Motion Sickness: Green Party Members Greenlight Problematic Motions Ahead of 2012 BGM

Please note that this particular blogpost may only be of interest to Members of the Green Party of Canada, supporters, and other political insiders.  Also, please be advised that some of the links to specific party motions will not work unless one is first logged into the Green Party of Canada's website.  To log in, or to become a member of the Party, please visit www.greenparty.ca .

-----

Earlier this evening, I visited the Green Party of Canada’s website to find out if results had been posted for the membership “Bonser Ballot” voting on policy, directive and constitutional motions. Before every Biennial General Meeting, Green Party members are invited by the Party to vote on numerous motions. The Party uses a Bonser Ballot (explained in detail at this link), but essentially members can vote “Green”, “Yellow” or “Red”. Where 60% of the vote received is Green or Red, the motion is either passed or defeated. All other vote counts mean that the motion will be “workshopped” by members attending the BGM.

This year’s BGM is taking place in Sidney, British Columbia, later this month (August 17 through 19). Earlier this evening, I discovered that the results of earlier voting have now been posted at this location: http://www.greenparty.ca/convention-2012/voting/motions . Information regarding the number of votes is not currently available, only vote percentages.

To my complete horror, I have discovered that the membership, in its wisdom, are about to initiate substantial changes to the policies of the Green Party of Canada. I feel the need to call out the membership for some of these changes, as I can’t believe that the membership wishes to fundamentally change the Party’s policy positions related to so many issues important to the membership and our supporters. It is also my hope that the results of the Bonser Ballot might yet be overturned on the floor of the General Meeting by those in attendance at the meeting, which is specific power granted to the General Meeting through the Party’s Constitution and by-laws.

The Commercial Seal Hunt

Currently, the Green Party of Canada supports phasing out the industrial-scale commercial seal hunt for numerous reasons (although the Party does support sustainable subsistence harvest of seals by aboriginal peoples). While this position has been controversial within the Party, it appears that a version of this policy has been on the Party’s books at least since 2002. Many have suggested that our support for this policy is the biggest reason why the Party has failed to make inroads in the Province of Newfoundland & Labrador. However, the membership of the Party, for varied reasons, has continued to be of the view that phasing out the seal hunt is simply the right thing to do. At least up until now.

Greens were asked to vote on two policy motions which would have the effect of rescinding our existing policies on the seal hunt: Motions G12-P09, which rescinds numerous policies, and G12-P18, which specifically rescinds policies related to the commercial seal hunt. These motions were “greenlighted” by the voting membership with a level of support of 79.3% (G12-P09) and 60.7% (G12-P18).

A related motion, G12-P19, regarding new policies which would see Greens support a call for expanding the commercial seal hunt and the development of new markets for seal products received a majority greenlight votes (52.7%) but did not meet the Bonser Ballot approval threshold of 60%, so it will be workshopped at the BGM. Through the workshop process, the policy motion can be changed by the General Meeting and approved, or it can be defeated outright.

The Green Party of Canada is the only national political party which currently supports phasing out the commercial seal hunt. The Party has worn this policy as a badge of honour and has used the policy to attract many supporters who are primarily concerned about animal welfare issues. In short, I believe it has been a winning policy for the Party, particularly outside of Atlantic Canada. Whether one agrees with the ethics of continuing the seal hunt or not, what is clear is that the hunt is no longer an economic venture, and Canadian taxpayers are subsidizing it, year after year.

A change to our policies regarding the seal hunt may not at first appear to be dangerous, given that the other mainstream parties are in favour of continuing to subsidize the hunt. However, let’s be honest here: many Green supporters are very touchy when it comes to animal welfare issues, and when they discover that the Party has rescinded policy on phasing out the commercial hunt, we will likely lose those supporters and their significant financial contributions. Now, it could be argued that a policy change might open the door to the Party in Newfoundland & Labrador, but I’d suggest that closing doors in urban and suburban ridings in B.C. and southwestern Ontario at the expense of possible future gains in Newfoundland is not the direction which the Party should choose to go in.

Let me be blunt here. The Green Party’s electoral success in the next federal general election will be found in a handful of ridings in British Columbia, Alberta, southwestern Ontario, and the Yukon. And maybe one in Montreal if Deputy Leader Georges Laraque decides to run there (although I think Edmonton Centre would be a better choice for former Edmonton Oiler Laraque). Our current policy supporting the phasing out of the seal hunt is a “winner” in those areas, and therefore it should be maintained.

Historic Policies

A number of motions which have received greenlights from the membership will rescind some of the Green Party’s historic policies. Many of these policies may now be considered out-of-date or stale, and likely should be disposed of. However, other policies, although adopted by the membership many years ago, remain relevant to Greens, and indeed, set us apart from other parties.

In particular, the membership in its wisdom has voted to remove our policies related to our support for same-sex marriages. Again, the Party has worn these policies as a badge of honour in the LGBT2SQA community ever since our membership first adopted a policy supporting gay marriage and common-law partnerships in 1996 (the first national political party to do so). Given that social conservatives, some of whom are currently occupying seats in Parliament, continue to threaten to overturn existing marriage laws, it makes no sense for the Green Party of Canada to be seen to be taking steps backwards from our historic position of support.

Our historic policy with regards to the legalization of cannabis is also on the chopping block. The Green Party has held this policy position since 1998, and is in the only national political party which outright supports and end to prohibition through legalization. Given that polls continue to show that a majority of Canadians support ending prohibition, for many reasons, it just doesn’t make sense that the Green Party would now discard our pot policy.

Some Greens may think that the absence of policy alone doesn’t mean that we’re against gay marriage or ending prohibition, but the truth is that we will be handing ammunition to our political opponents, as well as confusing our existing and potentially new supporters. By rescinding these policies, our political opponents will quite rightly be able to state that we no longer support gay marriage rights and ending prohibition, and that voters should not cast their ballots for Green candidates if these issues are important to them. “Didn’t the Green Party afterall just rescind their policies on these issues? Clearly, Greens want to become social conservatives, instead of progressives.”

Stephen LaFrenie, a very active party partisan, has written about some of the effects of these motions which will eliminate historic policies. He offers a very clear analysis with regards to the policy holes which won’t be filled should the Party ultimately discard some of these policies. See LaFrenie’s excellent analysis: “Green Party Proudly Marches in Pride Parade While Being Asked to Rescind its Historic Policy on Same-Sex Marriages” and “Green Party Being Asked to Rescind its Policy on Cannabis”.

What Does it Mean to be “Green”?

Last, but certainly not least, I need to bring to your attention what is potentially the most dangerous policy which our membership in its wisdom has decided to endorse, that being motion G12-P16, the “Free Vote” policy. Ostensibly, this policy was created to provide guidance to Party members and future MP’s with regards to how votes will be cast, both at General Meetings and by MP’s in Parliament. The Green Party has long prided itself as being a political party which does things differently, and our Leader Elizabeth May is on record saying that she does not support whipping votes. This policy, if approved at the General Meeting, will ensure that MP’s can never be whipped on votes, and that there votes can never lead to the Party taking measures against them.

On the surface, such a motion appears to make sense, especially if there are concerns with regards to whipping MP’s to vote in a certain way. Recall that former NDP MP Bruce Hyer (who will be speaking at the Green Party’s upcoming Biennial General Meeting later this month) cited vote whipping as one of his reasons for leaving the NDP.

Let me be clear: I do not support whipping MP’s to vote a certain way. And if motion G12-P16 limited itself to declaring simply that “there shall be no whipped votes”, I would have supported it.

Instead, however, the motion goes far too far. It indicates that Greens, on matters of conscious (which is not defined in the motion), can choose to vote any way that they want to. The lack of definition with regards to “matters of conscious” is truly problematic, as it can be construed to mean anything anybody wants it to mean. A matter of conscious might be the ethics of implementing a revenue-neutral carbon tax (“it will hurt the poor, I can’t vote for that!”). This despite the fact that the Green Party has member-approved policy which supports the implementation of such a tax through tax shifting.

The approval of this motion will ultimately mean that member-approved policy won’t be worth the paper that its printed on, as MP’s will be free to “vote their conscience” on any and all issues. Again, some might argue that’s not a bad thing, and in fact more MP’s should be doing just that. But recall for a moment that the election of these MP’s will require the expenditure of resources from the Party in the form of a central campaign, along with local campaigns supported financially by Green members and supporters. In short, we could end up financially supporting the election of MP’s who won’t follow our own policies, and who won’t suffer any consequences for not doing so. That’s just an absurd situation.

Party members and supporters, not to mention new future supporters, will be left wondering just what it means to be a “Green” when elected MP’s won’t have to follow Party policy, or even base their votes on our shared Green Values. Simply put, being “Green” won’t any longer mean anything.

And that’s why motion G12-P16 goes too far. In this case, the absence of Party policy with regards to how MP’s should vote will serve the Party well when Elizabeth May is joined by a caucus of Green MP’s.

For more animated discussion, please see the following discussions: Party Members Only discussion on Motion G12-P16, and Paul Maillet’s blog, “2012 Policy Motion Free Votes – Request Support”, in which I have commented extensively (and which is available to the general public for viewing.  We Greens really aren't scared to air our disagreements with one another - it's all a part of how we do politics differently.  While I don't agree with this motion, I'm glad that Greens are discussing it publicly, as the motion has many supporters as well as detractors).

The Absurdity of Bonser

Now, given that the voting membership in its wisdom have spoken on these proposed motions, many Greens might argue that the Party should follow the will of its voting members. Normally, I’d be in agreement with that approach, but what is not known to me is what percentage of the membership actually cast ballots to authorize these significant and fundamental changes to Party policy?

Further, I have never been a supporter of the foolish “Bonser Ballot” approach used by the Party in an effort to obtain a higher level of consensus on matters coming forward for voting at BGM’s. I see the wisdom of the Bonser process with respect to the fact that the Green Party of Canada does not use a delegate selection process for attending its General Meetings, and nor does it currently permit proxy voting, despite having this provision within the Constitution. Essentially, allowing the membership to express its will through the Bonser process before the General Meeting does, to a degree, offset the fact that only those members who are financially better-off or who can find financial support, or through happenstance live in close proximity to the General Meeting location, can attend the General Meeting.

In practice, however, the Bonser Ballot is a confusing voting process for members, who often have little to rely on when casting ballots other than the extremely biased “WHEREAS” clauses written by the motion movers, and maybe some commentary by the Party which (this time at least) tends to be pretty neutral in tone. Yes, it’s true that voters can read comments written by other members, but only if they click on a link to do so. And even then, many of the motions voted on lacked much in the way of online comments from the membership.

With over 40 constitutional, directive and policy motions to vote on (a lower number than usual, actually), most members decide to opt out of voting altogether. In 2010, the percentage of members in good standing who cast ballots through the Bonser process was the highest ever for the Party, but was still less than 20%.

And, as per usual, the vast majority of motions received a “greenlight” from the membership. This trend to me speaks to the biggest flaw with the Bonser process, at least as it is applied to the Green Party. We Greens, generally speaking, are united by our positivity and general trust in the wisdom of other like-minded people. I really do believe that our shared values create a reluctance to be outright critical of others when it comes to voting, and therefore I think that Greens are far less likely to vote against something than they are to vote for it (if they think others believe it’s a good idea), or at least, in the case of the Bonser Ballot, to vote “yellowlight”.

This time around, out of more than 40 motions considered by the membership, only 6 did not receive 60% or more “greenlight” votes. Not one motion was “redlighted”. I know that I myself voted Red on 20 motions. Clearly, I’m just a contrarian, at least amongst the voting membership!

It’s well past time that the Party abandon the Bonser Ballot process, as it does not serve our Party well. It offers the voting membership too many opportunities to opt out of critical decision making. The decisions which the Party makes with regards to our Constitution and policies really are critical, because they shape our Party from the ground up. With so few members actively engaged in the process, and with the ability to cast a vote neither for or against a particular motion ultimately affecting the outcome of the vote, it’s clear that this process does not serve the Party well. There are too many opportunities to opt out of making critical decisions.

Fixing the Dilemma

Luckily, there does remain an opportunity for the Party to deal with some of these issues which I’ve highlighted (as well as with other issues which I’ve not highlighted. For example, I’ll be frank: I haven’t bothered to go through the list of several dozen policies which the membership has voted to rescind through the adoption of a few motions. I don’t really know what other scorpions might be lurking amongst the weeds of these recent decisions). Ultimately, the General Meeting is tasked with ratifying the Bonser Ballot votes. But the General Meeting also has the power to refuse approval of the Bonser Ballot voting, or refuse the approval of specific motions.

I believe that the Party will be best served by the General Meeting “pulling out” certain motions approved through the Bonser Ballot, and revisiting those motions (or, in the case of the motions I’ve highlighted here, simply discarding them). At first, this may appear to be going against the will of the membership, and while I think that there’s an argument which can be made to that effect, given what is likely to be a low membership vote turn-out, I’m not certain that the argument has a lot of legs.

And given the implications to the Party that these significant changes in policy are likely to have, I believe that the General Meeting must take the action to deny approval to the motions I’ve written about here.

As I wrote earlier, I voted Red on 20 separate motions, but the fact is, as a Green, I guess I can live with about 16 or so of these motions going forward, so I’m not putting my effort into trying to convince the General Meeting of addressing all of my grievances. But with regards to killing our commercial seal hunt policies, along with other important historic policies, and allowing future MP’s to vote against member-approved policies, well, the General Meeting must take action.

A failure to act will almost certainly transform the Green Party into a very pale imitation of itself: one which ultimately has no history, and no clear future destination. A failure to act may mean that we end up becoming a pale green parody of ourselves.

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

The NDP’s Dangerous National Unity Game: The Triumph of Talking Points Over Truth

What’s going on with Canada’s New Democratic Party lately? It seems to me that the NDP has decided to imitate Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party, at least when it comes to secrecy. Given that the NDP likes to trumpet that it’s an “open and transparent” political party, ever since Tom Mulcair took over as Leader, it certainly looks as if the NDP is trying to hide a few things from Canadians.

First, with talk of a provincial Quebec election in the air, and the prospect of a separatist Parti Quebecois provincial government, the federal NDP have been going to great lengths to remain silent about their MP’s support for provincial separatists. During the recent student protests in Montreal, NDP MP’s from Quebec were kept in line by the Party. Although many MP’s agreed with the position of the student protesters, including the radical CLASSE student union, MP’s largely failed to speak out or otherwise show support to the students.  This was reminiscent of Stephen Harper’s ban on Conservative MP’s supporting the PC or Wildrose Party in the recent Alberta election, only Mulcair proved that when it comes to truly silencing the backbenches, he can teach Harper a thing or two.

On the one hand, the NDP likes to claim to be a champion of the oppressed, but when push came to shove in Montreal, party discipline won out over doing what many NDP Quebec MP’s thought was the right thing to do. And now, with a provincial election on the horizon, it looks like the NDP is going to contort itself into yet another pretzel in order to distance itself from the separatists. They’ll likely be less successful with this exercise, given that there are direct links between the NDP and separatist provincial political parties in Quebec. For example, it’s well-known that former NDP Interim Leader Nycole Turmel was a member of the socialist Quebec Solidaire even while she was leading the NDP (see: “Turmel: Separatist, communist and who knows what else”, by Sun Media’s Brian Lilley, August 14, 2011)

Turmel herself admitted that former NDP Leader Jack Layton was “well aware” of her ties to Quebec Solidaire and her membership in the federal Bloc Quebecois when she agreed to run for the NDP in the 2011 federal election (see: “NDP credibility under attack after Turmel’s Bloc ties revealed”, the Globe & Mail, August 2, 2011)

Recently, Conservative MP Pierre Poilievere, questioned NDP MP and Labour Critic Alexandre Boulerice in the House about a donation made to Quebec Solidaire earlier this year (2012). As usual, the NDP tried to deflect the question, calling it “old news” and claiming that Boulerice no longer supports separatists. (see: “NDP MP accused of supporting separatists”, Canoe.ca online, Sun Media, June 12 2012). Look, I’m not a fan of Pierre Poilevere by any means, but the question to Boulerice doesn’t appear to me to have been satisfactorily answered. Rather than trying to sweep the answer under the rug, why didn’t the NDP just come clean about their MP’s obvious continuing support for Quebec Solidaire and separatist causes? It’s well past time that the NDP stopped playing these games with the truth.

Look, if some of the NDP’s Members of Parliament continue to support separatist causes, that’s their business.  I might think it looks bad, but ultimately those MP's have to answer directly to voters in their home ridings (or at least in the ridings which elected them). What troubles me about the NDP’s flirtation with separatists goes a lot deeper than who their MP’s might have, or continue to, support at the provincial level in Quebec.

I’m much more troubled by the NDP’s Official Party policy on Quebec separation, known as the “Sherbrooke Declaration”, which is essentially a repudiation of an Act of Canada’s parliament. NDP Leader Tom Mulcair has refused to acknowledge the primacy of Canadian legislation, known as the “Clarity Act”, when it comes to establishing a threshold regarding a vote for separation, amongst other matters.

The NDP’s Sherbrooke Declaration will allow Quebec to separate from Canada with a “50%+1” level of support, in contrast to the Clarity Act, which was based on the government of Canada's earlier "secession reference" to the Supreme Court of Canada, made in 1998. The Supreme Court has a different idea of what democracy means when it comes to the break up of our nation. “Democracy means more than simply ‘majority rule’” wrote the Court.  Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, the federal NDP have established a low-ball threshold for the break-up of Canada – a threshold, by the way, which the NDP doesn’t even use to amend its own Party constitution.

Former Liberal Leader and current MP Stephane Dion (who will be speaking at the Green Party of Canada’s convention later this August) recently wrote a very important piece about the NDP’s dangerous flirtation with Quebec nationalists (see: “NDP’s separatist pandering threatens national unity”, Stephane Dion, the National Post, March 12, 2012). In part, it was Dion’s waving the red flag about the NDP which inspired me to write about this in April (see: "What does Tom Mulcair’s Leadership of the NDP Mean for the Green Party of Canada?”). Back then I indicated that Mulcair was going to have to walk a fine line while trying to convince Canadians that the NDP had all of Canada’s interests at heart. That was written before Mulcair stepped into it on the national stage with what were perceived as divisive comments about Alberta Premier Alison Redford and Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall being the provincial mouthpieces of the Conservative Party of Canada, when the two premiers chastised Mulcair for otherwise pertinent comments about Canada’s dependency on the oil sector.

With the NDP’s popularity remaining at historic high levels, I can’t help but wonder if Canadians understand the true extent of the threat to national unity posed by the NDP’s policy positions and continued support for Quebec separatist causes. I’m curious as to where Sudbury MP Glenn Thibeault and Nickel Belt MP Claude Gravelle stand on the Sherbrooke Declaration? Do they support NDP policy over an Act of Parliament based on the direction given by our Supreme Court? I think voters in Sudbury and Nickel Belt should get some straight answers from Thibeault and Gravelle on this.

Should the next Quebec provincial election produce a separatist government in the form of the Parti Quebecois, it looks like PQ Leader Pauline Marois is promising to “create a crisis” between Quebec and Ottawa, and use the manufactured crisis as a starting point for an ultimate referendum on separation. If Marois is running Quebec, and Tom Mulcair becomes Canada’s next Prime Minister, it could very well be that Mulcair will also be the last Prime Minister of Canada as we know it given the dangerous game his NDP is playing with Canada’s national unity.

Yet the NDP just doesn’t want to talk about any of this.

And finally, while this doesn’t have to do with national unity, I came across this article in the Toronto Star today regarding the NDP’s refusal to disclose how much money it had returned to Union advertisers in contravention of Election Canada’s rules (see: “NDP stays mum on money returned to unions after advertising fracas”, the Toronto Star, July 31, 2012). The NDP has been very critical of the Conservative Party of Canada with regards to its over-spending in the past several elections. Yet now that it’s come to light that the NDP has also violated Elections Canada rules, it refuses to be transparent with Canadians regarding the extent of the violation. And that’s just very unfortunate, as I’m sure that the NDP’s discretions pale in comparison to those of the Conservative Party. When the matter was brought to the attention of Elections Canada, rather than play hardball like the Cons have done in the past, the NDP admitted to the mistake and corrected itself. Which makes me wonder why the NDP isn’t being completely honest now with regards to the extent of the correction. What does the NDP have to lose by telling Canadians the amount of money it had to give back to its union backers?

The NDP clearly wants to be able to control the conversations with Canadians in which it engages. Whether it’s an MP denying continued financial support for separatist causes, or whether it’s the Leader of the NDP refusing to support an Act of Parliament in preference to party policy, or whether it’s trying to distance itself from it’s continued financial support of labour unions, for the NDP, it looks like talking points triumph over doing what’s right for Canadians.

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

Voting Morally, Not Strategically in Melbourne and Etobicoke Centre

Ahhh…the summertime! Long days spent pushing the stroller through my community. Hot nights spent drinking beer on the front porch. What better time to think / talk politics? Well, maybe if there were an election going on…but there’s not, at least not yet. Certainly, we know that federally, there will be at least two by-elections called in the near future (Durham, where Conservative cabinet minister Bev Oda has resigned from parliament; and Calgary Centre, where long-serving Conservative backbencher Lee Richardson has stepped down to pursue a job as Alberta PC Premier Alison Redford’s principal secretary). And, there might be another by-election called in Etobicoke Centre, where defeated Liberal candidate and former MP, Borys Wrzesnewskyj, initiated a court challenge after voting irregularities were identified in that riding. After a lower court ordered a new election, that court’s decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada by Conservative MP Ted Opitz; the Supreme Court’s decision will issue soon.

Etobicoke Centre

What happens in Etobicoke Centre really matters to all Canadians, that much is clear. Lawyers for Wrzesnewskyj and Opitz both argued that Canadian’s faith in our electoral system would be shaken if there was no new election, and if there was one. Interestingly, in my opinion, they’re both correct, as our faith in our electoral system has already been shaken, in part due to what’s happened in Etobicoke Centre, and in part due to a lack of action on Elections Canada’s part regarding election-day calls directing voters to incorrect polling stations. And of course, before that, we had the In-and-Out scandal, in which the Conservative Party of Canada was determined to have spent more than it was legally allowed to do so during an election campaign. So sure, voters faith in our system has clearly been shaken, and in some cases, the very legitimacy of our current government is being questioned.

In part, because what happens in Etobicoke Centre matters to Canada, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May last week called on her own party not to run a candidate in that riding, should the Supreme Court uphold the lower court’s decision authorizing a by-election. Not only did May call on the Green Party to sit out a by-election, she also called on the NDP to consider not running a candidate, ostensibly so that Wrzsenewskyj and Opitz can go head-to-head to determine which MP (the former or the current one) gets to represent the riding. However, May’s call is actually in keeping with a much broader desire on the part of May and the Green Party to work with other political parties in the interests of Canadians. Given that May and many in the Green Party view the Conservative Party of Canada as a threat to Canada, the values of Canadians, and our democratic institutions, her call for a Liberal-Conservative head to head makes sense, especially since Green and NDP participation will likely end up working in favour of the Conservatives. Neither the Green Party nor the NDP candidates were contenders in Etobicoke Centre in the last election, and although one should never base future results on past results, the fact is that with fewer candidates running, there is a less of a chance of splitting votes.

Strategic Decisions

I wrote about May’s call for sitting out a hypothetical by-election in Etobicoke Centre last week, in my blogpost, “Greens Doing Politics Differently: A Smart Play by Elizabeth May in Etobicoke Centre”. As a result of last week’s piece, I’ve come under a little friendly fire for what appears to be my own endorsement of strategic voting. Let me be clear: Elizabeth May has not endorsed strategic voting by suggesting that her Party, who has the final say, opt out of a by-election there. In fact, by not running a candidate, there will be no need for strategic voting to happen, which is why, in part, May has also suggested that the NDP sit that by-election out.

Strategic voting arises when voters are faced with making a tough decision, usually based on their dislike of a candidate who they fear will win. As a result, they end up casting their ballot for a candidate whom they think can defeat the candidate they fear, and thus end up voting not for their candidate of choice, but rather against the candidate they fear.

Often, it ends up being strategic for a political Party to opt out of a particular contest, for many reasons. As I indicated in my earlier post, there are certainly problems when this occurs, mostly amongst party supporters at the local level, who may view the Party’s decision not to run a candidate as problematic. Sometimes, the negatives resonate outside of a riding, should the Party itself come under scrutiny by regional or national media, who might publicly wonder why the Party is not running a candidate, and perhaps determine that the Party is having internal issues (personality/economic) which has led to their opting out of a particular contest.

Unfortunately, a political party can’t control the media narrative, and there will always be those in the media who have their own personal pet theories or axes to grind. What a political party can do, however, is attempt to get out in front of a story, tell the facts as they see it, and hope that the public understands why decisions are being made about certain matters. And although the Green Party of Canada has not to my knowledge decided whether to heed May’s advice regarding Etobicoke Centre (and likely they haven’t, because the Supreme Court of Canada has yet to rule), but should the Green Party choose to listen to May, it could very well be that Green supporters in Etobicoke Centre will have a better understanding than any others in Canada have ever had about why their Party is choosing to sit out a particular by-election.

It could even be a possibility that the Green Party takes the extraordinary step of endorsing another Party’s candidate in Etobicoke Centre. I’m not saying that will happen, but it could. And in my opinion, it probably should, if the Party decides to sit out the by-election. As I wrote last week, although I am a rabid Green partisan, the needs of my nation have to outweigh what’s good for my Party. Electing a Conservative in Etobicoke Centre will prove to be a bad thing for Canada. Sure, a Green candidate could repeat the 2011 general election’s result, gathering in almost 1,000 votes, but if ultimately a Conservative is elected there, that’s not a victory by any means for Canada.

Electoral Outcomes

When I wrote about Etobicoke Centre last week, I cast around looking for an interesting example where the absence of a political party’s candidate may have led to an unexpected outcome in a particular riding. Of course, we all know that Elizabeth May and then-Liberal Leader Stephane Dion had a no-compete agreement in their respective ridings of Central Nova and Saint Laurent-Cartierville, during the 2008 General Election. Dion won his seat easily; for May, however, the absence of a Liberal candidate did not stop he re-election of Conservative MP Peter McKay. In neither case could the absence of a candidate be said to have influenced the outcome.

Yes, there was the interesting case involving the NDP in Saanich-Gulf Islands during the 2008 general election. Julian West, the NDP’s nominated candidate, resigned during the election, but it was too late to remove his name from the ballot. West still ended up with about 3,000 votes. Interestingly, in the days leading up to the election, SGI voters received a robocall from a phone number belonging to the NDP riding association’s President. Bill Graham, the local NDP President, insisted that the calls were not coming from the NDP. More details about the story are offered at, “Automated phone calls urge vote for B.C. candidate who withdrew”, from the Victoria Times Colonist, October 14, 2008, reprinted by Canada.com. What is interesting, however, is the origin of the calls was never determined. And of course, when the RoboCalls voter-suppression scandal involving multiple-ridings in the 2011 general election hit the news, people began to recall what had happened in SGI, and publicly wondered what Elections Canada had found out. The answer, of course, is nothing. Which isn’t very reassuring to Canadians.

But what happened in SGI in 2008 is not a good example of how an election’s outcome might be influenced by the absence of a candidate, for although candidate West had absented himself from the contest, his name still appeared on the ballot. That his name remained on the ballot might have ultimately influenced the election’s outcome, as less than 2,000 votes separated the winning Conservatives from the second-place Liberals.

The Melbourne By-Election, Victoria State

An interesting (and very current) electoral contest was brought to my attention this past weekend, thanks to Nova Scotia’s SkyGods vs. Earthlings blogger, Michael Marshall (who wrote about this by-election in his blogpost, “Greens lead in Australian by-election because Australian socialists are to the right of Stephen Harper”). Apparently, in a by-election held in the Melbourne riding of the Australian State of Victoria this past weekend, the right-wing Liberal Party did not run a candidate, which forced the left-wing Labor Party to court the ultra-right-wing Family First Party (which wants to discriminate against same sex couples, amongst other social conservative policies). What reason could the generally-progressive Labor Party have had for courting socially conservative voters? Well, there were two reasons: one, the Australian electoral system; and two, to prevent the Greens Party from winning.

In Australia, voters cast ballots which include preferences. Unless a candidate gains 50% of the vote outright, second place preferences are counted until the 50% goal is reached. In the Melbourne by-election, the Greens candidate obtained 36.4% of the popular vote, but after “preferences” were added, the Greens were defeated by Labor. Many pundits speculate this was because of Labor aggressively courting the votes of the fourth place finishing Family First Party. And because the Liberal Party did not run a candidate, as Family First voters may have “preferred” the Liberals to Labor. Interestingly, the third-place finishing Sex Party of Australia appears not to have worked with either Labor or the Greens on preferences, although Greens and Sex had worked together in the past. 

(For more coverage, please see: “Labor claims victory in Melborne by-election”, ABC News)

Winning At All Cost

Now, I don’t share Michael Marshall’s view that the Australian Labor Party is to the right of the Conservative Party of Canada. Instead, it’s clear that Labor’s courting of social conservatives had more to do with playing a political game in an attempt to win the election. That the Greens and Labor are in a coalition of sorts at the federal level in Australia is indicative that the two parties can, and do, work together, and have overlapping policy interests. It’s also fair to say that the Australian Greens may be a little more to the left of Canada’s Green Party, and Labor a little more to the right of Canada’s NDP. But it’s probably best to say neither, as there are significant nuanced differences between Australian and Canadian politics that make direct comparisons quite problematic.

What does appear similar to me, though, is Labor’s desire to do whatever it must in order to win. In that, I see a direct comparison between Australian Labor and Canada’s NDP. And frankly, it disgusts me. When politics becomes about winning at all cost, instead of about advancing good public policy and doing what’s right for people, I have to shake my head. Yet, that’s largely where things are at throughout Canada (and apparently Australia) today.

In Canada, we have the NDP, a party which has recently launched attack ads directed against the Prime Minister, even though an election won’t be held until 2015. Party whips forced two sitting NDP members to remain silent for the better part of a year because they voted against the Party’s preferred position on the long gun registry. And apparently, if comments appended to my earlier blogpost are to be believed, the NDP has an inflexible policy of always running candidates in each and every riding and in every electoral contest. Such a policy clearly goes against any potential for electoral co-operation with other parties, and could be the reason why the NDP has shown so little desire to do so, despite the fact that many of its own supporters have called for a significant degree of co-operation.

Sure, I’m still bitter about former NDP Leader Jack Layton’s calls for keeping Green Party Leader Elizabeth May from attending the 2008 televised Leader’s debate, despite the Green Party having met the media consortium’s previous threshold for attendance: having a sitting MP in parliament. When the media consortium first decided to exclude May, Layton offered his clear support to the media consortium. It was only an outcry from Canadians (many of whom were NDP supporters) which led Layton to reconsider his position. In 2011, of course, Layton did nothing when the consortium successfully excluded May from participating.

What's Good for Democracy Does Not Always Equal What's Good for the NDP

The NDP may talk a good game when it comes to democracy, but when push comes to shove, it seems that the NDP always puts its own interests ahead of any other interests. Now, it’s true: that’s a prerogative of a political party, and more likely than not, it’s a strategy for political success. But with voters growing increasingly dissatisfied with the status quo, how long will it be now before NDP supporters come to the realization that the NDP offers little substantive change the status quo? Unfortunately, with our media-driven Leadership-based politics, it may yet take a while, as the media seems insistent that the next election will be an epic confrontation between Left vs. Right. In such battles, spin and rhetoric are king, and good public policy has little to do with outcomes.

And I fully expect that there will be efforts to exclude Green Party Leader Elizabeth May from future televised debates as well, as neither the Conservatives or the NDP stand to gain anything from her participation, as Greens votes are drawn from progressives of all political stripes. The Green Party is only a “party of the left” in that our politics are to the left of the Conservative Party’s ultra-right wing oil-based neo-liberal platform.

Moral Voting, Not Strategic Voting

If the Green Party decides to do things a little differently in Etobicoke Centre, I sincerely hope that Green supporters in that riding understand that it’s about doing politics differently, rather than abandoning those supporters for other reasons. Instead of a strategic, political decision being made, should the Green Party opt out of the by-election, the decision could and should be viewed as a moral decision, one which puts the interests of the nation ahead of partisan gain.

I can only hope that NDP supporters are asked by their Party to understand this rationale too, and cast moral ballots rather than strategic ones. But I’m not holding my breath.

(opinions expressed are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with those of the Green Party of Canada)

Greens Doing Politics Differently: A Smart Play by Elizabeth May in Etobicoke Centre

Yesterday, it was reported by Globe & Mail political columnist Gloria Galloway that Green Party of Canada Leader Elizabeth May would urge her party not to run a candidate in the riding of Etobicoke Centre, should the Supreme Court of Canada determine that a by-election is necessary due to voting irregularities which transpired at certain polling stations on the May 2nd, 2011 general election. May also suggested that, in the spirit of co-operation, the NDP also should refrain from running a candidate, which would essentially create the conditions for a “run off” style vote between Conservative Ted Opitz, who was declared the winner of the riding in 2011, and Borys Wrzesnewskyj, who lost by just 26 votes.

(See: “May: Greens and NDP should stay off of Etobicoke by-election ballot” , the Globe and Mail, July 18, 2012)

May’s comments appear to have taken many Greens by surprise, including myself. Given that the Supreme Court of Canada has yet to rule on the Etobicoke Centre appeal, it appears to be completely premature to start speculating about how a by-election could shape up, including whether the Green Party should participate or not. On first glance, it seems that maybe May has got too far out in front of an issue which may never become an issue, should the Supreme Court overturn the Ontario Superior Court’s ruling to hold a by-election.

A "Spectacularly Silly Idea"

Certainly Globe & Mail guest political columnist and Liberal partisan Adam Goldenberg took May to task – not for being out in front of the by-election issue, but for proposing a radical, dangerous and “spectacularly silly” idea in Etobicoke Centre: a face-off between the Liberals and Conservatives with other potential players opting to sit out (See: “And now, a dangerous idea from Elizabeth May”, the Globe & Mail, July 19 2012). One might think that Goldenberg and his Liberals would be pleased to see the other parties sit any hypothetical by-election out, as strong Green and/or NDP candidates are probably more likely to hurt the Liberal cause in Etobicoke Centre than they are the Conservatives.

Instead, Goldenberg seemingly wants to take the high ground, argues that elections are about allowing voters to cast ballots for candidates of their choice. In elections, even candidates which have little realistic hope of winning, should not be discouraged from running, as they provide a certain segment of voters with an opportunity to show support. Goldenberg believes that there are no wasted ballots in our first-past-the-post electoral system, as each ballot is an expression of voter desire (although even Goldenberg admits that it would be easier to make the “no wasted vote” argument if we had a system of proportional representation in place).

I’ve always been a firm believer in providing voters with an opportunity to cast ballots for a candidate whom voters believe to be their best representative, and whose values may be most in keeping with their own. As a result, I’ve always believed that allowing voters more choice, rather than limiting choices, has been the way to go. I continue to believe this.

As a result, it would seem that Elizabeth May’s call for the Green Party and the NDP to sit out the Etobickoke Centre by-election (if there is to be one) would accomplish the exact opposite of allowing voters an opportunity to cast ballots for a candidate of their choice. That’s certainly Goldenberg’s assertion as well. However, what Goldenberg does not mention, and what may not be apparent to voters is the fact that no political party is required to run candidates in each and every riding in Canada, and in each and every election or by-election. While not running a candidate carries a certain risk for a political party (example: it could upset local supporters), there may be some very good reasons why a political party opts out of a particular race.

Doing What’s Right

One of those reasons might be that it’s more important to do what’s right than to do what it is politically expedient. And that appears to be the thrust of May’s call for the Greens and NDP to sit this one out, should there be a by-election in Etobicoke Centre.

It’s clear that May believes that a direct contest between Opitz and Wrzesnewskyj, between the existing and former MP’s, between the two parties (along with Elections Canada) at the centre of the recent legal proceedings, is the right thing to do. It’s reported that Wrzesnewskyj has spent several hundred thousand dollars of his own money to launch the legal challenge. In the specific circumstance of Etobicoke Centre, May appears to believe that the uniqueness of the unfolding narrative is enough to suggest that it’s right for the Liberals and Cons to go head to head, and to recommend that the Party which she leads opt not to run a candidate (and to call for the NDP to sit it out as well).

In my opinion, the argument isn’t the strongest one which can be made, although I do see May’s point. Certainly former Green and NDP candidates would still have the option to run as Independents if they didn’t agree with a future hypothetical decision of their parties to not field candidates in a future hypothetical by-election. In fact, with proper registration in place, and subject to meeting all legal criteria, just about anyone can run in the by-election. The future hypothetical decision of political parties need not actually deny providing voters with the choice which Goldenberg champions; such decisions would only limit the participation of political parties, and not the potential participation of candidates.

I, for one, don’t believe that co-operation amongst political parties is a dangerous idea at all. In fact, I see it happening every day, all over Canada. While parties may have fundamental differences with regards to numerous policy and process issues, the fact is that most elected MP’s in Canada share similar values which cross party lines. They often work together to better our nation. While co-operation might not be occurring as often as I’d like it, there’s no denying that it often does occur.

Goldenberg, however, criticizes May, calling her a “non-Conservative first, and a Green second”. It’s very clear to me that Goldenberg just doesn’t understand the Green Party of Canada, or Elizabeth May for that matter. May’s desire to work with the other parties, including Mr. Goldenberg, does not make her less of a partisan. It’s only indicative that she belongs to a party which values doing what is right for Canada above politics. Frankly, most of her Party shares these values, including rabid Green partisans like myself. For most of us, that’s why we’re here.

Right now, doing what’s right for Canada means doing everything possible to defeat Stephen Harper’s Conservatives – even if that means we must elect a Liberal in Etobicoke Centre. And this is where May’s argument for the Greens and NDP to sit out the by-election starts to make a little more sense. Although the Liberals, NDP and Green parties are not in ideological agreement on many issues, there is enough overlap to suggest to political supporters that any candidate put forward by these three parties would be preferable to electing a Conservative. So why not have the Greens and NDP back off in Etobicoke Centre, which would (in theory) increase the chance of victory for a Liberal?

Why Etobicoke Centre?

Well, isn’t it hypocritical for May to suggest electoral co-operation in Etobicoke Centre, but remain silent on non-hypothetical by-elections in Calgary Centre and Durham? May said nothing about co-operating with other parties there. Why is that?

Well, it’s not hypocritical in the slightest, because the circumstances in which by-elections have come about in Calgary Centre and Durham (as a result of the resignation of sitting MPs) are completely different than Etobicoke Centre (a court-challenge brought about by the losing candidate based on voting irregularities). The uniqueness of the Etobicoke Centre situation is enough to differentiate it from just about every other by-election in the history of Canada, as a by-election has never been ordered by our Supreme Court.

None of this means that May wouldn’t be open to the idea of electoral co-operation in Calgary Centre or Durham. It’s just that she’s not called for it, and she probably won’t. At least not until the other parties, particularly the NDP, shows it hand.

The NDP: In Whose Interests?

And this is yet another piece of May’s argument. Many NDP members and supporters have long called for some form of electoral co-operation amongst the centre-left political parties. Recently, NDP MP Nathan Cullen ran for the leadership of his party in part on the platform of having negotiating with the Liberals and Greens to have joint nomination contests at the riding level in Conservative-held ridings, so as to better be able to defeat Conservatives.

Look, this all comes down to the idea that the interests of Canada must outweigh the interests of any one political party. Many NDP supporters know this. And maybe the Liberals are starting to catch on too. Organizations like LeadNow are growing in numbers every day, because we all understand that unless the Conservatives are defeated, the Canada that we know and love will be transformed beyond our recognition should the Cons win another general election.

Yet the NDP’s new Leader, Thomas Mulcair, has unequivocally said that there will not be any co-operation between the NDP and the other political parties. Mulcair is more than willing to roll the dice and shoot for an outright NDP victory than to work with others to bring the Conservatives down. Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae described Mulcair as a “mini-Harper” when Mulcair was elected NDP Leader. There certainly appears to be a lot of truth to that, as the NDP has really emerged as the left-wing equivalent to the Conservatives, at least from a tactics point of view. I can’t understand why NDP supporters feel that their party is right to engage in negative attack ads, name-calling, and engaging in the politics of division, all in the name of achieving power.

Yet, it’s been my opinion that the NDP has really turned itself into a fierce electoral machine, obsessed only with achieving power, whatever the cost. The election of Mulcair as the new Party Leader only reinforced my opinion. I don’t think most NDP supporters realize this yet, but as the years go by, it’s likely going to become evident that the NDP’s interest in obtaining power will always outweigh their interest in Canada. In short, the NDP will continue to put partisan political gain ahead of doing what’s right.

And I’m sorry, but a political party obsessed with power (getting it and keeping it) is not going to help create the Canada that we should be building for our children.

So, will the NDP play ball in Etobicoke Centre? Probably not. Their candidate had a decent showing in the last election (7,000+ to Conservative Opitz 21,000+), and under Tom Mulcair, the NDP has found a new sort of hubris to accompany their quest for power. That they will not win Etobicoke Centre does not matter. That they be seen to be an active part of the political game is more important. That they may play foil to the Liberals by siphoning votes away from Wrzesnewskyj would also be seen as a benefit to the NDP, as the NDP stands to gain just as much (or more) through the destruction of the Liberal Party than the Conservatives do.

Really, for the NDP, as a political party, running a candidate in a riding which they won’t win is appears to be a no-brainer, once you understand that the NDP values its own success over Canada’s.

That’s a bold statement, but I’m still waiting for the NDP to prove me wrong. And as Elizabeth May points out, the unique circumstances of an Etobicoke Centre by-election are an excellent place for the NDP to start doing so. I just don’t think that they will.

Taking the High Road

Which brings me to my last reason regarding why Elizabeth May is calling for the Greens and NDP to sit out the by-election. Look, I’m a Green Party partisan, that’s pretty clear. But I also like to talk as straight as I can about what I see going on around me. Clearly, there’s a partisan motive at play for May and the Greens here too.

The fact is, the Green Party likely would not be competitive in Etobicoke Centre anyway, so really, there’s little to lose by sitting a by-election out. While by-elections do offer exposure for candidates, both locally and more broadly through the media, the fact of the matter is that the Etobicoke Centre by-election is going to play itself out as a clash of the titans between Opitz and Wrzesnewskyj, and any Green candidate will be lucky to receive a mention in the news media (do we really need more news articles whose last lines are “Also running for the Green Party is [insert mis-spelled name here]?)

Further, by-elections cost money. Sometimes, they cost even more money than a general election would in the same riding, because a party figures that more than just local eyes are watching by-elections (and that’s a good assumption to make). Normally, a by-election in a media-rich Toronto riding like Etobicoke Centre would be a gift for a smaller party like the Green Party, because any media exposure is going to be seen by a wider audience. For example, the Toronto Star is more likely to report on a by-election in Etobicoke Centre than they would be to provide coverage of this one riding in a general election.

And that’s why our very able candidate, Adriana Mugnatto-Hamu, had such a public profile in the March by-election in Toronto Danforth, Jack Layton’s old riding. Although that by-election was often portrayed as a straight contest between the NDP and Liberals, it was important for the Greens to show up and wave the flag. Doing so, however, cost money. A smaller party like the Green Party can only spend so much of our scarce resources in unwinnable ridings, just to wave the flag (and to get a little media coverage).

Etobicoke Centre would be another such riding. What would the Green Party lose if we sat this one out? Very little. We may upset some local supporters, and potentially a few active Greens who might have been toying with the idea of seeking the Party’s nomination to run, but even they might be able to see the greater good in opting out.

What’s to gain? Plenty. The Green Party is seen nationally as the Party that puts the interests of Canada ahead of partisan gain. By not running a candidate, the Party saves money and looks good doing it. And gains national media attention beyond what we could ever hope to achieve in a by-election. Now, when the press reports on the by-elections, there’s a greater chance that the Green Party’s decision to sit out Etobicoke Centre will continue to be mentioned. And no doubt some pundits will recall that Elizabeth May challenged Tom Mulcair and the NDP to sit it out as well, and they chose not to follow good advice, in the name of partisan gain.

I very much like the idea of educating NDP supporters about their party’s pursuit of power at all costs, even when it’s not in the interests of Canadians. Maybe I’ll be surprised by Tom Mulcair and the NDP, and watch as the NDP decides to sit out the by-election in Etobicoke Centre, or actually begin talking with the other parties about some sort of electoral co-operation for the upcoming general election. But I’m not holding my breath that organizations such as LeadNow are going to find much traction with the Mulcair’s NDP, even though those organizations tend to attract many partisan NDP supporters.

The Green Party: Doing Politics Differently

A couple of last items are worthy of note here. First, if you’re not a Green, you may find it interesting that May is calling on her own Party not to run a candidate in Etobicoke Centre. You may think that May could easily “make it so” by laying down the law “thou shalt not run”. Well, it doesn’t work that way in the Green Party of Canada, unlike in the other parties. While it’s true that May ultimately must sign the nomination papers of any would-be candidate (and withholding a signature would ultimately deny a candidate the ability to run as a Green), it’s actually the Party’s Federal Council which recommends a candidate to May, through the Nominations Committee. May would put herself at loggerheads with our member-elected Federal Council if she refused to sign the nomination papers of a candidate they had recommended. And although May also sits on Fed Council as Party Leader, she only has one vote. Ultimately, the decision to run a candidate in a by-election needs to be made by Fed Council, hopefully in consultation with a local electoral district association, if one exists.

The second point is that the Green Party members recently voted on two proposals regarding electoral co-operation with the NDP and Liberals (motions authorizing our Fed Council to negotiate with those two parties should the opportunity arise). Greens are thinking ahead about realistic and plausible opportunities for real electoral co-operation in advance of the 2015 general election. Again, we grassroots members are driving this process. The fact that Greens were casting ballots about electoral co-operation couldn’t have been far from May’s mind when she made her comments to the Globe & Mail about Etobicoke Centre. I am optimistic that one or both of the resolutions will be adopted by the Party at our upcoming General Meeting in Sidney, B.C. later in August. Interestingly, Liberal MP Stephane Dion, and former NDP MP (now Independent) Bruce Hyer, will be giving speeches at the BGM (I was about to write “will be joining Greens at the BGM”, but thought maybe that language was either too ambiguous, or just wishful thinking on my part!).

Note to Adam Goldenberg (and to other pundits who can’t help but view the world through blue-, red- or orange-coloured glasses), it’s time you try to make an effort and understand what being a Green is like. Maybe if a few more of you asked Greens how we think, you wouldn’t find yourself tied up in a pretzel, expounding about things like May’s call for electoral co-operation in Etobicoke Centre. We Greens value our party, but we inhabit an existence which is about so much more than mere politics. Adapting to the future is paramount, beyond obtaining power. If we can accomplish our desired outcomes through influence, education and co-operation, that’s all the power we need.

Smart play, Elizabeth May.

(opinions expressed are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with those of the Green Party of Canada)

Electoral Co-operation and a New Kind of Liberal Leadership Contest

Of all of the things which have been on my mind over the past few weeks, tonight I find myself writing about the Liberal Leadership campaign. Why on Earth do I think that’s important enough for a blog post, when there are no announced candidates, and the vote won’t be held until next spring? I’m not even a member of the Liberal Party.

Well, frankly, what happens with the Liberal leadership contest is important to me, as a Canadian, as former member of the Liberal Party of Canada, and as a current member of the Green Party of Canada. Events which have transpired over the past week have meant that the Liberal leadership race is going to start to get very interesting. First, the Party changed its rules in order to allow Interim Leader Bob Rae to run for the leadership. And then Bob Rae announced that he would stay on as Interim Leader and not run, but he didn’t clearly state why he came to that decision. The political pundits had a field day with his announcement.

With Bob Rae out of the contest, the race to become the next leader of the Liberals is on, and frankly rather wide open. Justin Trudeau hasn’t declared one way or the other, but the pressure will be on him now to jump in. Marc Garneau and Dominic Leblanc are two other MP’s currently sitting in the House who have expressed an interest in becoming the next Leader. And Martha Hall-Findlay and Gerard Kennedy, both of whom challenged for the Leadership in 2006, may be back again.

But why do I think it’s important for Canadians and Greens to pay attention to a race which hasn’t even started yet? Well, tonight I’m spending a few moments to craft this blog entry, as I’m inspired by a few items which I’ve stumbled across this evening.

Electoral Co-Operation

First, this excellent editorial from Tim Harper appeared in today’s Toronto Star (“Liberal leadership race needs a co-operation candidate”, Toronto Star, June 18 2012). Harper argues that a Nathan Cullen-like candidate who promotes electoral co-operation or an outright merger needs to be a part of any serious Liberal leadership race. What can I say other than I agree whole-heartedly with this sentiment, as did a significant number of NDP members (and not just those who endorsed Cullen either).

Credit has to go to Nathan Cullen as the elected Member of Parliament who kicked off the conversation about the need for the NDP, Liberals and Greens to get their (our) act together in time for the 2015 election, in order to oppose the ruling Conservatives. Cullen proposed that in those ridings held by Conservative MP’s, the NDP, Liberals and Greens jointly nominate a single candidate to take on the Conservatives. I’m not certain that I found myself in complete agreement with Cullen’s proposal (in fact, I think that it such an agreement was to be made between the three parties, it likely should be broader in scope; but, I’m also not completely sold on the notion of depriving voters the opportunity to vote for a Party of their choice. Although I did really like the idea of a joint nomination process for local candidates). But kudos to Cullen and many NDP members who want to put the interests of Canada ahead of the interests of their own Party.

Over time, I think its fair to say that I have started becoming a convert to the notion that it may be necessary to co-operate with the NDP in the 2015 election. As a former Liberal, I’ve always been very aware of the policy short-comings of the Liberal Party, but I’ve also had a pretty good feel for its strengths, and I think it’s fair to say that I’ve been much more comfortable with the Liberal policies than I have been with the NDP. Don’t misunderstand me: I think that both the Liberals and the NDP have a lot of policies which would be good for Canada. And I think that they’ve got a number of things wrong, too. But the NDP’s policies on a number of (important to me) environmental initiatives would be, in my opinion, quite dangerous if they were ever to be implemented.

However, I can’t help but acknowledge that the Conservatives are proving to be disastrous for Canada’s future, and after witnessing the completely unaccountable and undemocratic passage of Bill C-38, I guess it’s fair to say that my own priorities have started to shift from creating the Canada that we need for the future to trying to save the Canada that we have today. In short, Stephen Harper must be stopped before the Conservatives transform Canada into something unrecognizable. If that means that I’ll have to put away my partisan banners and flags for a while and work with the NDP, so be it.

Of course, the NDP has to want to work with the other parties. I appreciate that NDP Leader Tom Mulcair has a lot on his plate right now in terms of establishing himself as a Prime Minister-in-waiting. But the backroom operatives who might otherwise want to broker a co-operation deal appear to be silent. Perhaps they’re waiting for the Liberals to pick a new leader. If that’s the case, well, I guess there is still time.

The Green Party – Grassroots Democracy in Action

We Greens do things a lot differently than the other parties do, though. The conversation which the NDP had around electoral co-operation largely manifested itself through leadership contender Nathan Cullen. And likely the same will be true with regards to the Liberal Party, once a Co-operation candidate declares his or herself. The politics of co-operation, however, shouldn’t simply be personality-driven, the will of a Party’s membership should not be arbitrarily disregarded by a Party Leader. Let me be clear: I’m not saying that Tom Mulcair has ignored those NDP members who want electoral co-operation, because first of all, it’s not clear that he has ignored them, and second of all, it’s not clear what percentage of NDP members favour co-operation over a go-it-alone approach.

What I am saying is that the Green Party of Canada continues to be a leader when it comes to implementing grassroots democracy. We Greens continue to walk the talk. The second item which came to my attention today has to do with motions to be voted on by the Green Party’s membership. Greens will be gathering in Sidney, British Columbia in August for our Biennial General Meeting. Prior to this meeting, all Green members in good standing will have the opportunity to vote on numerous policy, constitutional and directive motions. Two motions in particular caught my eye, as they have to do with electoral co-operation.

Both motions are actually very similar, and if approved by the Green Party’s membership, they will have the effect of directing our Federal Council (the Green Party’s governing body) to enter into discussions with the Liberals and NDP about electoral co-operation in the next election. Both motions allow for an incredible amount of freedom for our Fed Council to negotiate with the other parties, insisting that the implementation of electoral reform by a new government be the only caveat.

If Greens support these motions, we will do so with the knowledge that these negotiations could potentially lead to very few, or zero, Green candidates running in the next federal election. We will essentially be giving our governing body the right to negotiate away our Party’s ability to participate in the next election, based only on a political promise made by the NDP and Liberals to implement electoral reform.

I, for one, will be supporting these motions. For all of the risk they pose to my Party’s continued relevance, and frankly, to its very existence, I firmly believe that the risk to Canada posed by another Conservative majority government is far greater.

I just hope that the Liberals and the NDP decide to come on board.

A New Kind of Liberal Leader

The Liberal Party of Canada in particular now has an opportunity to demonstrate some real leadership. Electoral reform has never been a priority of the Liberals; they’ve generally been satisfied with the anachronistic first-past-the-post electoral system which we rely on to elect MP’s in this country. Of course, the Liberals have also never found themselves as the third Party in parliament.

While the media has been very focussed on which big-name Liberals might step forward to challenge for the leadership, let us not forget that the Liberal Party recently changed the rules regarding who is able to vote for the Liberal leader. Now, anyone who identifies themselves as a “supporter”, and fills in a form on the internet will be able to vote in the Liberal leadership election. The old days of sending delegates to a convention to represent individual ridings – gone. Now, all voting can be done at home in front of a computer, by any Canadian who is interested in casting a ballot (as long as they’ve pre-registered, and are not a current member of another political party).

Bluegreenblogger Matthew Day refers to this as a “game changer” for the Liberal Party of Canada (see Day’s excellent blogpost “Complete Game-Changer for the Liberal Party: Supporter Votes for Leadership”, June 15 2012). I agree. What this change in voting rules does is it allows for a non-traditional candidate to emerge amongst Liberals. Potentially, this non-traditional candidate could be one whom relies less on traditional media to get the message out, and more on social media. Rather than being focused on personality, this non-traditional candidate can choose to focus on ideology. The candidate can focus on motivating new supporters to lend them a one-time vote, potentially with the promise of electoral co-operation with the NDP and Greens, at the price of electoral reform.

In the past, Liberal leadership candidates have had to raise significant dollars to remain viable. We keep hearing that money tends to win elections, but with the changes made by the Liberals, it is quite conceivable that a non-traditional candidate would be able to exploit users of social media networks with a conversation about ideas. Day says that Liberal Bloggers may find themselves on the frontlines in a tussle of opinion, rather than traditional media sources. I think that there’s some merit to that assertion, especially if a candidate who champions issues important to youth can emerge.

After all, how many votes will it take to elect a new Liberal Leader? The NDP elected Mulcair with what? About 60,000 ballots. Conceivably, a successful Liberal leadership challenger would want to shoot for about the same number. Is it not conceivable that NDP and Green members (or supporters) might opt in to becoming Liberal Party “supporters” in order to cast a ballot for a non-traditional candidate promising electoral co-operation and reform?

I think it’s very likely we’ll see this happening (and very likely too that the mainstream media won’t catch on until near the end of the leadership race). A new Liberal Leader, even one with significant non-traditional support, might not be in a position to become Canada’s next Prime Minister, but he or she would be in a position to make a strong case to Tom Mulcair that electoral co-operation between the Liberals, NDP and Greens makes sense for his Party too.

And it could very well lead to the NDP forming the next Government of Canada. And as much as I find that idea a little scary, I can tell you that I would find that prospect immanently preferable to four more years of Conservative destruction of my nation.

(opinions expressed are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with those of the Green Party of Canada)

Greater Sudbury at a Crossroads, Part 4: Towards a Green City

What kind of City do we want to inhabit in the future? If you ask that question to 20 different people, you’re likely to get 20 slightly different answers. However, studies have shown that generally speaking, there are really two different and competing visions which shape our perception and desires about a City of Tomorrow.

The first vision looks backwards in time to a romanticized notion of suburbia. Parents can feel safe with the kids playing outside in the large backyards of single-family homes built in low-density subdivisions (which are still quite close to employment, recreation and shopping opportunities). For many of us, this is the sort of City in which we grew up, or continue to inhabit. Indeed, had I been asked this question 20 years ago, I probably would have described my ideal future city in this way too. I would have based my future hopes and expectations upon an idealized version of my past experiences.

For others, though, the City of Tomorrow is a much more complicated place, mixing the old with the new. Often, this competing vision offers a more vibrant alternative, one with more options for just about everything. Usually, the built form environment is more diverse and perhaps a little more crowded. There is a healthy balance between the familiar and the unknown. Still, for all of that, the vision is pleasing to the senses, and exciting to think about.

This vision looks ahead towards a romanticized notion of what an ideal City could be if we started building what some have called a Green City. It’s romanticized, of course, because we often don’t envision how the sunk costs of yesterday’s poor decisions might effect the shape of the City itself. As much as we might want to build and inhabit a truly Green City, there is no denying that Suburbia, both as a built form and as an aspirational construct, is a constraint.

Complete Communities

Complete communities are those which can best support public transit, cycling and walking. They are characterized by mixed uses and have compact development at higher densities. They are the most economically viable form of development currently available to us, costing taxpayers less per capita to maintain than suburban and exurban sprawl. Aside from Greater Sudbury’s downtown, there are few areas within the greater City which can lay claim to being “complete” (and even the downtown is hampered by hard-edged geographic barriers like rock faces and rail road tracks, and a lack of housing opportunities; however, things are starting to change).

Our resources are only going to get scarcer over time. With only modest growth expected over the next 20 years, existing taxpayers will be the ones on the hook to shoulder the majority of the City’s public expenses (whereas other communities might experience more of a winfall through development charges, something which Greater Sudbury would be wise to embrace to a more significant degree than has happened in the past). The intensification and redevelopment of existing urban areas which does not require the extension of servicing or the creation of new transportation routes should therefore be a priority for new development.

Suburbia

For too long we have relied on greenfield sites on the fringes of our communities for inefficient and economically ineffective low-density development. Largely, rationale has consisted of the notion that the market has demanded this form of development, but increasingly that’s not the case, if it ever was. To a large degree, the suburban development form has been shaped by the developers themselves, due to costs. In short, it has always been (and continues to be) less expensive to build single family dwellings on large lots in suburban subdivisions. Many of the real costs of suburban development (such as road maintenance and service delivery) are actually paid for by municipal taxes, and not directly by developers/homeowners. In these situations, profits are privatized while costs are socialized.

But there is obviously some truth to the idea that the market plays a role when it comes to determining where people will live. If the demand wasn’t there, people wouldn’t be buying these homes. Housing demands, however, have started to shift, especially as our population ages, and as recognition of our changed economic circumstance takes hold. It is no longer affordable for people living on fixed incomes, or families with less purchasing power, to continue to live in a suburban setting, particularly when motorized transportation costs are high, and alternative transportation options are low or non-existent.

And municipalities are discovering that it’s no longer economic to continue to ask taxpayers to further subsidize residents of sprawling low density subdivisions. The argument that property taxes derived from new subdivisions will more than pay for subdivision upkeep over time has been discredited. Instead, many municipalities have begun promoting more intense, economically sustainable forms of development in preference to suburbia. Development does not always pay for itself, and this is particularly true for suburban and rural residential development.

Howard Kuntsler, author of “The Geography of Nowhere” and “The Long Emergency” described today’s suburbs as becoming tomorrow’s slums, because he believed that in a low-energy future, only the least economically well-off would choose to live in areas where getting around is difficult. Kuntsler pictured the poor hiking for kilometres from the shambling suburbs into the heart of an intensified city centre to work, shop and potentially sell their wares (agricultural goods grown on what used to be front and back lawns, which would possibly be the only advantage the ‘burbs would have over intensified city cores in a low-energy future).

I’m not sure that I completely agree with Kuntsler’s vision of the future, as I think that some suburbs will continue to be viable, particularly those inhabited by wealthy elites. However, for the most part, our experiment with suburbanization has proven to be a significant sunk cost challenge to creating a healthy and vibrant City which will meet our future needs. I’m not, however, suggesting that we can abandon the suburbs, but I am suggesting that Greater Sudbury’s suburbs will need to change if we are going to position ourselves for economic success.

Champions of Change?

Change, of course, poses a threat to anyone who is directly impacted. What should not be lost, however, is that change can also create opportunities. Those suburban dwellers who worry about decreasing property values as a result of intensification projects in established low-density areas may very well be surprised to discover that studies show, generally speaking, the value of their properties actually tend to increase. Still, it’s hard to make this point when strong emotions are in play.

We saw some of those strong emotions last week, when the residents of Alice Street and environs attended a Planning Committee meeting to oppose the construction of a 11-storey (shortened to 7-storey) residential condominium project fronting on Long Lake Road. The lands in question have long been an area designated for intensification and redevelopment, and the proposal which was submitted to the City was determined to be in keeping with the long-term goals and objectives of the City’s Official Plan. In short, this was the right development in the right location. Yet, Planning Committee voted 4-1 to turn it down.

Why did our decision-makers vote to favour the status quo in that circumstance, despite the clear evidence that the Alice Street condo is exactly the sort of development we need in our future? Well, earlier I wrote about the need for political champions and fostering political will. Right now, when it comes to building a Greater Sudbury which meets the needs of tomorrow, champions and political will are both in short supply in this City.

It’s fair to say that there have been a number of recent development proposals which were recommended by municipal staff as being in keeping with the City’s Official Plan which have been turned down by our elected decision-makers. A medium-density subdivision on Howey Drive near the Carmichael Arena in Minnow Lake which would have seen the creation of 600+ dwellings was refused in the fall of 2011. When a lower-density version returned for consideration this past spring, it too was refused. While it may be that environmental considerations hadn’t been fully explored, the fact is that traffic on Howey Drive was cited as the primary reason for refusal.

Roundabout Decisions

Lately, there has also been a lot of talk about building more roundabouts to facilitate the flow of motorized vehicular traffic. Indeed, the original proposal for the Minnow Lake subdivision would have seen the creation of a roundabout on Howey Drive in front of the Carmichael Arena. We’ve also been hearing about roundabouts proposed on Maley Drive. Last week, the Minnow Lake CAN held a meeting to discuss access options for a subdivision which included a roundabout proposed for the Second Avenue/Bancroft intersection in the heart of Minnow Lake.

Roundabouts may be good at facilitating the continuing flow of vehicular traffic, but they create significant barriers for pedestrians and safety risks for cyclists. Along high volume corridors, pedestrians tend to rely on signalized intersections or crosswalks to access the other side of a busy street. Since the whole purpose of roundabouts is to facilitate the flow of traffic in all directions by removing stoplights, pedestrians are offered fewer safe opportunities to cross streets.

In short, roundabouts are exactly the worst kind of intersection one could design if the priority is building Complete communities which are walkable and which support alternative forms of transportation. Since Complete communities are what we must strive for to best meet our future needs, it only makes sense that we facilitate development which promotes their creation. And installing roundabouts does the exact opposite!

Building Complete communities does not mean that we have to throw open the door to high-density development. There are often legitimate issues which need to be addressed (or which can not be appropriately mitigated) which may stand in the way of a particular development proposal. Looking back at the Minnow Lake subdivision, two issues in particular were identified by the public and Planning Committee as being problematic to its success, despite the fact that the lands had been set aside for development for decades, as acknowledged in the City’s Official Plan (the “public promise” document).

The Minnow Lake Subdivision: A Case Study

First and foremost, there were concerns made with regards to traffic along Howey Drive. The second issue had everything to do with the development’s proximity to Ramsey Lake, and the perceived unknown effects that it would have on lake water quality. Were these real issues, or just manufactured by residents and others who opposed the subdivision? In my opinion they were clearly real issues, because they hadn’t received the benefit of a complete assessment. In short, the impacts of the development on traffic and lake water quality were unknown at the time when decisions were made.

That’s just my opinion, though. The developer did everything which was required by the process, and provided reports related to traffic and water quality and quantity. Why then do I think it’s fair to say that the anticipated impacts of that development proposal were unknown when it went in front of Planning Committee for a decision?

Well, let’s look at traffic. Yes, a traffic study was prepared and reviewed by the City’s traffic experts, and it was determined that the subdivision’s impacts on traffic would be within acceptable limits. Yet, with other vacant lands having received development approvals in the recent past (3 17-storey towers between Howey and Brady) and with new applications moving forward elsewhere along the corridor proposing connections to Howey/Bancroft not included in the developer’s study (which isn’t to fault the developer, because there was no requirement to do so), the true impacts from traffic generated by new development remain unknown. This was disconcerting to area residents, the Ward Councillors, and ultimately to Planning Committee.

With regards to lake water quality, the Official Plan establishes a regime that promotes looking at water quality and quantity on a watershed basis. The Plan calls for the preparation of a subwatershed plan for Ramsey Lake, in order to map out how lake water quality is being negatively impacted, and how those negative impacts could be mitigated in the future. As one of the City of Greater Sudbury’s primary drinking water sources, it’s fair to say that Ramsey Lake’s water quality is an important issue for a significant number of Greater Sudburians.

Of course, studies were completed by the developer to determine that any impacts on water quality would be within acceptable limits. But again, the real issue here is bigger than any one development proposal. As with traffic on Howey Drive, is it perhaps more appropriate to look at water quality impacts in a comprehensive way, given that Ramsey Lake is a drinking water source?

Is it enough to look at the expected impacts from a specific development in isolation of other proposals, and/or in absence of “big picture” technical information, such as a complete corridor traffic study or a subwatershed study? The Official Plan says, for the most part, that it is ok to look at development proposals in isolation of this bigger-picture frame of reference; as long as the specific technical details are covered off, we can move forward. Of course, residents and others impacted by this fairly narrow approach clearly didn’t agree, and ultimately convinced Planning Committee to prefer their point of view over the Official Plan’s.

The Importance of the Official Plan

With the need to look at development as part of a larger picture in mind, how then can decision-makers move forward towards sound decisions on any one particular proposal? The answer is that decisions should be guided by sensible development policies. In Greater Sudbury, the policy document which is used to guide development is supposed to be the Official Plan. But where does following the Official Plan leave decision-makers when plan policies appear to no longer make sense (traffic on Howey Drive precluding further development), or are not being implemented (as in the case of the Lake Ramsey subwatershed study)?

The Minnow Lake subdivision fell victim to the legitimate uncertainties raised by the public regarding the issues of traffic and water quality impacts. The developer did all that was required to receive a favourable approval (and indeed, municipal staff recommended just that), and the lands were determined by the Official Plan to be suitable to the form of development proposed. Yet Planning Committee refused the applications. Twice. They broke the public promise contained in the Official Plan on which the developer had invested significant resources with the expectation of a promise being kept.

It’s a good thing, I think, that the City’s Official Plan is now being reviewed, as it’s clear to me that the policies of the Plan aren’t doing all that they could and should be doing to guide development. Indeed, I believe that to a not insignificant degree, the promise which the City’s Official Plan has made to the City (residents and developers) is becoming harder to keep by elected officials because the promise itself is, in many cases, wrong. In many respects, the City’s Official Plan is more of a snap-shot of the past, and where it does look ahead, it offers largely a status-quo-supporting vision of the future. It is not a comprehensive framework for building the Green City of Tomorrow.

I sincerely hope that the 5-year review of the Plan will produce a more useful document which will assist with guiding decision-makers to make decisions which lead to the creation of a more Complete and Green Greater Sudbury. To do so, though, the Plan will have to recognize that not all locations which have been historically set aside for development remain viable today. Hard decisions should be made regarding development opportunities. But if we truly want to outcomes which deliver the best benefits, those decisions are going to have to be made. Decisions which promote development at all costs usually have hidden costs attached which are picked up by taxpayers.

Breaking Promises

Of course, the Official Plan could have all the best policies in the world, but if decision-makers continue to ignore those policies and break their public promise, the Plan itself isn’t going to matter much. That’s not the way decisions are supposed to be made with regards to development, but all too often it’s the way they are made in reality (and not just in Greater Sudbury).
However, to provide a Greater Sudbury example, there is an outright prohibition for new development to occur within floodplains. Yet application after application which would see development in floodplains receives approval. Based on an analysis of long-term trends, we know that we can expect more frequent and stronger flooding events to occur in the future. Why, for goodness sakes, armed with this knowledge, do we continue to allow development in floodplains? Particularly when taxpayers are going to be the ones to pick up at least a part of the tab to rebuild infrastructure harmed by flooding?

Why do our elected officials continue to break sensible promises about not allowing development in floodplains?

Seizing the Day

Greater Sudbury is truly at a crossroads. Trends have been identified at local, regional and global levels which will impact the shape of our City, the lives of residents, and the economic prosperity of our businesses and industry. The decisions which are made today will have lasting effects on us and on our children. We can choose to continue to make decisions in an ad hoc manner, favouring the existing status quo. Or we can begin to make decisions as if the future really mattered to us, and strive to create a more Complete and Green City, better equipped to meet the needs of tomorrow.
It’s important to do things right the first time, as decisions lead to the investment of sunk costs which, once made, can be very difficult and expensive to un-make. Decisions should be guided by comprehensive planning which requires the assessment of all anticipated impacts as a starting point. Decision-makers need to become champions of a Green City and begin the process of building political will amongst the electorate. Elected officials will need to be assisted in this task by other community leaders and advocates. Public opinion can shift over time, especially if concerted efforts are made to do so.

Budgetary priorities must shift in order to keep pace with the changing needs of the community. The prioritization of motorized vehicular traffic must take a back seat to building complete communities for people instead of cars. The needs of transit riders, cyclists and pedestrians should increasingly become the focus of decision-making. Decisions, once made, should be implemented, and promises made to the public should be kept.

We’ve already made some good efforts to find a sustainable way forward. The City’s Downtown Master Plan and Brownfields Community Improvement Plan represent innovative and cost-effective ways to altering our built environment in line with Green City ideals. Bringing the Laurentian University School of Architecture to the City’s downtown core will add to growing vibrancy of the heart of our City. Housing initiatives in Chelmsford and other outlying areas which allow seniors to continue to live in their home communities while receiving appropriate services present opportunities for residents to age in place.

We need to continue building upon the successes we’ve achieved so as to maintain the momentum forward. Armed with the knowledge that tomorrow will not be like yesterday, the way forward is clear. And the time to plan for a low-energy future is clearly at hand.

(opinions expressed are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with those of the Green Party of Canada)

Greater Sudbury at a Crossroads, Part 3: Planning to Get Around in the City of Tomorrow

Here in Greater Sudbury, we know full well that there are a number of things which we must do in order to create a city which will meet our future needs. Our ability to do so, however, is limited by a number of factors, including a lack of leadership, and a lack of public demand for change which may deviate from the way in which things happened in the past. Physically, the shape of the City is impacted by the sunk costs of our existing built form, including our public service infrastructure and transportation routes. However, there’s no way around working within the existing built context, so what we must focus on now is how best to move forward based on the past decisions which have shaped our City.

One of the macro trends which we will need to address has to do with transportation. With fewer people driving less often, due to rising fuel prices and reduced purchasing power, we can expect the way that we get around the City to begin to change. Over the past 5 or 6 decades, it’s fair to say that the Car has been King in Greater Sudbury. That’s going to change, although there will continue to be a need to plan for vehicular traffic. Cars aren’t going to vanish off of our roads any time soon.

But more of us will be choosing alternative forms of transportation in the future, to get us to work and to school, to recreational opportunities and for shopping. Transit, cycling and walking will increasingly play more important roles for getting around the City, even for those who own personal vehicles. This change to the way we get around will certainly create some challenges for us, based on our past investments in transportation infrastructure which tended to favour cars over people.

Roads Roads Roads…and Traffic!

We know that there is a need for change, based on local, regional and global trends. With this knowledge, it’s time that we started taking a close look at investing in the sort of infrastructure which will best meet our needs. Right now, there are a number of significant road improvement and creation projects which, taken together, will likely cost several hundreds of millions of dollars to complete. Building the Maley Drive extension alone may cost upwards of $100 million. The widening of Howey Drive and building the Barrydowne Expressway linking New Sudbury and Hanmer aren’t even identified as being in the top 5 road priorities of our current Council. Who is going to pay for these upgrades and new roads?

A better question is, are all of these new projects really necessary given the future in which we are likely to find ourselves? This is certainly a difficult question to answer from all but a rational viewpoint. With only modest population growth projected over the next 20 years, and with an anticipated decline in personal vehicle use, Greater Sudbury’s traffic circumstance will not substantially change over the next 20 years. If anything, there’s an outside chance that vehicular traffic flow might actually improve, even with a modest increase in population.

Of course, it’s not politically expedient to tell Greater Sudburians not to worry too much about roads and traffic. You see, many residents suggest that traffic is already pretty bad in our community, and that we need to be doing a lot more to address existing issues. Generally, I don’t agree with that sentiment, although I have to acknowledge that my own opinion is influenced by having grown up in the suburban Greater Toronto Area, to which I can’t help but constantly draw a comparison. In that light, trust me, we’ve got things pretty good here.

But all perception is relative. What we can expect, though, is that certain areas of the City will continue to be more adversely impacted by traffic than others. Take, for example, the recent approval of three 17-storey residential towers located between Howey Drive and Brady Street. The influx of future residents into this area will almost certainly have impacts on local traffic circumstances, and indeed those impacts will likely be felt as far away as Bancroft Drive and the Kingsway.

Shifting Transportation Priorities to meet Changing Transport Needs

Building new roads, or expanding additional roads, however, is not always the answer, and indeed, it should not be the answer for Greater Sudbury. While we can not simply ignore problem areas like the Howey Drive/Bancroft corridor, or the Lasalle/Notre Dame intersection, there must be a shift in the sort of investments which we make in transportation infrastructure. If the future needs of the community are going to see a rise in the number of trips made by transit/cycling/walking, we need to up the investment ante for infrastructure which supports mobility which doesn’t rely on personal vehicle ownership.

There will be significant challenges. While we must start thinking about more and better bus routes as part of a comprehensive and sustainable transportation system, creating a robust public transit system will be difficult due to Greater Sudbury’s geography and the sprawling nature of our communities. Truly sustainable public transport relies on densities which are much higher than those currently present in our community. As a result, Greater Sudburians may need to subsidize transit at a higher level than our tax dollars have been doing, in order to create a system which serves a greater number of users.

Opportunities for Cycling Infrastructure

We must also invest in safe and accessible cycling infrastructure, primarily on existing public roads where expenses could be minimized. We often think about the need for the physical expansion of existing roadways to accommodate bike lanes, but the reality is that’s not always the best, or least expensive option. It’s always best to look for opportunities which make the most economic sense when it comes to creating/expanding infrastructure, and there are significant opportunities for increasing cycling capacity in Greater Sudbury which will not cost very much at all.

Interestingly, it was our past desire to make the car King in Greater Sudbury which created a low-cost opportunity to significantly enhance cycling infrastructure in the City today. In our desire to facilitate an ever-faster flow of vehicular traffic, many of Greater Sudbury’s major and minor arterial roads have centre-turning lanes. These lanes have allowed for the flow of traffic to continue unimpeded by left-turning vehicles. As a driver, I can attest that these lanes are a wonderful luxury, and that they probably save a couple of minutes off of any trip which I make in my car. I can also attest that the profligacy of these lanes is quite unusual. While many cities do have centre turning lanes on their busy thoroughfares (Kingsway-equivalent streets), it’s unusual to see find them on so many streets within a city. Here in Greater Sudbury, we’ve come to think of these centre-turning lanes as normal, but the fact is, they’re not. They are a unique luxury.

And they truly are a luxury in more ways than just the experiential. Indeed, our tax dollars have long been supporting their maintenance and upkeep through line painting and snowplowing. In other cities, a Walford Road-equivalent street likely would not include centre-turning lanes, yet we here in Greater Sudbury have chosen to use our tax dollars to maintain a centre-turning lane on Walford, largely for the benefit of a small number of homeowners who may save 30 to 60 seconds of time exiting and entering their driveways. Are these left-turning lanes returning good value for our taxpayers dollars?

In some cases, such as on the Kingsway and maybe Lasalle, the answer is probably yes, or certainly it feels like it should be. However, as the needs of the public begin to shift, we must look for cost-effective opportunities to build transportation infrastructure to better address tomorrow’s needs. And many of these centre-turning lanes represent low-cost opportunities for the creation of cycling infrastructure.

It’s actually not a far-fetched idea at all, and indeed there is local precedent. What little cycling infrastructure we have in the City on the Howey/Bellvue/Bancroft corridor came about by removing centre turning-lanes (really, just stripping off paint and painting new lines elsewhere). There was no costly physical expansion made to these existing corridors to achieve the outcome of providing marked cycling infrastructure.

As our priorities shift, Walford Road, Falconbridge, Regent Street, Barrydowne and Lasalle are all prime locations for the installation of bike lanes.

Cycling infrastructure, however, must be connective and comprehensive, and attitudes towards on-street cycling must change (and here I am not just talking about the attitudes of those that drive cars; I also am referring to the attitudes of those who ride bikes). As more people choose to cycle in our community, I am confident that as a critical mass of cyclists on our roadways is achieved, attitudes will change.

Walkability

Pedestrian infrastructure has long been ignored in our City. New subdivisions have often been constructed with sidewalks on only one side of the road, or none at all. There are many parts of the City where getting around on foot feels dangerous. Even where sidewalks exist, they are often in a state of bad repair, or they have been designed in such a way that they are difficult to walk on (especially by the elderly) because of slopes which favour vehicle ingress/egress over walking (I’m sure you’re familiar with these camel-humped sidewalks).

Walking is impeded throughout the City by the continued prioritization of vehicular flow over all other means of transport. Intersections are primarily signalized to favour cars over pedestrians. Indeed, there are many intersections which restrict where, exactly, pedestrians are able to cross. In some cases, pedestrians may be required to traverse an intersection up to three times, just to carry on their journey forward! Traffic engineers may argue that these restrictions have to do with safety, and that may even be true to a degree, but it’s only because we have prioritized the needs of fast-moving cars ahead of walking.

As our needs and priorities shift, we will assuredly slow down the flow of traffic in our City. Cyclists and pedestrians are able to get around more safely when traffic is moving at a slower rate. As much as it may gall those like me who drive a car, the fact is that we are going to have to get used to lower speeds in the future. We can at least take comfort in the knowledge that we are trading a few seconds of our time as vehicle drivers for what will likely amount to minutes worth of time for pedestrians and cyclists.
And since the vast majority of us are also pedestrians and cyclists at times, we may actually be saving ourselves time by slowing down.

The maintenance of existing and installation of new sidewalks should also become a priority, particularly in locations where pedestrians may be accessing transit. Far too often we see bus stops on the side of a road opposite a sidewalk, with those waiting to ride the bus forced to figure out the safest place to wait. Further, cross-walks which provide pedestrians with a safe means of accessing the opposite sides of busy streets between intersections are also needed. They will, however, have to be designed much more efficiently than the crosswalk on Lasalle Boulevard, opposite the Wal-Mart, at which pedestrians are often forced to wait for minutes to cross after pushing the button.

Looking Ahead

The decisions we make today will continue to impact us years into the future, as we sink investments into new projects. Once those costs are sunk, it’s very difficult to justify a change in course. In many respects, we are today still trying to come to terms with many of the less-than optimal development decisions which were made in the past, particularly those decisions which favoured personalized motor vehicle transport as a means of getting around. Looking ahead, as our priorities shift, we will need to start making different decisions which facilitate alternative means of transportation. We must start making those decisions today, or risk paying more in the future to correct the mistakes we’ll now make. Armed with the knowledge of what the future is likely to hold for us, there really is no longer any reason to think that pedestrian and cycling infrastructure can continue to be treated as an afterthought.

Starting today, the needs of pedestrians and cyclists must be taken into consideration at all times when transportation-related decisions are made. For too long, we’ve justified ignoring the needs of pedestrians and cyclists because there hasn’t been a particularly high number of either using transportation infrastructure, mainly because of the relative affordability of car ownership, and the development decisions which were made which lead to the creation of very low density subdivisions on the fringes of urban areas. We know now, however, that tomorrow is not going to be like yesterday, and we should planning for tomorrow’s needs.

(opinions expressed are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with those of the Green Party of Canada)