(originally posted at www.greenparty.ca)
Ah, here we go. Stephen Harper and his Conservatives continue to show their true, socially-regressive, colours, by revoking funding for Montreal’s Diver-Cite festival after the Toronto Pride fiasco hit home with the social dinosaurs in the Party. I use the word "revoke" here as Divers-Cite had received federal funding in the past, from the same federal Department now headed by Tony Clement, so clearly there has been an established relationship between Economic Development Canada and the Divers-Cite festival.
But, Con MP Brad Trost and the other dinosaurs in the Conservative Party have just scuttled federal funding for this important Quebec cultural event. Politically, this won’t play well in Montreal and Quebec for the Conservatives, which is a good thing, because our Federal government’s lack of participation in Divers-Cite is an absolute shame as well as being hypocritical in the extreme.
I just marched through the streets of downtown Sudbury this past weekend, accompanied by my beautiful wife, our foster son and Sudbury Green Party Candidate Fred Twilley, in celebration of Sudbury’s diverse LGBT community. In this community, the Pride March isn’t a parade in the sense of what takes place in Toronto or Montreal. Instead, it remains largely a political statement to the community that diversity is natural and normal, deserving of respect. For the most part, I believe that message resonates with Sudburians.
As a result, seeing my federal government cut funding for an important community-building event such as Divers-Cite really galls me, because clearly the decision was made based only on the Conservative Party’s lack of understanding about Canadian’s level of tolerance and acceptance. Well, I for one am complete intolerant of this attitude and I am ashamed of my government for taking this backward step.
I want to state that I realize that not all small "c" conservatives feel the same way that the Conservative Party feels. I’m sure that many small "c"’s are equally appalled, either because they know it’s not the right thing to do, or because they realize that as a result of missing federal funds, the Divers-Cite festival won’t generate as much economic activity for the Montreal economy as it might have. Again, I appeal to these small "c" conservatives to abandon Harper and his Cons, because their brand of conservatism does not represent your progressive ideals.
Sometimes our government has to do the right thing, even if it requires sticking its neck out. I would suggest that our government has just shown Canadians that it is not willing to do the right thing even when it was not required to stick its neck out in any way, given its past commitments to Divers-Cite.
I am proud to be a member of a Party which understands that our diversity is something to be celebrated.
Links:
Steve May’s Green Party blog: Toronto Pride Week Under Attack By Conservatives
http://greenparty.ca/blogs/2022/2009-07-08/torontos-pride-week-under-attack-conservatives
Jennifer Ditchburn, "Montreal gay festival won’t get federal cash", The Toronto Star, July 22 2009.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/669809
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Do Canadians Really Think that Majority Governments Are Preferrable?
(originally posted at www.greenparty.ca)
A recent Harris Decima poll suggests that Canadians are growing tired of minority governments in Ottawa, and are longing for a return to majority government rule. Dave Breakenridge of Sun Media suggests an alternative view: that Canadian’s lack of satisfaction with minority governments might have more to do with the lack of civility our elected officials have for one another. I tend to agree with Breakenridge.
Canada’s parliament is dysfunctional. Partisan political games have become more important than accomplishing the good and necessary works which Canadians expect of our elected officials. There is little recognition by any of the currently elected political parties that a degree of co-operation and decorum is necessary to achieve results through considered compromise. Instead, the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP and Bloc are keen to play games in an attempt to score political points in order to sway public opinion.
A majority government might be one way of fixing a broken parliament. It would, however, be a dangerous fix, as it is very unlikely that a majority of voters would be able to definitively choose one of the established political parties over the others. More likely, a majority government would be returned through a "false majority" vote, where only a fraction of ballots, potentially as little as one third, are cast for the political party receiving the so-called majority. This is because Canada’s electoral system served the country well when there were only two parties to choose from, but is woefully inadequate where multiple parties are vying for votes. In our current first-past-the-post system, the party receiving the largest minority of votes is the one which receives the first opportunity to form the government. This probably doesn’t come as news to most Greens, but many Canadians are surprised to discover that "majority" governments aren’t really representative of the majority of voters.
Recently, in comments made to the Globe & Mail, Prime Minister Stephen Harper provided his opinion that there are no good taxes. Jeffrey Simpson, rightfully, expressed complete and utter amazement that a Prime Minister of Canada could be so very dismissive of taxes, which are the fundamental building block of our civilized society. It’s one thing to get upset about paying taxes, but to willfully suggest that there are no good taxes (and by extension that taxes do not accomplish anything positive) is an absolutely mind-boggling opinion for someone to hold. It’s beyond mind-boggling when that person is the Leader of our government. How representative of Canadians’ viewpoints is that stunner?
We know that Harper rules his Party with an iron fist. What might happen should he ever be given a majority government, particularly in a false-majority situation? What do you think he might do when it comes time to address the structural deficit he and his Party have created through their tax cuts and bail outs of the auto sector? Do you think he’s going to want to generate additional revenue by raising taxes, or by taxing pollution?
Right now, Harper and the Conservatives don’t even want to admit that they’ve created a structural deficit because to do so would mean that they might have to come clean about what they’re going to do to get rid of it. The sale of government assets and massive spending cuts to services and programs are what they do not want to talk about (unless those programs are giving money to "gay" cultural events such as Toronto Pride). So instead of laying out a credible plan, they pretend that the problem doesn’t exist. Kind of like what they’ve been doing with the climate change crisis.
Meanwhile, we still don’t know what Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals are really all about, other than they’ve given their unmitigated support to developing the Alberta tar sands without anything more than lip service regarding the stemming of environmental degradation. Right now, the only thing Ignatieff seems to have going for him is that he’s not Stephen Harper. And, in my opinion, that’s not nearly enough of a reason to give him the time of day. Take a position on something, man! As the old saying goes, it’s like trying to nail jello to a wall.
It’s clear that we Canadians deserve better government. Our government should be representative of the way in which ballots are cast. While government might be able to conduct business more easily in a majority situation than in a minority, we need to keep in mind that such a government would not be representative of the political will of Canadians. A better outcome for Canadian voters would be to do away with our out-dated first-past-the-post electoral system, and to elect members of parliament who have expressed a desire to work together to find solutions rather than attack one another for partisan gain.
------
Here are some related links to this blogpost:
Jennifer Ditchburn, July 13 2009, The Globe & Mail: "Canadians grow weary of minority governments"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadians-grow-weary-of-minority-government/article1215629/
Harris-Decima News Release, July 12 2009: "Canadians say its time for a majority government"
http://www.harrisdecima.com/en/downloads/pdf/news_releases/071309E.pdf
Dave Breakenridge, "Point of View", July 13 2009, The Sudbury Star (SunMedia): "Let’s go next time with the majority"
http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1655030
Jeffrey Simpson, July 15 2009, The Globe & Mail: "A very scarey PM: ‘I don’t believe that any taxes are good taxes’"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/a-very-scary-pm-i-don’t-believe-that-any-taxes-are-good-taxes/article1216778/
A recent Harris Decima poll suggests that Canadians are growing tired of minority governments in Ottawa, and are longing for a return to majority government rule. Dave Breakenridge of Sun Media suggests an alternative view: that Canadian’s lack of satisfaction with minority governments might have more to do with the lack of civility our elected officials have for one another. I tend to agree with Breakenridge.
Canada’s parliament is dysfunctional. Partisan political games have become more important than accomplishing the good and necessary works which Canadians expect of our elected officials. There is little recognition by any of the currently elected political parties that a degree of co-operation and decorum is necessary to achieve results through considered compromise. Instead, the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP and Bloc are keen to play games in an attempt to score political points in order to sway public opinion.
A majority government might be one way of fixing a broken parliament. It would, however, be a dangerous fix, as it is very unlikely that a majority of voters would be able to definitively choose one of the established political parties over the others. More likely, a majority government would be returned through a "false majority" vote, where only a fraction of ballots, potentially as little as one third, are cast for the political party receiving the so-called majority. This is because Canada’s electoral system served the country well when there were only two parties to choose from, but is woefully inadequate where multiple parties are vying for votes. In our current first-past-the-post system, the party receiving the largest minority of votes is the one which receives the first opportunity to form the government. This probably doesn’t come as news to most Greens, but many Canadians are surprised to discover that "majority" governments aren’t really representative of the majority of voters.
Recently, in comments made to the Globe & Mail, Prime Minister Stephen Harper provided his opinion that there are no good taxes. Jeffrey Simpson, rightfully, expressed complete and utter amazement that a Prime Minister of Canada could be so very dismissive of taxes, which are the fundamental building block of our civilized society. It’s one thing to get upset about paying taxes, but to willfully suggest that there are no good taxes (and by extension that taxes do not accomplish anything positive) is an absolutely mind-boggling opinion for someone to hold. It’s beyond mind-boggling when that person is the Leader of our government. How representative of Canadians’ viewpoints is that stunner?
We know that Harper rules his Party with an iron fist. What might happen should he ever be given a majority government, particularly in a false-majority situation? What do you think he might do when it comes time to address the structural deficit he and his Party have created through their tax cuts and bail outs of the auto sector? Do you think he’s going to want to generate additional revenue by raising taxes, or by taxing pollution?
Right now, Harper and the Conservatives don’t even want to admit that they’ve created a structural deficit because to do so would mean that they might have to come clean about what they’re going to do to get rid of it. The sale of government assets and massive spending cuts to services and programs are what they do not want to talk about (unless those programs are giving money to "gay" cultural events such as Toronto Pride). So instead of laying out a credible plan, they pretend that the problem doesn’t exist. Kind of like what they’ve been doing with the climate change crisis.
Meanwhile, we still don’t know what Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals are really all about, other than they’ve given their unmitigated support to developing the Alberta tar sands without anything more than lip service regarding the stemming of environmental degradation. Right now, the only thing Ignatieff seems to have going for him is that he’s not Stephen Harper. And, in my opinion, that’s not nearly enough of a reason to give him the time of day. Take a position on something, man! As the old saying goes, it’s like trying to nail jello to a wall.
It’s clear that we Canadians deserve better government. Our government should be representative of the way in which ballots are cast. While government might be able to conduct business more easily in a majority situation than in a minority, we need to keep in mind that such a government would not be representative of the political will of Canadians. A better outcome for Canadian voters would be to do away with our out-dated first-past-the-post electoral system, and to elect members of parliament who have expressed a desire to work together to find solutions rather than attack one another for partisan gain.
------
Here are some related links to this blogpost:
Jennifer Ditchburn, July 13 2009, The Globe & Mail: "Canadians grow weary of minority governments"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadians-grow-weary-of-minority-government/article1215629/
Harris-Decima News Release, July 12 2009: "Canadians say its time for a majority government"
http://www.harrisdecima.com/en/downloads/pdf/news_releases/071309E.pdf
Dave Breakenridge, "Point of View", July 13 2009, The Sudbury Star (SunMedia): "Let’s go next time with the majority"
http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1655030
Jeffrey Simpson, July 15 2009, The Globe & Mail: "A very scarey PM: ‘I don’t believe that any taxes are good taxes’"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/a-very-scary-pm-i-don’t-believe-that-any-taxes-are-good-taxes/article1216778/
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Canadian Federation of Students & the Supreme Court: A Victory for Free Speech re: Political Advertising on Public Transit
(originally posted at www.greenparty.ca)
Let me start this little blogpost by referring to conversations which I engaged in with fellow students back in the days when I attended University. That was quite some time ago now. I recall that a number of my fellow classmates used to question the wisdom of paying student union dues. Part of the answer always given was that union dues went, in part, to support the CFS, the Canadian Federation of Students. Many of classmates wondered openly just what good the CFS ever did for anyone anyway.
I haven’t thought very much about the CFS lately, it’s true. Not until this week, anyway. Looks like the CFS has done all Canadians a huge favour by chalking up a win for freedom of expression in this great nation of ours. Apparently, back in 2005, during a British Columbia provincial election campaign, the CFS wanted to buy some ads from a local transit operator. Due to the transit operator’s policies to not sell advertising which might be controversial, the CFS was denied the opportunity to express its opinions.
The CFS was apparently unsatisfied with this result, thinking that maybe they, or their message, was being discriminated against. After all, transit vehicles are semi-public venues, are they not? The transit operator in question receives funding from public-sector sources. What’s up with a policy which denies freedom of expression? Sure, sometimes organizations which want to express their points of view can be controversial, and no everyone wants to hear about it. But this is Canada, isn’t it? We’ve come to understand that not everyone holds our own point of view, and we’ve come to expect to hear the alternative points of views of others. Banning statements made by organizations by denying them the opportunity to purchase advertising simply because their message might offend someone or cause controversy is problematic for many of us.
I ride the bus. A lot. Goodness knows public transit is one place where you’re going to hear the alternative views of others! But I digress.
Well, years later, and after a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision, turns out the CFS was right. They were discriminated against. Partisan advertising which might be political in nature (the CFS wanted to urge students to vote in the election) should be allowed on public transit vehicles. Transit operator policies which prohibit such advertising are unconstitutional, as they infringe upon Charter rights.
None of this is to suggest that anyone should be able to buy advertising for anything that they want. There are other prohibitions on speech in the Charter which must be adhered to, and these limits on freedom of expression are, in my opinion, largely sensible.
What does this all mean for the Green Party? Well, I’m sure that many of our campaigns across the country have identified public transit riders as being those voters who we might want to target with Green messages before and during an election campaign. Some of us might have checked out our local transit operators policies on running ads on behalf of the Green Party, an EDA or a Green Party Candidate during an election, and we might have been told that due to their policies, they would not accept such advertising. As a result, it made reaching out to voters who might be sympathetic to our messaging that much more difficult.
With an imminent election call hanging in the air like a bad smell generated by a coal burning power plant, we Greens involved with election campaigns may wish to turn our thoughts again to advertising on public transit vehicles, now that the Supreme Court has provided some direction on this matter. Just something to think about. It’s good to know, now, that a picture of your local candidate with the message: "Vote Green" on a bus during a federal election campaign is something which public transit operators are now going to have accommodate.
And while we’re at it, let’s say thanks to the CFS for fighting the good fight, no doubt at great cost and frustration.
Here are some related links:
Judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada: Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority v. Canadian Federation of Students – British Columbia Component
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2009/2009scc31/2009scc31.html
Keep this tucked away in your back pocket for when you approach your local transit operator and ask to buy advertising.
Article by Paul Schneidereit, Chronicle-Herald (Nova Scotia) in which a related matter is discussed: banning ads on transit vehicles which promote atheism
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1132257.html
Article by Mindelle Jacobs, Sun Media
http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1655051
Canwest News article:
http
Let me start this little blogpost by referring to conversations which I engaged in with fellow students back in the days when I attended University. That was quite some time ago now. I recall that a number of my fellow classmates used to question the wisdom of paying student union dues. Part of the answer always given was that union dues went, in part, to support the CFS, the Canadian Federation of Students. Many of classmates wondered openly just what good the CFS ever did for anyone anyway.
I haven’t thought very much about the CFS lately, it’s true. Not until this week, anyway. Looks like the CFS has done all Canadians a huge favour by chalking up a win for freedom of expression in this great nation of ours. Apparently, back in 2005, during a British Columbia provincial election campaign, the CFS wanted to buy some ads from a local transit operator. Due to the transit operator’s policies to not sell advertising which might be controversial, the CFS was denied the opportunity to express its opinions.
The CFS was apparently unsatisfied with this result, thinking that maybe they, or their message, was being discriminated against. After all, transit vehicles are semi-public venues, are they not? The transit operator in question receives funding from public-sector sources. What’s up with a policy which denies freedom of expression? Sure, sometimes organizations which want to express their points of view can be controversial, and no everyone wants to hear about it. But this is Canada, isn’t it? We’ve come to understand that not everyone holds our own point of view, and we’ve come to expect to hear the alternative points of views of others. Banning statements made by organizations by denying them the opportunity to purchase advertising simply because their message might offend someone or cause controversy is problematic for many of us.
I ride the bus. A lot. Goodness knows public transit is one place where you’re going to hear the alternative views of others! But I digress.
Well, years later, and after a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision, turns out the CFS was right. They were discriminated against. Partisan advertising which might be political in nature (the CFS wanted to urge students to vote in the election) should be allowed on public transit vehicles. Transit operator policies which prohibit such advertising are unconstitutional, as they infringe upon Charter rights.
None of this is to suggest that anyone should be able to buy advertising for anything that they want. There are other prohibitions on speech in the Charter which must be adhered to, and these limits on freedom of expression are, in my opinion, largely sensible.
What does this all mean for the Green Party? Well, I’m sure that many of our campaigns across the country have identified public transit riders as being those voters who we might want to target with Green messages before and during an election campaign. Some of us might have checked out our local transit operators policies on running ads on behalf of the Green Party, an EDA or a Green Party Candidate during an election, and we might have been told that due to their policies, they would not accept such advertising. As a result, it made reaching out to voters who might be sympathetic to our messaging that much more difficult.
With an imminent election call hanging in the air like a bad smell generated by a coal burning power plant, we Greens involved with election campaigns may wish to turn our thoughts again to advertising on public transit vehicles, now that the Supreme Court has provided some direction on this matter. Just something to think about. It’s good to know, now, that a picture of your local candidate with the message: "Vote Green" on a bus during a federal election campaign is something which public transit operators are now going to have accommodate.
And while we’re at it, let’s say thanks to the CFS for fighting the good fight, no doubt at great cost and frustration.
Here are some related links:
Judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada: Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority v. Canadian Federation of Students – British Columbia Component
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2009/2009scc31/2009scc31.html
Keep this tucked away in your back pocket for when you approach your local transit operator and ask to buy advertising.
Article by Paul Schneidereit, Chronicle-Herald (Nova Scotia) in which a related matter is discussed: banning ads on transit vehicles which promote atheism
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1132257.html
Article by Mindelle Jacobs, Sun Media
http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1655051
Canwest News article:
http
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Toronto's Pride Week Under Attack By Conservatives
(originally posted at http://www.greenparty.ca/)
Here’s a disturbing article from today’s Toronto Star: "Pride Week, MP Under Fire After Tory Outcry" http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/662566 Looks like some of Stephen Harper’s caucus are concerned that Toronto’s Pride Week doesn’t provide enough bang for its stimulus buck. Or something like that.
Diane Ablonczy, MP for Calgary-Nose Hill and currently the federal Minister of Tourism (although that might change any moment now), is pictured in the Star article attending and event with Pride Week organizers, handing out approximately $400,000 on behalf of her Ministry. A "burlesque performer" also appears in the photo, and is referenced by someone quoted later in the Star article as a "drag queen". Apparently, this picture, and coverage of the event, caused a bit of stir in the hearts and minds of Conservative MP’s, although Brad Trost, MP for Saskatoon-Humboldt, raised only the issue of the effective use of stimulus funding.
Let me be clear about one thing here. Toronto’s Pride Week, along with Caribana, are probably the two most wildly successful events in all of Canada for injecting large sums of tourism dollars into the economy. Other events referenced in the Toronto Star article, like the Calgary Stampede and the Vancouver Jazz festival, pale in comparison in terms of the number of visitors they attract. Toronto’s Pride Week is clearly a big-time festival on the world stage. Perhaps the MP for Saskatoon-Humboldt, whose likely never attended Pride Week festivities, doesn’t have an appreciation for the sheer size of the injection Pride Week puts into the Greater Toronto area’s economy.
Which leaves us then with an MP posing with a drag queen handing out government money.
First, though, kudos where it’s due. The Toronto Star reports that Ablonczy was so impressed with Pride Week’s application that she just had to go in person to hand them the cheque. She probably didn’t think twice about anything other than what a wonderful photo-op that would be for Conservative voters in the GTA.
Clearly some within the Conservative Party are questioning the Minister’s wisdom to associate the Conservative Party with anything "gay". Nevermind that it wasn’t Conservative Party money being handed out to Pride Week organizers, but instead money from the Government of Canada. This type of back-lash from Conservative MP’s makes me more angry than I can adequately express in this post. It’s intolerance such as this, displayed by some of our elected leaders for crying out loud, that absolutely infuriates me.
Now look, I was never going to vote for Stephen Harper’s Conservatives anyway, but I’ve always considered myself to be more than a little concerned about the economic health of our great nation. Conservatives like to posture that they’re the only ones who know what’s best for Canada’s bottom line (which is an outrageous assumption for them to make, but it does appear to resonate with Canadians). What angers me is that Conservatives will continue to tell Canadians that they’re the best to manage finances, that the other Parties are only going to raise taxes, so you’ve got no choice but to vote for us. But part of the bargain when you vote Conservative is you’re going to get a bunch of socially regressive dinosaurs, who don’t really believe in tolerance.
Conservatives cry to the media and to the people of Canada that they do not have a hidden agenda. Well, they don’t. It’s right out there in the open for all to see. And this latest attack on Pride Week and muzzling Minister Diane Ablonczy is completely in line with their way of thinking.
Greens, we all know that we are an alternative to small "c" conservatives in terms of having a viable and sustainable economic plan for this country. And we know that those who consider themselves socially progressive would be very much at home in our Party. We must continue to poach former Progressive Conservative voters, it’s that simple.
Maybe Diane Ablonczy will be looking for a new home in the near future.
Here’s a disturbing article from today’s Toronto Star: "Pride Week, MP Under Fire After Tory Outcry" http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/662566 Looks like some of Stephen Harper’s caucus are concerned that Toronto’s Pride Week doesn’t provide enough bang for its stimulus buck. Or something like that.
Diane Ablonczy, MP for Calgary-Nose Hill and currently the federal Minister of Tourism (although that might change any moment now), is pictured in the Star article attending and event with Pride Week organizers, handing out approximately $400,000 on behalf of her Ministry. A "burlesque performer" also appears in the photo, and is referenced by someone quoted later in the Star article as a "drag queen". Apparently, this picture, and coverage of the event, caused a bit of stir in the hearts and minds of Conservative MP’s, although Brad Trost, MP for Saskatoon-Humboldt, raised only the issue of the effective use of stimulus funding.
Let me be clear about one thing here. Toronto’s Pride Week, along with Caribana, are probably the two most wildly successful events in all of Canada for injecting large sums of tourism dollars into the economy. Other events referenced in the Toronto Star article, like the Calgary Stampede and the Vancouver Jazz festival, pale in comparison in terms of the number of visitors they attract. Toronto’s Pride Week is clearly a big-time festival on the world stage. Perhaps the MP for Saskatoon-Humboldt, whose likely never attended Pride Week festivities, doesn’t have an appreciation for the sheer size of the injection Pride Week puts into the Greater Toronto area’s economy.
Which leaves us then with an MP posing with a drag queen handing out government money.
First, though, kudos where it’s due. The Toronto Star reports that Ablonczy was so impressed with Pride Week’s application that she just had to go in person to hand them the cheque. She probably didn’t think twice about anything other than what a wonderful photo-op that would be for Conservative voters in the GTA.
Clearly some within the Conservative Party are questioning the Minister’s wisdom to associate the Conservative Party with anything "gay". Nevermind that it wasn’t Conservative Party money being handed out to Pride Week organizers, but instead money from the Government of Canada. This type of back-lash from Conservative MP’s makes me more angry than I can adequately express in this post. It’s intolerance such as this, displayed by some of our elected leaders for crying out loud, that absolutely infuriates me.
Now look, I was never going to vote for Stephen Harper’s Conservatives anyway, but I’ve always considered myself to be more than a little concerned about the economic health of our great nation. Conservatives like to posture that they’re the only ones who know what’s best for Canada’s bottom line (which is an outrageous assumption for them to make, but it does appear to resonate with Canadians). What angers me is that Conservatives will continue to tell Canadians that they’re the best to manage finances, that the other Parties are only going to raise taxes, so you’ve got no choice but to vote for us. But part of the bargain when you vote Conservative is you’re going to get a bunch of socially regressive dinosaurs, who don’t really believe in tolerance.
Conservatives cry to the media and to the people of Canada that they do not have a hidden agenda. Well, they don’t. It’s right out there in the open for all to see. And this latest attack on Pride Week and muzzling Minister Diane Ablonczy is completely in line with their way of thinking.
Greens, we all know that we are an alternative to small "c" conservatives in terms of having a viable and sustainable economic plan for this country. And we know that those who consider themselves socially progressive would be very much at home in our Party. We must continue to poach former Progressive Conservative voters, it’s that simple.
Maybe Diane Ablonczy will be looking for a new home in the near future.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
The Toronto Star and the "Mainstream" (read: Liberal) Position on the Environment
The Toronto Star has a bit of a reputation for going on journalistic crusades every now and then, forcing issues into headlines which otherwise might not make the cut. More often than not, the Star’s investigative style of journalism has led to some real changes in government. Take the Greenbelt for example, brought about by the Dalton McGuinty Provincial Liberal government after repeated reports in the Star about the need to preserve agricultural areas in Toronto’s hinterland and the need to curb urban sprawl. What’s printed in the Toronto Star can end up being referred to in Question Period. Decision-makers are very aware that of the Star’s influence.
As a frequent reader of the Toronto Star, I’ve been noticing lately that they’ve been devoting a bit more coverage than usual to the issue of climate change. Could this be the Star’s latest cause?
Let’s hope so...and let’s hope not. The Toronto Star, while in my opinion one of the better mainstream media outlets in Canada, is not going to be taking up the torch to move its readers (and governments) far enough along the spectrum of thinking to get us to the point that we need to be at. In other words, the Toronto Star, often criticized as being a "Liberal mouthpiece", really is just that, and frankly should not be considered a friend of the Green Party on environmental issues (although James Travers at the Star has been pretty good about bringing issues regarding the democratic deficit to the attention of readers).
The editorial position of the Star is quite in-line with the Liberal Party. On first blush, it might sound pretty good to Green Party supporters too, but then the hair-splitting kicks in. Readers of this blog likely would be able to spot these nuanced differences between Liberal and Green policy issues without batting an eyelash. But how many of those Canadians who cast ballots for our Party in the last election understand that these little differences are actually extremely significant, and will lead to quite different outcomes if implemented?
One of the challenges our Party will face as we campaign in the next election will be to communicate our policy positions to Canadians. By and large, Canadians continue to rely on major media for their information, and clearly the way in which Canadians cast their ballots are influenced by the media. Some may suggest that a national election campaign is the very worst time to have a discussion about policy, given the media’s preoccupation with sweater-vests, pooping puffins and that sort of thing.
I certainly wouldn’t want to have to rely on the media to communicate Green Party policy to Canadians, much less how that policy differs from that of the other Parties. The whole issue of communicating with potential voters, though, is not one I’m prepared to tackle in this blog. What I’d prefer to focus on is why recent and expected messaging about climate change coming out of one of Canada’s major media outlets is going to be problematic for our Party, and the need to start thinking about how we are going to counter these perceptions.
Here’s a quick summation of the Toronto Star’s editorial position on climate change and energy. Keep in mind that this is only my own opinion of the Star’s position, and that since I don’t endorse this position, my own bias will have likely crept into the mix. Also keep in mind that a paper such as the Toronto Star will never be able to present to the public a completely unified "position" in the same way that a government or a political party is able to, so the use of the term "position" in this circumstance requires a little flexibility.
Energy
Nuclear energy is a necessary, if expensive part of Ontario’s energy mix. More investment in alternative energy, such as wind, solar, biomass, is necessary, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that the lights need to stay on and nuclear is the only form of greenhouse-gas free energy we have.
Climate Change
More action needs to be taken to address climate change issues. The Conservatives have been dithering, but the good news is Barack Obama is leading the way in the U.S. and Canada will be forced to follow. Obama’s climate change combatting initiatives will be good for North America.
Carbon Pricing
While Stephane Dion’s call for a "carbon tax" was a courageous and bold initiative of the Liberal Party, he failed to sell it to Canadians because no one wants to be taxed, and because Stephen Harper and the Conservatives were successful in portraying the former Liberal Leader as inept. The good news is that a North American cap and trade system will be a fine substitute.
The Tar Sands
The environmental destruction caused by the Alberta Oil sands is something no one likes to think about, so don’t. As much as we’d rather not have to worry about these dirty oil sands, the fact is that they are driving the Canadian economy. Pity the jobs are all in Alberta, but good thing the environmental degradation is out there too. Something is going to have to be done about cleaning things up in the near future. Let’s hope someone comes along with a big idea soon, and maybe carbon capture and storage is that idea.
Municipalities
Municipalities need better tools to build their own, greener futures, including new reliable sources of revenues. Urban sprawl is bad news, but we need to recognize that not everyone is going to want to live in a condo in downtown Toronto (even though they would love the experience if they ever tried it!). Choosing investments in public transit over new roads for cars is what our municipal governments should be doing, but we can’t lose sight that cars will remain king, so let’s keep those gas prices down.
---
In yesterday’s Toronto Star, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair waxed eloquently about the United States bold new initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 17% by 2020. To do this, Blair told us that we’ll need to increase our reliance on renewable energy sources, and that clean, nuclear energy will be the energy choice of the future. This was accompanied by an editorial telling all that there are finally some welcome changes in the wind on the climate change file as a result of the U.S. moving toward a cap and trade system.
Today, Star columnist Gillian Steward, former editor of the Calgary Herald, had nothing but praise for Ignatieff’s bold recognition of the prominent place in the hearts and minds and wallets of Canadians that the Alberta oil sands plays. She concludes that Iggy will benefit from capturing a decent chunk of Alberta’s votes as a result.
The Toronto Star would likely suggest that its position on environmental issues represents both mainstream and mainstreet thinking. It might even contrast its position with that of the Conservative Party and Government of Canada, as the Star can also clearly see the inaction taken on environmental issues. Certainly since the Toronto Star and the Liberal Party seem to be on the same page on environmental issues, one could stand to conclude that the Liberal’s environmental (I’m at a loss for a word here, since "policy" seems way too strong...direction? desire? motivation?) mojo is also reflective of a mainstream Canadian view.
(as an aside, I get a kick out of reading the climate-change deniers comments beneath any and every Toronto Star article which assumes that climate change is real...looks like the workings of Conservative Party hacks to me. I can’t help but wonder, however, if these comment sections in the e-news media are having much in the way of influence, or whether they’re just time wasters?)
I, for one, would suggest that the Liberals are representative of "mainstream" Canada on this issue. The Liberals, under Michael Ignatieff, as reported by the Star, are doing a fine job on environmental issues, although maybe a little more depth to his position would help flesh things out a bit, but no worry about that, that’ll come along after the summer bbq circuit is over.
Iggy is doing a great job. Full stop. Why? Because he’s not Stephen Harper (who hasn’t done a thing, except to obscure the whole issue). And because he’s not Stephane Dion, who failed to sell "his" bold vision of taxing carbon to Canadians. I mean, in this context, how can Iggy go wrong?
And for the Toronto Star, on issues related to the environment, Ignatieff’s "pragmatic" approach will certainly be the one the Star’s editors play up as it goes on its latest journalistic crusade. And we Greens, as a result, should be worrying. And figuring out ways to get our own message out. Because you and I both know that when it comes to taking action on the environment, there is no bloody difference between Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper.
As a frequent reader of the Toronto Star, I’ve been noticing lately that they’ve been devoting a bit more coverage than usual to the issue of climate change. Could this be the Star’s latest cause?
Let’s hope so...and let’s hope not. The Toronto Star, while in my opinion one of the better mainstream media outlets in Canada, is not going to be taking up the torch to move its readers (and governments) far enough along the spectrum of thinking to get us to the point that we need to be at. In other words, the Toronto Star, often criticized as being a "Liberal mouthpiece", really is just that, and frankly should not be considered a friend of the Green Party on environmental issues (although James Travers at the Star has been pretty good about bringing issues regarding the democratic deficit to the attention of readers).
The editorial position of the Star is quite in-line with the Liberal Party. On first blush, it might sound pretty good to Green Party supporters too, but then the hair-splitting kicks in. Readers of this blog likely would be able to spot these nuanced differences between Liberal and Green policy issues without batting an eyelash. But how many of those Canadians who cast ballots for our Party in the last election understand that these little differences are actually extremely significant, and will lead to quite different outcomes if implemented?
One of the challenges our Party will face as we campaign in the next election will be to communicate our policy positions to Canadians. By and large, Canadians continue to rely on major media for their information, and clearly the way in which Canadians cast their ballots are influenced by the media. Some may suggest that a national election campaign is the very worst time to have a discussion about policy, given the media’s preoccupation with sweater-vests, pooping puffins and that sort of thing.
I certainly wouldn’t want to have to rely on the media to communicate Green Party policy to Canadians, much less how that policy differs from that of the other Parties. The whole issue of communicating with potential voters, though, is not one I’m prepared to tackle in this blog. What I’d prefer to focus on is why recent and expected messaging about climate change coming out of one of Canada’s major media outlets is going to be problematic for our Party, and the need to start thinking about how we are going to counter these perceptions.
Here’s a quick summation of the Toronto Star’s editorial position on climate change and energy. Keep in mind that this is only my own opinion of the Star’s position, and that since I don’t endorse this position, my own bias will have likely crept into the mix. Also keep in mind that a paper such as the Toronto Star will never be able to present to the public a completely unified "position" in the same way that a government or a political party is able to, so the use of the term "position" in this circumstance requires a little flexibility.
Energy
Nuclear energy is a necessary, if expensive part of Ontario’s energy mix. More investment in alternative energy, such as wind, solar, biomass, is necessary, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that the lights need to stay on and nuclear is the only form of greenhouse-gas free energy we have.
Climate Change
More action needs to be taken to address climate change issues. The Conservatives have been dithering, but the good news is Barack Obama is leading the way in the U.S. and Canada will be forced to follow. Obama’s climate change combatting initiatives will be good for North America.
Carbon Pricing
While Stephane Dion’s call for a "carbon tax" was a courageous and bold initiative of the Liberal Party, he failed to sell it to Canadians because no one wants to be taxed, and because Stephen Harper and the Conservatives were successful in portraying the former Liberal Leader as inept. The good news is that a North American cap and trade system will be a fine substitute.
The Tar Sands
The environmental destruction caused by the Alberta Oil sands is something no one likes to think about, so don’t. As much as we’d rather not have to worry about these dirty oil sands, the fact is that they are driving the Canadian economy. Pity the jobs are all in Alberta, but good thing the environmental degradation is out there too. Something is going to have to be done about cleaning things up in the near future. Let’s hope someone comes along with a big idea soon, and maybe carbon capture and storage is that idea.
Municipalities
Municipalities need better tools to build their own, greener futures, including new reliable sources of revenues. Urban sprawl is bad news, but we need to recognize that not everyone is going to want to live in a condo in downtown Toronto (even though they would love the experience if they ever tried it!). Choosing investments in public transit over new roads for cars is what our municipal governments should be doing, but we can’t lose sight that cars will remain king, so let’s keep those gas prices down.
---
In yesterday’s Toronto Star, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair waxed eloquently about the United States bold new initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 17% by 2020. To do this, Blair told us that we’ll need to increase our reliance on renewable energy sources, and that clean, nuclear energy will be the energy choice of the future. This was accompanied by an editorial telling all that there are finally some welcome changes in the wind on the climate change file as a result of the U.S. moving toward a cap and trade system.
Today, Star columnist Gillian Steward, former editor of the Calgary Herald, had nothing but praise for Ignatieff’s bold recognition of the prominent place in the hearts and minds and wallets of Canadians that the Alberta oil sands plays. She concludes that Iggy will benefit from capturing a decent chunk of Alberta’s votes as a result.
The Toronto Star would likely suggest that its position on environmental issues represents both mainstream and mainstreet thinking. It might even contrast its position with that of the Conservative Party and Government of Canada, as the Star can also clearly see the inaction taken on environmental issues. Certainly since the Toronto Star and the Liberal Party seem to be on the same page on environmental issues, one could stand to conclude that the Liberal’s environmental (I’m at a loss for a word here, since "policy" seems way too strong...direction? desire? motivation?) mojo is also reflective of a mainstream Canadian view.
(as an aside, I get a kick out of reading the climate-change deniers comments beneath any and every Toronto Star article which assumes that climate change is real...looks like the workings of Conservative Party hacks to me. I can’t help but wonder, however, if these comment sections in the e-news media are having much in the way of influence, or whether they’re just time wasters?)
I, for one, would suggest that the Liberals are representative of "mainstream" Canada on this issue. The Liberals, under Michael Ignatieff, as reported by the Star, are doing a fine job on environmental issues, although maybe a little more depth to his position would help flesh things out a bit, but no worry about that, that’ll come along after the summer bbq circuit is over.
Iggy is doing a great job. Full stop. Why? Because he’s not Stephen Harper (who hasn’t done a thing, except to obscure the whole issue). And because he’s not Stephane Dion, who failed to sell "his" bold vision of taxing carbon to Canadians. I mean, in this context, how can Iggy go wrong?
And for the Toronto Star, on issues related to the environment, Ignatieff’s "pragmatic" approach will certainly be the one the Star’s editors play up as it goes on its latest journalistic crusade. And we Greens, as a result, should be worrying. And figuring out ways to get our own message out. Because you and I both know that when it comes to taking action on the environment, there is no bloody difference between Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Tomorrow Will Not Be Like Today: Why Conservatives and Liberals Are Ill-Equipped to Lead
(originally posted at www.greenparty.ca)
This speech, "Tomorrow Will Not Be Like Today", was given at the Sudbury Federal Green Party Association’s Candidate Nomination Meeting, on June 11, 2009.
----
It’s so great to see all of you here tonight for this historic occasion. As far as we can tell, this is the first contested nomination the Green Party has ever had in Sudbury. In fact, across Canada in the Green Party, I’ve been told that there are only a handful of nomination contests taking place where two or more people have stepped forward to want to represent the Green Party in the upcoming federal election. Maybe that says something about the collaborative nature of our Party. If so, I’m not sure what it says about us here in Sudbury!
But in Sudbury we’re so lucky to have two nominees of exceptional quality before us tonight to choose from. It’s not going to be an easy choice for us to make.
I’ve had the pleasure of working closely with both Fred and Gordon over the past year, and I can tell you that although the choice isn’t going to be easy for you to make, there is some good news here; you can’t go wrong with either of these two gentleman, as they both have the substance, the smarts, the personality, and the experience to represent us in the next election, whenever that may be.
Increasingly, it’s looking like a summer election will not be happening this year. The Liberals rise in the polls after coronating Michael "Tar Sands Forever" Ignatieff seems to have levelled out somewhat now, but his popularity did take a bite of the other party’s support. Even if Ignatieff wanted to, he can not bring down the government on his own. He’d need the support of the NDP and the Bloc to do it, and those are the same parties he’s been stealing support from. Jack Layton, watching NDP support plummet, can’t be all that enthusiastic about terminating the Harper government, just to watch the Liberals sweep away the gains he made in seats last fall.
And Stephen Harper isn’t likely to suicide his own government the way he did last September, as his personal popularity and support continue to trend downwards in the rest of Canada, and have completely bottomed out in Quebec. There is no majority to be gained for Harper, which is kind of a good thing, kind of not, because it means that it looks like we’re going to have to live with the Stephen Harper-Michael Ignatieff Liberal-Conservative co-alition for a while longer yet.
And every day we live with these guys is a day less where action can be taken on the issues which have brought us all together.
We Greens understand that many of the issues which are important to us are being ignored by successive Conservative and Liberal governments. Action is not being taken on the environment, and Canada has become an international outcast for ignoring its Kyoto commitments, and has instead chosen to let greenhouse gas emissions rise with impunity.
Action is not being taken to address the democratic deficit, when almost half of the voting age population of this country doesn’t bother to cast a ballot any more, because they know their votes don’t really matter, because the MP’s they elect will fall in line behind their party leaders like lemmings.
These are but two important issues to Greens, two of many which our governments continue to ignore. We, as citizens of this nation, know that Canada, acting in concert with all other nations, needs to begin reducing carbon emissions. Just about all of us practice this in our daily lives, subscribing to the principles of Reducing, Re-using and Re-cycling. Many of us have banded together in efforts to educate others, to promote the need to reduce carbon emissions at all cost, because we do not want our children to live in a world where no action to reduce was taken by our generation.
Education and advocacy are incredibly important roles for all of us to play. Leading by example is the best way to show our neighbours and others in our community that the small choices that we make have huge pay-offs when coupled with the choices of others.
We in the Green Party, though, understand that education and advocacy alone will not lead to the shifts our society must undertake to avoid the worst of, to paraphrase James Howard Kuntsler, the author of the Long Emergency, to avoid the worst of the coming "clusterfuck" of crises sitting out their on the horizon, 5 maybe 10 years out in the future.
Action on these issues requires political will. The Conservatives and Liberals have no political will to do anything more than be seen to be addressing these issues. They want to greenwash Canadians. They want to fool us into thinking that they are taking necessary steps to addressing these issues of importance. But they are creatures of the status quo, creatures who have a vested interest in continuing to insist that tomorrow will be like today and yesterday.
Well, tomorrow will not be like today. Not at all. And that’s why we Greens have come together, because we realize that we can no longer sit idly by while our Leaders sit on their hands and play make-believe games. It’s long past the time to be playing political games when our country’s health, indeed our planet’s health, is at stake.
Change is a political process, as much as an educational one. We’ve been doing very well with education, not so much with the political side of change.
Why is this? Most Canadian voters continue to buy into the myths created by the spin of the other political parties; repeated by a mass media where an ever decreasing number of voices are allowed to be heard. We know these myths: Conservatives are best at managing finances. Liberal policy will sway any which way to get votes. The NDP are tax and spend socialists which will lead us all to financial ruin.
And the Green Party? Well, we’re simply a "One Issue" Party. Not to be taken seriously.
You’d think that Canadians would realize that these myths are just that: myths. But because they are repeated time and again, they’ve come to take on significant prominence in the minds of many. And we in the Green Party have a lot of work to do to counter these myths.
Pollsters tell us, again and again, that when it comes to the discrete issue of how to handle the environment, Canadians believe that the Green Party is the party of choice to tackle environmental issues. The same polls show the Conservatives would be the ones most Canadians would pick to tackle economic issues, with the Liberals in second place and the Green Party just barely showing.
The very questions themselves are telling of the political paradigm we’ve created and have allowed to flourish. Somehow, in this paradigm, the environment and the economy are two separate issues, best handled in two completely different and unconnected ways. Greens need to start doing a better job of telling Canadians, starting with the pollsters, why environmental and economic issues are actually one and the same, and that when you mismanage the environment you also mismanage the economy.
We need look no further than to the Conservative and Liberal Parties to prove this point. It is a prevailing myth that the Conservatives and Liberals are good financial managers.
In the January version of the Conservative budget which the Liberals supported through their votes, a deficit of approximately 34 billion dollars was projected. That means that the government planned to spend 34 billion more than they were going to collect. The Conservatives told Canadians that such a huge deficit was necessary in order to inject "stimulus" money into the economy.
Interestingly, the January budget also highlighted approximately 34 billion dollars worth of tax cuts, 12 billion of which came from lost GST revenue as a result of the Conservatives move to lower the GST by 2 percentage points during the course of previous budgets.
Funny how the amount of the projected deficit equalled the amount of the tax cuts. It’s almost like the Conservatives and Liberals back in January said, "Well, we still need to spend all of the money we’re taking in, but since our political agenda is to cut taxes so that we can get votes, we’ll just ignore sound financial policies and make Canadians pay for the difference somehow later on." And they can do this because most Canadians continue to believe that the Conservatives and Liberals are good financial managers.
Now the projected deficit sits at 50 billion dollars; 50.2 was just announced today. Largely, this has been as a result of bailing out Chrysler and General Motors, which operate in the Liberal-Conservative battleground of Southern Ontario.
50 billion in deficit. Wow. Can you imagine Stephen Harper’s government going there this time last year? I mean, if you were a supporter of the Conservatives, wouldn’t you be shocked and appalled about this deficit? We Greens might think so.
I mean, come on, how can you spend $50 billion more than you take in in a single year? And still call yourself a small-government Conservative? Or a fiscally-sound money manager?
So are Stephen Harper and the Conservatives shaking in their boots? Not at all. They’ve been viewing this economic crisis as an opportunity to finally get to do what they’ve been wanting to do all along. By creating this largely artificial deficit, and spending stimulus money for projects they can send their MP’s out to cut ribbons for, the Conservatives have accomplished their goals: they’re appearing to be sensitive to the needs of Canadians by injecting money into the economy while at the same time cutting taxes. And they’ve created a new structural deficit which will need to be slain in the future.
And how do you slay a structural deficit in the budget? You’ve got two options. Raise taxes, or cut expenses. Which do you think the Conservatives will choose? Will Stephen Harper turn to Canadians and say, "Ok folks, the spending orgy is over, now that the economy is turning itself around, sorry about this, but we need to pay to our tab, so time for your taxes to go up." Or will they follow the Chretien-Martin Liberal program of reducing expenses by cutting government services and programs, or downloading them to the Provinces, who will also be up to their ears in red ink.
The word "tax" is never going to make anyone feel warm and fuzzy. Benjamin Franklin said that there are only two gaurantees in life: death and taxes. We don’t particularly look forward to either. But another great American, Oliver Wendell Holmes, had a bit more of a pragmatic and optimistic outlook on taxes, one we all need to keep in mind and remind our fellow Canadians of. Holmes told us that taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.
Jim Flaherty and the Conservatives tell us that taxes need to be reduced, especially on businesses, in order that Canadian businesses can be more competitive. This is despite the fact that between 1984 and 2006, the Conservatives and Liberals gave up over 250 billion dollars in revenue through tax cuts, a good portion of which went to wealthy businesses.
And were businesses more competitive as a result? Well, the World Economic Forum ranked Canadian businesses as the 5th most competitive in the world back in 1999. In 2008, we’d fallen to 10th spot. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for those who believe that lower taxes leads to more competitiveness. Although they will still likely point out that being 5th or 10th in the world is still something to crow about.
Until they look around and discover that out of the top ten countries in the world who have the most competitive businesses, 6 of those nations are some of those same Northern European countries who Conservatives get all a-twitter about because of their high tax rates! Clearly, competitive business are not made by lowering taxes. Which stands to reason if you step back and think about it, because our taxes are re-invested in making our society more civilized. A business employee is a lot less likely to miss productive work time, for example, if she is receiving state-sponsored health care rather than having to remain sick because she can’t afford to pay her own medical bills.
Clearly, Conservatives do not understand that important issues are all tied-together. Your social well-being is an environmental issue; business competitiveness is a social issue. And a healthy environment is an economic issue!
Canadians should start exploding the myth that Conservatives and their kissing cousin Liberals are sound managers of finances. They are not. Down the road, this financial mismanagement which we’re seeing out of Ottawa today will mean more pain for all Canadians, and disproportionately more pain for the least well-off amongst us, as funding for public services and programs dries up.
That also means less money will be available for our government to begin making investments in the green economy, needed investments to stimulate truly green enterprises, rather than the sorts of brown projects the so-called economic stimulus has largely been providing money for. Rather than investing in streetcars for Toronto, the Conservatives want to see more highways!
Greens, we have a story to share with Canadians, a story which they need to hear. The future is not going to be the same as today. Our finances are in chaos, and our governments are interested in doing only what it takes to get elected, and not interested in doing what needs to be done. Public Representatives like Fred and Gordon and Elizabeth May will do things differently, but we Canadians have to give them the chance to do so.
There isn’t any more time left to delay in taking the actions which we need to take. Change requires education and advocacy, but real change ultimately requires political will. Time and again the Conservatives and Liberals have shown that they do not have the political will to address, or even admit to, the coming crises.
Through your own expression of political will this evening, by casting a ballot for a Green Party candidate, you’ll have taken yet another step in the long march we’ve all embarked on. The road, as we know, will be a hard one, but together we can help each other along, and remain committed to the endeavour. For together, we are strong, and our strength and unity will no longer be ignored.
Thank you
This speech, "Tomorrow Will Not Be Like Today", was given at the Sudbury Federal Green Party Association’s Candidate Nomination Meeting, on June 11, 2009.
----
It’s so great to see all of you here tonight for this historic occasion. As far as we can tell, this is the first contested nomination the Green Party has ever had in Sudbury. In fact, across Canada in the Green Party, I’ve been told that there are only a handful of nomination contests taking place where two or more people have stepped forward to want to represent the Green Party in the upcoming federal election. Maybe that says something about the collaborative nature of our Party. If so, I’m not sure what it says about us here in Sudbury!
But in Sudbury we’re so lucky to have two nominees of exceptional quality before us tonight to choose from. It’s not going to be an easy choice for us to make.
I’ve had the pleasure of working closely with both Fred and Gordon over the past year, and I can tell you that although the choice isn’t going to be easy for you to make, there is some good news here; you can’t go wrong with either of these two gentleman, as they both have the substance, the smarts, the personality, and the experience to represent us in the next election, whenever that may be.
Increasingly, it’s looking like a summer election will not be happening this year. The Liberals rise in the polls after coronating Michael "Tar Sands Forever" Ignatieff seems to have levelled out somewhat now, but his popularity did take a bite of the other party’s support. Even if Ignatieff wanted to, he can not bring down the government on his own. He’d need the support of the NDP and the Bloc to do it, and those are the same parties he’s been stealing support from. Jack Layton, watching NDP support plummet, can’t be all that enthusiastic about terminating the Harper government, just to watch the Liberals sweep away the gains he made in seats last fall.
And Stephen Harper isn’t likely to suicide his own government the way he did last September, as his personal popularity and support continue to trend downwards in the rest of Canada, and have completely bottomed out in Quebec. There is no majority to be gained for Harper, which is kind of a good thing, kind of not, because it means that it looks like we’re going to have to live with the Stephen Harper-Michael Ignatieff Liberal-Conservative co-alition for a while longer yet.
And every day we live with these guys is a day less where action can be taken on the issues which have brought us all together.
We Greens understand that many of the issues which are important to us are being ignored by successive Conservative and Liberal governments. Action is not being taken on the environment, and Canada has become an international outcast for ignoring its Kyoto commitments, and has instead chosen to let greenhouse gas emissions rise with impunity.
Action is not being taken to address the democratic deficit, when almost half of the voting age population of this country doesn’t bother to cast a ballot any more, because they know their votes don’t really matter, because the MP’s they elect will fall in line behind their party leaders like lemmings.
These are but two important issues to Greens, two of many which our governments continue to ignore. We, as citizens of this nation, know that Canada, acting in concert with all other nations, needs to begin reducing carbon emissions. Just about all of us practice this in our daily lives, subscribing to the principles of Reducing, Re-using and Re-cycling. Many of us have banded together in efforts to educate others, to promote the need to reduce carbon emissions at all cost, because we do not want our children to live in a world where no action to reduce was taken by our generation.
Education and advocacy are incredibly important roles for all of us to play. Leading by example is the best way to show our neighbours and others in our community that the small choices that we make have huge pay-offs when coupled with the choices of others.
We in the Green Party, though, understand that education and advocacy alone will not lead to the shifts our society must undertake to avoid the worst of, to paraphrase James Howard Kuntsler, the author of the Long Emergency, to avoid the worst of the coming "clusterfuck" of crises sitting out their on the horizon, 5 maybe 10 years out in the future.
Action on these issues requires political will. The Conservatives and Liberals have no political will to do anything more than be seen to be addressing these issues. They want to greenwash Canadians. They want to fool us into thinking that they are taking necessary steps to addressing these issues of importance. But they are creatures of the status quo, creatures who have a vested interest in continuing to insist that tomorrow will be like today and yesterday.
Well, tomorrow will not be like today. Not at all. And that’s why we Greens have come together, because we realize that we can no longer sit idly by while our Leaders sit on their hands and play make-believe games. It’s long past the time to be playing political games when our country’s health, indeed our planet’s health, is at stake.
Change is a political process, as much as an educational one. We’ve been doing very well with education, not so much with the political side of change.
Why is this? Most Canadian voters continue to buy into the myths created by the spin of the other political parties; repeated by a mass media where an ever decreasing number of voices are allowed to be heard. We know these myths: Conservatives are best at managing finances. Liberal policy will sway any which way to get votes. The NDP are tax and spend socialists which will lead us all to financial ruin.
And the Green Party? Well, we’re simply a "One Issue" Party. Not to be taken seriously.
You’d think that Canadians would realize that these myths are just that: myths. But because they are repeated time and again, they’ve come to take on significant prominence in the minds of many. And we in the Green Party have a lot of work to do to counter these myths.
Pollsters tell us, again and again, that when it comes to the discrete issue of how to handle the environment, Canadians believe that the Green Party is the party of choice to tackle environmental issues. The same polls show the Conservatives would be the ones most Canadians would pick to tackle economic issues, with the Liberals in second place and the Green Party just barely showing.
The very questions themselves are telling of the political paradigm we’ve created and have allowed to flourish. Somehow, in this paradigm, the environment and the economy are two separate issues, best handled in two completely different and unconnected ways. Greens need to start doing a better job of telling Canadians, starting with the pollsters, why environmental and economic issues are actually one and the same, and that when you mismanage the environment you also mismanage the economy.
We need look no further than to the Conservative and Liberal Parties to prove this point. It is a prevailing myth that the Conservatives and Liberals are good financial managers.
In the January version of the Conservative budget which the Liberals supported through their votes, a deficit of approximately 34 billion dollars was projected. That means that the government planned to spend 34 billion more than they were going to collect. The Conservatives told Canadians that such a huge deficit was necessary in order to inject "stimulus" money into the economy.
Interestingly, the January budget also highlighted approximately 34 billion dollars worth of tax cuts, 12 billion of which came from lost GST revenue as a result of the Conservatives move to lower the GST by 2 percentage points during the course of previous budgets.
Funny how the amount of the projected deficit equalled the amount of the tax cuts. It’s almost like the Conservatives and Liberals back in January said, "Well, we still need to spend all of the money we’re taking in, but since our political agenda is to cut taxes so that we can get votes, we’ll just ignore sound financial policies and make Canadians pay for the difference somehow later on." And they can do this because most Canadians continue to believe that the Conservatives and Liberals are good financial managers.
Now the projected deficit sits at 50 billion dollars; 50.2 was just announced today. Largely, this has been as a result of bailing out Chrysler and General Motors, which operate in the Liberal-Conservative battleground of Southern Ontario.
50 billion in deficit. Wow. Can you imagine Stephen Harper’s government going there this time last year? I mean, if you were a supporter of the Conservatives, wouldn’t you be shocked and appalled about this deficit? We Greens might think so.
I mean, come on, how can you spend $50 billion more than you take in in a single year? And still call yourself a small-government Conservative? Or a fiscally-sound money manager?
So are Stephen Harper and the Conservatives shaking in their boots? Not at all. They’ve been viewing this economic crisis as an opportunity to finally get to do what they’ve been wanting to do all along. By creating this largely artificial deficit, and spending stimulus money for projects they can send their MP’s out to cut ribbons for, the Conservatives have accomplished their goals: they’re appearing to be sensitive to the needs of Canadians by injecting money into the economy while at the same time cutting taxes. And they’ve created a new structural deficit which will need to be slain in the future.
And how do you slay a structural deficit in the budget? You’ve got two options. Raise taxes, or cut expenses. Which do you think the Conservatives will choose? Will Stephen Harper turn to Canadians and say, "Ok folks, the spending orgy is over, now that the economy is turning itself around, sorry about this, but we need to pay to our tab, so time for your taxes to go up." Or will they follow the Chretien-Martin Liberal program of reducing expenses by cutting government services and programs, or downloading them to the Provinces, who will also be up to their ears in red ink.
The word "tax" is never going to make anyone feel warm and fuzzy. Benjamin Franklin said that there are only two gaurantees in life: death and taxes. We don’t particularly look forward to either. But another great American, Oliver Wendell Holmes, had a bit more of a pragmatic and optimistic outlook on taxes, one we all need to keep in mind and remind our fellow Canadians of. Holmes told us that taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.
Jim Flaherty and the Conservatives tell us that taxes need to be reduced, especially on businesses, in order that Canadian businesses can be more competitive. This is despite the fact that between 1984 and 2006, the Conservatives and Liberals gave up over 250 billion dollars in revenue through tax cuts, a good portion of which went to wealthy businesses.
And were businesses more competitive as a result? Well, the World Economic Forum ranked Canadian businesses as the 5th most competitive in the world back in 1999. In 2008, we’d fallen to 10th spot. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for those who believe that lower taxes leads to more competitiveness. Although they will still likely point out that being 5th or 10th in the world is still something to crow about.
Until they look around and discover that out of the top ten countries in the world who have the most competitive businesses, 6 of those nations are some of those same Northern European countries who Conservatives get all a-twitter about because of their high tax rates! Clearly, competitive business are not made by lowering taxes. Which stands to reason if you step back and think about it, because our taxes are re-invested in making our society more civilized. A business employee is a lot less likely to miss productive work time, for example, if she is receiving state-sponsored health care rather than having to remain sick because she can’t afford to pay her own medical bills.
Clearly, Conservatives do not understand that important issues are all tied-together. Your social well-being is an environmental issue; business competitiveness is a social issue. And a healthy environment is an economic issue!
Canadians should start exploding the myth that Conservatives and their kissing cousin Liberals are sound managers of finances. They are not. Down the road, this financial mismanagement which we’re seeing out of Ottawa today will mean more pain for all Canadians, and disproportionately more pain for the least well-off amongst us, as funding for public services and programs dries up.
That also means less money will be available for our government to begin making investments in the green economy, needed investments to stimulate truly green enterprises, rather than the sorts of brown projects the so-called economic stimulus has largely been providing money for. Rather than investing in streetcars for Toronto, the Conservatives want to see more highways!
Greens, we have a story to share with Canadians, a story which they need to hear. The future is not going to be the same as today. Our finances are in chaos, and our governments are interested in doing only what it takes to get elected, and not interested in doing what needs to be done. Public Representatives like Fred and Gordon and Elizabeth May will do things differently, but we Canadians have to give them the chance to do so.
There isn’t any more time left to delay in taking the actions which we need to take. Change requires education and advocacy, but real change ultimately requires political will. Time and again the Conservatives and Liberals have shown that they do not have the political will to address, or even admit to, the coming crises.
Through your own expression of political will this evening, by casting a ballot for a Green Party candidate, you’ll have taken yet another step in the long march we’ve all embarked on. The road, as we know, will be a hard one, but together we can help each other along, and remain committed to the endeavour. For together, we are strong, and our strength and unity will no longer be ignored.
Thank you
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Speaking Truth to Power: The Need for Adult Conversations with Canadian Voters
(originally posted to Green Party of Canada website on April 30, 2009)
Speaking to the Globe and Mail about Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s days as an academic, and with reference to Ignatieff’s recent musings on the possible future need to raise taxes to address the current governmental spending orgy systemic deficits, former Conservative strategist Tom Flanagan provided some very revealing remarks. Not revealing about Ignatieff or even government spending, but revealing about what, in his opinion, it takes to be a winner in politics. Contrasting Michael Ignatieff’s former life as an academic to his current incarnation as Leader of the Official Opposition, Flanagan, tells the Globe, "Then once you get into politics, your task is mostly to conceal the truth. The truth becomes a gaffe." This is a revealing statement because of what it says about truth and politics, and the ways in which our political leaders treat the truth.
And we see that play itself out time and time again with the Conservatives and the Liberals. The truth really does become something to hide, conceal, to keep behind closed doors, not to be uttered to anyone on the telephone or especially where a microphone or tape recorder can pick it up.
Our current politicians operate largely in a strange and surreal shadow world, filled with spin and derision, where the truth is known, but not talked about or discussed. How important issues for Canadians actually get addressed in this climate is in anything but a straight-forward way. Rather than speaking the truth, the object of the game is to whack down those who dare to rise up and confront important issues head on.
Is it any wonder, then, in this climate, that important issues are left largely unaddressed? Take climate change, for example. That’s an easy one. That’s probably why most of us are here, as we’ve recognized that the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP are more interested in playing politics than achieving results.
Ignatifeff’s recent musings about a cap and trade system, while supporting the Alberta tar sands, shows that he’s no different from the Conservatives, who have recently been talking up the same thing. What we’ll end up with is an ineffective cap and trade system, riddled with industry exemptions, costing billions in support, raising the prices on consumer goods, but doing little or nothing to address greenhouse gas emissions. But the Libs and Cons would be seen to be doing something for the environment. And in their dark world of spin, to be seen to be doing something is so much better than to actually be doing something. Especially if it can put some more money into the pockets of the Board of Directors of Sun Cor and others of their ilk.
At least the NDP want to close down the tar sands. But even the NDP play the spin game on worthy alternatives not of their party’s devising. Witness Layton’s slamming Dion’s carbon tax proposal in the last election. Layton knows that a carbon tax will reduce greenhouse gases, but instead focussed on how it might impact low-income consumers, ignoring completely the financial off-sets in Dion’s platform to address this very concern.
For the Green Party’s own carbon tax shifting proposal, since there was no gain at all for Layton to even deign to admit that the Green Party exists, he left us largely alone. Don’t be too sure that the NDP spin doctors will implement the same approach during the next election, as NDP support sputters out.
Say what you want about Michael Ignatieff (and I’ve got a lot to say!). The only decent thing he’s done so far was to candidly and responsibly suggest that taxes might have to be raised in the future in order to pay for all of the money currently being thrown about. I mean, come on, of course that’s the reality, the truth. But he was almost strung-up by the other parties and the media for daring to utter what is obvious to us all. But that’s what our current system appears to be all about, as Tom Flanagan well knows.
Well, the Green Party is doing things differently. We dare to tell Canadians the truth, even when the truth is going to be a hard-sell. Some would suggest this has been a contributing factor to our inability to get elected. But the fact is, to address issues of importance, we can only do so with all of our cards on the table. Climate change can’t be successfully fought without an adult conversation about how the fight is going to impact us all, altering our lifestyles and changing our lives. Change is often something to be feared, and that’s why so many are against it. It’s easier for us all to keep doing things the way we’ve always done them.
But change is also progress. A challenge, yes, but an opportunity as well, to do things better, to build something more than we have today, something grander.
The other parties don’t want to have this discussion, because they are complacent with the way things are done now, it’s what they know. I don’t think Ignatieff and Harper and especially Layton would even know how to have an adult conversation amongst just the three of them if the cameras are rolling.
Change, though, is also inevitable. And Canadians are starting to understand this double-edged nature of change a little bit better. If our society doesn’t decide to make the changes we need to make, change in other forms will be thrust upon us. There is growing recognition that the road we’re on right now leads to higher temperatures, more severe weather events, more expensive heating fuels and gasoline, higher food prices, inflation, lower wages, fewer jobs, higher unemployment, more homelessness, more protests and civil unrest, less food available to consume, mass movements of environmental refugees, more armed conflict between nations over dwindling resources such as oil and clean water, more bombing, torture, military occupation, war, disease, devastation, death and destruction, and a loss of all we’ve held dear, fewer chances for our children and grandchildren to live their lives in ways we would wish for them.
There’s a growing understanding that those changes are going to be the ones we face in the future if we don’t start making our own decisions to change now.
And we, as a society, can’t make informed decisions for our world when our so-called political leaders are happy to inhabit their dark nether-world of spin, deception of lies.
For us Greens, and for the benefit of our society, speaking the truth to power, in this case Canadian voters, must always be paramount.
Speaking to the Globe and Mail about Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s days as an academic, and with reference to Ignatieff’s recent musings on the possible future need to raise taxes to address the current governmental spending orgy systemic deficits, former Conservative strategist Tom Flanagan provided some very revealing remarks. Not revealing about Ignatieff or even government spending, but revealing about what, in his opinion, it takes to be a winner in politics. Contrasting Michael Ignatieff’s former life as an academic to his current incarnation as Leader of the Official Opposition, Flanagan, tells the Globe, "Then once you get into politics, your task is mostly to conceal the truth. The truth becomes a gaffe." This is a revealing statement because of what it says about truth and politics, and the ways in which our political leaders treat the truth.
And we see that play itself out time and time again with the Conservatives and the Liberals. The truth really does become something to hide, conceal, to keep behind closed doors, not to be uttered to anyone on the telephone or especially where a microphone or tape recorder can pick it up.
Our current politicians operate largely in a strange and surreal shadow world, filled with spin and derision, where the truth is known, but not talked about or discussed. How important issues for Canadians actually get addressed in this climate is in anything but a straight-forward way. Rather than speaking the truth, the object of the game is to whack down those who dare to rise up and confront important issues head on.
Is it any wonder, then, in this climate, that important issues are left largely unaddressed? Take climate change, for example. That’s an easy one. That’s probably why most of us are here, as we’ve recognized that the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP are more interested in playing politics than achieving results.
Ignatifeff’s recent musings about a cap and trade system, while supporting the Alberta tar sands, shows that he’s no different from the Conservatives, who have recently been talking up the same thing. What we’ll end up with is an ineffective cap and trade system, riddled with industry exemptions, costing billions in support, raising the prices on consumer goods, but doing little or nothing to address greenhouse gas emissions. But the Libs and Cons would be seen to be doing something for the environment. And in their dark world of spin, to be seen to be doing something is so much better than to actually be doing something. Especially if it can put some more money into the pockets of the Board of Directors of Sun Cor and others of their ilk.
At least the NDP want to close down the tar sands. But even the NDP play the spin game on worthy alternatives not of their party’s devising. Witness Layton’s slamming Dion’s carbon tax proposal in the last election. Layton knows that a carbon tax will reduce greenhouse gases, but instead focussed on how it might impact low-income consumers, ignoring completely the financial off-sets in Dion’s platform to address this very concern.
For the Green Party’s own carbon tax shifting proposal, since there was no gain at all for Layton to even deign to admit that the Green Party exists, he left us largely alone. Don’t be too sure that the NDP spin doctors will implement the same approach during the next election, as NDP support sputters out.
Say what you want about Michael Ignatieff (and I’ve got a lot to say!). The only decent thing he’s done so far was to candidly and responsibly suggest that taxes might have to be raised in the future in order to pay for all of the money currently being thrown about. I mean, come on, of course that’s the reality, the truth. But he was almost strung-up by the other parties and the media for daring to utter what is obvious to us all. But that’s what our current system appears to be all about, as Tom Flanagan well knows.
Well, the Green Party is doing things differently. We dare to tell Canadians the truth, even when the truth is going to be a hard-sell. Some would suggest this has been a contributing factor to our inability to get elected. But the fact is, to address issues of importance, we can only do so with all of our cards on the table. Climate change can’t be successfully fought without an adult conversation about how the fight is going to impact us all, altering our lifestyles and changing our lives. Change is often something to be feared, and that’s why so many are against it. It’s easier for us all to keep doing things the way we’ve always done them.
But change is also progress. A challenge, yes, but an opportunity as well, to do things better, to build something more than we have today, something grander.
The other parties don’t want to have this discussion, because they are complacent with the way things are done now, it’s what they know. I don’t think Ignatieff and Harper and especially Layton would even know how to have an adult conversation amongst just the three of them if the cameras are rolling.
Change, though, is also inevitable. And Canadians are starting to understand this double-edged nature of change a little bit better. If our society doesn’t decide to make the changes we need to make, change in other forms will be thrust upon us. There is growing recognition that the road we’re on right now leads to higher temperatures, more severe weather events, more expensive heating fuels and gasoline, higher food prices, inflation, lower wages, fewer jobs, higher unemployment, more homelessness, more protests and civil unrest, less food available to consume, mass movements of environmental refugees, more armed conflict between nations over dwindling resources such as oil and clean water, more bombing, torture, military occupation, war, disease, devastation, death and destruction, and a loss of all we’ve held dear, fewer chances for our children and grandchildren to live their lives in ways we would wish for them.
There’s a growing understanding that those changes are going to be the ones we face in the future if we don’t start making our own decisions to change now.
And we, as a society, can’t make informed decisions for our world when our so-called political leaders are happy to inhabit their dark nether-world of spin, deception of lies.
For us Greens, and for the benefit of our society, speaking the truth to power, in this case Canadian voters, must always be paramount.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)