(originally posted at: http://www.greenparty.ca/)
I read with interest today a column from yesterday's Toronto Star, in which Star reporter Leslie Scrivener interviews Canadian journalist-turned-author Victor Malarek about his new book, “The Johns: Sex for Sale and the Men Who Buy It” (http://www.thestar.com/article/617144). In the interview, Malarek discusses his concerns regarding legalizing prostitution, and instead makes a case that legal reform is necessary, but only up to a point. He points out that Sweden has decriminalized prostitution for women, but has aggressively been targetting the Johns who use prostitutes.
Malarek's views are insightful, even though they may not be in keeping with what many of us believe about prostitution. His views are that men have always gained the most out of prostitution, calling prostitution “the world's oldest oppression”. He argues that those parts of the world, such as Amsterdam, which legalized prostitution are now kicking themselves, because women are still being controlled by pimps, and drug problems are rampant.
Many in the Green Party might be surprised to discover that the Green Party of Canada now supports the legalization of prostitution, through the adoption of Resolution G08-p014 by internet voting last summer, and recently ratified at the February policy convention. Many who might be concerned about the rights of women might find this resolution interesting, and either a step in the right direction, or the wrong direction. After reading Leslie Scrivener's interview of Victor Malarek, I've no doubt that Malarek's reaction to our new policy would be similar to my own: absolutely appalled.
I have to tell you that I've only recently begun looking into the issue of legalizing prostitution. This all came about when a member of my EDA Executive brought this “green lighted” policy to my attention back in January, and had a conversation explaining to me why this was a very bad direction for the Party to be going in with regards to the rights of women. Legalizing prostitution, he explained, only leads to more situations of abuse, which may seem counter-intuitive. I challenged him and suggested that if prostitution were turned into a legal industry or profession which could be regulated and taxed, wouldn't that be better for everyone?
It might be better for those prostitutes who would qualify for the legal protection of the state, but what legalization will do is create an atmosphere, perhaps even a society of acceptance. My friend pointed to the experience of Amsterdam as an example, much as Victor Malarek has done. There, in part through the sex trade, Amsterdam has become an internatinal sex tourism destination, and prostitution is accepted by all as the “new normal”. And while many sex trade workers might have benefitted from government regulation (such as through health coverage and testing), the experience of many, many more women has been quite different. As demand for sex workers increased, women from elsewhere have been brought in illegally, to service demand. And these women and children continue to be exploited.
My friend also took issue with the second point about taxation. While certainly legalized sex trade workers could assist the national economy through payment of taxes (and receive benefits such as health care, worker's compensation, etc), is this something which the state really wants to get itself involved with? In essence, we would be living off of the avails of prostitution in the much the same way that we currently rely on taxation from tobacco. Why on earth would we want to look for new revenue sources from things like this?
And that's what really got me thinking, and investigating. I understand that there are multiple sides to this issue, and many passionate voices out there who are either completely for or against the legalization of prostitution. Many people believe it will be a benefit to our society to legalize and regulate prostitution. Others, such as my friend, and Victor Malarek, and myself, disagree.
But whatever your views on this issue, you have got to acknowledge that our new policy which supports the legalization of prostitution is going to be extremely problematic for this Party.
Prostitution is simply one of those emotional wedge issues which can turn voters away in droves. For many, there can be no rational argument or debate about this issue: legalization is either right and should have happened a long time ago, or it's wrong and how on earth could I ever support the Green Party if they are going to be the champions for the oppression of women and children?
If we are to grow as a Party, we need to attract voters who are generally more conservative in outlook, because the left is already a very crowded place to be. And not to suggest that all of those on the left are of the same opinion on the issue of legalized prostitution, but certainly those on the right tend to identify themselves more as anti-legalizers. With this notion in mind, we gain nothing from having adopted such a divisive emotional policy.
Further, after our good showing in the last election, there is no way that all of the other parties are going to let us get off scott-free in the next election. Many of our policies, from carbon taxation to proportional representation to income splitting, are going to be offered up by the other parties as reasons to voters to give the Greens a pass in the next election. We're already going to have our hands full offering priority policies to voters and defending from the attacks of other parties. Why on earth, then, have we handed the other parties this emotional-based wedge issue with which to hit us over the head with?
We will turn off voters as a result of this new policy. Already, we are losing members.
I note that in the convention's minutes there was discussion about policy development during those periods between conventions, and that a process might be set up for membership to offer new policies and presumably review existing ones. That process needs to be kick-started before the next general election so that this policy can be revisited by Party membership.
Remember, this policy was adopted through our very cumbersome online voting process; it did not receive the benefit of any personal debate.
I believe it is the wrong policy for our Party at any time, but especially at this time when so many voices, such as Victor Malarek's, are now just starting to be heard about the fiasco which sex trade legalization has caused elsewhere in the world.
And the last thing this Party needs is a liberal candidate (or the media) somewhere out there telling voters that the Greens are going to finance all of those new alternative energy projects by taxing prostitutes.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Greater Sudbury and the Green Economy: What We Have to Offer
(originally posted at S.A.G.E.: Sudbury Advocates for the Green Economy, Facebook Group)
The Toronto Star trumpets: “1,200 green jobs in the works for Kingston”. What can I say? I’m very happy for Kingston, a City with a population of about 120,000, located approximately 3 hours away from Toronto. Seems to me that building high-tech solar panels using cutting-edge robotics will benefit their municipal economy by providing employment opportunities with very good wages. That’s what the green economy is all about.
And Kingston appears to be strategically positioned to take advantage of the green economy. It’s a medium-sized Canadian city with good access by road and rail to other markets (notably Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal via the rail corridor). It has a number of institutes of higher education, including Queens University. It has a highly-trained workforce in place. It’s a good place to raise a family, as home prices aren’t as silly as they are in the Greater Toronto Area, and just outside of the City are many opportunities for recreation. It’s got that Quality of Life thing going on.
All of what I just wrote about applies equally to the City of Greater Sudbury, except that part about the 1,200 green jobs coming to town. But what’s ultimately good for Kingston can as well be good for Sudbury, because the more the message gets out that the green economy isn’t just about businesses in Toronto, the stronger that message becomes.
The City of Greater Sudbury, in many respects, is already investment-ready. We’re lucky enough to have a lot of planned infrastructure already in the ground. We have a tremendously skilled workforce on which to draw on. We have Laurentian University, College Boreal and Cambrian College to form business partnerships with (and they’ve been doing a decent job of it already). Our City has become a centre of excellence for the arts community, and remain a top tourism draw. We have access to markets across Canada with the Trans-Canada highway going through town, and more importantly for the Green Economy, we’ve got access to both of Canada’s major rail lines. We’ve faced a significant environmental catastrophe and have emerged stronger and greener as a result.
A lot has been going on to attract new business initiatives to our City, and those sorts of activities need to continue. We can’t lose sight of the successes we’ve already had. But nor can we rest on our laurels. Largely, we remain an undiscovered secret in Ontario, and in Canada, even though we have so much to brag about.
And we need to start doing some of that bragging, which can translate into economic opportunities such as that to now be enjoyed by the people of Kingston. Our business leaders, our municipal councillors, and all other leaders within our community need to continue to trumpet Greater Sudbury’s successes to potential investors, and actively engage green businesses with the goal of selling them on Sudbury’s incredible advantages.
I often hear from my fellow citizens that Sudbury has nothing to offer, that there’s nothing going on here. I want to tell them to open their eyes and look at all that is going on here, from the high-tech discoveries made at the SNO-lab in Creighton Mine, to the expansion of the arts community, downtown revitalization, the development of the Centre for Excellence in Mining innovation, green building initiatives, the reforestation of a whole community, Science North...the list goes on and on. Most other cities in Ontario would be extremely jealous of all that we have to offer our citizens and business community. If they’re not jealous already, it’s only because they’re unaware of what we’ve got going on up here.
Let’s continue to talk-up our town, and make connections with the business leaders of the green economy. Surely only good things can come of that.
The Toronto Star trumpets: “1,200 green jobs in the works for Kingston”. What can I say? I’m very happy for Kingston, a City with a population of about 120,000, located approximately 3 hours away from Toronto. Seems to me that building high-tech solar panels using cutting-edge robotics will benefit their municipal economy by providing employment opportunities with very good wages. That’s what the green economy is all about.
And Kingston appears to be strategically positioned to take advantage of the green economy. It’s a medium-sized Canadian city with good access by road and rail to other markets (notably Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal via the rail corridor). It has a number of institutes of higher education, including Queens University. It has a highly-trained workforce in place. It’s a good place to raise a family, as home prices aren’t as silly as they are in the Greater Toronto Area, and just outside of the City are many opportunities for recreation. It’s got that Quality of Life thing going on.
All of what I just wrote about applies equally to the City of Greater Sudbury, except that part about the 1,200 green jobs coming to town. But what’s ultimately good for Kingston can as well be good for Sudbury, because the more the message gets out that the green economy isn’t just about businesses in Toronto, the stronger that message becomes.
The City of Greater Sudbury, in many respects, is already investment-ready. We’re lucky enough to have a lot of planned infrastructure already in the ground. We have a tremendously skilled workforce on which to draw on. We have Laurentian University, College Boreal and Cambrian College to form business partnerships with (and they’ve been doing a decent job of it already). Our City has become a centre of excellence for the arts community, and remain a top tourism draw. We have access to markets across Canada with the Trans-Canada highway going through town, and more importantly for the Green Economy, we’ve got access to both of Canada’s major rail lines. We’ve faced a significant environmental catastrophe and have emerged stronger and greener as a result.
A lot has been going on to attract new business initiatives to our City, and those sorts of activities need to continue. We can’t lose sight of the successes we’ve already had. But nor can we rest on our laurels. Largely, we remain an undiscovered secret in Ontario, and in Canada, even though we have so much to brag about.
And we need to start doing some of that bragging, which can translate into economic opportunities such as that to now be enjoyed by the people of Kingston. Our business leaders, our municipal councillors, and all other leaders within our community need to continue to trumpet Greater Sudbury’s successes to potential investors, and actively engage green businesses with the goal of selling them on Sudbury’s incredible advantages.
I often hear from my fellow citizens that Sudbury has nothing to offer, that there’s nothing going on here. I want to tell them to open their eyes and look at all that is going on here, from the high-tech discoveries made at the SNO-lab in Creighton Mine, to the expansion of the arts community, downtown revitalization, the development of the Centre for Excellence in Mining innovation, green building initiatives, the reforestation of a whole community, Science North...the list goes on and on. Most other cities in Ontario would be extremely jealous of all that we have to offer our citizens and business community. If they’re not jealous already, it’s only because they’re unaware of what we’ve got going on up here.
Let’s continue to talk-up our town, and make connections with the business leaders of the green economy. Surely only good things can come of that.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The Proposed Barrydowne Extension
(originally posted at: S.A.G.E. : Sudbury Advocates for the Green Economy; Facebook)
From today’s Sudbury Star: http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1495137
So, it looks like Council will begin the process of studying the proposed Barrydowne Extension. As many of you know, talk of an extension of Barrydowne north from it’s current terminus with Maley Drive all the way out to Hanmer has been around for a long while. This route has been depicted in the City’s various planning documents for many years. In a very real sense, this is not a new proposal. And it is one which will be welcomed by many Sudburians currently using Highway 69 North for their daily commute from the Valley into Sudbury, as one of the stated purpose of the Barrydowne extension is to reduce traffic along 69 North. City Councillor Andre Rivest (Ward 6) has been one of the champions for the building of this road for a while now.
Given the above, why am I opposed to the proposed Barrydowne Extension? Isn’t this new road needed in our community?
The short answer to the second question is no, it is not needed. The reasons for that answer are why I am opposed to the proposed Extension. And those reasons have everything to do with the Green Economy and how we go about building a community for the future, rather than for the past. This issue is about a lot more than building a new road. It’s about what kind of community we want to have for our families in the future.
You see, the Barrydowne Extension makes sense within a certain context: If there is to be more low density residential development on agricultural lands in the Valley on the fringes of built-up areas, where residents will have no choice but to get around by way of personal automobiles, than the Barrydowne Extension appears to make some sense. If we build another road to service this exurban development, it will alleviate traffic pressures on the only other existing transportation artery, Highway 69 North. With the Barrydowne extension, we can get more people in more cars from low density residential areas in the Valley to their jobs, recreation and shopping opportunities within Sudbury.
If we are to continue to think about the future of our community in these terms, the Barrydowne Extension certainly would make a lot of sense.
The economic health of our community, however, is in peril from this out-dated, past-oriented, brown mind-set. Communities of the future, which embrace the coming green economy, are already thinking ahead, and making integrated decisions which compliment each other, in order to achieve a desired community vision.
In and of itself, the Barrydowne Extension is not a particular problem, although the costs associated with its construction might be more than the average Sudburian would like. The problem is that building this road keeps open the lid of the Pandora’s Box of problems we have in here in Greater Sudbury which require our immediate attention and action. These problems are: the loss of good, local agricultural lands to low-density, unsustainable development on the fringes of our communities which contribute to an energy-dependent car culture. We will continue to build infrastructure, but not communities.
And this makes absolutely no economic sense. As noted by one of the Sudbury Star’s online comment-writers, by continuing to invest in a City of the Past, we miss out on opportunities to invest those same dollars in projects which we need to build a community ready for the future. That future community, the one we need to start building now, will not have as many places in it for energy consumption-intensive development patterns. People simply will not be able to afford to live in many of the low density subdivisions which are being built today on our suburban fringes. The costs of home heating and transportation will make those locations undesirable. And the fact that many of these areas are built on some of the best farmland in Northern Ontario really adds insult to injury, because we all know that the Green Economy of the future is going to emphasize the need for investments in local agricultural products.
The Barrydowne Extension will continue to facilitate this kind of backward-looking, brown way of community building. The overall costs associated with its development go far beyond the engineering and construction costs which will be cited by everyone involved in the coming debates.
Those of us here interested in building a community ready to embrace the future need to be cognizant of the very real threat posed by the Barrydowne Extension. Simply put, we can’t keep throwing our money away on projects which hinder our prospects to build a Greater Sudbury ready to embrace a green future.
I note that the Sudbury Star indicates that this project needs to first go through an Environmental Assessment process. This will be the one significant opportunity that we will have for public input. We need to seriously start thinking about mobilizing our efforts here. Hopefully, we can use S.A.G.E. as a vehicle to help convince City Council that it would be unwise to invest in the Barrydowne Extension.
From today’s Sudbury Star: http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1495137
So, it looks like Council will begin the process of studying the proposed Barrydowne Extension. As many of you know, talk of an extension of Barrydowne north from it’s current terminus with Maley Drive all the way out to Hanmer has been around for a long while. This route has been depicted in the City’s various planning documents for many years. In a very real sense, this is not a new proposal. And it is one which will be welcomed by many Sudburians currently using Highway 69 North for their daily commute from the Valley into Sudbury, as one of the stated purpose of the Barrydowne extension is to reduce traffic along 69 North. City Councillor Andre Rivest (Ward 6) has been one of the champions for the building of this road for a while now.
Given the above, why am I opposed to the proposed Barrydowne Extension? Isn’t this new road needed in our community?
The short answer to the second question is no, it is not needed. The reasons for that answer are why I am opposed to the proposed Extension. And those reasons have everything to do with the Green Economy and how we go about building a community for the future, rather than for the past. This issue is about a lot more than building a new road. It’s about what kind of community we want to have for our families in the future.
You see, the Barrydowne Extension makes sense within a certain context: If there is to be more low density residential development on agricultural lands in the Valley on the fringes of built-up areas, where residents will have no choice but to get around by way of personal automobiles, than the Barrydowne Extension appears to make some sense. If we build another road to service this exurban development, it will alleviate traffic pressures on the only other existing transportation artery, Highway 69 North. With the Barrydowne extension, we can get more people in more cars from low density residential areas in the Valley to their jobs, recreation and shopping opportunities within Sudbury.
If we are to continue to think about the future of our community in these terms, the Barrydowne Extension certainly would make a lot of sense.
The economic health of our community, however, is in peril from this out-dated, past-oriented, brown mind-set. Communities of the future, which embrace the coming green economy, are already thinking ahead, and making integrated decisions which compliment each other, in order to achieve a desired community vision.
In and of itself, the Barrydowne Extension is not a particular problem, although the costs associated with its construction might be more than the average Sudburian would like. The problem is that building this road keeps open the lid of the Pandora’s Box of problems we have in here in Greater Sudbury which require our immediate attention and action. These problems are: the loss of good, local agricultural lands to low-density, unsustainable development on the fringes of our communities which contribute to an energy-dependent car culture. We will continue to build infrastructure, but not communities.
And this makes absolutely no economic sense. As noted by one of the Sudbury Star’s online comment-writers, by continuing to invest in a City of the Past, we miss out on opportunities to invest those same dollars in projects which we need to build a community ready for the future. That future community, the one we need to start building now, will not have as many places in it for energy consumption-intensive development patterns. People simply will not be able to afford to live in many of the low density subdivisions which are being built today on our suburban fringes. The costs of home heating and transportation will make those locations undesirable. And the fact that many of these areas are built on some of the best farmland in Northern Ontario really adds insult to injury, because we all know that the Green Economy of the future is going to emphasize the need for investments in local agricultural products.
The Barrydowne Extension will continue to facilitate this kind of backward-looking, brown way of community building. The overall costs associated with its development go far beyond the engineering and construction costs which will be cited by everyone involved in the coming debates.
Those of us here interested in building a community ready to embrace the future need to be cognizant of the very real threat posed by the Barrydowne Extension. Simply put, we can’t keep throwing our money away on projects which hinder our prospects to build a Greater Sudbury ready to embrace a green future.
I note that the Sudbury Star indicates that this project needs to first go through an Environmental Assessment process. This will be the one significant opportunity that we will have for public input. We need to seriously start thinking about mobilizing our efforts here. Hopefully, we can use S.A.G.E. as a vehicle to help convince City Council that it would be unwise to invest in the Barrydowne Extension.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Three Little Birds singing "Every Little Thing is Gonna Be All Right"
(originally posted at www.greenparty.ca)
It’s hard not to dwell on the pessimism prevalent in the national press coverage of the global financial crisis. It seems that almost every day, one expert or another contradicts previous estimates for the length of time that it will be before a recovery sets in. Earlier in the year, the public was being told that recovery would begin in the third quarter of this year, and that the Canadian economy could be expected to grow by upwards of 3%. Now, the latest "experts" are predicting a longer recessionary period with recovery only starting in early 2010, and it’s likely going to be hampered by a period of very slow growth.
Meanwhile, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives continue to sing the same old tune, which sounds a lot like Bob Marley’s "Three Little Birds" ("Don’t Worry About A Thing"; ok, I confess, I had to look up the title on Wikipedia). Media commentators have been quick to justify Harper’s positivity in the face of this massive economic upheaval by claiming that Canadians need to be told that things are going to be all right, lest there be panic in the streets leading to a larger financial crisis. I guess Harper telling us that every little thing is gonna be all right might actually be the strongest plank in the Conservative’s economic stimulus plan.
But I’ve always believed that Canadians have done much better when we’re told the truth by those whom we’ve elected to power, rather than being led astray by wishful thinking. With this in mind, I started to think whether or not I’m right, or Stephen Harper is right: do Canadians want our government to tell us the truth?
In the last election, the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP didn’t see the need to have a discussion with Canadians regarding a number of the looming crises which our nation will be confronting in the coming decades. There wasn’t even much of a peep about the economic crisis which began to emerge a few weeks before the vote took place, even though it came as no surprise to many in the financial sector. Discussions about global warming were high-jacked by partisan rhetoric about how a tax on carbon would or would not destroy Canadian households. And even that certainly wasn’t high on the list of important issues amongst the three major national parties, particularly after Stephane Dion went silent.
Only the Green Party stood up and talked about the coming crises of climate change and global warming; peak oil and increased energy costs; and, the crisis in public service delivery we’ll experience brought on by shifting demographics as a result of baby boomers retiring.
Based on the results of the last election, one could conclude that perhaps Stephen Harper has it right, and I’ve got it wrong: Canadians aren’t really interested in hearing about the challenges we’re all going to be facing in the very near future. Form triumphs over substance. After all, the Green Party didn’t elect a single MP. It’s easy to think that maybe Canadians aren’t keen on thinking ahead, or planning for a future which is going to be vastly different from our present.
Look beneath the surface, though, and there are some hopeful signs that the opposite is actually true. Support for our Party increased. Our Leader, Elizabeth May, was part of the nationally televised debates after a grass-roots outcry changed the minds of decision-makers. Our party had more organized campaigns than ever before, and although we did not elect any MP’s, certainly many voters, even those who did not vote for us, were sympathetic to our Party.
One of the things that we will have to focus on next time is to convince those sympathetic voters to throw in their lot with us. And I think one of the best ways to do so would be to stand up and tell Canadians the truth about the situation we’re all in, about the future that we’re going to be facing. Whether they want to hear it or not. And I believe Canadians, once they hear about a future told to them by the Green Party, will want to understand more about this future, about both the challenges and the opportunities.
The fact is, the other parties are too focussed on partisan games to have this discussion with Canadians. As a result, we can own this ground. One of the challenges for us, though, as a small party, will be to begin to shift the media around to providing coverage about issues that matter (substance), rather than spending the majority of its time on Stephen Harper’s sweaters or pooping puffins (that’d be "form").
In these difficult economic times, even the media might be more interested in discussing issues. Certainly I believe Canadians are ready to become involved in such a discussion. And together we can begin to turn things around, offering vision, leadership and hope about real issues. Indeed, to become the only choice for Canadian voters concerned about what’s just around the corner. We know it’s there. We can hear it breathing. Why do the "Three Little Birds", the Conservatives/Liberals/NDP, want to pretend it’s not there? Is it maybe because if they tell us about it, we’ll expect them to do something about it, and when we realize they have no plan, we’ll look for someone better to lead us?
No. It couldn’t be that. Maybe it’s just because it’s easier to get votes if no one ever worried about much of anything.
Is it any wonder that it’s so difficult not to be pessimistic?
It’s hard not to dwell on the pessimism prevalent in the national press coverage of the global financial crisis. It seems that almost every day, one expert or another contradicts previous estimates for the length of time that it will be before a recovery sets in. Earlier in the year, the public was being told that recovery would begin in the third quarter of this year, and that the Canadian economy could be expected to grow by upwards of 3%. Now, the latest "experts" are predicting a longer recessionary period with recovery only starting in early 2010, and it’s likely going to be hampered by a period of very slow growth.
Meanwhile, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives continue to sing the same old tune, which sounds a lot like Bob Marley’s "Three Little Birds" ("Don’t Worry About A Thing"; ok, I confess, I had to look up the title on Wikipedia). Media commentators have been quick to justify Harper’s positivity in the face of this massive economic upheaval by claiming that Canadians need to be told that things are going to be all right, lest there be panic in the streets leading to a larger financial crisis. I guess Harper telling us that every little thing is gonna be all right might actually be the strongest plank in the Conservative’s economic stimulus plan.
But I’ve always believed that Canadians have done much better when we’re told the truth by those whom we’ve elected to power, rather than being led astray by wishful thinking. With this in mind, I started to think whether or not I’m right, or Stephen Harper is right: do Canadians want our government to tell us the truth?
In the last election, the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP didn’t see the need to have a discussion with Canadians regarding a number of the looming crises which our nation will be confronting in the coming decades. There wasn’t even much of a peep about the economic crisis which began to emerge a few weeks before the vote took place, even though it came as no surprise to many in the financial sector. Discussions about global warming were high-jacked by partisan rhetoric about how a tax on carbon would or would not destroy Canadian households. And even that certainly wasn’t high on the list of important issues amongst the three major national parties, particularly after Stephane Dion went silent.
Only the Green Party stood up and talked about the coming crises of climate change and global warming; peak oil and increased energy costs; and, the crisis in public service delivery we’ll experience brought on by shifting demographics as a result of baby boomers retiring.
Based on the results of the last election, one could conclude that perhaps Stephen Harper has it right, and I’ve got it wrong: Canadians aren’t really interested in hearing about the challenges we’re all going to be facing in the very near future. Form triumphs over substance. After all, the Green Party didn’t elect a single MP. It’s easy to think that maybe Canadians aren’t keen on thinking ahead, or planning for a future which is going to be vastly different from our present.
Look beneath the surface, though, and there are some hopeful signs that the opposite is actually true. Support for our Party increased. Our Leader, Elizabeth May, was part of the nationally televised debates after a grass-roots outcry changed the minds of decision-makers. Our party had more organized campaigns than ever before, and although we did not elect any MP’s, certainly many voters, even those who did not vote for us, were sympathetic to our Party.
One of the things that we will have to focus on next time is to convince those sympathetic voters to throw in their lot with us. And I think one of the best ways to do so would be to stand up and tell Canadians the truth about the situation we’re all in, about the future that we’re going to be facing. Whether they want to hear it or not. And I believe Canadians, once they hear about a future told to them by the Green Party, will want to understand more about this future, about both the challenges and the opportunities.
The fact is, the other parties are too focussed on partisan games to have this discussion with Canadians. As a result, we can own this ground. One of the challenges for us, though, as a small party, will be to begin to shift the media around to providing coverage about issues that matter (substance), rather than spending the majority of its time on Stephen Harper’s sweaters or pooping puffins (that’d be "form").
In these difficult economic times, even the media might be more interested in discussing issues. Certainly I believe Canadians are ready to become involved in such a discussion. And together we can begin to turn things around, offering vision, leadership and hope about real issues. Indeed, to become the only choice for Canadian voters concerned about what’s just around the corner. We know it’s there. We can hear it breathing. Why do the "Three Little Birds", the Conservatives/Liberals/NDP, want to pretend it’s not there? Is it maybe because if they tell us about it, we’ll expect them to do something about it, and when we realize they have no plan, we’ll look for someone better to lead us?
No. It couldn’t be that. Maybe it’s just because it’s easier to get votes if no one ever worried about much of anything.
Is it any wonder that it’s so difficult not to be pessimistic?
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
"Bloc Newfoundland & Labrador" Party?
(originally posted at http://www.greenparty.ca/)
Well. Looks like it takes an article in the Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/596487) quoting highly-placed (and colourful!) persons to generate any further discussion about this old blogpost of mine: http://www.greenparty.ca/en/blogs/2022/2009-01-30/could-liberal-mps-rejection-budget-lead-rise-newfoundland-and-labrador-party
But, with Liberal Senator George Baker chatting with the press today about the potential inevitability (and that's a legit concept in Newfoundland) of the formation of a Newfoundland and Labrador separtist party, I felt the need to re-visit this old post.
Now, you've got to take Mr. Baker with a few grains of salt, it's true. But it's really not that far-fetched to think that he's likely onto something here. The time is particularly opportune for the formation of such a beast, for all of the reasons I've identified previously (and for some of the ones George identifies in his roaring rant to the media).
Ultimately, I continue to feel that this would spell bad news to our Party. But perhaps there is an opportunity sitting here for us to seize on? I don't think that the Green message has really resonated that well with Newfoundlanders, but if the winds of change are truly starting to blow in off of the mainland, perhaps we can steal some of the gail and turn our own ship around.
Rather than a "Bloc Newfoundland", how about a Green Party committed to fight the good fight for Newfoundland and Labrador? To honour agreements with the Province made by previous governments. To agree to, once and for all, resolve the boundary disputes with Quebec (which are starting to cause tensions now that Quebec has decided to dam some of the rivers flowing out of Labrador for hydro-electric projects).
We need to explain to Newfoundlanders that a tax on carbon will not kill off shore oil development, but will instead position the economy for a more sustainable, and ultimately more green, form of energy development. Investments in alternative energy, such as tidal, could also be made in Newfoundland.
And then there are all of the rest of our good policies which make sense throughout Canada.
I'm just not sure what we would tell Newfoundlanders about the seal hunt that they would want to hear. But we might be able to think of something. I've heard it said that the seal hunt is to Newfoundland like arts funding is to Quebec.
Unless we begin to make a concerted effort to woo the voters of Newfoundland and Labrador into our camp, offering them a chance for real change within a national framework, I really do believe that Mr. Baker's prediction might come true. And while I would hate to see a "national" political party waving the pink-white-and-green flag of separatism, I also can't blame Newfoundlanders for feeling that their voice isn't being heard in Ottawa.
Kind of like the 7% of Canadians who voted for the Green Party in the last election!
Well. Looks like it takes an article in the Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/596487) quoting highly-placed (and colourful!) persons to generate any further discussion about this old blogpost of mine: http://www.greenparty.ca/en/blogs/2022/2009-01-30/could-liberal-mps-rejection-budget-lead-rise-newfoundland-and-labrador-party
But, with Liberal Senator George Baker chatting with the press today about the potential inevitability (and that's a legit concept in Newfoundland) of the formation of a Newfoundland and Labrador separtist party, I felt the need to re-visit this old post.
Now, you've got to take Mr. Baker with a few grains of salt, it's true. But it's really not that far-fetched to think that he's likely onto something here. The time is particularly opportune for the formation of such a beast, for all of the reasons I've identified previously (and for some of the ones George identifies in his roaring rant to the media).
Ultimately, I continue to feel that this would spell bad news to our Party. But perhaps there is an opportunity sitting here for us to seize on? I don't think that the Green message has really resonated that well with Newfoundlanders, but if the winds of change are truly starting to blow in off of the mainland, perhaps we can steal some of the gail and turn our own ship around.
Rather than a "Bloc Newfoundland", how about a Green Party committed to fight the good fight for Newfoundland and Labrador? To honour agreements with the Province made by previous governments. To agree to, once and for all, resolve the boundary disputes with Quebec (which are starting to cause tensions now that Quebec has decided to dam some of the rivers flowing out of Labrador for hydro-electric projects).
We need to explain to Newfoundlanders that a tax on carbon will not kill off shore oil development, but will instead position the economy for a more sustainable, and ultimately more green, form of energy development. Investments in alternative energy, such as tidal, could also be made in Newfoundland.
And then there are all of the rest of our good policies which make sense throughout Canada.
I'm just not sure what we would tell Newfoundlanders about the seal hunt that they would want to hear. But we might be able to think of something. I've heard it said that the seal hunt is to Newfoundland like arts funding is to Quebec.
Unless we begin to make a concerted effort to woo the voters of Newfoundland and Labrador into our camp, offering them a chance for real change within a national framework, I really do believe that Mr. Baker's prediction might come true. And while I would hate to see a "national" political party waving the pink-white-and-green flag of separatism, I also can't blame Newfoundlanders for feeling that their voice isn't being heard in Ottawa.
Kind of like the 7% of Canadians who voted for the Green Party in the last election!
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
You Want Action? It's Time For You To Get Political
(originally posted at www.greenparty.ca)
These are tough times all around. Here in Sudbury, last week one of our mining giants, Xstrata (the Swiss-based owner of the former Falconbridge), announced the layoff of about 700 people, many of them with good paying mining jobs. For a community of 155,000 people, this was a devastating blow. But it was not a surprise. All told, about 1000 mining jobs have already disappeared from our community in the past...what? 4 months? Yikes!
Tough times all around. I read in the paper last week that scientists are now saying that the Nobel Prize-winning International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which provided estimates of the pace of global warming, actually predicted a much slower pace for global warming than science is now expecting. What that means is that for those nations who are basing carbon policies on the IPCC science, those policies will likely not have the desired impact on global warming, and will need to be reassessed. And for those countries which have dithered and done nothing, like Canada, well....Yikes!
Yes. Times are tough all around. Given the challenges on all fronts which we find ourselves in the midst of, Canadians are looking around for real leadership on these very important issues of the day.
And we’re not finding any.
Oh, some are suggesting that Barack Obama will prove to be the man of vision who leads us out of these desperate times. Well, I hope so, because I hope that someone does...but I sincerely don’t expect that it will be the U.S. President. He’s got his own issues with a crippled economy, and a nation beholden to special interests trying to play catch-up on the environment. But, Obama has appointed a bevy of Bill Clinton-era administrators (from the same administration that contributed to the current messes we are in), and offered bail-outs to major corporations, many of whom have done their fair share to get us all into this mess in the first place. His double-edged econmic “stimulus” of throwing money to infrastructure projects while providing massive tax cuts has raised the U.S. deficit into the trillion-dollar a year range. I don’t even want to know that this will do to the U.S. debt; I’m afraid to find out.
But at least Obama appears to be leading. Oh, and at least he’s not George Bush.
But whither Canada?
Last week, Environment Minister Jim Prentice announced that Canada was prepared to do nothing on the “environmental file” which might damage the economy, and that we’ll wait for Obama to move forward first.
And that’s the kind of leadership we have been getting from the Harper Conservatives.
Now, look. I understand. Times are tough. And they are. But...
But we can’t bloody well sit around and do nothing and hope that things will get better. And we can’t keep doing the same old things which have led us to these crises either. Yet....that’s what we’re getting here in Canada.
There’s a good chance that if you’re reading this blog, you are either already in the Green Party, or you recognize that we really do need to start taking action on the climate change, because our days for action are, quite frankly, numbered, before that tipping point is reached. That’s wonderful. I’m glad you’re here. Sincerely.
You, like me, though, have probably been wondering just what it takes to motivate others to start paying attention to these issues. You’ve probably done a double-take or two when you’ve brought up Peak Oil in a conversation, only to be greeted by blank stares. We all want others to understand the issues. And to be as horrified as we ourselves are.
Because that understanding of the mess we’re in might actually lead others to start taking action. And by action, I’m not just talking about replacing old light-bulbs with the energy efficient kind, or biking to work a few times a week (although those things are really great, and we should all do more of that sort of stuff).
No. The Action we need to take is fundamentally a political action. If you are serious about the environment/economy/energy/social justice what-have-you, and you believe the time has come for leadership with vision, leading to action, you must become engaged politically. There really isn’t any other option.
And that’s the message that we need to start delivering to our friends, family and blank-faced colleagues. You and I know that action occurs as a result of a political process, and that’s why we ourselves have become political. Now, it’s time for us to convince others to do the same, to “get political” as well.
And that’s not the same as “playing politics”. “Politics” is a dirty word, but it’s fundamentally about horse-trading...usually for the explicit purpose of getting oneself re-elected, and sometimes about doing what’s good for local constituents (those who one has to face to get onself re-elected). Politics won’t get us out of this mess. It was playing politics which helped get us here in the first place. If we didn’t play politics, maybe we would have implemented Kyoto and at least have been partly on the way to doing something.
Getting political is a lot different than playing politics. At least for the Green Party. Yes, sure, like other political parties, we have an agenda, and we want to be able to influence decision-making at the highest level. But fundamentally our aspirations are different from those of the other main-stream parties. All parties say that they want to do what is good and right. Yet, so far, we haven’t been seeing a lot of that. The Green Party too, wants to do what is good and right. And to actually begin to address the issues which are important to Canadians, and which will become increasingly important over the next decade.
A politician once told me that if he stood up in front of a room and told the people there the truth about what needed to be done, they would never vote for him. I used to think that was just a funny story which had a large dollop of truth in it. No more. I can’t afford to keep thinking that way, and neither can you.
What separates the Green Party from the other parties is that we’re not afraid to tell Canadians the truth about the predicament we’re in, and what we need to start to do to get ourselves out of it. And that’s not just because we’re uniquely positioned to do so (having no one in parliament facing re-election), but because it’s fundamentally the right thing for us to be doing. Canadians aren’t idiots, regardless of what the other parties might want us to think.
And you and I go around every day and tell the truth to people. And some of them have even started listening to us. And a few of those have started to ask us “What can we do?”.
And we need to tell them that the answer lies in getting political. That the way to Action is through a political process. That at the next election there isn’t any other choice for them but to do what they can to get Greens elected. And I’m very serious about this. No other party is going to do a damn thing now. And we can’t afford to do nothing any longer.
If you care (and you do), you want action. If you want action, you need to get political. If you get political, you’ll see that action can only occur through one of the Canadian political parties out there, and that’s the Green Party, because all of the other parties fundamentally do not want to take action on these issues. Not even the NDP, led by Jack “Carbon Taxes Will Be The Death Of the Little Guy” Layton. Why is the Green Party the only political party which can be trusted? Because we have always told you the truth, and will continue to tell you the truth. You may not like to hear it, but we’re still going to tell it to you.
And the truth is we’re in the midst of some pretty tough times. Times which demand leadership in our government. And the truth is...we don’t have any. And the truth is we can’t afford to waste any more time. Because the truth is, we’re going to be in quite the pickle in the very near future if we don’t start taking action.
This is not the time to play politics. It’s time to get political.
These are tough times all around. Here in Sudbury, last week one of our mining giants, Xstrata (the Swiss-based owner of the former Falconbridge), announced the layoff of about 700 people, many of them with good paying mining jobs. For a community of 155,000 people, this was a devastating blow. But it was not a surprise. All told, about 1000 mining jobs have already disappeared from our community in the past...what? 4 months? Yikes!
Tough times all around. I read in the paper last week that scientists are now saying that the Nobel Prize-winning International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which provided estimates of the pace of global warming, actually predicted a much slower pace for global warming than science is now expecting. What that means is that for those nations who are basing carbon policies on the IPCC science, those policies will likely not have the desired impact on global warming, and will need to be reassessed. And for those countries which have dithered and done nothing, like Canada, well....Yikes!
Yes. Times are tough all around. Given the challenges on all fronts which we find ourselves in the midst of, Canadians are looking around for real leadership on these very important issues of the day.
And we’re not finding any.
Oh, some are suggesting that Barack Obama will prove to be the man of vision who leads us out of these desperate times. Well, I hope so, because I hope that someone does...but I sincerely don’t expect that it will be the U.S. President. He’s got his own issues with a crippled economy, and a nation beholden to special interests trying to play catch-up on the environment. But, Obama has appointed a bevy of Bill Clinton-era administrators (from the same administration that contributed to the current messes we are in), and offered bail-outs to major corporations, many of whom have done their fair share to get us all into this mess in the first place. His double-edged econmic “stimulus” of throwing money to infrastructure projects while providing massive tax cuts has raised the U.S. deficit into the trillion-dollar a year range. I don’t even want to know that this will do to the U.S. debt; I’m afraid to find out.
But at least Obama appears to be leading. Oh, and at least he’s not George Bush.
But whither Canada?
Last week, Environment Minister Jim Prentice announced that Canada was prepared to do nothing on the “environmental file” which might damage the economy, and that we’ll wait for Obama to move forward first.
And that’s the kind of leadership we have been getting from the Harper Conservatives.
Now, look. I understand. Times are tough. And they are. But...
But we can’t bloody well sit around and do nothing and hope that things will get better. And we can’t keep doing the same old things which have led us to these crises either. Yet....that’s what we’re getting here in Canada.
There’s a good chance that if you’re reading this blog, you are either already in the Green Party, or you recognize that we really do need to start taking action on the climate change, because our days for action are, quite frankly, numbered, before that tipping point is reached. That’s wonderful. I’m glad you’re here. Sincerely.
You, like me, though, have probably been wondering just what it takes to motivate others to start paying attention to these issues. You’ve probably done a double-take or two when you’ve brought up Peak Oil in a conversation, only to be greeted by blank stares. We all want others to understand the issues. And to be as horrified as we ourselves are.
Because that understanding of the mess we’re in might actually lead others to start taking action. And by action, I’m not just talking about replacing old light-bulbs with the energy efficient kind, or biking to work a few times a week (although those things are really great, and we should all do more of that sort of stuff).
No. The Action we need to take is fundamentally a political action. If you are serious about the environment/economy/energy/social justice what-have-you, and you believe the time has come for leadership with vision, leading to action, you must become engaged politically. There really isn’t any other option.
And that’s the message that we need to start delivering to our friends, family and blank-faced colleagues. You and I know that action occurs as a result of a political process, and that’s why we ourselves have become political. Now, it’s time for us to convince others to do the same, to “get political” as well.
And that’s not the same as “playing politics”. “Politics” is a dirty word, but it’s fundamentally about horse-trading...usually for the explicit purpose of getting oneself re-elected, and sometimes about doing what’s good for local constituents (those who one has to face to get onself re-elected). Politics won’t get us out of this mess. It was playing politics which helped get us here in the first place. If we didn’t play politics, maybe we would have implemented Kyoto and at least have been partly on the way to doing something.
Getting political is a lot different than playing politics. At least for the Green Party. Yes, sure, like other political parties, we have an agenda, and we want to be able to influence decision-making at the highest level. But fundamentally our aspirations are different from those of the other main-stream parties. All parties say that they want to do what is good and right. Yet, so far, we haven’t been seeing a lot of that. The Green Party too, wants to do what is good and right. And to actually begin to address the issues which are important to Canadians, and which will become increasingly important over the next decade.
A politician once told me that if he stood up in front of a room and told the people there the truth about what needed to be done, they would never vote for him. I used to think that was just a funny story which had a large dollop of truth in it. No more. I can’t afford to keep thinking that way, and neither can you.
What separates the Green Party from the other parties is that we’re not afraid to tell Canadians the truth about the predicament we’re in, and what we need to start to do to get ourselves out of it. And that’s not just because we’re uniquely positioned to do so (having no one in parliament facing re-election), but because it’s fundamentally the right thing for us to be doing. Canadians aren’t idiots, regardless of what the other parties might want us to think.
And you and I go around every day and tell the truth to people. And some of them have even started listening to us. And a few of those have started to ask us “What can we do?”.
And we need to tell them that the answer lies in getting political. That the way to Action is through a political process. That at the next election there isn’t any other choice for them but to do what they can to get Greens elected. And I’m very serious about this. No other party is going to do a damn thing now. And we can’t afford to do nothing any longer.
If you care (and you do), you want action. If you want action, you need to get political. If you get political, you’ll see that action can only occur through one of the Canadian political parties out there, and that’s the Green Party, because all of the other parties fundamentally do not want to take action on these issues. Not even the NDP, led by Jack “Carbon Taxes Will Be The Death Of the Little Guy” Layton. Why is the Green Party the only political party which can be trusted? Because we have always told you the truth, and will continue to tell you the truth. You may not like to hear it, but we’re still going to tell it to you.
And the truth is we’re in the midst of some pretty tough times. Times which demand leadership in our government. And the truth is...we don’t have any. And the truth is we can’t afford to waste any more time. Because the truth is, we’re going to be in quite the pickle in the very near future if we don’t start taking action.
This is not the time to play politics. It’s time to get political.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
No Leadership in Ottawa. We Need Action, Not Abdication
(originally posted at www.greenparty.ca)
Just lovely. It is even more abundantly clear today that Harper's Conservatives just do not understand the most important issues facing the future of Canada. In an announcement today from Jim Prentice, Federal Minister responsible for the Environment, the Conservatives have decided that doing anything right now to help fix the environment is off the table, saying that it would negatively impact the economy. The old "jobs before environment" argument is trotted out yet again.
I'm getting sick and tired of this. The Conservatives don't understand, or don't want to understand, which amounts to the same thing. Climate change, rising energy prices, and a switch from a brown to green economy is fundamentally not about a trade-off between jobs and the envrionment. It is not about having to make a choice of one over the other. Yet here is Jim Prentice, arguably one of the more socially-progressive of Harper's dinosaurs, saying just that (see today's Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/586526).
Not only are Harper and Prentice claiming that action on the environment needs to be placed on hold as a result of the economic slow-down, they are saying that they will not take any action until the United States comes up with its own plan. Not only does this tactic delay the government from having to do anything, it completely abdicates any leadership on this matter. This kind of the "follow-the-leader" mentality is not what we have elected our government to do. These people were voted in to make decisions, take actions, not abdicate their responsibilities in favour of putting off decision making until such a time when someone else has done the hard thinking.
And rest assured, when Obama does put his mind to looking at a cap and trade system, which is apparently what he's eyeing, when he writes the rules, guaranteed that the needs of Canada and Canadian industries are not going to be at the top of the list. Why in heavens name has our Conservative government abandoned any position on creating the rules in which our Canadian-based industries will have to operate in the future?!?! If anything, Harper should be showing leadership on this one issue, less Canadian industries get shafted.
Yes, I'm sure that Obama will be talking about an integrated cap and trade system, given the way our two economies are entwined. That's all well and fine, but if the Americans are dictating the terms, how can that possibly be good for Canada?
And say what you want about Obama and all of the good things that he's done already and the good things he's said he intends to do, at the end of the day much of what he is proposing to do for the environment is not the approach Canada will need to take. Instead of abdicating decision making on the environment until such a time as the U.S. comes to the table, Canada should be persuading and prodding, planting ideas, working with our U.S. partners on a cap and trade system to spur industry to make real reductions to green house gas emissions.
But a cap and trade system can only ever be a part of the solution. What about stimulating alternative energy development? There's no need to have to even pretend to wait for Obama to take action on that. Yet Harper and the Conservatives are abandoning alternative energy, taking away matching federal tax dollars for funding new alternative energy projects.
The crisis facing the world today isn't going to be solved by "either/or" thinking, which places jobs over the environment (as if the environment is somehow an issue which neatly fits into a single box), and it's certainly not going to be solved by more waiting and doing nothing. Yet that's the approach now being proposed by this government. We can no longer afford to let our leaders abdicate decision-making and action-taking. The cost to us and our children is going to be unbearably high. We have to act. We just have to act.
I know this is cliche, but write to your local media outlets, copy your MP's, post your letter to your blogs and email them to your friends. If there is enough of an outcry about the Conservative's abandoning doing anything for the environment until a "better time", maybe they can be forced to take action in the face of public opinion. If we make this an issue, they will listen. Harper is nothing if not motivated by public opinion, as we have seen recently.
Just lovely. It is even more abundantly clear today that Harper's Conservatives just do not understand the most important issues facing the future of Canada. In an announcement today from Jim Prentice, Federal Minister responsible for the Environment, the Conservatives have decided that doing anything right now to help fix the environment is off the table, saying that it would negatively impact the economy. The old "jobs before environment" argument is trotted out yet again.
I'm getting sick and tired of this. The Conservatives don't understand, or don't want to understand, which amounts to the same thing. Climate change, rising energy prices, and a switch from a brown to green economy is fundamentally not about a trade-off between jobs and the envrionment. It is not about having to make a choice of one over the other. Yet here is Jim Prentice, arguably one of the more socially-progressive of Harper's dinosaurs, saying just that (see today's Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/586526).
Not only are Harper and Prentice claiming that action on the environment needs to be placed on hold as a result of the economic slow-down, they are saying that they will not take any action until the United States comes up with its own plan. Not only does this tactic delay the government from having to do anything, it completely abdicates any leadership on this matter. This kind of the "follow-the-leader" mentality is not what we have elected our government to do. These people were voted in to make decisions, take actions, not abdicate their responsibilities in favour of putting off decision making until such a time when someone else has done the hard thinking.
And rest assured, when Obama does put his mind to looking at a cap and trade system, which is apparently what he's eyeing, when he writes the rules, guaranteed that the needs of Canada and Canadian industries are not going to be at the top of the list. Why in heavens name has our Conservative government abandoned any position on creating the rules in which our Canadian-based industries will have to operate in the future?!?! If anything, Harper should be showing leadership on this one issue, less Canadian industries get shafted.
Yes, I'm sure that Obama will be talking about an integrated cap and trade system, given the way our two economies are entwined. That's all well and fine, but if the Americans are dictating the terms, how can that possibly be good for Canada?
And say what you want about Obama and all of the good things that he's done already and the good things he's said he intends to do, at the end of the day much of what he is proposing to do for the environment is not the approach Canada will need to take. Instead of abdicating decision making on the environment until such a time as the U.S. comes to the table, Canada should be persuading and prodding, planting ideas, working with our U.S. partners on a cap and trade system to spur industry to make real reductions to green house gas emissions.
But a cap and trade system can only ever be a part of the solution. What about stimulating alternative energy development? There's no need to have to even pretend to wait for Obama to take action on that. Yet Harper and the Conservatives are abandoning alternative energy, taking away matching federal tax dollars for funding new alternative energy projects.
The crisis facing the world today isn't going to be solved by "either/or" thinking, which places jobs over the environment (as if the environment is somehow an issue which neatly fits into a single box), and it's certainly not going to be solved by more waiting and doing nothing. Yet that's the approach now being proposed by this government. We can no longer afford to let our leaders abdicate decision-making and action-taking. The cost to us and our children is going to be unbearably high. We have to act. We just have to act.
I know this is cliche, but write to your local media outlets, copy your MP's, post your letter to your blogs and email them to your friends. If there is enough of an outcry about the Conservative's abandoning doing anything for the environment until a "better time", maybe they can be forced to take action in the face of public opinion. If we make this an issue, they will listen. Harper is nothing if not motivated by public opinion, as we have seen recently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)