speculation that the allegations pertained to an ethical situation which Guergis might have found herself involved in, which may have had legal implications, given the RCMP’s involvement. Given that there have been recent suggestions in the media that her husband, Rahim Jaffer, had been telling potential business clients that the had special access to the government for funding, there has been some suggestion that maybe the allegations Harper received on Friday had to do with influence peddling.
Thing is, though, here we are four days later, and no one really knows why there’s a cloud hanging over Guergis’ head. Since then, opposition parties have been looking for answers during question period, only to find none. The only new information which seems to have come to light so far is that the allegations were made by a third party, who is not an MP or someone who works for the government, which doesn’t rule out all that many people.
Earlier today, Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson announced that she would not be investigating Guergis, because there hasn’t been anything brought to her attention which would warrant an investigation. Plus, Dawson indicated that she can’t investigate anyway while the RCMP is investigating. The RCMP haven’t hinted at anything at this point, but one must think that since the matter was referred to the RCMP by the Prime Minister, they’re likely looking into it. Usually, though, the RCMP keeps the specifics of investigations under wraps while the investigation is on-going.
So, in the House we have Conservatives refusing to answer questions about what, exactly, Helena Guergis might have or not have done which warranted her removal from cabinet. Questions aren’t being answered because the matter is under investigation. The investigators aren’t talking, because they’re investigating, at the behest of the Conservative Prime Minister; one of the investigators has already dropped the matter because there wasn’t anything there to be investigated.
And we Canadians are growing more and more despondent with a government which refuses to provide answers for its actions. That’s what has me really ticked about this whole matter. That and the fact that parliament’s precious time is being wasted on what really should have been something cleared up by the Prime Minister or his spokesperson in the early goings fo question period yesterday afternoon. Instead, the Cons are mum, because the matter is under investigation.
Look, I’m no fan of Helena Guergis, but whatever is going on sounds like it may be serious, given the Prime Minister’s actions. As a Canadian, I have a right to know why a member of government has essentially been forced to resign from her position. I want to know why there is a cloud hanging over the head of a sitting MP. But, as long as the Conservatives presume that they are unable to discuss the matter while the RCMP are investigating, I’m not likely going to find out.
This all stinks. Yet again, the Conservative government is trying to get away with providing Canadians with no explanation regarding its actions. And it’s not just us Canadians out here in the blogosphere who are being denied answers, it’s Parliament itself, which the Conservatives have an obvious contempt for. What’s been going on with regards to withholding information related to the Afghan detainee issue is disgusting in the extreme, and now they’re at it again with Helena Guergis.
I suspect that some of the answers might come out eventually, but unless the RCMP actually lay some charges, we’re not likely ever going to get the full story here. Given that the Ethics Commissioner has already backed off, I have my doubts that the RCMP will be laying any charges. Which would then lead to the following questions: if the accusations on which Guergis was forced to resign aren’t enough for a legal or ethical investigation, why did the Prime Minister refer the matter to the RCMP and Ethics Commissioner? Was he simply trying to stall for time in answering questions swirling around Guergis and her husband Jaffer? If so, boy, that’s a pretty low partisan game being played with parliament and the Canadian people.
It’s not as if there hasn’t been a lot to blog about. Today, though, I’m going to focus on subject material that I really didn’t have much of an interest in, figuring that the blogosphere has already been quite atwitter over it all already. Yes, I’m talking about ex-Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer and MP Helena Guergis, who was up until last Friday the Minister of State for the Status of Women. I’m not going to re-cap this whole situation for you. Instead, I wanted to focus on events which have taken place since Friday, when the Prime Minister "referred" certain allegations pertaining to Guergis over to the RCMP and Ethics Commissioner. As you know, Guergis has been kicked out of the Conservative caucus, and is now sitting as an Independent in the nether-reaches of the House (actually, I understand that she’s still on a beach somewhere in the tropics).
Since the brief statement late last Friday afternoon, there has been little information regarding what prompted Harper to accept Guergis’ resignation to ask for investigations. Given that the request went to the Ethics Commissioner, Mary Dawson, there had been speculation that the allegations pertained to an ethical situation which Guergis might have found herself involved in, which may have had legal implications, given the RCMP’s involvement. Given that there have been recent suggestions in the media that her husband, Rahim Jaffer, had been telling potential business clients that the had special access to the government for funding, there has been some suggestion that maybe the allegations Harper received on Friday had to do with influence peddling.
Thing is, though, here we are four days later, and no one really knows why there’s a cloud hanging over Guergis’ head. Since then, opposition parties have been looking for answers during question period, only to find none. The only new information which seems to have come to light so far is that the allegations were made by a third party, who is not an MP or someone who works for the government, which doesn’t rule out all that many people.
Earlier today, Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson announced that she would not be investigating Guergis, because there hasn’t been anything brought to her attention which would warrant an investigation. Plus, Dawson indicated that she can’t investigate anyway while the RCMP is investigating. The RCMP haven’t hinted at anything at this point, but one must think that since the matter was referred to the RCMP by the Prime Minister, they’re likely looking into it. Usually, though, the RCMP keeps the specifics of investigations under wraps while the investigation is on-going.
So, in the House we have Conservatives refusing to answer questions about what, exactly, Helena Guergis might have or not have done which warranted her removal from cabinet. Questions aren’t being answered because the matter is under investigation. The investigators aren’t talking, because they’re investigating, at the behest of the Conservative Prime Minister; one of the investigators has already dropped the matter because there wasn’t anything there to be investigated.
And we Canadians are growing more and more despondent with a government which refuses to provide answers for its actions. That’s what has me really ticked about this whole matter. That and the fact that parliament’s precious time is being wasted on what really should have been something cleared up by the Prime Minister or his spokesperson in the early goings fo question period yesterday afternoon. Instead, the Cons are mum, because the matter is under investigation.
Look, I’m no fan of Helena Guergis, but whatever is going on sounds like it may be serious, given the Prime Minister’s actions. As a Canadian, I have a right to know why a member of government has essentially been forced to resign from her position. I want to know why there is a cloud hanging over the head of a sitting MP. But, as long as the Conservatives presume that they are unable to discuss the matter while the RCMP are investigating, I’m not likely going to find out.
This all stinks. Yet again, the Conservative government is trying to get away with providing Canadians with no explanation regarding its actions. And it’s not just us Canadians out here in the blogosphere who are being denied answers, it’s Parliament itself, which the Conservatives have an obvious contempt for. What’s been going on with regards to withholding information related to the Afghan detainee issue is disgusting in the extreme, and now they’re at it again with Helena Guergis.
I suspect that some of the answers might come out eventually, but unless the RCMP actually lay some charges, we’re not likely ever going to get the full story here. Given that the Ethics Commissioner has already backed off, I have my doubts that the RCMP will be laying any charges. Which would then lead to the following questions: if the accusations on which Guergis was forced to resign aren’t enough for a legal or ethical investigation, why did the Prime Minister refer the matter to the RCMP and Ethics Commissioner? Was he simply trying to stall for time in answering questions swirling around Guergis and her husband Jaffer? If so, boy, that’s a pretty low partisan game being played with parliament and the Canadian people.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Political Parties in our "Democratic" Electoral System: PEI Greens Stand Up for What's Right
I’ve always had a special interest in emergent political parties. For years, I watched from the sidelines as both the Federal Green Party (GPC) and the Ontario Provincial Green Party (GPO), grew their support. Democracy is also an important issue for me, and I have often lamented that our democratic system has become beholden, to a great extent, to political parties. Elizabeth May, the GPC’s leader, likes to remind Canadians that political parties aren’t mentioned in our Constitution, and she takes exception to Prime Ministers who behave as if Members of Parliament are working for him.
Our current reality is, though, that if you’re running as an Independent, best of luck to you, buddy. Independents rarely have the ability to break into provincial or federal parliaments. Those that do often do so because they were removed or removed themselves from an existing political party while sitting in parliament (Bill Casey and Chuck Cadman come to mind). The successful Independent must have a very high profile amongst the local electorate. Usually, such individuals will already have been wooed by one or two or three political parties anyway.
Political parties can bring resources to bear to assist with winning elections. They have a greater organizational structure than most Independents can bring together, and since parties are constantly fundraising, in theory there will be a revenue stream available between elections to assist with raising one’s local profile. Parties are also subsidized by governments in various ways. It’s different in every province, but Federally Jean Chretien left two things as his legacy: a maximum cap on tax-deductable donations (made by persons only; not corporations or unions; tax-deductable only if you pay income tax, though); and, a per-vote subsidy payable to political parties.
The per-vote subsidy has taken a lot of abuse throughout Canada lately, particularly back at the time of the so-called "Coalition Crisis", as it was Stephen Harper’s desire to remove the per-vote subsidy which some claim drove the NDP, Liberals and Bloc into each other’s arms. Some see the per-vote subsidy as publicly funding political parties. Well, it is that. But a much larger source of public funds for political parties is clearly the tax-deductable personal donation, where an individual who donates, say, $400, will receive $300 of that donation back from the government at tax time. Personal donations can be made up to $1,100 (I believe), and the rebate, while it gets lower in terms of a percentage the higher you go, is still pretty darn healthy. Certainly, your money goes further when given to a political party rather than to a registered charity or a church, because taxpayer’s money actually does most of the giving.
Here in Sudbury, in the last election, the Conservative Party fielded an excellent candidate who had the other candidates here shaking in their boots. With the monetary juggernaut of the Conservative Party behind this educated, intellectual, articulate (in both languages), local Conservatives had high hopes for success. This guy had also been out knocking on doors for months leading up to the election. We Greens in particular were somewhat in awe of this Conservative candidate, because he had probably the greenest personal credentials of any of the candidates. In fact, I know that he inspired some in our Party to look at ways of leaving a lighter ecological footprint in our community. What we couldn’t figure out was why this guy was running as a Stephen Harper Conservative.
Well, all of our fears proved to be collectively unfounded, for on Day 1 of the campaign, this candidate went on CBC Radio and said that he disagreed with the Minister for FedNor’s decision to not fund the Centre for Mining Excellence in Sudbury. The Minister at the time was former Conservative Leadership candidate-now Minister for International Trade, Tony Clement, he of "Sudbury = Valley of Death" fame. Anyway, long story short here, this excellent candidate was muzzled by his Party, and participated only in one local debate (the one hosted by the Chamber of Commerce), and he and his campaign were pretty much eclipsed by the Liberal-NDP mudslinging on the ground. Yes, there remained up a good number of Conservative signs, but on Election Day he finished 10% points back of the winner, and in third place with 25% of the popular vote.
Later, when Pundit’s Guide published the financial metrics for the Sudbury riding from the last election, I was surprised to see that the Conservative Party had spent $85,730 on their campaign in this riding, which was the most of any Party. The winning NDP dumped $71,329 into their campaign here, while the Liberals spent just over $50,000 to contest the results. In contrast, the Green Party spent just a little over $5,000. On a per-vote level, that means that we Greens spent only 7-cents for every vote we received here in Sudbury, while the Conservatives were at $1.15, the NDP at 96-cents and the Liberals at 68-cents. All in all, I think we Greens did pretty well to receive 7.6% of the vote on a small budget.
The point I’m trying to make here is: money talks. Now, I’ve never asked the former Conservative candidate just what it was about Stephen Harper’s party which attracted him, given that to me, at least, he didn’t seem particularly ideologically predisposed to agree with much of what the Conservatives seem to stand for. This guy, though, would have been better off as an Independent, or better yet, a Green candidate. But the fact is, there is no way that an Independent or Green campaign could have spent half of what he did as a Conservative to help get him elected. Maybe he was hoping that the monetary machine of the Cons would help him get elected, and then he could begin changing Conservative minds from a position of authority within his own Party. I don’t know, I’m just speculating. But clearly, if he wanted to be an MP, he had a much better chance of getting himself elected as a Conservative, rather than as an Independent or even a Green.
Our current system is clearly set up to favour the larger, existing parties over Independents and other parties. We Greens know just how hard it is to break into the system. I’m sure that we lose out on a lot of credible candidates, who instead choose to run for other parties. Would recently-elected Provincial Liberal Glen Murray fall into that category? I’m sure that there are others, because, frankly, our Party just doesn’t have the profile and resources to be a viable vehicle for the political aspirations of many who otherwise would embrace our policies and positions.
Sometimes, small parties can come out of nowhere and capture the attention of the public. We saw that recently with the rise of the ADQ in Quebec, and lately with the surging Wildrose Alliance in Alberta, which is now out-polling the existing Progressive Conservative provincial government under Ed Stelmach. Usually, when situations like this occur, it means that a small party, usually a new one, is able to capitalize on two things: a certain zeitgeist, or feel for the times, where a Party’s one or two defining issues is more in tune with the public than what the other Party’s have on offer; and, probably more importantly, money money money. Small parties aren’t going to go anywhere without money, and that’s the reality.
So, our system is set up to favour political parties over Independents, and larger existing political parties over smaller ones, and those which appeal to the wealthy with their policies over those who appeal to the poor. That’s our current political reality, and to me, it’s a crying shame, because it does a disservice to what we believed "democracy" to be. Our system, with its lack of flexibility and with its financial favouritism of the rich over the poor, isn’t about the rule of the people for the people, which is what we thought democracy was supposed to be all about. Instead, our system perpetuates the notion of the vested interests of the rich ruling over everything else. Our system is broken in fundamental ways, yet why would we trust those currently in power to fix it, given that they are the primary beneficiaries?
In this kind of environment, is it any wonder that small political parties with fewer financial resources have a very hard time being heard, despite whether they have a few good ideas or not? Since you pretty much have to belong to a political party nowadays to have any hope of getting elected to office, it can be difficult sometimes to find a "home" in one of the bigger parties given their ideology and/or baggage. Sometimes, this leads like-minded individuals to form a Party of their own, with the hopes of capturing the interest of other like-minded individuals to join them. Of course, it helps a lot if those other like-minded individuals have some good financial resources to assist with getting the message out. Anyway, this is all part of the way that democracy appears to play itself out in Canada.
In Prince Edward Island, though, new political parties apparently face a hurdle unlike anywhere else in Canada. Before an election, a new political party must pony up a $1,000 "registration fee", just to be recognized as a Party. Once recognized, of course, they won’t have to pay again, so existing Parties aren’t affected by this scheme. For a small and new political party, $1,000 can represent a significant financial outlay, and really disadvantages a Party at election time. Clearly, PEI has made the already stilted game of Canadian political democracy that much more egregious with this unnecessary hurdle which only further impedes democratic discourse.
Apparently, back in 2007, the Green Party of PEI paid this fee and went on about their business. Now, though, the Green Party of PEI, under the Leadership of Sharon Labchuk, has gone on record in protest of this undemocratic move by the entrenched parties in her province. Here’s the kicker: Labchuk and the Greens aren’t protesting the fact that they paid this fee back in 2007, they are protesting the fact that a new political party, the Island Party, is now being forced to pay the fee!
That’s what standing up for democracy is all about. Labchuk and PEI Greens see that an injustice is occurring, and they are no longer content to sit by without saying so. As a political party, frankly the Greens have nothing to gain here, and much to lose. They’re giving publicity to a start-up political party which one day might experience success and create issues for the Green Party. No, what’s happening with the PEI Greens is much more altruistic, and certainly demonstrative of Green values in action. Regardless of political gain, Labchuk and the PEI Greens are doing what’s right. They are putting their own values ahead of partisan politics. And that’s something that we don’t see much of in this day and age, given the structure of our political system.
To me, that’s what democracy is all about: doing what’s right. Kudos to the PEI Greens for recognizing that we, as Canadians, benefit from a plurality of voices to be heard from when we go looking for leadership and good government in this country.
Our current reality is, though, that if you’re running as an Independent, best of luck to you, buddy. Independents rarely have the ability to break into provincial or federal parliaments. Those that do often do so because they were removed or removed themselves from an existing political party while sitting in parliament (Bill Casey and Chuck Cadman come to mind). The successful Independent must have a very high profile amongst the local electorate. Usually, such individuals will already have been wooed by one or two or three political parties anyway.
Political parties can bring resources to bear to assist with winning elections. They have a greater organizational structure than most Independents can bring together, and since parties are constantly fundraising, in theory there will be a revenue stream available between elections to assist with raising one’s local profile. Parties are also subsidized by governments in various ways. It’s different in every province, but Federally Jean Chretien left two things as his legacy: a maximum cap on tax-deductable donations (made by persons only; not corporations or unions; tax-deductable only if you pay income tax, though); and, a per-vote subsidy payable to political parties.
The per-vote subsidy has taken a lot of abuse throughout Canada lately, particularly back at the time of the so-called "Coalition Crisis", as it was Stephen Harper’s desire to remove the per-vote subsidy which some claim drove the NDP, Liberals and Bloc into each other’s arms. Some see the per-vote subsidy as publicly funding political parties. Well, it is that. But a much larger source of public funds for political parties is clearly the tax-deductable personal donation, where an individual who donates, say, $400, will receive $300 of that donation back from the government at tax time. Personal donations can be made up to $1,100 (I believe), and the rebate, while it gets lower in terms of a percentage the higher you go, is still pretty darn healthy. Certainly, your money goes further when given to a political party rather than to a registered charity or a church, because taxpayer’s money actually does most of the giving.
Here in Sudbury, in the last election, the Conservative Party fielded an excellent candidate who had the other candidates here shaking in their boots. With the monetary juggernaut of the Conservative Party behind this educated, intellectual, articulate (in both languages), local Conservatives had high hopes for success. This guy had also been out knocking on doors for months leading up to the election. We Greens in particular were somewhat in awe of this Conservative candidate, because he had probably the greenest personal credentials of any of the candidates. In fact, I know that he inspired some in our Party to look at ways of leaving a lighter ecological footprint in our community. What we couldn’t figure out was why this guy was running as a Stephen Harper Conservative.
Well, all of our fears proved to be collectively unfounded, for on Day 1 of the campaign, this candidate went on CBC Radio and said that he disagreed with the Minister for FedNor’s decision to not fund the Centre for Mining Excellence in Sudbury. The Minister at the time was former Conservative Leadership candidate-now Minister for International Trade, Tony Clement, he of "Sudbury = Valley of Death" fame. Anyway, long story short here, this excellent candidate was muzzled by his Party, and participated only in one local debate (the one hosted by the Chamber of Commerce), and he and his campaign were pretty much eclipsed by the Liberal-NDP mudslinging on the ground. Yes, there remained up a good number of Conservative signs, but on Election Day he finished 10% points back of the winner, and in third place with 25% of the popular vote.
Later, when Pundit’s Guide published the financial metrics for the Sudbury riding from the last election, I was surprised to see that the Conservative Party had spent $85,730 on their campaign in this riding, which was the most of any Party. The winning NDP dumped $71,329 into their campaign here, while the Liberals spent just over $50,000 to contest the results. In contrast, the Green Party spent just a little over $5,000. On a per-vote level, that means that we Greens spent only 7-cents for every vote we received here in Sudbury, while the Conservatives were at $1.15, the NDP at 96-cents and the Liberals at 68-cents. All in all, I think we Greens did pretty well to receive 7.6% of the vote on a small budget.
The point I’m trying to make here is: money talks. Now, I’ve never asked the former Conservative candidate just what it was about Stephen Harper’s party which attracted him, given that to me, at least, he didn’t seem particularly ideologically predisposed to agree with much of what the Conservatives seem to stand for. This guy, though, would have been better off as an Independent, or better yet, a Green candidate. But the fact is, there is no way that an Independent or Green campaign could have spent half of what he did as a Conservative to help get him elected. Maybe he was hoping that the monetary machine of the Cons would help him get elected, and then he could begin changing Conservative minds from a position of authority within his own Party. I don’t know, I’m just speculating. But clearly, if he wanted to be an MP, he had a much better chance of getting himself elected as a Conservative, rather than as an Independent or even a Green.
Our current system is clearly set up to favour the larger, existing parties over Independents and other parties. We Greens know just how hard it is to break into the system. I’m sure that we lose out on a lot of credible candidates, who instead choose to run for other parties. Would recently-elected Provincial Liberal Glen Murray fall into that category? I’m sure that there are others, because, frankly, our Party just doesn’t have the profile and resources to be a viable vehicle for the political aspirations of many who otherwise would embrace our policies and positions.
Sometimes, small parties can come out of nowhere and capture the attention of the public. We saw that recently with the rise of the ADQ in Quebec, and lately with the surging Wildrose Alliance in Alberta, which is now out-polling the existing Progressive Conservative provincial government under Ed Stelmach. Usually, when situations like this occur, it means that a small party, usually a new one, is able to capitalize on two things: a certain zeitgeist, or feel for the times, where a Party’s one or two defining issues is more in tune with the public than what the other Party’s have on offer; and, probably more importantly, money money money. Small parties aren’t going to go anywhere without money, and that’s the reality.
So, our system is set up to favour political parties over Independents, and larger existing political parties over smaller ones, and those which appeal to the wealthy with their policies over those who appeal to the poor. That’s our current political reality, and to me, it’s a crying shame, because it does a disservice to what we believed "democracy" to be. Our system, with its lack of flexibility and with its financial favouritism of the rich over the poor, isn’t about the rule of the people for the people, which is what we thought democracy was supposed to be all about. Instead, our system perpetuates the notion of the vested interests of the rich ruling over everything else. Our system is broken in fundamental ways, yet why would we trust those currently in power to fix it, given that they are the primary beneficiaries?
In this kind of environment, is it any wonder that small political parties with fewer financial resources have a very hard time being heard, despite whether they have a few good ideas or not? Since you pretty much have to belong to a political party nowadays to have any hope of getting elected to office, it can be difficult sometimes to find a "home" in one of the bigger parties given their ideology and/or baggage. Sometimes, this leads like-minded individuals to form a Party of their own, with the hopes of capturing the interest of other like-minded individuals to join them. Of course, it helps a lot if those other like-minded individuals have some good financial resources to assist with getting the message out. Anyway, this is all part of the way that democracy appears to play itself out in Canada.
In Prince Edward Island, though, new political parties apparently face a hurdle unlike anywhere else in Canada. Before an election, a new political party must pony up a $1,000 "registration fee", just to be recognized as a Party. Once recognized, of course, they won’t have to pay again, so existing Parties aren’t affected by this scheme. For a small and new political party, $1,000 can represent a significant financial outlay, and really disadvantages a Party at election time. Clearly, PEI has made the already stilted game of Canadian political democracy that much more egregious with this unnecessary hurdle which only further impedes democratic discourse.
Apparently, back in 2007, the Green Party of PEI paid this fee and went on about their business. Now, though, the Green Party of PEI, under the Leadership of Sharon Labchuk, has gone on record in protest of this undemocratic move by the entrenched parties in her province. Here’s the kicker: Labchuk and the Greens aren’t protesting the fact that they paid this fee back in 2007, they are protesting the fact that a new political party, the Island Party, is now being forced to pay the fee!
That’s what standing up for democracy is all about. Labchuk and PEI Greens see that an injustice is occurring, and they are no longer content to sit by without saying so. As a political party, frankly the Greens have nothing to gain here, and much to lose. They’re giving publicity to a start-up political party which one day might experience success and create issues for the Green Party. No, what’s happening with the PEI Greens is much more altruistic, and certainly demonstrative of Green values in action. Regardless of political gain, Labchuk and the PEI Greens are doing what’s right. They are putting their own values ahead of partisan politics. And that’s something that we don’t see much of in this day and age, given the structure of our political system.
To me, that’s what democracy is all about: doing what’s right. Kudos to the PEI Greens for recognizing that we, as Canadians, benefit from a plurality of voices to be heard from when we go looking for leadership and good government in this country.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Why I Support United Steelworkers Local 6500 - And Why Other Greens Should Too
I attended this evening's “Bridging the Gap” rally here in Sudbury, in support of striking United Steel Workers Local 6500, who have been on strike now against their employer, Brazilian-based Vale Inco, for about 8 months now, without an end in sight. To me, it feels as if things are starting to come to a head here in my City, as accusations are flying all over the place. Tonight, I heard that Vale had accused the Union of being racist, because the union had referred to Brazil as a “developing nation”. Say what you will about Local 6500, but they are not racists. It's this kind of pot-stirring, though, which is starting to be problematic for my community.
A couple of weeks ago, Vale took an offer directly to the employees, and a vote was held. 89% of striking Steelworkers voted to reject Vale's offer. You have to understand, these people are hurting (who wouldn't be after 8 months on a picket line?), yet still they rejected the offer, claiming that there was little new in the deal. Negotiations broke down. Now, the Steelworkers are claiming that temporary workers being housed on Vale property are being done so in defiance of municipal by-laws, and the City is investigating. More temporary workers are expected to be put on the payroll. Striking Steelworkers have been fired, in some cases without explanation, and without the benefit of union representation through the agreed-upon labour dispute mechanisms, which aren't in place, because the union is on strike. It's downright Orwellian here at times.
“Greater Sudbury is a wounded community,” stated Mayor John Rodriguez tonight. I believe it. Rodriguez told the crowd that those on strike are losing their homes. Families are under stress. Yes, that's for sure. The strike, though, is affecting our community in other ways, too. My wife and I used to go to this great little restaurant in the downtown; in fact, it's where we got engaged. It was just a small operation, but the food was great, the service was wonderful. It was the kind of place where it was always a pleasure to go. It closed down on St. Valentine's weekend. Not enough business. Another little place which I didn't visit enough, a little tea shop nestled amongst the Artists on Elgin, gone. One after another, little businesses are disappearing. This recession is wearing enough on our community. Having thousands of miners receiving only strike pay is hurting us even more.
And the company doesn't really give a damn. To them, the strike is a nuisance, at best. They're so big, they can continue to absorb the losses from idle facilities here in Sudbury. It's not as if the ore body is going anywhere. Nickel prices have started to climb, though, so maybe they're feeling a bit more of a pinch right now, and they've begun to salivate a touch thinking about the profits they're not making. But it's not as if they're hurting. In fact, Vale continues to make huge profits. The problem with their operation here in Sudbury (and in Port Colborne, Ontario, and Voisey's Bay in Labrador) is that with wages, pensions and benefits previously negotiated by the workers, Vale isn't going to make enough profit for their liking. So they sideline a whole community in the process.
I believe that's what's called “corporate greed”. Frankly, it's not sustainable. When our governments let these massive international corporations call the shots in our communities, based not on profitability, but on profit margins, it's a problem. I've heard this kind of internationalization of our resources referred to as “branch planting”. The decision makers, who used to be located in the same communities as the workers, have left, and sold the shop to a faceless corporation based somewhere else in the world, with no ties to the communities which they operate in. Local businesses which were once used to service the industry can't renew their contracts, and are cast aside in favour of other businesses from outside which have pre-existing relationships which the corporate giant. What was once a community building endeavour between local capital and local labour becomes simple exploitation in the name in profit. Sure, with a few sops thrown our way every now and then to be sure, so that the multinational can keep up the appearances of being a community builder, rather than a pillager of our natural resources.
NDP Leader Jack Layton was back in town. He's a favourite of the Steelworkers, and why not? The NDP has done a very good job supporting the position of the union. They've been asking questions in Parliament of Stephen Harper and especially Industry Minister Tony Clement. You see, a deal was made to allow the Canadian company INCO to be sold to the Brazilian Vale a few years ago. When the deal was made, the Conservatives told Canadians that this sale of a Canadian asset was in the interests of Canada, that there would be a net gain for Canadians as a result. With layoffs occurring early in 2008, with middle managers being let go for redundancies now that their jobs can be handled out of corporate offices in Sao Paolo, and now with an 8 month strike, it's difficult for us here in Sudbury to see what the net benefit of this sale has been. And it's even more difficult because the agreement Vale made with the Canadian government is secret; Clement won't release it. Says that there are laws prohibiting him from doing so. But trust him, Sudbury would have been a “valley of death” had not Vale stepped up to the plate and purchased INCO.
So we have a secret agreement which the Conservatives claim was made in the interests of Canada, but they can't tell us how, so we have to trust them on this. Did I mention that at times, things around here seem a little Orwellian?
Andrea Horwath, the leader of the Provincial NDP was also here. She, too, has been a voice for Steelworkers, although I think that her singular focus on the Ontario NDP's anti-scab legislation could use a bit of a makeover. Not that I'm against anti-scab legislation, which is a good thing, given that the Green Party of Canada is also in favour of such legislation, at least as it would apply to Federal workers. Otherwise, this is largely a provincial issue. And that's why the Liberal MPP for Sudbury, Rick Bartolucci, who is usually the first announced winner on election nights in this province, will be in a world of trouble should he run again. Although Horwath lacks Layton's ability to rile up a crowd, the NDP will have a ready-made machine to fight the Liberals in the 2011 election here. The rumour-mill says that Bartolucci might step down from McGuinty's cabinet, and maybe even toss his hat into the ring for Mayor in time for this coming fall's election. His lack of position on the strike will be problematic for him to overcome against Rodriguez, who has been a strong supporter of USW 6500, and who has successfully bootstrapped most of his Council into taking the same position as his. Of course, it is an election year, and opposing the Steelworkers doesn't appear to be a smart move in this community.
Local businesses and even residences have begun sprouting “I support USW 6500” signs. One local business I frequent was threatened by an anonymous letter, told to remove their sign. The local press found out about it. The next day, the business ran out of food at lunch time, with Steelworkers lining up to show their support.
Sure, not everybody supports the striking Steelworkers here, but I believe that most do. Even those who believe that the Steelworkers are over-compensated for the job they do (a view I don't share, given how dangerous a job mining can be; if you don't believe me, you should come to Sudbury and see the Miner's Memorial in Bell Park) have a hard time siding with Vale on this one, given their corporate greed. Even if you don't believe in the greed, when you look around and see what's happening to our community as a result of the strike, well, it's very hard not to get worked up about these things.
Look, I'm the furthest thing from a union activist as there is. Sure, I belong to a union, and yes, I participated in a strike back during the Mike Harris years, and walked a picket line for 7 weeks. I remember how hard a time that was for me. I can't imagine what the members of USW 6500 are going through, though, being out for 8 months. At today's rally, an Australian union announced that they had passed a hat out to their members to collect donations for Canadian Steelworkers, and as a result, they'd be donating $50,000. Every little bit helps, but there are over 3,000 workers out on strike here, and hundreds more in Port Colborne and Voisey's Bay. Even $50,000 can only be stretched so far.
In the past when I've written about this strike, or about labour issues in general, I've made some Greens uncomfortable. Yes, I agree, labour issues are pretty much owned by the NDP, given that the NDP itself is largely a creature of organized labour. Plus, many Greens are simply uncomfortable with a labour/company dynamic. We'd prefer to work with small-ish business owners to achieve the results we call for. The reality is, though, we live in a world where there is friction between labour and capital, and that's not likely going to go away any time soon. In fact, if what's going on in Sudbury proves to be the tip of the iceberg which so many involved in the labour movement believe it to be, we can expect even more problems in the future. As corporations merge and power is consolidated into the hands of a few truly giant international corporations who are able to dictate their own terms to national governments who have either an ideological predisposition to go along with the Corporation's dictates, or else have little other choice, we can truly expect to see more friction. Corporations will naturally want to maximize their profits, and that will mean renegotiating wages, benefits, pensions, any external costs. And if they don't get what they want, well, they'll be big enough to find other ways of managing costs. Clearly, unions are going to be targets. Remember what happened to those Wal-Mart employees in Quebec who voted to form a union so that they could collectively bargain with their employer? Wal-Mart got around Quebec's stringent labour laws by declaring that the store which certified the union was unprofitable, and closed it, throwing everyone out of work. And if you believe that a Wal-Mart wasn't turning a profit, than maybe you'd believe that Vale can't profit either in Sudbury by paying their workers the wages they had previously negotiated.
Although the NDP have owned this issue, they have done so by looking at the capital/labour dichotomy through their own “left-right” lens. But there is so much more to it. I heard Jack Layton say a few things this evening about labour, and what collective bargaining has accomplished. He said that when miners were dying, they went together to their employer, and those dangerous practices stopped. He said that when the worker's working days were done, they retired to live in poverty, and collectively the workers told the companies that wasn't right, and retiring workers received pensions. Layton said that when the workers went to the companies and said you're destroying the environment in which we live, collective bargaining helped get things back on track. Here in Sudbury there is clear evidence of that. Inco and Falconbridge both contributed quite heavily to the on-going re-greening initiative which is one of the biggest success stories that Sudbury has to tell. The number of trees planted on previously devastated lands is fantastic. This isn't your grandparent's Sudbury.
But Layton and the NDP don't get the full story. Layton went on to say that in Parliament today, he invited Minister Tony Clement to join him on a Bearskin Airlines flight to Sudbury, so that he could speak at this evening's rally. Clement declined, rightly in Layton's opinion, for the crowd might have torn him apart.
As I said earlier, Layton, Horwath and the NDP have done a good job for standing up for striking Steelworkers here in Sudbury, and in Port Colborne and Voisey's Bay. But, on a few things, the NDP still don't quite get it. Yes, collective bargaining has clearly accomplished so very much for workers, and for their communities. But, the missing piece of the puzzle for the NDP is the one which makes the puzzle whole. As the NDP continues to compartmentalize the environment as a discrete issue in and of itself, which is what it must be if viewed through a left-right lens, then it will only ever be treated as an externality. It can never become a core issue.
We Greens understand that environmental, social and economic matters are rolled together into an inseparable whole. And although labour issues may not resonate with some Greens, I'm here to tell you that they are a part of that whole which we can not ignore. The solutions to the problems which our society is facing must consider the balance between labour and capital, despite this being seen as an “NDP issue”. Our Party gets this, although it makes some Members uncomfortable. Sometimes, though, we need to move out of our personal comfort zones.
We Greens would certainly see the irony in the Leader of a national political party praising the environmental successes achieved through collective bargaining in one breath, while with the very next breath chastising the opposition for not joining him on an airplane to fly to a rally.
At tonight's rally, a Steelworker turned to me and said that he was surprised to see someone from the Green Party in attendance. He asked if I felt like a stranger in a strange land. I confessed that I did, a little bit, not being a union activist. I told him that I was here tonight, though, because it was the right place for me to be.
I hope that other Greens start coming to the same conclusion, given what is at stake.
A couple of weeks ago, Vale took an offer directly to the employees, and a vote was held. 89% of striking Steelworkers voted to reject Vale's offer. You have to understand, these people are hurting (who wouldn't be after 8 months on a picket line?), yet still they rejected the offer, claiming that there was little new in the deal. Negotiations broke down. Now, the Steelworkers are claiming that temporary workers being housed on Vale property are being done so in defiance of municipal by-laws, and the City is investigating. More temporary workers are expected to be put on the payroll. Striking Steelworkers have been fired, in some cases without explanation, and without the benefit of union representation through the agreed-upon labour dispute mechanisms, which aren't in place, because the union is on strike. It's downright Orwellian here at times.
“Greater Sudbury is a wounded community,” stated Mayor John Rodriguez tonight. I believe it. Rodriguez told the crowd that those on strike are losing their homes. Families are under stress. Yes, that's for sure. The strike, though, is affecting our community in other ways, too. My wife and I used to go to this great little restaurant in the downtown; in fact, it's where we got engaged. It was just a small operation, but the food was great, the service was wonderful. It was the kind of place where it was always a pleasure to go. It closed down on St. Valentine's weekend. Not enough business. Another little place which I didn't visit enough, a little tea shop nestled amongst the Artists on Elgin, gone. One after another, little businesses are disappearing. This recession is wearing enough on our community. Having thousands of miners receiving only strike pay is hurting us even more.
And the company doesn't really give a damn. To them, the strike is a nuisance, at best. They're so big, they can continue to absorb the losses from idle facilities here in Sudbury. It's not as if the ore body is going anywhere. Nickel prices have started to climb, though, so maybe they're feeling a bit more of a pinch right now, and they've begun to salivate a touch thinking about the profits they're not making. But it's not as if they're hurting. In fact, Vale continues to make huge profits. The problem with their operation here in Sudbury (and in Port Colborne, Ontario, and Voisey's Bay in Labrador) is that with wages, pensions and benefits previously negotiated by the workers, Vale isn't going to make enough profit for their liking. So they sideline a whole community in the process.
I believe that's what's called “corporate greed”. Frankly, it's not sustainable. When our governments let these massive international corporations call the shots in our communities, based not on profitability, but on profit margins, it's a problem. I've heard this kind of internationalization of our resources referred to as “branch planting”. The decision makers, who used to be located in the same communities as the workers, have left, and sold the shop to a faceless corporation based somewhere else in the world, with no ties to the communities which they operate in. Local businesses which were once used to service the industry can't renew their contracts, and are cast aside in favour of other businesses from outside which have pre-existing relationships which the corporate giant. What was once a community building endeavour between local capital and local labour becomes simple exploitation in the name in profit. Sure, with a few sops thrown our way every now and then to be sure, so that the multinational can keep up the appearances of being a community builder, rather than a pillager of our natural resources.
NDP Leader Jack Layton was back in town. He's a favourite of the Steelworkers, and why not? The NDP has done a very good job supporting the position of the union. They've been asking questions in Parliament of Stephen Harper and especially Industry Minister Tony Clement. You see, a deal was made to allow the Canadian company INCO to be sold to the Brazilian Vale a few years ago. When the deal was made, the Conservatives told Canadians that this sale of a Canadian asset was in the interests of Canada, that there would be a net gain for Canadians as a result. With layoffs occurring early in 2008, with middle managers being let go for redundancies now that their jobs can be handled out of corporate offices in Sao Paolo, and now with an 8 month strike, it's difficult for us here in Sudbury to see what the net benefit of this sale has been. And it's even more difficult because the agreement Vale made with the Canadian government is secret; Clement won't release it. Says that there are laws prohibiting him from doing so. But trust him, Sudbury would have been a “valley of death” had not Vale stepped up to the plate and purchased INCO.
So we have a secret agreement which the Conservatives claim was made in the interests of Canada, but they can't tell us how, so we have to trust them on this. Did I mention that at times, things around here seem a little Orwellian?
Andrea Horwath, the leader of the Provincial NDP was also here. She, too, has been a voice for Steelworkers, although I think that her singular focus on the Ontario NDP's anti-scab legislation could use a bit of a makeover. Not that I'm against anti-scab legislation, which is a good thing, given that the Green Party of Canada is also in favour of such legislation, at least as it would apply to Federal workers. Otherwise, this is largely a provincial issue. And that's why the Liberal MPP for Sudbury, Rick Bartolucci, who is usually the first announced winner on election nights in this province, will be in a world of trouble should he run again. Although Horwath lacks Layton's ability to rile up a crowd, the NDP will have a ready-made machine to fight the Liberals in the 2011 election here. The rumour-mill says that Bartolucci might step down from McGuinty's cabinet, and maybe even toss his hat into the ring for Mayor in time for this coming fall's election. His lack of position on the strike will be problematic for him to overcome against Rodriguez, who has been a strong supporter of USW 6500, and who has successfully bootstrapped most of his Council into taking the same position as his. Of course, it is an election year, and opposing the Steelworkers doesn't appear to be a smart move in this community.
Local businesses and even residences have begun sprouting “I support USW 6500” signs. One local business I frequent was threatened by an anonymous letter, told to remove their sign. The local press found out about it. The next day, the business ran out of food at lunch time, with Steelworkers lining up to show their support.
Sure, not everybody supports the striking Steelworkers here, but I believe that most do. Even those who believe that the Steelworkers are over-compensated for the job they do (a view I don't share, given how dangerous a job mining can be; if you don't believe me, you should come to Sudbury and see the Miner's Memorial in Bell Park) have a hard time siding with Vale on this one, given their corporate greed. Even if you don't believe in the greed, when you look around and see what's happening to our community as a result of the strike, well, it's very hard not to get worked up about these things.
Look, I'm the furthest thing from a union activist as there is. Sure, I belong to a union, and yes, I participated in a strike back during the Mike Harris years, and walked a picket line for 7 weeks. I remember how hard a time that was for me. I can't imagine what the members of USW 6500 are going through, though, being out for 8 months. At today's rally, an Australian union announced that they had passed a hat out to their members to collect donations for Canadian Steelworkers, and as a result, they'd be donating $50,000. Every little bit helps, but there are over 3,000 workers out on strike here, and hundreds more in Port Colborne and Voisey's Bay. Even $50,000 can only be stretched so far.
In the past when I've written about this strike, or about labour issues in general, I've made some Greens uncomfortable. Yes, I agree, labour issues are pretty much owned by the NDP, given that the NDP itself is largely a creature of organized labour. Plus, many Greens are simply uncomfortable with a labour/company dynamic. We'd prefer to work with small-ish business owners to achieve the results we call for. The reality is, though, we live in a world where there is friction between labour and capital, and that's not likely going to go away any time soon. In fact, if what's going on in Sudbury proves to be the tip of the iceberg which so many involved in the labour movement believe it to be, we can expect even more problems in the future. As corporations merge and power is consolidated into the hands of a few truly giant international corporations who are able to dictate their own terms to national governments who have either an ideological predisposition to go along with the Corporation's dictates, or else have little other choice, we can truly expect to see more friction. Corporations will naturally want to maximize their profits, and that will mean renegotiating wages, benefits, pensions, any external costs. And if they don't get what they want, well, they'll be big enough to find other ways of managing costs. Clearly, unions are going to be targets. Remember what happened to those Wal-Mart employees in Quebec who voted to form a union so that they could collectively bargain with their employer? Wal-Mart got around Quebec's stringent labour laws by declaring that the store which certified the union was unprofitable, and closed it, throwing everyone out of work. And if you believe that a Wal-Mart wasn't turning a profit, than maybe you'd believe that Vale can't profit either in Sudbury by paying their workers the wages they had previously negotiated.
Although the NDP have owned this issue, they have done so by looking at the capital/labour dichotomy through their own “left-right” lens. But there is so much more to it. I heard Jack Layton say a few things this evening about labour, and what collective bargaining has accomplished. He said that when miners were dying, they went together to their employer, and those dangerous practices stopped. He said that when the worker's working days were done, they retired to live in poverty, and collectively the workers told the companies that wasn't right, and retiring workers received pensions. Layton said that when the workers went to the companies and said you're destroying the environment in which we live, collective bargaining helped get things back on track. Here in Sudbury there is clear evidence of that. Inco and Falconbridge both contributed quite heavily to the on-going re-greening initiative which is one of the biggest success stories that Sudbury has to tell. The number of trees planted on previously devastated lands is fantastic. This isn't your grandparent's Sudbury.
But Layton and the NDP don't get the full story. Layton went on to say that in Parliament today, he invited Minister Tony Clement to join him on a Bearskin Airlines flight to Sudbury, so that he could speak at this evening's rally. Clement declined, rightly in Layton's opinion, for the crowd might have torn him apart.
As I said earlier, Layton, Horwath and the NDP have done a good job for standing up for striking Steelworkers here in Sudbury, and in Port Colborne and Voisey's Bay. But, on a few things, the NDP still don't quite get it. Yes, collective bargaining has clearly accomplished so very much for workers, and for their communities. But, the missing piece of the puzzle for the NDP is the one which makes the puzzle whole. As the NDP continues to compartmentalize the environment as a discrete issue in and of itself, which is what it must be if viewed through a left-right lens, then it will only ever be treated as an externality. It can never become a core issue.
We Greens understand that environmental, social and economic matters are rolled together into an inseparable whole. And although labour issues may not resonate with some Greens, I'm here to tell you that they are a part of that whole which we can not ignore. The solutions to the problems which our society is facing must consider the balance between labour and capital, despite this being seen as an “NDP issue”. Our Party gets this, although it makes some Members uncomfortable. Sometimes, though, we need to move out of our personal comfort zones.
We Greens would certainly see the irony in the Leader of a national political party praising the environmental successes achieved through collective bargaining in one breath, while with the very next breath chastising the opposition for not joining him on an airplane to fly to a rally.
At tonight's rally, a Steelworker turned to me and said that he was surprised to see someone from the Green Party in attendance. He asked if I felt like a stranger in a strange land. I confessed that I did, a little bit, not being a union activist. I told him that I was here tonight, though, because it was the right place for me to be.
I hope that other Greens start coming to the same conclusion, given what is at stake.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Steal This Idea: Take It With You, Sudbury!
I’ve heard it said by those in the Green Party that we are quite happy when the other Parties steal our ideas, because there’s a better chance for implementation. It’s in that spirit that I wish to share the following idea with you. I hope that someone will steal this idea, run with it, and turn it into a reality.
Now, I’m not much of an ideas person myself, and the truth is, I can’t claim to take credit for this one either. You see, when I first met my wife Sarah, I was intrigued by this habit she had in bringing home her recyclables from work, and putting them in the blue box. This was despite the fact that her workplace had a recycling program in effect. Asking her about this, she told me that she’s seen what goes on behind the scenes in a few workplaces, where recyclables are collected, but are often disposed of with the regular trash and end up in a landfill. She told me that there are several reasons for this, but mostly it’s because people end up contaminating recyclables by mixing in their garbage with them.
The fact is, we’ve likely all seen this situation in fast food restaurants. We ask ourselves how the restaurant is going to sort through the recyclables and the garbage, and we lament that patrons aren’t a little more considerate in separating garbage from recyclables. And when we leave, we often don’t think much of it again. But often, restaurants just can’t afford to have someone sift through the day’s garbage to pull out the good from the bad. Hence, it ends up in the dump.
It was, and remains, important to Sarah to ensure that the waste she produces ends up going where it should. To that end, she always takes her recyclables with her when we’re shopping or eating out at a restaurant, or doing whatever. For the past several years, I’ve been doing it as well, stuffing pop cans into my jacket pocket, to take them home and fill up our blue box. I’ve always felt good about the cans in particular, knowing that the municipal recycling program makes more from aluminum cans than from other materials. But even with paper, the recycling truck is going to be stopping in front of my house anyway, so if there is some extra packaging in the blue box as a result of my downtown lunch, well, even that in a small way is a good thing. Not only do these materials not end up in the landfill, they generate a little bit of income for my community.
The other day I was at a local pizza place, having lunch. One of the employees came by and helpfully offered to dispose of the tray of waste product that I had generated. I told her not to worry about it as I was going to be taking most of it with me: a pop can, a cardboard pizza container and a cardboard box for onion rings. She looked at me with surprise and told me that there was a recycling program in the restaurant. I indicated to her that it’s great that they recycle, but it looks like it’s just aluminum cans and plastic bottles. Since more than half of my waste was cardboard, if I were to dispose of it at the restaurant, it would end up in the landfill. I told her that I’d rather take it all with me and put it in my blue box. On my way out, I noticed that the restaurant had set out some bags of trash beside the store. These see-through bags were filled with cardboard, and a number of pop cans and plastic bottles as well.
I thought that if more people did what Sarah does, how much more waste can my community end up diverting from landfills? As a result, I came up with the following concept, which I would very much like for someone in my community to steal, run with, and turn into a reality. Maybe you can do the same in your community.
---
Take It With You, Sudbury!
Outline:
This is a voluntary program which encourages Sudbury residents to take recyclable materials home, rather than to rely on business recycling initiatives to ensure that recyclable materials don’t end up in our municipal landfill.
The success of this program will need buy-in from local businesses to encourage residents to retain their recyclable waste materials through the use of posters and other messaging (perhaps to be located on business waste bins) on the premises of the businesses. Specifically, small posters will be affixed to waste bins, encouraging those about to use the bins to reconsider, and to take their recyclable materials home.
Now, I’m not much of an ideas person myself, and the truth is, I can’t claim to take credit for this one either. You see, when I first met my wife Sarah, I was intrigued by this habit she had in bringing home her recyclables from work, and putting them in the blue box. This was despite the fact that her workplace had a recycling program in effect. Asking her about this, she told me that she’s seen what goes on behind the scenes in a few workplaces, where recyclables are collected, but are often disposed of with the regular trash and end up in a landfill. She told me that there are several reasons for this, but mostly it’s because people end up contaminating recyclables by mixing in their garbage with them.
The fact is, we’ve likely all seen this situation in fast food restaurants. We ask ourselves how the restaurant is going to sort through the recyclables and the garbage, and we lament that patrons aren’t a little more considerate in separating garbage from recyclables. And when we leave, we often don’t think much of it again. But often, restaurants just can’t afford to have someone sift through the day’s garbage to pull out the good from the bad. Hence, it ends up in the dump.
It was, and remains, important to Sarah to ensure that the waste she produces ends up going where it should. To that end, she always takes her recyclables with her when we’re shopping or eating out at a restaurant, or doing whatever. For the past several years, I’ve been doing it as well, stuffing pop cans into my jacket pocket, to take them home and fill up our blue box. I’ve always felt good about the cans in particular, knowing that the municipal recycling program makes more from aluminum cans than from other materials. But even with paper, the recycling truck is going to be stopping in front of my house anyway, so if there is some extra packaging in the blue box as a result of my downtown lunch, well, even that in a small way is a good thing. Not only do these materials not end up in the landfill, they generate a little bit of income for my community.
The other day I was at a local pizza place, having lunch. One of the employees came by and helpfully offered to dispose of the tray of waste product that I had generated. I told her not to worry about it as I was going to be taking most of it with me: a pop can, a cardboard pizza container and a cardboard box for onion rings. She looked at me with surprise and told me that there was a recycling program in the restaurant. I indicated to her that it’s great that they recycle, but it looks like it’s just aluminum cans and plastic bottles. Since more than half of my waste was cardboard, if I were to dispose of it at the restaurant, it would end up in the landfill. I told her that I’d rather take it all with me and put it in my blue box. On my way out, I noticed that the restaurant had set out some bags of trash beside the store. These see-through bags were filled with cardboard, and a number of pop cans and plastic bottles as well.
I thought that if more people did what Sarah does, how much more waste can my community end up diverting from landfills? As a result, I came up with the following concept, which I would very much like for someone in my community to steal, run with, and turn into a reality. Maybe you can do the same in your community.
---
Take It With You, Sudbury!
Outline:
This is a voluntary program which encourages Sudbury residents to take recyclable materials home, rather than to rely on business recycling initiatives to ensure that recyclable materials don’t end up in our municipal landfill.
The success of this program will need buy-in from local businesses to encourage residents to retain their recyclable waste materials through the use of posters and other messaging (perhaps to be located on business waste bins) on the premises of the businesses. Specifically, small posters will be affixed to waste bins, encouraging those about to use the bins to reconsider, and to take their recyclable materials home.
Take It With You, Sudbury! posters would:
-Identify that participation in this program is voluntary;
-Direct people to take recyclable materials with them when they leave a business;
-Identify what types of recyclable materials can be removed after use;
-Encourage the deposit of recyclables into residential blue boxes or municipal blue bins
-Identify benefits to the community through voluntary participation;
-Provide contact information for residents to obtain more info about the program
Pros and Cons of Program:
Pros:
For Businesses
-Reduced waste would lead to lower waste removal fees;
-Less garbage for employees to handle;
-Civic pride with participation in program and enhancement of public image.
For Residents
-Increased civic pride in participating in a green initiative;
-Increased awareness of the lifecycle of garbage and recyclable materials;
-Increased pride in participating in a municipal revenue creation opportunity.
For the City
-Increased public awareness in waste management issues;
-Increased revenues generated from additional recyclable materials being deposited in municipal blue boxes;
-Potential to be a municipal success story to be shared with others;
-Fewer private waste removal vehicles on the road, as demand for business waste removal decreases.
Cons:
For Businesses
-Reduced recyclable materials may lead to smaller fees collected from waste recyclers;
-Posters and other public messaging in places of business may detract from business’ desired image, or may look too "busy";
-Businesses may confuse residents regarding what level of participation is required (optional vs. you must take your recyclables home).
For Residents
-Have to carry waste materials around with them for deposit in blue boxes;
-May need to put more blue boxes on the curb.
For the City
-May lead to increased calls for additional blue-box infrastructure and waste removal in high-traffic public areas, such as the downtown;
-May experience increased costs with residential blue-box pick-up as more recyclables deposited in blue boxes may lead to additional demand for waste removal.
Pilot Program
In order to demonstrate that the voluntary participation of Sudbury residents in this program can lead to the successful diversion of wastes which may otherwise end up in landfill sites, one area of the City should pilot this program for 6-9 months. Businesses, residents and municipal officials responsible for waste management should then provide feedback in order to ascertain whether the pilot has been successful, and whether the program warrants expansion throughout the City.
A logical location for piloting this program is the City’s downtown, which contains numerous restaurants and a mall. As well, the downtown currently has some municipal blue boxes available for the disposal of recyclable materials. Further, downtown businesses tend to be smaller operations, and which by and large enjoy taking the lead with green initiatives.
A prototype poster and waste bin sticker will be produced, and businesses will be approached with regards to their participation in the program. The Sudbury Downtown Development Corporation could be asked to make their members aware of this initiative, or perhaps act as a partner, champion or leader. Municipal Council will also be approached, and asked to support this initiative, through a Resolution, and potentially through the request of start-up costs, which should be minimal (poster and sticker reproduction). Volunteers associated with a lead agency, such as the Development Corporation, could be used to identify willing business participants. A website containing information on the program would need to be designed and maintained, however a basic-format website would likely suffice.
Media releases and information being made available at public events (such as the Blueberry Festival or the Garlic Festival, or at Market Square or City Hall) would be used to generate exposure for the program. There are many good ways to market an initiative of this sort, and a lead agency will likely know which ones would work best for them.
—
So, there it is. You can thank Sarah May for this idea. Now, take it and run with it!
Expelling Toronto from Ontario: What Passes for a Progressive Conservative Solution to Rural Issues in Ontario
The Toronto Star reports that Ontario Progressive Conservative MPP Bill Murdoch’s recent suggestion that the City of Toronto secede from Ontario and become its own Province. Murdoch suggests this because he believes that the rest of Ontario would be better off without Toronto, citing a "Toronto-centric" bias in provincial decision making which he believes is negatively impacting issues important to Rural Ontario. Of course, he doesn’t mention that getting rid of all of those red and orange MPP’s Toronto typically sends to Queens Park would greatly assist his bunch of blues in forming government.
Taking Toronto out of Ontario makes about as much sense as suggesting that providing family planning and contraception to women living in poverty won’t help save lives. Oh, wait a moment. That was some other Conservative nob.
Does Murdoch really believe that this sort of nonsense represents a viable solution for addressing rural issues in this province? Is this his answer, the best that he can come up with? Let’s get rid of Toronto and everything will be all right?
Through the use of Murdoch’s logic, if you remove Toronto from the decision-making equation, presto-change-o, the rest of the Province can convince itself that Toronto doesn’t exist and get on with its own, more important business.
Look, I know first hand that there are tensions within the provincial system based on geography. It’s hard not to appreciate those dynamics as a Northern Ontarian. But wanting to expel the main economic engine of our Province, the heartland to our hinterland, just so that there can be more of a focus on rural issues? Sounds to me like a bone-headed desire to try to take the "easy way out", rather than working within the existing structure for the betterment of all. Of course, that’s also the Conservative way: they’ll always try to do what’s best for their core constituents, and screw anybody else who might stand in their way. If others benefit as a result, well, great, but it was purely happenstance. Or a vote-buying exercise.
In the case of expelling Toronto from Ontario, others will not benefit. Due to Murdoch’s idiotic musing the other day, we’ve already seen all sorts of numbers being bandied about with regards to how much Toronto contributes to the Province (and to the feds) in terms of real dollars, and how little it gets back. I’m not going to explore those numbers, because they are quite volatile and dependent on who put them together (and for what reason), but most agree that Toronto is a net contributor to provincial wealth. So Murdoch wants to go and open up the Constitution of Canada in order to...impoverish the rest of the province? I guess he’s not yet satisfied with Ontario’s "have-not" status within confederation, and would like to see us plunge even further down that list.
Of course, it’s no real secret that Murdoch is musing out loud here in an attempt to gain political points in his riding of Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound. Murdoch, who was thrown out of Queen’s Park during the last session of provincial parliament, along with fellow Conservative (I just can’t bring myself to refer to him as a "Progressive" Conservative) Randy Hillier, over their contempt for parliament’s democratic processes, needs to start raising his profile again before the 2011 election. Greens will recall that it was GPO candidate Shane Jolley who gave Murdoch a run for his money in 2007, and no doubt Murdoch believes that he’ll face stiff competition from the provincial Greens again, who appear to be shifting somewhat to the right politically, potentially undercutting his support.
Bashing Toronto makes sense just about everywhere in Canada, if the goal is to gain political points. It’s easy, it doesn’t cost anything, and it can get your name in the papers as Murdoch has shown. Heck, Toronto-bashing is almost considered a national past-time, part of our Canadian identity. Despite the bit of fun we might have in poking Toronto in the eye, everyone knows that Murdoch’s "big idea" isn’t going to go anywhere. What should be a non-issue, or joke-issue at best, provides a great deal of personal publicity for the maverick Murdoch, who clearly subscribes to Oscar Wilde’s assertion that the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.
Murdoch is popular in BGOS. He embodies the kind of no-nonsense, speak your mind attitude that appeals to many of his rural constituents, who no doubt share his views that Toronto-centrism has negatively impacted their rural way of life. Many in BGOS might also go so far as to suggest that they would be better off without Toronto in Ontario, until they stop and think about how our rural and urban economies are inextricably linked to one another.
Really, though, Murdoch represents nothing but populist clap-trap. He knows full well that Toronto won’t be leaving the province any time soon, given the Constitutional amendment that would be required, yet he puts this "idea" (a term I use loosely here) forward to the people as a solution to the needs of Rural Ontario.
Far better solutions for many of the issues facing Rural Ontario are offered by the Green Party, Murdoch’s chief competition in BGOS. Greens want to ensure that family farmers have all of the resources they need to carry out their jobs while earning a healthy living. Greens acknowledge that an agricultural lifestyle has been a very difficult one to sustain, despite its preeminent importance to all Ontarians. Greens have come up with many solutions for the betterment of Rural Ontario, in which they’ve actually invested a lot of time and critical thinking, unlike Murdoch and his asinine proposal.
No doubt, Murdoch, Hillier and other Conservatives will continue to appeal to Rural Ontarians, many of whom do feel threatened by the changes we all we have to face up to very soon, due to climate change, peak oil, and global recession. Policies of Liberals, Progressive Conservatives and New Democrats which favour the factory farm over the family farm, haven’t helped instill a lot of confidence that governments are looking out for the interests of rural communities. I sincerely hope that rural voters explore the excellent policies of the Green Party and vote to send Greens to Queens Park in the next election. Green representation from Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound will be of significant benefit to rural residents, and not just because they’d be getting ridding of Bill Murdoch in process.
Taking Toronto out of Ontario makes about as much sense as suggesting that providing family planning and contraception to women living in poverty won’t help save lives. Oh, wait a moment. That was some other Conservative nob.
Does Murdoch really believe that this sort of nonsense represents a viable solution for addressing rural issues in this province? Is this his answer, the best that he can come up with? Let’s get rid of Toronto and everything will be all right?
Through the use of Murdoch’s logic, if you remove Toronto from the decision-making equation, presto-change-o, the rest of the Province can convince itself that Toronto doesn’t exist and get on with its own, more important business.
Look, I know first hand that there are tensions within the provincial system based on geography. It’s hard not to appreciate those dynamics as a Northern Ontarian. But wanting to expel the main economic engine of our Province, the heartland to our hinterland, just so that there can be more of a focus on rural issues? Sounds to me like a bone-headed desire to try to take the "easy way out", rather than working within the existing structure for the betterment of all. Of course, that’s also the Conservative way: they’ll always try to do what’s best for their core constituents, and screw anybody else who might stand in their way. If others benefit as a result, well, great, but it was purely happenstance. Or a vote-buying exercise.
In the case of expelling Toronto from Ontario, others will not benefit. Due to Murdoch’s idiotic musing the other day, we’ve already seen all sorts of numbers being bandied about with regards to how much Toronto contributes to the Province (and to the feds) in terms of real dollars, and how little it gets back. I’m not going to explore those numbers, because they are quite volatile and dependent on who put them together (and for what reason), but most agree that Toronto is a net contributor to provincial wealth. So Murdoch wants to go and open up the Constitution of Canada in order to...impoverish the rest of the province? I guess he’s not yet satisfied with Ontario’s "have-not" status within confederation, and would like to see us plunge even further down that list.
Of course, it’s no real secret that Murdoch is musing out loud here in an attempt to gain political points in his riding of Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound. Murdoch, who was thrown out of Queen’s Park during the last session of provincial parliament, along with fellow Conservative (I just can’t bring myself to refer to him as a "Progressive" Conservative) Randy Hillier, over their contempt for parliament’s democratic processes, needs to start raising his profile again before the 2011 election. Greens will recall that it was GPO candidate Shane Jolley who gave Murdoch a run for his money in 2007, and no doubt Murdoch believes that he’ll face stiff competition from the provincial Greens again, who appear to be shifting somewhat to the right politically, potentially undercutting his support.
Bashing Toronto makes sense just about everywhere in Canada, if the goal is to gain political points. It’s easy, it doesn’t cost anything, and it can get your name in the papers as Murdoch has shown. Heck, Toronto-bashing is almost considered a national past-time, part of our Canadian identity. Despite the bit of fun we might have in poking Toronto in the eye, everyone knows that Murdoch’s "big idea" isn’t going to go anywhere. What should be a non-issue, or joke-issue at best, provides a great deal of personal publicity for the maverick Murdoch, who clearly subscribes to Oscar Wilde’s assertion that the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.
Murdoch is popular in BGOS. He embodies the kind of no-nonsense, speak your mind attitude that appeals to many of his rural constituents, who no doubt share his views that Toronto-centrism has negatively impacted their rural way of life. Many in BGOS might also go so far as to suggest that they would be better off without Toronto in Ontario, until they stop and think about how our rural and urban economies are inextricably linked to one another.
Really, though, Murdoch represents nothing but populist clap-trap. He knows full well that Toronto won’t be leaving the province any time soon, given the Constitutional amendment that would be required, yet he puts this "idea" (a term I use loosely here) forward to the people as a solution to the needs of Rural Ontario.
Far better solutions for many of the issues facing Rural Ontario are offered by the Green Party, Murdoch’s chief competition in BGOS. Greens want to ensure that family farmers have all of the resources they need to carry out their jobs while earning a healthy living. Greens acknowledge that an agricultural lifestyle has been a very difficult one to sustain, despite its preeminent importance to all Ontarians. Greens have come up with many solutions for the betterment of Rural Ontario, in which they’ve actually invested a lot of time and critical thinking, unlike Murdoch and his asinine proposal.
No doubt, Murdoch, Hillier and other Conservatives will continue to appeal to Rural Ontarians, many of whom do feel threatened by the changes we all we have to face up to very soon, due to climate change, peak oil, and global recession. Policies of Liberals, Progressive Conservatives and New Democrats which favour the factory farm over the family farm, haven’t helped instill a lot of confidence that governments are looking out for the interests of rural communities. I sincerely hope that rural voters explore the excellent policies of the Green Party and vote to send Greens to Queens Park in the next election. Green representation from Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound will be of significant benefit to rural residents, and not just because they’d be getting ridding of Bill Murdoch in process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)