(...continued from Part I)
Coming hot on the heels of the July 25th endorsement blog issue, we have what has been a much more public mis-step by May. On Wednesday, July 27th, May touched off a national firestorm with a couple of tweets about the health perils of WiFi. In the first tweet, May exclaims that she’s glad that she doesn’t have wireless internet access in her home. In the second, she expresses concerns for the health of children attending schools with WiFi.
Oh my. When I saw those tweets appear in my own twitterfeed, I took off my glasses and held my head in my hands. I knew that this was going to be explosive. The only saving grace was that she was tweeting about this in July, and not in September. I hoped that people would not confuse May’s stance on WiFi with the Green Party of Canada’s position on WiFi, but as the Leader and spokesperson of the Party, I had little doubt that there would be some confusion.
Well, maybe a press release would straighten things out. After all, Twitter isn’t the best venue for nuanced discussions.
Later in the day, there was a press release issued by the Party. But it wasn’t the mea culpa I had been expecting. No. Instead, it was a joint press release issued by the Green Party of Canada and the Green Party of British Columbia, attacking smart meters because they use WiFi technology ("BC Greens say Smart Meter health concerns demand action")
First off, it’s very unusual for the Party to issue a joint press release. It’s been my observation that the Party goes to great efforts to not involve itself in discussions pertaining to matters within provincial jurisdictions. As a national party, we must respect the division of authorities as laid out in Canada's Constitution, and that’s why the Party has typically left provincial matters in the hands of Green provincial parties, such as the Green Party of B.C., led by Jane Sterk. Most of the other parties operate in the same way, with some notable exceptions where lines have been blurred in the past.
So a joint press release is a pretty big deal. The issue being discussed must be one of both provincial and national importance. The press release itself starts off by suggesting that’s just the case, referencing “all jurisdictions”, and the way in which some of these jurisdictions have placed moratoriums on smart meters, or cancelled programs altogether. Ok, this must be pretty serious stuff. I just had a smart meter installed on my home a few months ago, in anticipation of time of use billing being implemented in Sudbury later this summer. Yikes. This must effect ME, my family, neighbours and just about everyone in Ontario who has either received or will receive a smart meter!
Ok, so it is a big deal. The national Green Party is doing more than lending its good name to the cause of the B.C. Greens here. It’s trotted out Elizabeth May to make a statement in support of the B.C. Green’s position. It’s issuing a joint press release with the B.C. Greens. It’s promoting the release on the front page of the GPC website. Ok, it’s really got my attention now. So what for goodness sake is the national party taking a position on? And why are we attacking smart meters?
To my horror, it appears that the national party has aligned itself with the B.C. Green’s call to allow consumers to opt out of having smart meters installed on their homes. Let’s take a look at some of the statements made in the release, which the national Party appears to be in support of:
“The smart meter program is another example of unsupportable assumptions based on industry lobbying rather than best practices,” says Jane Sterk, leader of the Green Party of BC. “Greens believe all public policy should be evidence based and founded on the Precautionary Principle.
“BC Hydro’s wireless smart meter program violates that principle. There are environmental, privacy and security concerns as well as the potential for adverse health risks. This is an issue that hits at the heart of democratic rights. Individuals have no ability to opt out of a program that may impact the health of those with electro-magnetic sensitivity,” says Sterk.
So, because the B.C. Greens believe that the scientific verdict is still out on the health-related effects of WiFi, BC Hydro should cancel the installation of smart meters? Sterk appears to be suggesting that this is the case, based on the application of the Precautionary Principle.
Look, I’m all for the use of the Precautionary Principle in guiding public policy. I’d even go so far as to agree with Sterk that the jury is still out on the health-related impacts of WiFi. I know that there aren’t all that many studies out there on this subject, and some of the ones that are available suggest that there may be some connections between electromagnet radiation and human health, although cell phones are usually tagged as the culprit. It even makes sense to me on an emotional level that the more humans are exposed to human-made radiation, that there’s probably a greater health risk. So, sure, maybe I do buy into the notion that there’s a risk.
But you know what? I cycle to work as often as I can, despite the statistics which show that I’m much more likely to sustain a significant injury doing so than if I were to take the car or ride the bus. But I bike to work because I want to do my part to reduce emissions. I realize that when it comes to the health-related risks of cycling, the choice is mine to make, whereas B.C. residents appear to have no choice but to accept a smart meter attached to their homes.
But I don’t have a choice when I walk through the downtown of my hometown, and pass by people using cell phones. Or when I walk through the entrance of a store in the mall which scans me with an invisible something or other to ensure that I’ve not removed any articles without first having paid for them. At work, I sit in front of a computer for 8 hours a day. I guess I could refuse the paycheck and find employment elsewhere, so maybe that’s a choice. Should I be better informed of the health risks associated with all of these activities? Probably. And maybe the government could be doing more to ensure that its citizens, like me, are able to lead safer lives, by somehow influencing the amount of exposure to radiological radiation we all experience.
Interestingly, the Green Party of Canada has a policy which calls for just that. Elizabeth May even references this policy in the joint press release:
“The Green Party of Canada, through a resolution of our entire membership, has called for the current inadequate Health Canada regulations to be upgraded to the equivalent of the EMF regulations in Germany,” says Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada. “We are entirely too complacent about the growing evidence of health effects from wireless technology.”
Ok, that statement on its own appears to me to be fair and balanced, and representative of the Green Party of Canada’s position and member-approved policy as it pertains to WiFi. We want more regulation from Health Canada, in keeping with an approach currently being used in Germany. Sounds...sensible.
My question remains, though: what the hell is it doing in a joint press release which attacks the installation of smart meters?
In a blog post appearing on Thursday, July 28th, titled “The Twitter firestorm and why I said what I said about Wi-Fi”, May attempts to clarify what she was thinking, and broaden the discussion. Thankfully, the national mainstream media seem to have largely ignored the smart meter attack angle at this time, and have focussed largely on May’s tweets pertaining to WiFi in general use.
May claims that while WiFi is something which Canadians should be concerned about, but the issue isn’t the top priority of the Party and is far from it. That's good, but she says nothing at all about smart meters. Which continues to leave me wondering: are we for 'em, or are we 'agin 'em?
For what it’s worth, I don’t disagree with much of what May has written in her blog. In fact, she’s convinced me that we probably should be looking into the health impacts of EMF to a more significant degree than we have to this point.
Her blog references the exact policy resolution adopted by Green Party of Canada Members. In the policy, there is a reference to a “precautionary limit” of 0.1 uW/cm2 (or 0.164 V/m) for cumulative outdoor exposure to radio frequency radiation, which appears to be the limit called for in something called the “Bioinitiative Report” of 2007.
I have no idea what this precautionary limit means. I don’t even know what all of the little letters after the numbers actually stand for. But apparently, whatever it is that a WiFi emitter emits, it’s far less than this precautionary limit. At least according to Gary Murphy, the Chief Project Officer in B.C., who shared his thoughts with the Victoria Times-Colonist in the article "Greens want smart meter plug pulled".
“I wish they would have reached out to us to get some information,” he said, noting that he was particularly struck by May’s insistence that Health Canada EMF regulations be upgraded to the equivalent of those in Germany.
“Our (smart) meters are not only below that level, they are also below the most stringent standard in the world – Switzerland’s precautionary principle standard.”
Of course, Murphy is looking at the policy in isolation, saying that smart meters are below the precautionary limit, whereas the policy actually speaks to an aggregate level of exposure, to which WiFi would add its own little bit of radiation to the total that we're all exposed to. But apparently WiFi's addition isn't much more than the contributions made by baby monitors, and a lot less than cell phones.
The Times-Colonist also has also run a nice picture of May, Sterk and Trent University Professor Magda Havas, who has recently published a scientific paper which confirms that there are health-related impacts from EMF. All three appear to be at some sort of press conference.
Oh my. So not only was there a joint press release on this smart-meter attack between the two parties, but our Leader appeared in a press conference too?
In how many different ways is this problematic?
First, May appears to be associating herself, and by extension as Leader of the Green Party of Canada, the national party, with a call by the B.C. Greens for a provincial agency, BC Hydro, to stop its smart meter installation program, due largely to health concerns (although security was also mentioned, seemingly as an afterthought). So the national party appears to be getting itself involved in a matter of provincial jurisdiction. I guess if the matter was of national importance, that would make sense.
But WiFi isn’t that kind of matter, by May's own admission in her blog, where she clarifies that WiFi is well down the list of the Green Party of Canada's priorities.
Look, health risks or no health risks, people love WiFi. Very few Canadians appear to be talking about curbing WiFi use. While I understand that there are some Canadians who are deeply troubled by this issue, it’s simply not on the mainstream political radar. Given that the specific issue here is related to a provincial agency in B.C., the national party really should not have stuck its nose into that business. Especially when it's not our priority.
Second, the Green Party of Canada does not have any member-approved policy which calls for anything like a moratorium on the installation of smart meters. The only policy we have is one which calls for more regulation from Health Canada over aggregate outdoor exposure, and a better precautionary limit. Taking this member-approved policy and suggesting that it is somehow supportive of Sterk’s call for BC Hydro to stop installing smart meters is an extreme stretch. I doubt that many Green Party of Canada members would make such a connection. I can’t say for certain that May has either, because it seems that she’s never actually said anything about smart meters or BC Hydro. She’s only lent her appearance and quotes of GPC policy to the B.C. Green Party’s cause.
Yet, by appearing with Sterk and Havas at a press conference, by having the Party issue a joint press release, by tweeting about the dangers of WiFi, she has certainly created the appearance to be in step with Sterk’s (in my opinion, idiotic and misguided) attack on smart meters.
Remember what I wrote earlier about the Party being concerned that the opinions expressed by members being construed by some to be representative of the Party’s position or policy on a certain matter? Well, that’s exactly what’s happened here. May has created the appearance that the Green Party of Canada supports a moratorium or cancellation of smart meter programs, as a result of concerns related to the health impacts of WiFi. This appearance isn’t in keeping with Green Party of Canada policy. It may be her opinion (it might also not be), but either way, the appearance has been created, and it’s now fair game for other parties, journalists and the Canadian public to leap to the conclusion that the Green Party of Canada is against smart meters.
If we’re not, what was our Leader doing at the press conference, through the joint release, and on Twitter?
And the final problem, which for me is the biggest. What on earth is the Green Party of Canada doing coming out in support of any attack on smart meters? Aren’t smart meters supposed to be one of the tools we use to help create a smart electrical grid, which will assist us in conserving energy, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and fighting climate change? Last I looked, that was the plan. The fact that smart meters will also save Canadians money through conservation is another added benefit which I had been under the impression was a good thing too.
I joined the Green Party of Canada because it has been the only political Party in Canada which actually had a plan to combat climate change. Unlike the unknown cumulative impacts of WiFi on human health, we have a pretty good idea what the cumulative impacts of climate change are likely to be, at least as a minimum. Let me tell you, the two can not be compared. The devastation which will be wrought upon our society by a changing climate will be far more significant to a much higher proportion of humanity than those whose health may be effected by having a WiFi smart meter installed in their homes.
I joined the Green Party of Canada because I am extremely concerned about the future health and well-being of my family, because of climate change. I am concerned about the economic and institutional damage that a warming climate will bring to Canadians. I am concerned about the security implications. For me, climate change is the biggest issue Canadians are facing today.
If the Green Party of Canada is going to start undermining its own member-approved policies and plans for tackling climate change over fears related to WiFi and other unproven scientific issues, invoking the “precautionary principle” and saying that we can’t do anything until all of the evidence is in, even when doing nothing will certainly cause a greater negative impact, well, that’s not the Party that I joined. The other parties like to make it up as they go along. The Green Party, for the most part, has been different. But we now have a clear example of the Leader of our Party taking a contrary stance to what I believe is the will of a majority of Party members.
We can not let these concerns about WiFi derail establishing a smart grid, which will assist in creating that culture of conservation which we need to establish in this country. I understand why the B.C. Greens have come out in opposition to smart meters – they likely believe that they can score some cheap political points with the anti-EMF crowd. That they are pandering to a handful of well-intentioned activists instead of looking at the greater and broader interests of British Columbians says a lot to me about what the B.C. Greens goals must be, and it saddens me that they have decided to substitute good public policy and programming for a cheap effort to score some votes from core constituents at the expense of the greater public interest.
Make no mistake: the greater public good is served by efforts to combat climate change, rather than going after WiFi. The B.C. Greens have clearly lost sight of that, probably in an attempt to hold onto a core voting block. If I were a B.C. Green, I would be tearing up my membership card today. I don’t foresee Sterk reversing herself on this issue. And I don't foresee the B.C. Greens going anywhere in the next provincial election if they are going to attack government initiatives which actually will do something to help fight climate change.
But Elizabeth May must at the very least come clean and now take the time to explain to Canadians that the Green Party of Canada does not stand in solidarity with the misguided efforts of the B.C. Green Party. May hasn’t said anything yet about smart meters, which is both good and bad. Good, because the GPC doesn’t have a policy against them, and good too because in saying something positive about smart meters at this time, she will not be in a position of having to contradict herself.
Her silence on smart meters is bad, though, because it lends credibility to the notion that the Green Party of Canada is, like the B.C. Greens, against the use of smart meters. And the longer it takes for her to clarify the national party’s position on smart meters, the more that people will be able to rightly conclude that the Green Party of Canada really is against the use of smart meters.
And with elections coming up in PEI and Ontario in a few months, it really behoves May to provide clarity on smart meters sooner rather than later. And although the majority of the national party’s members might not be watching, a number of engaged members are. Comments appended to May’s blog have been almost unanimous at this time in their condemnation of the smart meter attack.
Elizabeth May, I have the utmost respect for you, but these two recent issues have shaken me. Please, refrain from further involvement in the Party’s electoral processes; do not send an email to members with your endorsement, as your voice carries too much influence, and you alone have the ability to access the membership in its entirety.
And please, clarify the Party’s position related to WiFi smart meters. Make it clear to Canadians that the Green Party of Canada continues to believe that smart meters are an important part of a smart grid, which will help us create a positive culture of energy conservation. Please have the Party issue a press release to that effect - and have them remove the joint release currently posted to the Party's website.
Better a bit of a “mea culpa” at this time than the dissension in the Party’s ranks which is sure to come, along with continued public criticism.
(Opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with those of the Green Party of Canada)
Friday, July 29, 2011
Shaken Faith, Part I: Elizabeth May’s Recent Mis-steps on Green Party Democratic Processes and WiFi
Elizabeth May experienced a wonderfully inspirational month as Canada’s first elected Green Member of Parliament. She showed Canadians that one dedicated opposition MP in the House can have an impact far beyond expectations. In one episode, May stood alone to oppose the continuation of Canada’s bombing mission in Libya, to the shame of New Democrats and their supporters. Characterizing the Libyan situation as a “civil war in which Canada has taken sides”, her articulate position to parliament was well-thought out and nuanced, and ultimately right. I wrote about this episode in an previous post, "May Right on Libya; NDP Fails Canadians Concerned About Civilian Casualities", dated June 20, 2011.
Fast forward to late July, 2011. May has made a number of mis-steps this month, although since it is the height of summer, she’s lucky that fewer Canadians are likely paying attention. Nevertheless, a number of us are, and I know that I am not alone when I express serious concern with two of May’s actions in particular.
The first of these if largely an internal Green Party matter, and likely of much less interest to anyone not involved with the Party. It does, however, deserve some small consideration.
The second pertains to a growing firestorm which has erupted in the mainstream media, largely over comments May made regarding the use of WiFi. But there's more to this story than the mainstream media has latched onto at this time, for beneath the concerns expressed by May about WiFi is the bigger issue of whether the Green Party of Canada has come out in opposition to residential smart meters being installed in homes. Smart meters, of course, are a key element of creating a smart energy grid, which hopefully would lead to a per capita reduction in energy use, and greatly assist in creating a culture of energy conservation. Those concerned about climate change have generally perceived efforts against smart meter installation as wrong-headed. Yet the B.C. Green Party, in its wisdom, has recently attacked BC Hydro's smart meter program. I'll write more about this situation in Part II.
Green Party of Canada - Federal Council Elections
Internal national elections for the Green Party’s executive, known as the Federal Council, are upon the Party again. Why the Green Party seems to want to hold its elections over the summer time I’ll never figure out. I suspect that timing contributes to the abysmal participation rate of Party members in the electoral process (usually below 20%, which is a little embarrassing for a “grassroots” party which advocates for more democracy. In defence of the Party, however, Elections Canada rules pertaining to membership list access don’t exactly make it easy for us).
This year, Green Party members will be voting on several new positions for a Federal Council Executive, as created by changes made to the Constitution at last year’s General Meeting. For the first time, the Party is to have a President, two Vice-Presidents (one English, one French) and a treasurer. Previously, duties of these positions were shared amongst Federal Council, led by an internally elected Chair.
Elizabeth May, who is the Leader of the Party, is one of the members of Federal Council. The Constitution of the Party is the document that provides for the responsibilities and duties of the Party Leader. Suffice it to say that the Leader, as per the Constitution, does not have any stated powers (aside from being the Party "spokesperson") beyond that of any Federal Council member, although the Leader is elected for a longer term, and can continue to occupy the position of Leader without directly having to run for the position (now that the Constitution was changed to require a “leadership review” instead of a “leadership contest”).
Despite the lack of Constitutional power afforded to the Leader, the fact of the matter is that the Leader of the Party is able to exercise real power through influence and access. Some have even criticized May as having influenced the Party significantly, by bootstrapping the Party to herself; some even refer to the Green Party perjoratively as the “Elizabeth May Party”. I don’t think things have gone that far, as there have clearly been some battles at the Federal Council level which May did not win, such as the one pertaining to election financing.
It can not be doubted, however, that May’s voice is by far the strongest voice within the Green Party, and her access to a national podium as Party Leader has allowed her to speak directly to Canadians, and not just members of the Party. No other Green has the ability to project their voice in the same sort of way. And as the Leader of the Party, no other Green’s opinion could hope to carry anything in comparison to the weight of May’s opinions.
With that in mind, let’s return to the Party’s internal elections. A number of positions on Federal Council and the new Executive will need to be filled. Perhaps it says something about the Party’s internal democratic health that only two of the 11 positions are being contested; 7 others will be filled by acclamation (well, technically the Party always runs “None of the Above” as an option for voters, so there will still be a vote; although I’ve never heard of NOTA winning); for 2 more provincial rep positions, no one has put their name forward.
One of the contested positions is that of Party President, for which 3 candidates have put their names forward. In a blogpost made by May, titled “Message to Our Members”, May urges the Party’s membership to vote for one of these contestants, after a brief discussion about why it is important for her to share her opinion on her electoral preference.
Now, I understand that it’s probably best for internal harmony to have a President and Party Leader who get along with one another. And I’m not even particularly troubled by the notion that May has a preference as to who the President should be, given that as a Federal Councillor, she’s going to have to work very closely with the President and other Executive members.
But I’ve seen all of this before. Last year, prior to the General Meeting, May sought to influence the vote on a number of resolutions by having the Party send an email directly to Members, in which she stated her opinions about the resolutions. I wrote about this email at the time, as I was extremely dismayed with what I perceived to be a form of interference in the Party's electoral processes("Green Party Voting: Much More Than Just Going Through the Motions, Part 1: How to Influence People and Game the Vote", July 25 2010).
The authors of the resolutions which May sought to discredit did not have the ability to communicate in the same manner as did May, as the email addresses of our membership are safely guarded by the Party. There was no opportunity for a rebuttal. And even if there had been, it’s clear that May’s voice carries a significant amount of weight in any debate.
This time, so far, May has expressed her opinion on a preferred electoral outcome only through her blogsite. The Green Party, unlike any other Party, allows all of its members, including the Leader, access to blog their thoughts and points of view without any direct interference from the Party (unless the usual lines of good taste and defamation are crossed, of course). In years past, there used to be a direct link to these “Members Blogs” appearing on the GPC’s website. After that link was removed, the blogs became more difficult to find (although they could still be accessed from a drop-down menu). At that time, many bloggers, including myself, moved away from the Party website’s blogs and started our own independent blogs.
In the past couple of months, even the drop-down menu for access to the Member’s Blogs has been removed from the GPC site. There has always been criticism related to these blogs, as more often than not, opinions expressed by members therein haven’t exactly been in keeping with Green Party policy. The concern has been that a casual reader of Member Blogs might conclude that the Green Party stands for thing which it actually doesn’t. It was likely due to these concerns that public access to the Member Blogs has become restricted over time.
It certainly would be an unfortunate situation if a Member spoke out about an issue which was either in contradiction to member-approved policy, or for which the Party does not have a policy, and those statements be misconstrued by the media to be representative of the Party. More on that later.
Unlike the Members Blogs, however, the Party promotes the latest Leader’s blog entries directly on the front page of the Party’s website, through the use of a link. A further link to all blog entries is provided through a drop-down menu. This means that the Leader’s blog is treated quite differently than any other blog on the Party’s site, and as such the Leader is afforded a significantly greater ability to have her opinions accessed by Members and non-Members alike. That’s probably appropriate for a political party in which the Leader is the spokesperson of the Party.
But in terms of an internal democratic election, in which May has chosen to use her blog as a means of endorsing one candidate above the others, clearly the outcome has been to allow May a podium for endorsement which no other candidate or supporter could ever rival. And that’s fundamentally unfair and a bias to the electoral process.
And while at least May hasn’t emailed the Membership her thoughts on the election directly this time, it seems very clear to me that May hasn’t learned that her involvement in the electoral process will inherently taint the outcome, given her position as Leader, and her ability to access the membership to share her opinions.
Keep in mind, no one running as a candidate in the Party is able to send an email directly to the membership, as membership lists are not available to candidates. They may be able to cobble together their own email contacts lists (I know that they try, because I’m on a few of them), but there will always be many members who are overlooked through this process. Nor do candidates have the ability to access members indirectly through links on the GPC website’s frontpage in the same manner as May has.
I believe that May should have remained silent on her preference for Presidential candidate, even though it would have been hard to do. Alternatively, the Party could have explored options to make communication with the membership equal for all candidates who aren’t being endorsed by a publication of the Leader. The fact that my Party’s internal electoral processes have been interfered with by the Leader for two years in a row now is very difficult for me, as a Member concerned about democratic renewal, to swallow.
Continued in Part II...
(opinions expressed in this post are my own, and should not be considered consistent with those of the Green Party of Canada)
Fast forward to late July, 2011. May has made a number of mis-steps this month, although since it is the height of summer, she’s lucky that fewer Canadians are likely paying attention. Nevertheless, a number of us are, and I know that I am not alone when I express serious concern with two of May’s actions in particular.
The first of these if largely an internal Green Party matter, and likely of much less interest to anyone not involved with the Party. It does, however, deserve some small consideration.
The second pertains to a growing firestorm which has erupted in the mainstream media, largely over comments May made regarding the use of WiFi. But there's more to this story than the mainstream media has latched onto at this time, for beneath the concerns expressed by May about WiFi is the bigger issue of whether the Green Party of Canada has come out in opposition to residential smart meters being installed in homes. Smart meters, of course, are a key element of creating a smart energy grid, which hopefully would lead to a per capita reduction in energy use, and greatly assist in creating a culture of energy conservation. Those concerned about climate change have generally perceived efforts against smart meter installation as wrong-headed. Yet the B.C. Green Party, in its wisdom, has recently attacked BC Hydro's smart meter program. I'll write more about this situation in Part II.
Green Party of Canada - Federal Council Elections
Internal national elections for the Green Party’s executive, known as the Federal Council, are upon the Party again. Why the Green Party seems to want to hold its elections over the summer time I’ll never figure out. I suspect that timing contributes to the abysmal participation rate of Party members in the electoral process (usually below 20%, which is a little embarrassing for a “grassroots” party which advocates for more democracy. In defence of the Party, however, Elections Canada rules pertaining to membership list access don’t exactly make it easy for us).
This year, Green Party members will be voting on several new positions for a Federal Council Executive, as created by changes made to the Constitution at last year’s General Meeting. For the first time, the Party is to have a President, two Vice-Presidents (one English, one French) and a treasurer. Previously, duties of these positions were shared amongst Federal Council, led by an internally elected Chair.
Elizabeth May, who is the Leader of the Party, is one of the members of Federal Council. The Constitution of the Party is the document that provides for the responsibilities and duties of the Party Leader. Suffice it to say that the Leader, as per the Constitution, does not have any stated powers (aside from being the Party "spokesperson") beyond that of any Federal Council member, although the Leader is elected for a longer term, and can continue to occupy the position of Leader without directly having to run for the position (now that the Constitution was changed to require a “leadership review” instead of a “leadership contest”).
Despite the lack of Constitutional power afforded to the Leader, the fact of the matter is that the Leader of the Party is able to exercise real power through influence and access. Some have even criticized May as having influenced the Party significantly, by bootstrapping the Party to herself; some even refer to the Green Party perjoratively as the “Elizabeth May Party”. I don’t think things have gone that far, as there have clearly been some battles at the Federal Council level which May did not win, such as the one pertaining to election financing.
It can not be doubted, however, that May’s voice is by far the strongest voice within the Green Party, and her access to a national podium as Party Leader has allowed her to speak directly to Canadians, and not just members of the Party. No other Green has the ability to project their voice in the same sort of way. And as the Leader of the Party, no other Green’s opinion could hope to carry anything in comparison to the weight of May’s opinions.
With that in mind, let’s return to the Party’s internal elections. A number of positions on Federal Council and the new Executive will need to be filled. Perhaps it says something about the Party’s internal democratic health that only two of the 11 positions are being contested; 7 others will be filled by acclamation (well, technically the Party always runs “None of the Above” as an option for voters, so there will still be a vote; although I’ve never heard of NOTA winning); for 2 more provincial rep positions, no one has put their name forward.
One of the contested positions is that of Party President, for which 3 candidates have put their names forward. In a blogpost made by May, titled “Message to Our Members”, May urges the Party’s membership to vote for one of these contestants, after a brief discussion about why it is important for her to share her opinion on her electoral preference.
Now, I understand that it’s probably best for internal harmony to have a President and Party Leader who get along with one another. And I’m not even particularly troubled by the notion that May has a preference as to who the President should be, given that as a Federal Councillor, she’s going to have to work very closely with the President and other Executive members.
But I’ve seen all of this before. Last year, prior to the General Meeting, May sought to influence the vote on a number of resolutions by having the Party send an email directly to Members, in which she stated her opinions about the resolutions. I wrote about this email at the time, as I was extremely dismayed with what I perceived to be a form of interference in the Party's electoral processes("Green Party Voting: Much More Than Just Going Through the Motions, Part 1: How to Influence People and Game the Vote", July 25 2010).
The authors of the resolutions which May sought to discredit did not have the ability to communicate in the same manner as did May, as the email addresses of our membership are safely guarded by the Party. There was no opportunity for a rebuttal. And even if there had been, it’s clear that May’s voice carries a significant amount of weight in any debate.
This time, so far, May has expressed her opinion on a preferred electoral outcome only through her blogsite. The Green Party, unlike any other Party, allows all of its members, including the Leader, access to blog their thoughts and points of view without any direct interference from the Party (unless the usual lines of good taste and defamation are crossed, of course). In years past, there used to be a direct link to these “Members Blogs” appearing on the GPC’s website. After that link was removed, the blogs became more difficult to find (although they could still be accessed from a drop-down menu). At that time, many bloggers, including myself, moved away from the Party website’s blogs and started our own independent blogs.
In the past couple of months, even the drop-down menu for access to the Member’s Blogs has been removed from the GPC site. There has always been criticism related to these blogs, as more often than not, opinions expressed by members therein haven’t exactly been in keeping with Green Party policy. The concern has been that a casual reader of Member Blogs might conclude that the Green Party stands for thing which it actually doesn’t. It was likely due to these concerns that public access to the Member Blogs has become restricted over time.
It certainly would be an unfortunate situation if a Member spoke out about an issue which was either in contradiction to member-approved policy, or for which the Party does not have a policy, and those statements be misconstrued by the media to be representative of the Party. More on that later.
Unlike the Members Blogs, however, the Party promotes the latest Leader’s blog entries directly on the front page of the Party’s website, through the use of a link. A further link to all blog entries is provided through a drop-down menu. This means that the Leader’s blog is treated quite differently than any other blog on the Party’s site, and as such the Leader is afforded a significantly greater ability to have her opinions accessed by Members and non-Members alike. That’s probably appropriate for a political party in which the Leader is the spokesperson of the Party.
But in terms of an internal democratic election, in which May has chosen to use her blog as a means of endorsing one candidate above the others, clearly the outcome has been to allow May a podium for endorsement which no other candidate or supporter could ever rival. And that’s fundamentally unfair and a bias to the electoral process.
And while at least May hasn’t emailed the Membership her thoughts on the election directly this time, it seems very clear to me that May hasn’t learned that her involvement in the electoral process will inherently taint the outcome, given her position as Leader, and her ability to access the membership to share her opinions.
Keep in mind, no one running as a candidate in the Party is able to send an email directly to the membership, as membership lists are not available to candidates. They may be able to cobble together their own email contacts lists (I know that they try, because I’m on a few of them), but there will always be many members who are overlooked through this process. Nor do candidates have the ability to access members indirectly through links on the GPC website’s frontpage in the same manner as May has.
I believe that May should have remained silent on her preference for Presidential candidate, even though it would have been hard to do. Alternatively, the Party could have explored options to make communication with the membership equal for all candidates who aren’t being endorsed by a publication of the Leader. The fact that my Party’s internal electoral processes have been interfered with by the Leader for two years in a row now is very difficult for me, as a Member concerned about democratic renewal, to swallow.
Continued in Part II...
(opinions expressed in this post are my own, and should not be considered consistent with those of the Green Party of Canada)
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Why Celebrating Gay Pride Continues to Matter
Some recent happenings throughout the world and here at home have shown that when it comes to gay rights, we’ve still got a long way to go. I’ve been thinking a lot about these issues over the past couple of weeks, as Pride Week in Greater Sudbury gets under way later this month. My family and the Green Party both have been active supporters of Pride and gay rights, which is why I’m both personally and politically troubled by those who claim at this time of year that “gays” have no need of parades and marches.
In my local paper today, an editorial was published by Sun Media’s Michael Den Tandt, (“C’mon, give Rob Ford a break”, the Sudbury Star, Tuesday July 5, 2011), in which he shared his criticism of the Toronto Star and Globe & Mail’s continuing coverage of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s decision to skip the Toronto Pride Parade, in favour of spending the weekend with his family at their Muskoka cottage. Ford’s decision to skip the parade has been one of the biggest stories of the summer so far. Many have suggested that it’s the Mayor’s prerogative to choose family time over civic duties. If that were the extent of this story, I might agree.
But what Den Tandt misses (or chooses not to say, which is more likely) is that not only did Mayor Ford skip out on Sunday’s parade, he wilfully chose not to take part in any Pride Weed events, including the flag raising which took place right outside of his office at Nathan Philips Square. His claims of being “too busy” have been pursued in the media, and it seems that they don’t stand up to scrutiny.
It would have been one thing for Ford to say to the public that he was going on vacation for the long weekend with his family, but to miss an entire week’s worth of event programming, including the flag raising? C’mon, Den Tandt: give us all a break. There’s another agenda at play here.
Beyond Ford himself, though, what Ford did was create the opportunity for all whom have a grudge or personal issue with Toronto Pride events, or the LGBT community, to prop themselves up on their own soapboxes and rant away. Appended to every article written by any of the major newsmedia, one could find dozens of comments, some of which bordered on hate speech directed at the LGBT community (some probably even crossed that line, but being able to hide behind anonymous posts just seems so empowering for many that they likely didn’t care). Sure, the media outlets eventually removed the most egregious comments, but they still made their way into the public realm, even if for a short time.
Talk radio shows, too, highlighted callers whom appeared to be filled with anti-gay hatred, all while discussing Ford’s divisive decision to skip Pride events (although usually only the Parade itself was mentioned).
If this kind of vitriol were directed at jewish Canadians, visible minorities or women, you would expect there would be a national outcry. However, apparently it still remains socially acceptable in many quarters to bash gays.
Let me repeat that, please.
It still remains socially acceptable in many quarters to bash gays.
Which brings me back to Pride Week in Greater Sudbury, and my attempt to pre-emptively answer the sure-to-be-asked questions about why celebrating Pride here in Northern Ontario remains a fun and necessary activity.
Den Tandt points out, where he lives in rural Grey County, “Nobody, gay or straight, makes a big deal of it. It’s more that it just doesn’t matter, any more, whether a person is gay or straight. Live and let live. People get along.” Certainly, there’s some truth to that; but at the same time, it’s not so simple.
Ask an LGBT member of our community whether it doesn’t matter any more, and I think that you’ll find responses will vary considerably, depending on the individual.
For example, if that individual is a youth attending a Roman Catholic school, where gay/straight alliances have been banned (apparently, in name only), and where rainbow flags have been prohibited (as has happened in one Southern Ontario school board), you likely will get a much different response than if you asked a youth attending one of our public schools here in Sudbury (in the “Rainbow” Board no less!). But, then ask another couple of individuals, and I’m sure that the responses will be different again.
Den Tandt, and others like him, fall into the trap of assuming that all individuals who share a partial collective identity (such as being gay) must experience things in the same way. This is clear when he states that nobody makes a big deal of it. And that’s just an absurd assumption. Based on what we’ve been seeing in the media, and hearing on our radios, plenty of people continue to make a “big deal” out of it. Den Tandt’s attempt to shrug this off won’t change that fact.
I’m very pleased to see that Greater Sudbury’s Mayor, Marianne Matichuk, will be attending the Sudbury Pride flag raising at Tom Davies Square, kicking off Pride Week events here in Sudbury (the flag raising will take place at 1:00 PM, Monday, July 18th; information about this and other events can be found at the Sudbury Pride website, www.sudburypride.com). Although Pride Week in Greater Sudbury isn’t the same kind of community economic generator that it is in Toronto, Sudbury nevertheless hosts celebrants from all over Northern Ontario, who find themselves here in town to celebrate the North’s diversity. For a smaller community, Pride’s economic impact is still robust.
Which is why Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s snubbing of Toronto Pride events appears to be so perplexing. And now, apparently, Toronto’s City Council will be entertaining a motion to cancel committed funding, which could lead to bankrupting Toronto Pride (along with costly legal battles for Toronto taxpayers): see “Pride funding in jeopardy after Mammoliti video gets rise from City”, the Toronto Star, Tuesday July 5 2011).
So, what’s really going on here?
Take a closer peak behind the scenes to see who else didn’t show up at Toronto’s Pride Parade. From my review of media articles, it seems that not one of Toronto’s newly elected Conservative MP’s were in attendance, despite that Party’s recent breakthrough in the City. Nor were any candidates spotted who are standing for the provincial Conservatives in the upcoming Ontario election. (Now, I admit that I’m operating with incomplete information here, and if someone knows something that I don’t, please feel free to advise me, and I’ll correct the record by appending information to this post).
Listening to CBC radio yesterday, one caller made a very telling remark, when she praised Mayor Ford for his decision to put his family values ahead of “depravity”. When challenged by the radio interviewer, who stated that Ford has only ever said that he was “too busy” to attend Pride events, and that he chose the cottage over the Parade, the caller said what was on the minds of everybody: “Well, that’s just what he’s saying, but we all know the truth”.
The truth, for me, is that gay rights are a political issue, and members of one political party in particular seem scared of showing support to the gay community for fear of alienating so-called “core” supporters. Which is interesting, because last I checked, I didn’t realize that people were pre-disposed politically based on their sexuality.
Like it or not, fringe elements on the right-wing of Canada’s political spectrum continue to politicize the every day act of being gay, which gives lie to Den Tandt’s statement that being gay just doesn’t matter any more. Clearly, to some, it does.
And it still remains socially acceptable in many quarters to bash gays.
This is not to suggest that the policies and programs of Canada’s Conservative government are in any way anti-gay, or that Conservative parties, as political institutions, are homophobic. I will not repeat Den Tandt’s mistake of assuming that all individuals act as the collective, or the reverse: that the collective is a reflection of each individual. Certainly, I’m sure that every political party in Canada has its share of anti-gay supporters. No Party, however, deserves to be labelled homophobic.
But the right-wing social agenda remains, even when it actually works against family values. We just saw how that played out in New York State, when Republican legislators voted in favour of legalizing gay marriage, because they identified that doing so was the right thing to do from a human rights perspective, and also because it could potentially lead to stronger, more stable family units.
Gay rights are human rights. Shame on those who forget this.
Recently-elected Toronto Councillor Kristyn Tam-Wong shared her concerns with the media during the Rob Ford flap regarding her belief that Canada might be taking steps backwards when it comes to recognizing the rights of LGBT individuals. Tam-Wong, a member of the New Democratic Party, understands that there is a political element at play here, and that it’s not just an easy matter of saying that being gay has become acceptable and that nobody cares. When politicians are bent on retaining core voters, what’s right and wrong is frequently less important than what’s politically expedient.
Until there is a comprehensive understanding that there’s nothing wrong with being gay, let the parades and marches continue. And let all who participate in them have a great time celebrating Canada’s diversity!
(Opinions expressed in this blog are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with those of the Green Party of Canada)
In my local paper today, an editorial was published by Sun Media’s Michael Den Tandt, (“C’mon, give Rob Ford a break”, the Sudbury Star, Tuesday July 5, 2011), in which he shared his criticism of the Toronto Star and Globe & Mail’s continuing coverage of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s decision to skip the Toronto Pride Parade, in favour of spending the weekend with his family at their Muskoka cottage. Ford’s decision to skip the parade has been one of the biggest stories of the summer so far. Many have suggested that it’s the Mayor’s prerogative to choose family time over civic duties. If that were the extent of this story, I might agree.
But what Den Tandt misses (or chooses not to say, which is more likely) is that not only did Mayor Ford skip out on Sunday’s parade, he wilfully chose not to take part in any Pride Weed events, including the flag raising which took place right outside of his office at Nathan Philips Square. His claims of being “too busy” have been pursued in the media, and it seems that they don’t stand up to scrutiny.
It would have been one thing for Ford to say to the public that he was going on vacation for the long weekend with his family, but to miss an entire week’s worth of event programming, including the flag raising? C’mon, Den Tandt: give us all a break. There’s another agenda at play here.
Beyond Ford himself, though, what Ford did was create the opportunity for all whom have a grudge or personal issue with Toronto Pride events, or the LGBT community, to prop themselves up on their own soapboxes and rant away. Appended to every article written by any of the major newsmedia, one could find dozens of comments, some of which bordered on hate speech directed at the LGBT community (some probably even crossed that line, but being able to hide behind anonymous posts just seems so empowering for many that they likely didn’t care). Sure, the media outlets eventually removed the most egregious comments, but they still made their way into the public realm, even if for a short time.
Talk radio shows, too, highlighted callers whom appeared to be filled with anti-gay hatred, all while discussing Ford’s divisive decision to skip Pride events (although usually only the Parade itself was mentioned).
If this kind of vitriol were directed at jewish Canadians, visible minorities or women, you would expect there would be a national outcry. However, apparently it still remains socially acceptable in many quarters to bash gays.
Let me repeat that, please.
It still remains socially acceptable in many quarters to bash gays.
Which brings me back to Pride Week in Greater Sudbury, and my attempt to pre-emptively answer the sure-to-be-asked questions about why celebrating Pride here in Northern Ontario remains a fun and necessary activity.
Den Tandt points out, where he lives in rural Grey County, “Nobody, gay or straight, makes a big deal of it. It’s more that it just doesn’t matter, any more, whether a person is gay or straight. Live and let live. People get along.” Certainly, there’s some truth to that; but at the same time, it’s not so simple.
Ask an LGBT member of our community whether it doesn’t matter any more, and I think that you’ll find responses will vary considerably, depending on the individual.
For example, if that individual is a youth attending a Roman Catholic school, where gay/straight alliances have been banned (apparently, in name only), and where rainbow flags have been prohibited (as has happened in one Southern Ontario school board), you likely will get a much different response than if you asked a youth attending one of our public schools here in Sudbury (in the “Rainbow” Board no less!). But, then ask another couple of individuals, and I’m sure that the responses will be different again.
Den Tandt, and others like him, fall into the trap of assuming that all individuals who share a partial collective identity (such as being gay) must experience things in the same way. This is clear when he states that nobody makes a big deal of it. And that’s just an absurd assumption. Based on what we’ve been seeing in the media, and hearing on our radios, plenty of people continue to make a “big deal” out of it. Den Tandt’s attempt to shrug this off won’t change that fact.
I’m very pleased to see that Greater Sudbury’s Mayor, Marianne Matichuk, will be attending the Sudbury Pride flag raising at Tom Davies Square, kicking off Pride Week events here in Sudbury (the flag raising will take place at 1:00 PM, Monday, July 18th; information about this and other events can be found at the Sudbury Pride website, www.sudburypride.com). Although Pride Week in Greater Sudbury isn’t the same kind of community economic generator that it is in Toronto, Sudbury nevertheless hosts celebrants from all over Northern Ontario, who find themselves here in town to celebrate the North’s diversity. For a smaller community, Pride’s economic impact is still robust.
Which is why Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s snubbing of Toronto Pride events appears to be so perplexing. And now, apparently, Toronto’s City Council will be entertaining a motion to cancel committed funding, which could lead to bankrupting Toronto Pride (along with costly legal battles for Toronto taxpayers): see “Pride funding in jeopardy after Mammoliti video gets rise from City”, the Toronto Star, Tuesday July 5 2011).
So, what’s really going on here?
Take a closer peak behind the scenes to see who else didn’t show up at Toronto’s Pride Parade. From my review of media articles, it seems that not one of Toronto’s newly elected Conservative MP’s were in attendance, despite that Party’s recent breakthrough in the City. Nor were any candidates spotted who are standing for the provincial Conservatives in the upcoming Ontario election. (Now, I admit that I’m operating with incomplete information here, and if someone knows something that I don’t, please feel free to advise me, and I’ll correct the record by appending information to this post).
Listening to CBC radio yesterday, one caller made a very telling remark, when she praised Mayor Ford for his decision to put his family values ahead of “depravity”. When challenged by the radio interviewer, who stated that Ford has only ever said that he was “too busy” to attend Pride events, and that he chose the cottage over the Parade, the caller said what was on the minds of everybody: “Well, that’s just what he’s saying, but we all know the truth”.
The truth, for me, is that gay rights are a political issue, and members of one political party in particular seem scared of showing support to the gay community for fear of alienating so-called “core” supporters. Which is interesting, because last I checked, I didn’t realize that people were pre-disposed politically based on their sexuality.
Like it or not, fringe elements on the right-wing of Canada’s political spectrum continue to politicize the every day act of being gay, which gives lie to Den Tandt’s statement that being gay just doesn’t matter any more. Clearly, to some, it does.
And it still remains socially acceptable in many quarters to bash gays.
This is not to suggest that the policies and programs of Canada’s Conservative government are in any way anti-gay, or that Conservative parties, as political institutions, are homophobic. I will not repeat Den Tandt’s mistake of assuming that all individuals act as the collective, or the reverse: that the collective is a reflection of each individual. Certainly, I’m sure that every political party in Canada has its share of anti-gay supporters. No Party, however, deserves to be labelled homophobic.
But the right-wing social agenda remains, even when it actually works against family values. We just saw how that played out in New York State, when Republican legislators voted in favour of legalizing gay marriage, because they identified that doing so was the right thing to do from a human rights perspective, and also because it could potentially lead to stronger, more stable family units.
Gay rights are human rights. Shame on those who forget this.
Recently-elected Toronto Councillor Kristyn Tam-Wong shared her concerns with the media during the Rob Ford flap regarding her belief that Canada might be taking steps backwards when it comes to recognizing the rights of LGBT individuals. Tam-Wong, a member of the New Democratic Party, understands that there is a political element at play here, and that it’s not just an easy matter of saying that being gay has become acceptable and that nobody cares. When politicians are bent on retaining core voters, what’s right and wrong is frequently less important than what’s politically expedient.
Until there is a comprehensive understanding that there’s nothing wrong with being gay, let the parades and marches continue. And let all who participate in them have a great time celebrating Canada’s diversity!
(Opinions expressed in this blog are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with those of the Green Party of Canada)
Monday, June 20, 2011
May Right on Libya; NDP Fails Canadians Concerned About Civilian Casualties
“I deeply desire the removal of Colonel Gadhafi, but not by military means in what appears to be a civil war in which Canada has taken sides.” – Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands, in a speech to Parliament, June 14 2011.
“…there is no greater way to strengthen the resolve of a civilian people than aerial bombardment.” – Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands, in a speech to Parliament, June 14 2011.
Something must be very wrong in the world when Elizabeth May and Peter Worthington find themselves on the same side of an issue. Last week, during the so-called debate in the House of Commons, regarding extending the Canadian NATO-led mission in Libya, every one of our elected members of parliament voted in favour of extension, except for Green Party leader Elizabeth May. The text of her speech to the House shows that she did not arrive at this point simply to gain media exposure, as some have suggested. Instead, it’s clear that May’s position on Libya is principled, courageous and based on the values of the Green Party.
This morning, upon opening my copy of the Sudbury Star, what should surprise my eyes but an editorial written by ultra-right-wing Sun Media pundit, Peter Worthington, whose columns I generally skip because they make me feel sick. This one, though, “Air strikes on Libya must stop”, clearly caught me off-guard. Why is Worthington against continuing the war in Libya? Turns out he’s mostly uncomfortable with who these “rebels” are that NATO is supporting. Which is a valid concern.
I’d have thought that some of this might have been discussed in Ottawa during a “debate”, especially since the floor was opened up last week to do so. It was no surprise to me that the Liberals and Conservatives were on-side with carrying the mission forward, even after acknowledging that there have been subtle changes in the way that the mission is now being sold. At the time that United Nations Resolution 1973 was passed (thanks to Russia and China abstaining), the Canadian public was told that our armed forces would be involved in the time-limited protection of Libyan rebels, through NATO air support.
Remember back then, it looked for sure that the rebel stronghold of Benghazi was about to fall, and with it, the dreams of a Ghadafi-free Libya. As soon as NATO bombs started to fall, though, the momentum began to shift again, and forces loyal to Ghadafi were put on the defensive. As in World War II, fighting went back and forth along the narrow coastal strip between Tripoli and Benghazi, with NATO intervention again carrying the fight westward along the bottom of the Gulf of Sirte, towards Tripoli.
But the air mission was left more than vaguely defined. What does it mean to support the rebels? In Canada we were told that our air support was being committed to prevent civilian deaths, and this made sense to a Canadian public eager to see the end of Ghadafi at the hands of his own countrymen. We didn’t want another Rwanda on our hands after all.
Pretty soon, though, NATO aircraft were bombing targets in Tripoli. Were they trying to create the circumstance for regime change, by targeting Ghadafi himself? Probably. But the end result has been to place to civilians in Tripoli in danger of ending up as “collateral damage” (read: dead) from NATO airplanes whose mission was to protect the lives of civilians. In other words, which might have better be spoken by a character in a George Orwell novel, NATO is protecting civilian lives by killing civilians.
That may sound harsh, and it is. Certainly it’s not, never has been, nor will it ever be, part of NATO’s mission to target civilians in Libya. But, civilians are still dying at the hands of NATO fighter-bombers. Some will say that these deaths are a small price to pay to have avoided a larger massacre, and to that I say…it still didn’t have to be that way. A more rigorous interpretation of Resolution 1973 would not have led to the circumstance where NATO has become the air support wing of Libya’s rebel movement.
May was right about this: Libya is in the midst of a civil war, and Canada has chosen sides. Worthington was also right: we know that Ghadafi is a very bad man, but how much do we know about the rebels whom we are supporting? They say that they are fighting in the interests of democracy, but what does that really mean?
Whatever it is that you might think is going on now in Libya (and most Canadians, frankly, aren’t thinking too much about Libya right now), it’s not the same mission that we were sold back pre-election, when the bombing began.
In the United States, they’re having a real debate about “mission creep”, with House Republicans threatening to, well, I don’t know, do something to Obama, who has apparently exceeded his Executive ability to wage war in a time-limited fashion (to me, it looks like the only thing the Republicans can do, other than to smear Obama in the media would be to vote to impeach the President…and I think that we’ll start to hear more about this over the summer). At least in the States they’re talking about Libya.
Here in Canada, it’s all about duck and cover when it comes to the Conservatives, Liberals and the NDP. Those parties, who didn’t have much of a conversation about the original mission before the bombs began to fall, have decided that they don’t really want to talk about its extension now, either, despite acknowledging that circumstances seem to have changed.
I had actually believed that the NDP, with their new-found numbers in parliament, and having in the past professed to be a bit of a moral conscience regarding Canada’s use of our armed forces abroad, would have acknowledged that we’ve inadvertently blundered into a war whose ultimate goal must be regime change, which in this case is only tantamount to killing off Colonel Ghadafi by dumping several tonnes of high explosive on his head.
Indeed, the NDP’s Deputy Leader, Thomas Mulcair, appeared to be a critical voice for caution in the lead-up to Canada deploying our CF-18’s to Italy, to begin the civilian-saving bombardment. Mulcair’s voice was noticeably absent from the media in the recent run-up to the vote to extend the mission. Indeed, the entire NDP caucus was AWOL on this issue. Even at the NDP convention this past weekend, Party appartatchiks were able to remove a motion about Libya from the agenda, so as to avoid a potentially problematic discussion, given that all of the newly elected NDP MP’s voted to extend the mission with barely a peep.
Those involved in Canada’s peace movement must be left scratching their heads about the NDP, and questioning whether this new populist NDP remains committed to principles of peace and non-violence. Look, I understand, there are times when it is necessary to fight a just war, but I sincerely question whether what Canada and NATO are now doing in Libya in the name of “protecting civilians” is the sort of just war that we should be getting involved in. If Libya, why not Syria (or Yemen or Bahrain, for that matter)?
Just last night, NATO acknowledged that it may have caused a “number of civilian casualties” in a botched raid on Tripoli. Apparently, they were after a missile site. Whatever. The smartest of smart bombs, when dropped in a populated area, are likely to create collateral damage. When these things blow up, even when they hit their targets, the explosions are likely to impact adjacent, often non-military targets. That’s why bombing cities tends to kill civilians.
Canadians were told that our air force would be attacking tanks, or lines of armed marching soldiers under Ghadafi’s control. Or maybe attacking artillery or
airplanes on the ground, or mobile missile launchers. That’s the kind of support that Canadians thought we would be lending to the rebels, fighting for their lives in Benghazi, back when Resolution 1973 was adopted by the UN. Instead, we’re now bombing the largest city in Libya.
While Canadians remain largely disengaged to what’s going on (to the glee of the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP, no doubt), the mainstream media has started to address this issue with a little more passion than I’ve seen out of it lately. I don’t think that this issue is going to go away, despite what the vast majority of MP’s in the House of Commons (all except for 1) might hope for.
Public opinion in Canada has a habit of shaping military outcomes. Look at what happened when Canadians failed to get behind Canada’s participation in the U.S.-initiated Iraq War. This time, though, unless the NDP does another of their infamous flip-flops, it doesn’t appear that there will be anyone within government to champion a peaceful end to the unexpected Canadian participation in Libya’s civil war.
But with what I expect to be an increasing number of mainstream stories, such as the one appearing in today’s Sudbury Star regarding 70% of survey respondents disagreeing with a “majority” (read: every one but one) of parliamentarians decision to continue the mission in Libya, I do fully expect the NDP to reverse their position, after “considerable discussion and review”. Certainly, the NDP’s unequivocal support of the Libyan mission has caused some significant strain within that Party. With the broader public looking around now for leadership on this issue, and finding none (other than Elizabeth May, who represents a thinly-stretched caucus of one), the NDP having already cast their votes to extend, will now find it easier to oppose the mission.
If Jack Layton and the NDP decide to do a 180 and change their minds on Libya, of course it won’t make any difference in terms of actual outcomes. However, opposition to extending the mission at the time of last week’s vote wouldn’t have changed anything either, now that the Conservatives have a majority. A change of heart now, though, might better position the NDP to reap a political advantage, one which they’ve inexplicably abandoned to May and the Greens.
Gaining this political advantage is the reason why I expect to start seeing a change of heart in the NDP. We’ll start seeing NDP members of parliament claim that they didn’t understand the full extent of NATO’s involvement in causing civilian casualties. Perhaps they’ll even claim that they’ve been misled by the Conservatives. Slowly, at first, and then all at once, the NDP will shift themselves away from supporting the government’s position, and pretend, once again, to be champions of a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
Perhaps I’ll prove to be wrong about this, but I just don’t think so. You see, the NDP, like most political parties, including the Green Party, is guided by its values when it comes to making decisions. One of the values of the NDP which is sure to come to the forefront in any shift in position is the value of being on the right side of public opinion. As public opinion now begins to shift away from support for NATO’s bombing, the NDP will surely follow suit.
The Green Party, too, has a number of values which guide decision making. These values are enshrined in the Party’s Constitution, and are considered unassailable by the Party’s membership. In absence of specific policy direction, the Green Party can always rely on these Values to guide decision making. One of those values clearly informed Elizabeth May’s decision to become the lone dissenter in last week’s vote, the value here being the pursuit of peace and non-violence. This doesn’t mean that the Party is pacifistic in nature; indeed, May in her speech to parliament, pointed out how sometimes war can still be reconciled with such a value.
May is showing Canada that Greens really are all about a different kind of decision making: decisions will be based on values, and not simply which way the winds of public opinion seem to be blowing at any given time. As the NDP seems to be moving to fill the void left by the Liberals, and to come to terms with its sudden, jack-in-the-box like Quebec caucus, some NDP supporters must be scratching their heads, wondering just where the NDP is going to end up. They must be wondering whether the NDP can be trusted to ever do what’s right when doing what’s politically expedient seems to be more tantalizing.
Throughout the summer, I believe that an increasing number of Canadians are going to start to realize that Elizabeth May and the Greens were right about Canada’s mission in Libya. It will be interesting to see what will happen when public opinion turns against the almost unanimous will of our elected officials. Can public opinion help bring about a more peaceful resolution to the Libyan civil war? I doubt it, especially now that NATO seems to be stepping up its attacks on Ghadafi’s strongholds in Tripoli, likely in an effort to kill him, rendering public opinion for support moot.
(opinions expressed in this blog are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with those of the Green Party of Canada)
“…there is no greater way to strengthen the resolve of a civilian people than aerial bombardment.” – Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands, in a speech to Parliament, June 14 2011.
Something must be very wrong in the world when Elizabeth May and Peter Worthington find themselves on the same side of an issue. Last week, during the so-called debate in the House of Commons, regarding extending the Canadian NATO-led mission in Libya, every one of our elected members of parliament voted in favour of extension, except for Green Party leader Elizabeth May. The text of her speech to the House shows that she did not arrive at this point simply to gain media exposure, as some have suggested. Instead, it’s clear that May’s position on Libya is principled, courageous and based on the values of the Green Party.
This morning, upon opening my copy of the Sudbury Star, what should surprise my eyes but an editorial written by ultra-right-wing Sun Media pundit, Peter Worthington, whose columns I generally skip because they make me feel sick. This one, though, “Air strikes on Libya must stop”, clearly caught me off-guard. Why is Worthington against continuing the war in Libya? Turns out he’s mostly uncomfortable with who these “rebels” are that NATO is supporting. Which is a valid concern.
I’d have thought that some of this might have been discussed in Ottawa during a “debate”, especially since the floor was opened up last week to do so. It was no surprise to me that the Liberals and Conservatives were on-side with carrying the mission forward, even after acknowledging that there have been subtle changes in the way that the mission is now being sold. At the time that United Nations Resolution 1973 was passed (thanks to Russia and China abstaining), the Canadian public was told that our armed forces would be involved in the time-limited protection of Libyan rebels, through NATO air support.
Remember back then, it looked for sure that the rebel stronghold of Benghazi was about to fall, and with it, the dreams of a Ghadafi-free Libya. As soon as NATO bombs started to fall, though, the momentum began to shift again, and forces loyal to Ghadafi were put on the defensive. As in World War II, fighting went back and forth along the narrow coastal strip between Tripoli and Benghazi, with NATO intervention again carrying the fight westward along the bottom of the Gulf of Sirte, towards Tripoli.
But the air mission was left more than vaguely defined. What does it mean to support the rebels? In Canada we were told that our air support was being committed to prevent civilian deaths, and this made sense to a Canadian public eager to see the end of Ghadafi at the hands of his own countrymen. We didn’t want another Rwanda on our hands after all.
Pretty soon, though, NATO aircraft were bombing targets in Tripoli. Were they trying to create the circumstance for regime change, by targeting Ghadafi himself? Probably. But the end result has been to place to civilians in Tripoli in danger of ending up as “collateral damage” (read: dead) from NATO airplanes whose mission was to protect the lives of civilians. In other words, which might have better be spoken by a character in a George Orwell novel, NATO is protecting civilian lives by killing civilians.
That may sound harsh, and it is. Certainly it’s not, never has been, nor will it ever be, part of NATO’s mission to target civilians in Libya. But, civilians are still dying at the hands of NATO fighter-bombers. Some will say that these deaths are a small price to pay to have avoided a larger massacre, and to that I say…it still didn’t have to be that way. A more rigorous interpretation of Resolution 1973 would not have led to the circumstance where NATO has become the air support wing of Libya’s rebel movement.
May was right about this: Libya is in the midst of a civil war, and Canada has chosen sides. Worthington was also right: we know that Ghadafi is a very bad man, but how much do we know about the rebels whom we are supporting? They say that they are fighting in the interests of democracy, but what does that really mean?
Whatever it is that you might think is going on now in Libya (and most Canadians, frankly, aren’t thinking too much about Libya right now), it’s not the same mission that we were sold back pre-election, when the bombing began.
In the United States, they’re having a real debate about “mission creep”, with House Republicans threatening to, well, I don’t know, do something to Obama, who has apparently exceeded his Executive ability to wage war in a time-limited fashion (to me, it looks like the only thing the Republicans can do, other than to smear Obama in the media would be to vote to impeach the President…and I think that we’ll start to hear more about this over the summer). At least in the States they’re talking about Libya.
Here in Canada, it’s all about duck and cover when it comes to the Conservatives, Liberals and the NDP. Those parties, who didn’t have much of a conversation about the original mission before the bombs began to fall, have decided that they don’t really want to talk about its extension now, either, despite acknowledging that circumstances seem to have changed.
I had actually believed that the NDP, with their new-found numbers in parliament, and having in the past professed to be a bit of a moral conscience regarding Canada’s use of our armed forces abroad, would have acknowledged that we’ve inadvertently blundered into a war whose ultimate goal must be regime change, which in this case is only tantamount to killing off Colonel Ghadafi by dumping several tonnes of high explosive on his head.
Indeed, the NDP’s Deputy Leader, Thomas Mulcair, appeared to be a critical voice for caution in the lead-up to Canada deploying our CF-18’s to Italy, to begin the civilian-saving bombardment. Mulcair’s voice was noticeably absent from the media in the recent run-up to the vote to extend the mission. Indeed, the entire NDP caucus was AWOL on this issue. Even at the NDP convention this past weekend, Party appartatchiks were able to remove a motion about Libya from the agenda, so as to avoid a potentially problematic discussion, given that all of the newly elected NDP MP’s voted to extend the mission with barely a peep.
Those involved in Canada’s peace movement must be left scratching their heads about the NDP, and questioning whether this new populist NDP remains committed to principles of peace and non-violence. Look, I understand, there are times when it is necessary to fight a just war, but I sincerely question whether what Canada and NATO are now doing in Libya in the name of “protecting civilians” is the sort of just war that we should be getting involved in. If Libya, why not Syria (or Yemen or Bahrain, for that matter)?
Just last night, NATO acknowledged that it may have caused a “number of civilian casualties” in a botched raid on Tripoli. Apparently, they were after a missile site. Whatever. The smartest of smart bombs, when dropped in a populated area, are likely to create collateral damage. When these things blow up, even when they hit their targets, the explosions are likely to impact adjacent, often non-military targets. That’s why bombing cities tends to kill civilians.
Canadians were told that our air force would be attacking tanks, or lines of armed marching soldiers under Ghadafi’s control. Or maybe attacking artillery or
airplanes on the ground, or mobile missile launchers. That’s the kind of support that Canadians thought we would be lending to the rebels, fighting for their lives in Benghazi, back when Resolution 1973 was adopted by the UN. Instead, we’re now bombing the largest city in Libya.
While Canadians remain largely disengaged to what’s going on (to the glee of the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP, no doubt), the mainstream media has started to address this issue with a little more passion than I’ve seen out of it lately. I don’t think that this issue is going to go away, despite what the vast majority of MP’s in the House of Commons (all except for 1) might hope for.
Public opinion in Canada has a habit of shaping military outcomes. Look at what happened when Canadians failed to get behind Canada’s participation in the U.S.-initiated Iraq War. This time, though, unless the NDP does another of their infamous flip-flops, it doesn’t appear that there will be anyone within government to champion a peaceful end to the unexpected Canadian participation in Libya’s civil war.
But with what I expect to be an increasing number of mainstream stories, such as the one appearing in today’s Sudbury Star regarding 70% of survey respondents disagreeing with a “majority” (read: every one but one) of parliamentarians decision to continue the mission in Libya, I do fully expect the NDP to reverse their position, after “considerable discussion and review”. Certainly, the NDP’s unequivocal support of the Libyan mission has caused some significant strain within that Party. With the broader public looking around now for leadership on this issue, and finding none (other than Elizabeth May, who represents a thinly-stretched caucus of one), the NDP having already cast their votes to extend, will now find it easier to oppose the mission.
If Jack Layton and the NDP decide to do a 180 and change their minds on Libya, of course it won’t make any difference in terms of actual outcomes. However, opposition to extending the mission at the time of last week’s vote wouldn’t have changed anything either, now that the Conservatives have a majority. A change of heart now, though, might better position the NDP to reap a political advantage, one which they’ve inexplicably abandoned to May and the Greens.
Gaining this political advantage is the reason why I expect to start seeing a change of heart in the NDP. We’ll start seeing NDP members of parliament claim that they didn’t understand the full extent of NATO’s involvement in causing civilian casualties. Perhaps they’ll even claim that they’ve been misled by the Conservatives. Slowly, at first, and then all at once, the NDP will shift themselves away from supporting the government’s position, and pretend, once again, to be champions of a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
Perhaps I’ll prove to be wrong about this, but I just don’t think so. You see, the NDP, like most political parties, including the Green Party, is guided by its values when it comes to making decisions. One of the values of the NDP which is sure to come to the forefront in any shift in position is the value of being on the right side of public opinion. As public opinion now begins to shift away from support for NATO’s bombing, the NDP will surely follow suit.
The Green Party, too, has a number of values which guide decision making. These values are enshrined in the Party’s Constitution, and are considered unassailable by the Party’s membership. In absence of specific policy direction, the Green Party can always rely on these Values to guide decision making. One of those values clearly informed Elizabeth May’s decision to become the lone dissenter in last week’s vote, the value here being the pursuit of peace and non-violence. This doesn’t mean that the Party is pacifistic in nature; indeed, May in her speech to parliament, pointed out how sometimes war can still be reconciled with such a value.
May is showing Canada that Greens really are all about a different kind of decision making: decisions will be based on values, and not simply which way the winds of public opinion seem to be blowing at any given time. As the NDP seems to be moving to fill the void left by the Liberals, and to come to terms with its sudden, jack-in-the-box like Quebec caucus, some NDP supporters must be scratching their heads, wondering just where the NDP is going to end up. They must be wondering whether the NDP can be trusted to ever do what’s right when doing what’s politically expedient seems to be more tantalizing.
Throughout the summer, I believe that an increasing number of Canadians are going to start to realize that Elizabeth May and the Greens were right about Canada’s mission in Libya. It will be interesting to see what will happen when public opinion turns against the almost unanimous will of our elected officials. Can public opinion help bring about a more peaceful resolution to the Libyan civil war? I doubt it, especially now that NATO seems to be stepping up its attacks on Ghadafi’s strongholds in Tripoli, likely in an effort to kill him, rendering public opinion for support moot.
(opinions expressed in this blog are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with those of the Green Party of Canada)
By Special Request: My Favourite Canadian Beers
A mysterious request came in from a mysterious man: “Hey all. I’m looking to compile a little information (for reasons I won’t go into) about your tastes in beer. Your identities will never be revealed to anyone about this…it’s sort of a little project I’m working on. Basically what I’m asking you to do is to compile for me a short list of your favourite beers (either microbrewed or mass marketed big names) from Canada. Who makes them, and why you enjoy them. I appreciate your time on this. Just send me a private message with your picks and thoughts. Much appreciated.” –Robert Andrew McTaggart.
Now, this Robert Andrew McTaggert guy purports to be one of my Facebook friends. His name even appears to be tagged in a number of pics that I’ve uploaded to Facebook over the years…private pics of mine taken at the IPA. If you don’t know what the IPA is, I can’t tell you. Anyway, there are tags of this Robert Andrew McTaggert fellow attached to my uploaded photos. All seem to be centred on my IPA friend Fox.
Which leads me to ask: just how much do I really know about Fox? I recall one IPA, in Kitchener, where I showed up early. I had asked the park attendant which site we were on, and she in return asked me whose name the reservation might have been in. I said that it was in Fox’s name. She didn’t have a Fox on her list. I was dumbfounded. Turns out the reservation was in some guy McTaggert’s name. That was about 12 years ago now I think. Hmmm…maybe I don’t know this Fox fellow very well either.
But…what can I say? I was intrigued by the notion that someone was reaching out to me, as an expert in my field, wanting my opinion. Admittedly, I don’t think I know the individual, and his query left a lot of room for utilizing my opinion for his own nefarious purposes. He won’t go into his reasons for asking me, which makes me a little nervous, but at least he’s willing to protect my privacy.
However, if I’m going to put the kind of effort into this project that this dude wants me to, I’m just going to have to share my thoughts with the world. After all, Canadian Beer is near and dear to my heart.
So, I think it’s appropriate that I should share my opinions with the world. And if this interferes with McTaggert’s nefarious plans, so be it. I don’t even know the guy anyway…I think. And what has done with Fox!?!?!
Sure, this blog of mine is one that you’ve probably grown accustomed to reading for my political opinions. But note the disclaimer at the top of the blog: “(Mainly) political musings by Sudbury Steve….” So this particular musing-o-mine is one which won’t fall into the “mainly” category. So, as it was put to me about my earlier by-law infraction, if you’ve got a problem with that, suck it up, buttercup.
Anyway, without further preamble, to satisfy this McTaggert guy, here is a list of my favourite Canadian brews. Do with this knowledge what you will, McTaggert! Just make sure Fox is present at the next IPA (if you don’t know what it is, I can’t tell you).
Old Favourites
Kawartha Lakes Raspberry Wheat
click on “Kawartha Lakes Brewery” and then “Raspberry Wheat”
What can’t I say about this Ontario classic? The Kawartha Lakes Brewery was founded in 1995, and I’ve been drinking their flagship Raspberry Wheat pretty much since day 1. I was introduced to KLB by my good friend, Mr. Tulli (who also knows a thing or two about beers, and has the innate ability of sniffing out new quality products), at an IPA or pre-IPA IPA back in the ‘90s (sorry...I can't tell you).
I understand that Kawartha Lakes Brewery has since been bought out by Toronto’s Amsterdam Brewery, but the beer is still being brewed and bottled at the Peterborough facility. KLB is likely in good hands with Amsterdam, as Amsterdam has always been devoted to brewing excellent beer in small batches. Interestingly, one of my favourite Amsterdam brews is also a raspberry infused beer. But the difference between KLB’s Raspberry Wheat and Amsterdam’s Framboise are night and day.
First, here’s a bit of my own bias: I tend to enjoy light-bodied beers over fuller bodied ones. That’s not to say that I’m big on the corn-brewed megaswill on offer from the North American biggies. It’s just to suggest that although I’m certainly not going to turn my nose up at the dark roast malted products (especially on a cold winter night, sitting outside in parka, gloves and ski mask), I find that I tend to fall back on those beers which are lighter, but which still have a lot of flavour.
KLB’s Raspberry Wheat for me is one of the three best beers being brewed in Ontario right now. Wheat beers are always going to be lighter, but they tend to have less interesting characteristics, generally speaking. That’s why brewers seem to want to add things like coriander and orange peels to them (and I’m ok with that…no Bavarian Purity Act mentality here). KLB decided to infuse their wheat beer with raspberries, but not to the point of over-kill. So while the beer has some excellent raspberry flavour, it doesn’t overwhelm. It’s a perfect balance between wheat and raspberry – and it’s light, and absolutely drinkable.
The only criticism that I have about this beer (other than its lack of availability in Northern Ontario) is that it may not pairs as well with food as other beers, generally speaking. But that’s true of most beers which have “outside the box” flavours. Anyway, I’m the type of beer drinker who really prefers to eat my food without a Coke or a Pepsi or a glass of milk. I enjoy drinking beer on its own, for its own merits. As I heard recently (and concurred with), one beer is too many, and two isn’t enough.
Cameron’s Auburn Ale
Also in my top 3 Ontario beers. Cameron’s Brewing Company started off in Etobicoke, and has since relocated to a larger facility in the Greater Toronto Area. Their products, though, are generally available at the Beer Store, even in Sudbury, so I am often able to obtain this remarkable craft brew.
I think I was first introduced to this one at the Fort York Festival of Beers way back when (things are a little hazy, the further back in the past I have to go to recall specifics like dates and things…especially when beer is involved).
What I enjoy about Cameron’s Auburn, besides the incredible colour and aroma, is it’s drinkability. It’s a complicated beer without being too complex. It hints at darkness, but remains light and drinkable. I don’t know if it’s the hop or the malt (or the interaction between the two, most likely), but the beer goes down smoothly with a LOT of flavour. It makes me smile and think of flowers. It also pairs very well with food.
Cameron’s also has a cream ale which is excellent (although perhaps only a short notch lower than Muskoka Lake’s Cottage Brewery’s cream ale, which is in my opinion, the best example of an Ontario microbrewed cream ale). As for the other Cameron’s products, I’m not as big a fan. I’ll pick the Auburn Ale just about every time.
Unibroue Blanche de Chambly
A witbier, brewed by Unibroue (possibly the worst-named brewery in Canada…I can’t help but think of a bunch of hairy guys hanging out in a brewery, with a single long eyebrow running from ear to ear…which isn’t exactly something that I want to be thinking about ever, much less when I’m trying to enjoy a beer). This Quebec brewer makes a lot of important Canadian microbrews, including La Fin du Monde and Maudite! I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Belgian-inspired brewery, even if I’m not the biggest fan of most of their products (although, along with Blanche de Chambly, I’ve been known to enjoy the occasional Ephemeral and of course, Trois Pistoles, which has just about the best beer-bottle label I’ve come across!)
Blanche de Chambly is a complex beer, no doubt. And it’s not an all-purpose patio product, either. For me, it’s more of a sipping with posing-sophisticat friends sort of beer, even if that is just sitting on lawn chairs on the porch, watching the traffic go by. This beer has the ability to elevate any social gathering. And it’s not just the foil top or the beautiful label.
I normally enjoy beer straight from the bottle (and I know that by admitting this, I will have lost a lot of stature in the beer-snobbery crowd…in my defence, I’ve got nothing against beer served in the right glass, other than I just hate doing the dishes…and I guess I could justify this as an environmental thing…why dirty up a good glass for a phosphatic rinsing, when pouring straight from bottle to stomach is a more “green” practice?), but this is a beer which can justifiably be poured into a beautiful glass. Not only can you then appreciate the beautiful colour, cloudiness and head, but you’ve elevated the social gathering too, no matter if it’s just you and the boys in two-day old shorts and blue cooler. Keep the bottle handy, though (labels OUT), and you might get confused with a government-sponsored cultural event by passersby.
But beyond the look, this beer tastes great! Coriander and orange peel, sure. Some cloves to boot. But again, it’s all about balance. For me, Hoegarden doesn’t go far enough, while some imitators of the Celis White phenom simply go too far (like over-hopping an India Pale Ale). Blanche de Chambly has flavours which compliment perfectly with one another. And you feel important when you drink it.
Tracks Brewpub – Old Mill
Despite my feelings about bottled beer, I have to tell you that I always prefer draught to a bottle. Always. It’s just that I don’t have the kegs hooked up on the front porch, and transporting them to the IPA has proven to be cost-prohibitive (Tulli looked into this at one time). Plus, a kegger on the beer table just wouldn’t have the same effect.
Summer and beer go together very well for me, although I acknowledge that there are often other times when mass consumption is appropriate (and here I’m thinking St. Patrick’s Day, New Year’s Eve and, well, frankly any time you can find a free day following a beer drinking campaign, in order to have time to recover from the hangover).
Now, although they call me “Sudbury Steve”, I guess I’ll always be a Brampton boy at heart, given that I spent my formative years growing up in splendid suburbia. At the tale end of those formative years, I was introduced to a Brampton tradition, known as Tracks Brewpub.
The City has tried to close this landmark down on several occasions (ok, not wilfully, but with all of the construction and road rearranging which has gone on in front of Track’s location on Union Street –is that even still a real street? It’s seemed like the City hasn’t been exactly helpful). I mean, I’m not even sure how to get to Tracks any more. Problem with Brampton is that it’s not very walkable, and for a neighbourhood pub to thrive, it helps to have parking. Tracks, however, is the type of pub that you’d want to walk to, if for no other reason than it makes sense to leave the car at home, because after you’ve tried one Old Mill, you’re going to want another couple.
Hopefully, all of that new condo development will lead to a downtown renaissance for Tracks, because the pub itself certainly deserves it. Too many landmark Brampton pubs have fallen victim to chain-restaurantism. Let’s take a moment to remember and lament the loss of some other Brampton classics: The Hare and the Hound (where I fell in love with Newcastle); the Puck and Ball (“who’s paying for this Dom Perignon?” “YOU ARE!!!”); and of course, the pub in the bottom of the library slash Civic Centre, Bramalea Place…where I received some advice from my friend Aaron Silbermann, fresh back from a trip to Liverpool, which stayed with me for the rest of my life (and which I continue to aspire to live up to). When we baseball-cap wearing high-school grads not yet off to First Year University guys, sipping on our Molson Dry and Labbatt’s Blues gathered at Bramalea Place across from the City Centre started making fun of Aaron for his audacity to order a dark-coloured draft from a foreign country (which turned out to be a Double Diamond) from the barkeep, he turned to us with the sort of mischievous twinkle in his eye that Aaron was wont to get, and said those two words which changed my life: “Try it”. And then he offered his glass for all to sip.
Since then, I’ve tried to spread the gospel of good beer to all who will listen. I’ve had some success, but have experienced considerable setbacks too. My wife, for example, continues to cling to Coors Light (at least she, a born and bred Northerner, doesn’t put salt into it). Aaron’s words remain my inspiration, however, and I will continue along my quest for good beer, no matter where it takes me.
As with most things in life, the quest for good beer has taken me away from Brampton. But Tracks Old Mill remains my Brampton anchor. If it’s possible for a beer to be “sweet”, Old Mill is that beer. This is the kind of beer which is very difficult to have only one of, especially if you make the mistake of going out onto the back patio, which is a little oasis in the midst of construction-crazy downtown Brampton. Try an Old Mill with Tracks fries, too, which are excellent. Rich in colour, Old Mill is possibly one of the most drinkable beers that I’ve found on my life-long journey to “try it”.
Old Credit Pale Pilsner
And now we come to a very important and completely underappreciated beer. Old Credit Pale Pilsner is one of those beers which takes time to enjoy. It does so for a couple of reasons. First off, they only sell it in 750 ml bottles, so this beer take some commitment to get through. The payoff, though, is worth it, even if I do recommend going sharesies on the big bottle. You see, this is an Ontario-brewed beer that wants to be COLD.
The beer also takes time because it’s ice-brewed, using a unique brewing process pioneered in North America by the Old Credit brewery. I know, I know: you think “ice brewed” and you can’t get the picture of the Labatt Ice euro-trash guy from those ads 15 years ago out of your head (the guy who had a bit part in “Die Hard” and who met his own tragic end a few years later…I’m sure the story must be available on wikipedia). Anyway, you think “ice beer” and you think sweet, sickly syrup which nobody really wants to drink ever.
Put those thoughts away, and do as I say: Visit the Old Credit Brewery in Port Credit, Mississauga. Upon arrival, you’ll likely be told that you have to take a tour of the brewery, because these guys are so damn proud of their beer, there’s no way that you’ll get away with your box of beer without them showing you exactly what goes into making it. Their secret ingredient is a wicked one: time. This beer takes about three times as long to make as a regular beer, and if you think about it, time in the world of beer really is money. While they’re storing their beer for three times as long as others do, that’s three times fewer beers which they could be brewing. But time does wonders for this beer.
If Old Mill goes down easily, Old Credit Pale Pilsner can be enjoyed with almost zero effort. It’s light on the tongue, but it’s packed with freshness. I don’t know how else to describe the beer: it’s simply the freshest tasting beer that you’re ever going to have. Sure, there are additives or preservatives, but a lot of beers are being made au natural like that. So what makes Old Credit different? It’s the ice brewing. And it’s the cold…
But this beer takes time. And that’s also its weakness. Too often I’ve purchased a sub-par Old Credit from the Brampton Liquor Store (it’s only available in limited LCBOs…check the internet for a location near you). That “no additive or preservative” thing can kinda hurt this beer…I don’t think I’ve ever purchased a skunk, but the quality hasn’t always been there at the LCBO. Which is another reason why I strongly recommend a visit to the Old Credit brewery (which also happens to be located in one of the most beautiful areas of Mississuaga).
When you’re drinking this fine product, share it. Sure, it’s great from the bottle, but maybe split that big boy with a friend. The reason: unless you guzzle it, you’re likely to experience a temperature loss during consumption. The beer will change its flavours when it starts to warm up. Don’t misunderstand me: a fresh Old Credit will still taste excellent and be good to the last drop…but there’s something about the COLD that makes this beer one of the top 3 Ontario beers, in my opinion. If you share with a friend, you’ll finish the bottle sooner, and then can grab another cold one without experiencing the temperature loss.
Old Credit also makes a crazy good Amber Ale, which you should also stock up on if you’re going to visit the brewery.
Mill Street Tankhouse Ale
Mill Street brewery has made quite a splash since it opened its brewpub in the heart of Toronto’s distillery district. In some ways, Mill Street was responsible for bootstrapping this historic part of the City into the trendy part of town that it now is. I have a tremendous amount of respect for this brewery – and not just their beers, either, but also because of their investment in neighbourhood and community and an urban vision that I share. I know, that’s pretty heavy reasoning for liking a beer, but I fully believe that perceptions can effect taste.
But…that’s not the case with Tankhouse Ale. Mill Street was on the cutting edge of a trend to bring overly-hopped beers to the public. When Tankhouse initially came out, I couldn’t believe that it was a Canadian beer, although beneath the abundant hops, there remained a traditional Canadian flavour and feel. It was just that no Canadian brewers were hopping their beers like this (although I actually think that the first Canadian crazy-hopped beer that I had was from the Scotch Irish Brewing Company, again at the Fort York Festival of Beer, back in the late ‘90s – Sergeant Majour India Pale Ale).
Since Tankhouse has come out, I’ve had many more beers with even more hoppiness. I think, though, that Tankhouse remains a favourite of mine because, for me at least, it has the right balance between hoppiness and malt. It feels great going down (especially straight from the painted bottle, slimmer in your grasp than a traditional beer bottle, so your mind kind of instinctively knows that this is something a little different).
Mill Street also brews some other great and interesting beers (although I wish that they would stop using those damn clear bottles for their Organic beer…too often those are skunky by the time they make it up to Sudbury, or so it seems; anyway, I’ve stopped trying with them).
Wellington County Arkell Bitter
What can I say about Wellington County Brewery? I just love it. This is a brewery that has never lost sight of itself. It’s been around for a while now, but it still continues to consistently produce a number of products which are head and shoulders above the rest of what’s out there.
Wellington has been around from the days when Upper Canada brewery was making its incredible Rebellion Ale, only to be bought out by one of the big boys, and now essentially isn’t worth drinking. Wellington was there when Creemore Springs was the toast of the Toronto urban hip (and me, too, because I was never numbered amongst the urban hip, even though I had more than a few Creemore in my University years). Creemore Springs has also gone the megaswill route, despite its lame attempts to continue to sell itself as something “different”. And Guelph rival Sleemans…well, Sleemans was never like Upper Canada, Creemore or Wellington.
Wellington County Ale is as fine an ale as you’re ever going to drink, and it certainly defines this classy brewery’s product line. For me, though, the stand out product amongst a series of beers which should all be considered stand-outs, is the Arkell Best Bitter. This is the best bitter being brewed in Canada, in my opinion, and even straight from the bottle, it will beat a Boddington’s on tap at a scenic outdoor patio overlooking the Thames in some English new town. I know that’s pretty bold, but you have to try this beer to get it.
The bitter style of beer is an absolute classic, and one which I’ve been known to enjoy. Unlike Old Credit, though, this one shouldn’t be consumed in the cold, which is why it makes a good summer beer, as it can be savoured from the cooler, even as it warms up in the heat. Arkell is better than the best bitter: it’s simply heavenly.
Brick Brewing Company – Formosa Springs Draft
And speaking of Upper Canada and Creemore…whatever happened to the excellent beer being brewed by Brick Brewery in Kitchener? They used to make some truly exciting beers, along with some truly uninspired choices (does anyone remember Pacific Lager?). Brick used to brag that it was Canada’s first microbrewery…but now it’s firmly on the megaswill side of the ledger (unless someone can correct my assumption…but they’re brewing Laker, right?).
Anyway, Formosa Springs Brewery was probably one of the first little breweries to be snapped up by a larger little brewery. Brick bought this brewery, located in Formosa, Ontario (in Huron County, I believe) a long while ago, ostensibly for access to some of the cleanest and purest water available in this province.
While the quality of Formosa Springs might have declined somewhat, there’s still something about this class Canadian-style lager which compels me to pick it up once in a while, as a favoured old stand-by. It must be something in the water. This isn’t a remarkable beer, but if your buddies are having a night out which might otherwise be spent with a case of megaswill (although that’s not saying much for your buddies, I know), think of reaching for Formosa Springs instead. One last good thing about Formosa Springs: you can get it here in Sudbury.
Northern Breweries Red Maple (deceased)
I feel kind of bad about doing this, but since I was asked about my favourite Ontario-brewed beers, I felt that I would be remiss in not including this classic beer on my list – even though the brewery which made it, just down the road from my house, has been sadly out of business for the past 5 years now. Truly, Northern Breweries Red Maple, a once-loved product, is deceased. And I will never enjoy its beauty again. *Sigh*.
Now, Northern Breweries had been around for about 100 years before it went completely belly-up. There used to be breweries in Sault Ste. Marie and Timmins, as well as Sudbury. Their flagship brand, Northern Ale, was, well, not all that good, in my opinion. And their Superior Lager was one of the worst beers I’ve ever tasted. But they had a few other decent products, including Eidelweiss, and before closing its doors, they were brewing a few beers under license, notably for Manitoba’s Aggasiz breweries. It helped that I could pick up a six-pack of fresh beer walking on the way home from work.
They also had a crazy Soviet-style labelled beer, called “Big Ram” which was quite tasty, but deeply incongruous from a marketing perspective.
But for complexity and enjoyability, Red Maple was where it was at. This beer came out at a time when breweries were starting to put sweet things into beer – remember the honey lager craze? Well, Northern decided to try making a beer with a hint of famous St. Joseph Island maple syrup. And unlike other maple beers (Upper Canada’s comes to mind), Northern got the balance of this beer just perfect.
It helped, too, that they put it in a beautifully labelled bottle, and focussed on a southern Ontario market (given that Northerners seemed to enjoy their less-complicated Northern Ale and Superior Lager…eeesh!). This beer was really putting Northern Breweries on the map until…until it was taken off the map.
Yes, truly I miss this wonderful beer, and regret that I will never be able to purchase 6 of these on the way home from work again. But the beer’s memory remains alive in the dreams of beer-drinkers like myself, and of course on the internet, where its webpage is apparently still alive and well. Bizarre.
New Best Friends
Nickel Brook Green Apple Pilsner
I’ve had the pleasure of sampling this new offering a few times now, although regrettably, sometimes I’ve had to opt for cans. Nevertheless, this light-flavoured beer has enough apple taste that it shines through like the full moon on a cloud striated evening (ok, no more attempts at poetry for me). A lot of apple ales, though, frankly don’t deliver with the apple. This one does, but it’s not over-powering. Here, the apple ripens in harmony with the beer (ok, one last failed attempt).
Lake of Bays Pale Ale
A great offering from this aggressive young brewery, the flagship Pale Ale has become one of my new number one favourites (yes, I’m allowed to have more than one number one). It’s got the right level of hoppiness, and a clean finish. It’s very drinkable (although more of an indoor beer, I believe, than an outdoor, if that makes any sense). And if you can get it on tap, so much the better.
Drinking this Pale Ale made me want to try the other offerings of this wanna-be “northern” brewery (sorry, but Muskoka just isn’t Northern Ontario, although it is kind a purdy…). To that end, I’ve tried both the Mocha Porter and the new Rousse. And my advice is…stick with the Pale Ale. Sorry, boys from Lake o’Bays, but your other two offerings are just not…very good at all. Complicated, for sure, but filling out a tax form is complicated, so we can’t really compare complexity with quality in all circumstances.
But do give the Pale Ale a go.
Brick Brewing - Red Baron Lime
And finally…I’m sure you’re saying “WTF” here…well, let me explain. Red Baron Lime is NOT a good beer…but, on a boiling hot day, when the sun is pelting down on you, crack open one of these (in the *shudder* clear bottle), and down it…maybe even in one, big gulp. Lime beer really took off from a marketing perspective last year, thanks to the treacly-sweet Bud Lime. Red Baron Lime, though, doesn’t have that same level of sweetness; in fact, it’s a little sour, but that makes it all right.
From a quality perspective, I’m sure this beer isn’t up on anyone’s list. But…if you’re looking for something to enjoy on a really hot day, give this one a try. I know that I will be picking up a six sometime soon. Even my Coors Light-loving wife likes this one, although I’m sure that I’ll get to enjoy the whole 6 myself. Maybe after I tackle mowing the lawn for the second and last time this summer.
Honourable Mentions
McAuslan Apricot Wheat (St. Ambroise Brewery, Montreal, Quebec)
Fort Garry Pale Ale (Fort Gary Brewery, Winnipeg, Manitoba)
Robinsons Black Cherry Ale (no longer available, as Robinsons’ Brewery in Mississauga, Ontario, has been out of business for a while now)
Hockley Valley Dark (Hockley Valley Brewing Company, Hockley Valley, Ontario)
Elora Irish Ale (Trafalgar Brewing Company, Oakville, Ontario; formerly from the Elora Brewing Company, Elora, Ontario; best enjoyed overlooking the gorge!)
Ringberry Ale (Granite Brewery, Toronto, Ontario – enjoy it on tap at the Granite Brewery brew pub on Mount Pleasant, south of Eglinton)
So, there you go. Thank you, Robert Andrew McTaggert, whoever you are, for giving me a reason to share these thoughts of mine with one and all. All of these beers are yours...except Europa. Attempt no drinking there. Use them wisely; use them in Peace.
I hope you enjoy. I’m going down to crack open my last Sergeant Major (in a stubby no less) left over from IPA (if you don't know what it is, I can't tell...oh, we've been over this enough already!), and perhaps enjoy it on the front porch.
(opinions expressed in this blog are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with those of the Green Party of Canada)
Now, this Robert Andrew McTaggert guy purports to be one of my Facebook friends. His name even appears to be tagged in a number of pics that I’ve uploaded to Facebook over the years…private pics of mine taken at the IPA. If you don’t know what the IPA is, I can’t tell you. Anyway, there are tags of this Robert Andrew McTaggert fellow attached to my uploaded photos. All seem to be centred on my IPA friend Fox.
Which leads me to ask: just how much do I really know about Fox? I recall one IPA, in Kitchener, where I showed up early. I had asked the park attendant which site we were on, and she in return asked me whose name the reservation might have been in. I said that it was in Fox’s name. She didn’t have a Fox on her list. I was dumbfounded. Turns out the reservation was in some guy McTaggert’s name. That was about 12 years ago now I think. Hmmm…maybe I don’t know this Fox fellow very well either.
But…what can I say? I was intrigued by the notion that someone was reaching out to me, as an expert in my field, wanting my opinion. Admittedly, I don’t think I know the individual, and his query left a lot of room for utilizing my opinion for his own nefarious purposes. He won’t go into his reasons for asking me, which makes me a little nervous, but at least he’s willing to protect my privacy.
However, if I’m going to put the kind of effort into this project that this dude wants me to, I’m just going to have to share my thoughts with the world. After all, Canadian Beer is near and dear to my heart.
So, I think it’s appropriate that I should share my opinions with the world. And if this interferes with McTaggert’s nefarious plans, so be it. I don’t even know the guy anyway…I think. And what has done with Fox!?!?!
Sure, this blog of mine is one that you’ve probably grown accustomed to reading for my political opinions. But note the disclaimer at the top of the blog: “(Mainly) political musings by Sudbury Steve….” So this particular musing-o-mine is one which won’t fall into the “mainly” category. So, as it was put to me about my earlier by-law infraction, if you’ve got a problem with that, suck it up, buttercup.
Anyway, without further preamble, to satisfy this McTaggert guy, here is a list of my favourite Canadian brews. Do with this knowledge what you will, McTaggert! Just make sure Fox is present at the next IPA (if you don’t know what it is, I can’t tell you).
Old Favourites
Kawartha Lakes Raspberry Wheat
click on “Kawartha Lakes Brewery” and then “Raspberry Wheat”
What can’t I say about this Ontario classic? The Kawartha Lakes Brewery was founded in 1995, and I’ve been drinking their flagship Raspberry Wheat pretty much since day 1. I was introduced to KLB by my good friend, Mr. Tulli (who also knows a thing or two about beers, and has the innate ability of sniffing out new quality products), at an IPA or pre-IPA IPA back in the ‘90s (sorry...I can't tell you).
I understand that Kawartha Lakes Brewery has since been bought out by Toronto’s Amsterdam Brewery, but the beer is still being brewed and bottled at the Peterborough facility. KLB is likely in good hands with Amsterdam, as Amsterdam has always been devoted to brewing excellent beer in small batches. Interestingly, one of my favourite Amsterdam brews is also a raspberry infused beer. But the difference between KLB’s Raspberry Wheat and Amsterdam’s Framboise are night and day.
First, here’s a bit of my own bias: I tend to enjoy light-bodied beers over fuller bodied ones. That’s not to say that I’m big on the corn-brewed megaswill on offer from the North American biggies. It’s just to suggest that although I’m certainly not going to turn my nose up at the dark roast malted products (especially on a cold winter night, sitting outside in parka, gloves and ski mask), I find that I tend to fall back on those beers which are lighter, but which still have a lot of flavour.
KLB’s Raspberry Wheat for me is one of the three best beers being brewed in Ontario right now. Wheat beers are always going to be lighter, but they tend to have less interesting characteristics, generally speaking. That’s why brewers seem to want to add things like coriander and orange peels to them (and I’m ok with that…no Bavarian Purity Act mentality here). KLB decided to infuse their wheat beer with raspberries, but not to the point of over-kill. So while the beer has some excellent raspberry flavour, it doesn’t overwhelm. It’s a perfect balance between wheat and raspberry – and it’s light, and absolutely drinkable.
The only criticism that I have about this beer (other than its lack of availability in Northern Ontario) is that it may not pairs as well with food as other beers, generally speaking. But that’s true of most beers which have “outside the box” flavours. Anyway, I’m the type of beer drinker who really prefers to eat my food without a Coke or a Pepsi or a glass of milk. I enjoy drinking beer on its own, for its own merits. As I heard recently (and concurred with), one beer is too many, and two isn’t enough.
Cameron’s Auburn Ale
Also in my top 3 Ontario beers. Cameron’s Brewing Company started off in Etobicoke, and has since relocated to a larger facility in the Greater Toronto Area. Their products, though, are generally available at the Beer Store, even in Sudbury, so I am often able to obtain this remarkable craft brew.
I think I was first introduced to this one at the Fort York Festival of Beers way back when (things are a little hazy, the further back in the past I have to go to recall specifics like dates and things…especially when beer is involved).
What I enjoy about Cameron’s Auburn, besides the incredible colour and aroma, is it’s drinkability. It’s a complicated beer without being too complex. It hints at darkness, but remains light and drinkable. I don’t know if it’s the hop or the malt (or the interaction between the two, most likely), but the beer goes down smoothly with a LOT of flavour. It makes me smile and think of flowers. It also pairs very well with food.
Cameron’s also has a cream ale which is excellent (although perhaps only a short notch lower than Muskoka Lake’s Cottage Brewery’s cream ale, which is in my opinion, the best example of an Ontario microbrewed cream ale). As for the other Cameron’s products, I’m not as big a fan. I’ll pick the Auburn Ale just about every time.
Unibroue Blanche de Chambly
A witbier, brewed by Unibroue (possibly the worst-named brewery in Canada…I can’t help but think of a bunch of hairy guys hanging out in a brewery, with a single long eyebrow running from ear to ear…which isn’t exactly something that I want to be thinking about ever, much less when I’m trying to enjoy a beer). This Quebec brewer makes a lot of important Canadian microbrews, including La Fin du Monde and Maudite! I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Belgian-inspired brewery, even if I’m not the biggest fan of most of their products (although, along with Blanche de Chambly, I’ve been known to enjoy the occasional Ephemeral and of course, Trois Pistoles, which has just about the best beer-bottle label I’ve come across!)
Blanche de Chambly is a complex beer, no doubt. And it’s not an all-purpose patio product, either. For me, it’s more of a sipping with posing-sophisticat friends sort of beer, even if that is just sitting on lawn chairs on the porch, watching the traffic go by. This beer has the ability to elevate any social gathering. And it’s not just the foil top or the beautiful label.
I normally enjoy beer straight from the bottle (and I know that by admitting this, I will have lost a lot of stature in the beer-snobbery crowd…in my defence, I’ve got nothing against beer served in the right glass, other than I just hate doing the dishes…and I guess I could justify this as an environmental thing…why dirty up a good glass for a phosphatic rinsing, when pouring straight from bottle to stomach is a more “green” practice?), but this is a beer which can justifiably be poured into a beautiful glass. Not only can you then appreciate the beautiful colour, cloudiness and head, but you’ve elevated the social gathering too, no matter if it’s just you and the boys in two-day old shorts and blue cooler. Keep the bottle handy, though (labels OUT), and you might get confused with a government-sponsored cultural event by passersby.
But beyond the look, this beer tastes great! Coriander and orange peel, sure. Some cloves to boot. But again, it’s all about balance. For me, Hoegarden doesn’t go far enough, while some imitators of the Celis White phenom simply go too far (like over-hopping an India Pale Ale). Blanche de Chambly has flavours which compliment perfectly with one another. And you feel important when you drink it.
Tracks Brewpub – Old Mill
Despite my feelings about bottled beer, I have to tell you that I always prefer draught to a bottle. Always. It’s just that I don’t have the kegs hooked up on the front porch, and transporting them to the IPA has proven to be cost-prohibitive (Tulli looked into this at one time). Plus, a kegger on the beer table just wouldn’t have the same effect.
Summer and beer go together very well for me, although I acknowledge that there are often other times when mass consumption is appropriate (and here I’m thinking St. Patrick’s Day, New Year’s Eve and, well, frankly any time you can find a free day following a beer drinking campaign, in order to have time to recover from the hangover).
Now, although they call me “Sudbury Steve”, I guess I’ll always be a Brampton boy at heart, given that I spent my formative years growing up in splendid suburbia. At the tale end of those formative years, I was introduced to a Brampton tradition, known as Tracks Brewpub.
The City has tried to close this landmark down on several occasions (ok, not wilfully, but with all of the construction and road rearranging which has gone on in front of Track’s location on Union Street –is that even still a real street? It’s seemed like the City hasn’t been exactly helpful). I mean, I’m not even sure how to get to Tracks any more. Problem with Brampton is that it’s not very walkable, and for a neighbourhood pub to thrive, it helps to have parking. Tracks, however, is the type of pub that you’d want to walk to, if for no other reason than it makes sense to leave the car at home, because after you’ve tried one Old Mill, you’re going to want another couple.
Hopefully, all of that new condo development will lead to a downtown renaissance for Tracks, because the pub itself certainly deserves it. Too many landmark Brampton pubs have fallen victim to chain-restaurantism. Let’s take a moment to remember and lament the loss of some other Brampton classics: The Hare and the Hound (where I fell in love with Newcastle); the Puck and Ball (“who’s paying for this Dom Perignon?” “YOU ARE!!!”); and of course, the pub in the bottom of the library slash Civic Centre, Bramalea Place…where I received some advice from my friend Aaron Silbermann, fresh back from a trip to Liverpool, which stayed with me for the rest of my life (and which I continue to aspire to live up to). When we baseball-cap wearing high-school grads not yet off to First Year University guys, sipping on our Molson Dry and Labbatt’s Blues gathered at Bramalea Place across from the City Centre started making fun of Aaron for his audacity to order a dark-coloured draft from a foreign country (which turned out to be a Double Diamond) from the barkeep, he turned to us with the sort of mischievous twinkle in his eye that Aaron was wont to get, and said those two words which changed my life: “Try it”. And then he offered his glass for all to sip.
Since then, I’ve tried to spread the gospel of good beer to all who will listen. I’ve had some success, but have experienced considerable setbacks too. My wife, for example, continues to cling to Coors Light (at least she, a born and bred Northerner, doesn’t put salt into it). Aaron’s words remain my inspiration, however, and I will continue along my quest for good beer, no matter where it takes me.
As with most things in life, the quest for good beer has taken me away from Brampton. But Tracks Old Mill remains my Brampton anchor. If it’s possible for a beer to be “sweet”, Old Mill is that beer. This is the kind of beer which is very difficult to have only one of, especially if you make the mistake of going out onto the back patio, which is a little oasis in the midst of construction-crazy downtown Brampton. Try an Old Mill with Tracks fries, too, which are excellent. Rich in colour, Old Mill is possibly one of the most drinkable beers that I’ve found on my life-long journey to “try it”.
Old Credit Pale Pilsner
And now we come to a very important and completely underappreciated beer. Old Credit Pale Pilsner is one of those beers which takes time to enjoy. It does so for a couple of reasons. First off, they only sell it in 750 ml bottles, so this beer take some commitment to get through. The payoff, though, is worth it, even if I do recommend going sharesies on the big bottle. You see, this is an Ontario-brewed beer that wants to be COLD.
The beer also takes time because it’s ice-brewed, using a unique brewing process pioneered in North America by the Old Credit brewery. I know, I know: you think “ice brewed” and you can’t get the picture of the Labatt Ice euro-trash guy from those ads 15 years ago out of your head (the guy who had a bit part in “Die Hard” and who met his own tragic end a few years later…I’m sure the story must be available on wikipedia). Anyway, you think “ice beer” and you think sweet, sickly syrup which nobody really wants to drink ever.
Put those thoughts away, and do as I say: Visit the Old Credit Brewery in Port Credit, Mississauga. Upon arrival, you’ll likely be told that you have to take a tour of the brewery, because these guys are so damn proud of their beer, there’s no way that you’ll get away with your box of beer without them showing you exactly what goes into making it. Their secret ingredient is a wicked one: time. This beer takes about three times as long to make as a regular beer, and if you think about it, time in the world of beer really is money. While they’re storing their beer for three times as long as others do, that’s three times fewer beers which they could be brewing. But time does wonders for this beer.
If Old Mill goes down easily, Old Credit Pale Pilsner can be enjoyed with almost zero effort. It’s light on the tongue, but it’s packed with freshness. I don’t know how else to describe the beer: it’s simply the freshest tasting beer that you’re ever going to have. Sure, there are additives or preservatives, but a lot of beers are being made au natural like that. So what makes Old Credit different? It’s the ice brewing. And it’s the cold…
But this beer takes time. And that’s also its weakness. Too often I’ve purchased a sub-par Old Credit from the Brampton Liquor Store (it’s only available in limited LCBOs…check the internet for a location near you). That “no additive or preservative” thing can kinda hurt this beer…I don’t think I’ve ever purchased a skunk, but the quality hasn’t always been there at the LCBO. Which is another reason why I strongly recommend a visit to the Old Credit brewery (which also happens to be located in one of the most beautiful areas of Mississuaga).
When you’re drinking this fine product, share it. Sure, it’s great from the bottle, but maybe split that big boy with a friend. The reason: unless you guzzle it, you’re likely to experience a temperature loss during consumption. The beer will change its flavours when it starts to warm up. Don’t misunderstand me: a fresh Old Credit will still taste excellent and be good to the last drop…but there’s something about the COLD that makes this beer one of the top 3 Ontario beers, in my opinion. If you share with a friend, you’ll finish the bottle sooner, and then can grab another cold one without experiencing the temperature loss.
Old Credit also makes a crazy good Amber Ale, which you should also stock up on if you’re going to visit the brewery.
Mill Street Tankhouse Ale
Mill Street brewery has made quite a splash since it opened its brewpub in the heart of Toronto’s distillery district. In some ways, Mill Street was responsible for bootstrapping this historic part of the City into the trendy part of town that it now is. I have a tremendous amount of respect for this brewery – and not just their beers, either, but also because of their investment in neighbourhood and community and an urban vision that I share. I know, that’s pretty heavy reasoning for liking a beer, but I fully believe that perceptions can effect taste.
But…that’s not the case with Tankhouse Ale. Mill Street was on the cutting edge of a trend to bring overly-hopped beers to the public. When Tankhouse initially came out, I couldn’t believe that it was a Canadian beer, although beneath the abundant hops, there remained a traditional Canadian flavour and feel. It was just that no Canadian brewers were hopping their beers like this (although I actually think that the first Canadian crazy-hopped beer that I had was from the Scotch Irish Brewing Company, again at the Fort York Festival of Beer, back in the late ‘90s – Sergeant Majour India Pale Ale).
Since Tankhouse has come out, I’ve had many more beers with even more hoppiness. I think, though, that Tankhouse remains a favourite of mine because, for me at least, it has the right balance between hoppiness and malt. It feels great going down (especially straight from the painted bottle, slimmer in your grasp than a traditional beer bottle, so your mind kind of instinctively knows that this is something a little different).
Mill Street also brews some other great and interesting beers (although I wish that they would stop using those damn clear bottles for their Organic beer…too often those are skunky by the time they make it up to Sudbury, or so it seems; anyway, I’ve stopped trying with them).
Wellington County Arkell Bitter
What can I say about Wellington County Brewery? I just love it. This is a brewery that has never lost sight of itself. It’s been around for a while now, but it still continues to consistently produce a number of products which are head and shoulders above the rest of what’s out there.
Wellington has been around from the days when Upper Canada brewery was making its incredible Rebellion Ale, only to be bought out by one of the big boys, and now essentially isn’t worth drinking. Wellington was there when Creemore Springs was the toast of the Toronto urban hip (and me, too, because I was never numbered amongst the urban hip, even though I had more than a few Creemore in my University years). Creemore Springs has also gone the megaswill route, despite its lame attempts to continue to sell itself as something “different”. And Guelph rival Sleemans…well, Sleemans was never like Upper Canada, Creemore or Wellington.
Wellington County Ale is as fine an ale as you’re ever going to drink, and it certainly defines this classy brewery’s product line. For me, though, the stand out product amongst a series of beers which should all be considered stand-outs, is the Arkell Best Bitter. This is the best bitter being brewed in Canada, in my opinion, and even straight from the bottle, it will beat a Boddington’s on tap at a scenic outdoor patio overlooking the Thames in some English new town. I know that’s pretty bold, but you have to try this beer to get it.
The bitter style of beer is an absolute classic, and one which I’ve been known to enjoy. Unlike Old Credit, though, this one shouldn’t be consumed in the cold, which is why it makes a good summer beer, as it can be savoured from the cooler, even as it warms up in the heat. Arkell is better than the best bitter: it’s simply heavenly.
Brick Brewing Company – Formosa Springs Draft
And speaking of Upper Canada and Creemore…whatever happened to the excellent beer being brewed by Brick Brewery in Kitchener? They used to make some truly exciting beers, along with some truly uninspired choices (does anyone remember Pacific Lager?). Brick used to brag that it was Canada’s first microbrewery…but now it’s firmly on the megaswill side of the ledger (unless someone can correct my assumption…but they’re brewing Laker, right?).
Anyway, Formosa Springs Brewery was probably one of the first little breweries to be snapped up by a larger little brewery. Brick bought this brewery, located in Formosa, Ontario (in Huron County, I believe) a long while ago, ostensibly for access to some of the cleanest and purest water available in this province.
While the quality of Formosa Springs might have declined somewhat, there’s still something about this class Canadian-style lager which compels me to pick it up once in a while, as a favoured old stand-by. It must be something in the water. This isn’t a remarkable beer, but if your buddies are having a night out which might otherwise be spent with a case of megaswill (although that’s not saying much for your buddies, I know), think of reaching for Formosa Springs instead. One last good thing about Formosa Springs: you can get it here in Sudbury.
Northern Breweries Red Maple (deceased)
I feel kind of bad about doing this, but since I was asked about my favourite Ontario-brewed beers, I felt that I would be remiss in not including this classic beer on my list – even though the brewery which made it, just down the road from my house, has been sadly out of business for the past 5 years now. Truly, Northern Breweries Red Maple, a once-loved product, is deceased. And I will never enjoy its beauty again. *Sigh*.
Now, Northern Breweries had been around for about 100 years before it went completely belly-up. There used to be breweries in Sault Ste. Marie and Timmins, as well as Sudbury. Their flagship brand, Northern Ale, was, well, not all that good, in my opinion. And their Superior Lager was one of the worst beers I’ve ever tasted. But they had a few other decent products, including Eidelweiss, and before closing its doors, they were brewing a few beers under license, notably for Manitoba’s Aggasiz breweries. It helped that I could pick up a six-pack of fresh beer walking on the way home from work.
They also had a crazy Soviet-style labelled beer, called “Big Ram” which was quite tasty, but deeply incongruous from a marketing perspective.
But for complexity and enjoyability, Red Maple was where it was at. This beer came out at a time when breweries were starting to put sweet things into beer – remember the honey lager craze? Well, Northern decided to try making a beer with a hint of famous St. Joseph Island maple syrup. And unlike other maple beers (Upper Canada’s comes to mind), Northern got the balance of this beer just perfect.
It helped, too, that they put it in a beautifully labelled bottle, and focussed on a southern Ontario market (given that Northerners seemed to enjoy their less-complicated Northern Ale and Superior Lager…eeesh!). This beer was really putting Northern Breweries on the map until…until it was taken off the map.
Yes, truly I miss this wonderful beer, and regret that I will never be able to purchase 6 of these on the way home from work again. But the beer’s memory remains alive in the dreams of beer-drinkers like myself, and of course on the internet, where its webpage is apparently still alive and well. Bizarre.
New Best Friends
Nickel Brook Green Apple Pilsner
I’ve had the pleasure of sampling this new offering a few times now, although regrettably, sometimes I’ve had to opt for cans. Nevertheless, this light-flavoured beer has enough apple taste that it shines through like the full moon on a cloud striated evening (ok, no more attempts at poetry for me). A lot of apple ales, though, frankly don’t deliver with the apple. This one does, but it’s not over-powering. Here, the apple ripens in harmony with the beer (ok, one last failed attempt).
Lake of Bays Pale Ale
A great offering from this aggressive young brewery, the flagship Pale Ale has become one of my new number one favourites (yes, I’m allowed to have more than one number one). It’s got the right level of hoppiness, and a clean finish. It’s very drinkable (although more of an indoor beer, I believe, than an outdoor, if that makes any sense). And if you can get it on tap, so much the better.
Drinking this Pale Ale made me want to try the other offerings of this wanna-be “northern” brewery (sorry, but Muskoka just isn’t Northern Ontario, although it is kind a purdy…). To that end, I’ve tried both the Mocha Porter and the new Rousse. And my advice is…stick with the Pale Ale. Sorry, boys from Lake o’Bays, but your other two offerings are just not…very good at all. Complicated, for sure, but filling out a tax form is complicated, so we can’t really compare complexity with quality in all circumstances.
But do give the Pale Ale a go.
Brick Brewing - Red Baron Lime
And finally…I’m sure you’re saying “WTF” here…well, let me explain. Red Baron Lime is NOT a good beer…but, on a boiling hot day, when the sun is pelting down on you, crack open one of these (in the *shudder* clear bottle), and down it…maybe even in one, big gulp. Lime beer really took off from a marketing perspective last year, thanks to the treacly-sweet Bud Lime. Red Baron Lime, though, doesn’t have that same level of sweetness; in fact, it’s a little sour, but that makes it all right.
From a quality perspective, I’m sure this beer isn’t up on anyone’s list. But…if you’re looking for something to enjoy on a really hot day, give this one a try. I know that I will be picking up a six sometime soon. Even my Coors Light-loving wife likes this one, although I’m sure that I’ll get to enjoy the whole 6 myself. Maybe after I tackle mowing the lawn for the second and last time this summer.
Honourable Mentions
McAuslan Apricot Wheat (St. Ambroise Brewery, Montreal, Quebec)
Fort Garry Pale Ale (Fort Gary Brewery, Winnipeg, Manitoba)
Robinsons Black Cherry Ale (no longer available, as Robinsons’ Brewery in Mississauga, Ontario, has been out of business for a while now)
Hockley Valley Dark (Hockley Valley Brewing Company, Hockley Valley, Ontario)
Elora Irish Ale (Trafalgar Brewing Company, Oakville, Ontario; formerly from the Elora Brewing Company, Elora, Ontario; best enjoyed overlooking the gorge!)
Ringberry Ale (Granite Brewery, Toronto, Ontario – enjoy it on tap at the Granite Brewery brew pub on Mount Pleasant, south of Eglinton)
So, there you go. Thank you, Robert Andrew McTaggert, whoever you are, for giving me a reason to share these thoughts of mine with one and all. All of these beers are yours...except Europa. Attempt no drinking there. Use them wisely; use them in Peace.
I hope you enjoy. I’m going down to crack open my last Sergeant Major (in a stubby no less) left over from IPA (if you don't know what it is, I can't tell...oh, we've been over this enough already!), and perhaps enjoy it on the front porch.
(opinions expressed in this blog are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with those of the Green Party of Canada)
Creating a Culture of Cycling in Greater Sudbury
I'm not at all surprised that the Greater Sudbury Police have issued a release reminding cyclists that they are not to be on the sidewalks (see: "No bikes on sidewalks, police say", The Sudbury Star online, Monday June 20th, 2011)
It seems to me, and the police too, that there are more cyclists on our sidewalks than we've had in a long while. Could the price of gasoline hovering around the $1.30 mark have anything to do with it? Certainly, bicycles don't belong on the sidewalks, as the opportunities for conflict with pedestrians are significant.
However, we still have a ways to go in this community to create a culture of cycling. For too many cyclists in Sudbury, the choice is often to ride illegally on a sidewalk, or risk life and limb travelling on the City's streets. Despite cyclists being required to share the road with motorists, we've a ways to go yet when it comes to equal recognition of the rights of cyclists to use our City's streets. No doubt the comments which will be appended to this blog post will illustrate my point.
Tonight, several groups will be appearing in front of the City's budget committee, asking that a portion of the City's roads budget be used to assist with building the sort of cycling infrastructure necessary in our community so that all cyclists from the age of 8 to the age of 80 will feel safe travelling where they are supposed to be, which is on our City's streets and on designated trails.
We know that not all City streets can accomodate new infrastructure, but a surprising number of streets are able to do so at little cost (sometimes it's just a matter of repainting lines). For example, the City took out an under-utilized centre turning lane on Howey Drive, and used this free space to create designated lanes for cyclists. Right now, Howey and Bancroft represent the way forward in this community.
But it all starts with a different way of thinking: our roads aren't just for cars. They are places where the public and private realms come together, to be shared by motorists, cyclists and transit users, all of which have their own unique needs. No longer can all of our streets be expected to accomodate only one form of transportation user to the detriment of others.
Things are changing - perhaps not as fast as many would like them to, but certainly things are moving ahead in our city. With even higher gas prices inevitably headed our way, it's imperative that we continue planning for and building the kind of City which we will need for the future we are going to have. And that's a City where a culture of conservation exists, and where motorists and cyclists both safely share the road, for the betterment of our community.
(this post was originally posted at UR Sudbury: Creating a Culture of Cycling in Our Community; comments are welcome at either location)
(opininions expressed in this blog are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with thsoe of the Green Party of Canada)
It seems to me, and the police too, that there are more cyclists on our sidewalks than we've had in a long while. Could the price of gasoline hovering around the $1.30 mark have anything to do with it? Certainly, bicycles don't belong on the sidewalks, as the opportunities for conflict with pedestrians are significant.
However, we still have a ways to go in this community to create a culture of cycling. For too many cyclists in Sudbury, the choice is often to ride illegally on a sidewalk, or risk life and limb travelling on the City's streets. Despite cyclists being required to share the road with motorists, we've a ways to go yet when it comes to equal recognition of the rights of cyclists to use our City's streets. No doubt the comments which will be appended to this blog post will illustrate my point.
Tonight, several groups will be appearing in front of the City's budget committee, asking that a portion of the City's roads budget be used to assist with building the sort of cycling infrastructure necessary in our community so that all cyclists from the age of 8 to the age of 80 will feel safe travelling where they are supposed to be, which is on our City's streets and on designated trails.
We know that not all City streets can accomodate new infrastructure, but a surprising number of streets are able to do so at little cost (sometimes it's just a matter of repainting lines). For example, the City took out an under-utilized centre turning lane on Howey Drive, and used this free space to create designated lanes for cyclists. Right now, Howey and Bancroft represent the way forward in this community.
But it all starts with a different way of thinking: our roads aren't just for cars. They are places where the public and private realms come together, to be shared by motorists, cyclists and transit users, all of which have their own unique needs. No longer can all of our streets be expected to accomodate only one form of transportation user to the detriment of others.
Things are changing - perhaps not as fast as many would like them to, but certainly things are moving ahead in our city. With even higher gas prices inevitably headed our way, it's imperative that we continue planning for and building the kind of City which we will need for the future we are going to have. And that's a City where a culture of conservation exists, and where motorists and cyclists both safely share the road, for the betterment of our community.
(this post was originally posted at UR Sudbury: Creating a Culture of Cycling in Our Community; comments are welcome at either location)
(opininions expressed in this blog are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with thsoe of the Green Party of Canada)
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Reassessing Municipal By-laws and Practices: "Unsightly" May Be "Environmentally Friendly"
I received a registered letter in the mail today, from the City of Greater Sudbury. It wasn’t in fact a letter; it was a “Notice of Non-Conformity”, issued by a municipal by-law enforcement officer. Apparently, we’ve been contravening a municipal by-law for a while now, and the City wants us to do something about it. And if we don’t take action, the City will – and charge us back.
You know what? I understand that’s the way things work. The City has its facts right; there was a contravention. And I’m actually pretty ok with that. It doesn’t hurt, too, that the contravention was taken care of earlier this week, so my wife and I don’t really have to worry about this. But this Notice really got me thinking about whether the City’s by-law continues to make sense in this day and age.
You see, we hadn’t mowed our lawn for some time, and the grass had grown quite high. Certainly higher than the apparent 20 centimetre limit the City has established as the maximum height for grass to grow. You see, I really don’t like mowing the lawn; and this time around, the extension cord had decided to quit, so I had to find an opportunity to buy a new one and….well, you see, I really just don’t like mowing the lawn.
Nevertheless, the lawn got mowed last week, but not apparently before by-law enforcement had been around to note the contravention. Again, I know that the City is just doing its job here.
The by-law that we contravened (ok, that I contravened…I can’t blame my wife, the lawn is my responsibility), by-law 2009-101, pertains to yard clearing and vacant lots. It talks a lot about the need to remove refuse from yards and lots, for health and safety reasons, along with ensuring that “unsightly conditions” do not occur.
OK…health and safety I can understand. Rusting abandoned vehicles loitering around a front yard might be the kind of hazard that really needs to be removed, given that children like to play and don’t understand the concept of invisible property lines acting as trespass barriers.
But what about this notion of “unsightly”? I mean…one person’s “unsightly condition” is another person’s paradise. That being said, I certainly didn’t think that my lawn looked like paradise…I’m sure that I thought of a few stronger terms to describe it than “unsightly”. But why did I feel that way? Maybe it’s because I’ve grown accustomed to seeing nice, green, manicured lawns in my neighbourhood (with the exception of the one in front of my own house), and I’ve come to accept this as “normal”.
But maybe it’s my perception which is out of line here. Let’s think about this a little more. The City demands that I cut my lawn when the grass exceeds 20 cm…so I go and plug in the mower, using energy to trim the grass. I guess I could use a more traditional, carbon neutral mower, but since I hate cutting the grass anyway, I just want it to end as quickly as possible. It’s my experience that most homeowners in this City have either electric or gas-powered mowers.
So, here I am, cutting my lawn to meet the 20 cm height restriction. I guess I’ll have to do this again later this summer…a few more times, in fact.
Yet, what harm is long grass on the front lawn really doing to my community? Sure, maybe it’s upsetting to my neighbours to have to look at (and certainly it was beginning to weigh heavy on my own conscience), but those issues are really related to perception, and not to any physical harm or danger. I don’t know…maybe tall grass attracts snakes. Actually, a few more snakes around wouldn’t be a bad idea, if they helped reduce the field mouse population.
So, by not mowing my lawn, I’m not actually causing any harm. Oh, I guess weeds might take root and send their seeds to the wind, infesting other lawns in my neighbourhood. As if mine is the only lawn with weeds (actually, the weed situation on my own lawn isn’t as noticeable as on some, as the low-lying devils paint brush has pretty much crowded out the dandelions).
What’s wrong with having a naturalized lawn in the first place? Especially when the alternative is to use energy to cut the grass? Haven’t I just written a couple of blogposts about the need to create a culture of conservation, which starts with taking a close and hard look at wasteful energy-intensive practices?
Now look…naturalized lawns make me nervous…certainly my own front lawn did. I guess I’d much rather see a nice manicured lawn, or perhaps what my neighbours a couple of doors down have down: they’ve turned their front lawn into a food garden, with nice raised beds. It’s great to walk by and see the tomatoes and whatever else (that I’m too dim-witted to recognize) growing. I know tomatoes (well, when they start to form on the vine anyway), and they look pretty in the garden. Tall grass like I had on my lawn…not so much. Not all that pretty.
But there’s a lot of things which aren’t particularly pretty in my neighbourhood. The collection of grocery store buggies on the front lawn down the road comes to mind. And then there’s the raised sewer grates in the road, which are a lot of fun when you’re biking.
And what about the constant flow of pedestrian traffic in front of our home? Now, I’m not complaining that people are walking…or even that they’re walking on the street, because our side of the road doesn’t have a sidewalk. When I first moved into the neighbourhood, it used to seem kind of unusual to me that people wouldn’t cross the road to walk on the sidewalk, but then I quickly learned that there had been a sidewalk on our side of the road, up until the City had the bright idea to come along and tear it up, in order to reduce winter maintenance costs.
You know, some city’s require land owners to shovel the sidewalks in front of their homes. Not here in Sudbury, where we get the Cadillac treatment…or at least those remaining homeowners which have sidewalks in front of their homes get that kind of treatment. In a world where energy prices continue to rise, and our population is aging, we can expect to have more pedestrians in our community. I’m not sure that it makes any sense to actually reduce the locations where sidewalks are found…certainly removing the sidewalk seems to have had a negligible impact on the amount of foot traffic on our side of the road.
In comparison to pulling up sidewalks in an aging city, forcing pedestrians to walk on the road itself, keeping the grass on your lawn at a height greater than 20 centimetres really is small potatoes. Or tomatoes, if you prefer.
In some communities, clotheslines were considered unsightly…even though they perform a carbon-neutral clothes-drying function. Municipalities with by-laws on the books banning clotheslines began repealing those by-laws because…they really didn’t make any sense. The use of aesthetics as a rationale for prohibiting environmentally friendly practices is really poorly thought out. Just because something looks bad doesn’t mean that we should outright prohibit it.
My City, though, like most cities, hasn’t yet come to terms with a number of problematic practices which we frankly have to get a handle on if we are to be serious about creating a culture of conservation (although clotheslines have always been ok here). This by-law which prevents naturalized lawns is but one archaic relic which, in my opinion, needs to be abandoned, no matter how nervous long grass might make me feel.
Take these issues, for examples:
Currently, if you are driving your car and you come to a level rail crossing (of which you’re likely to do in Sudbury if you drive your car at all). When the train comes, there is no requirement that you turn your engine off. Sure, some people do, but most simply leave their cars idling, burning gasoline but not getting anywhere. Needlessly adding to our community’s carbon emissions.
There is a movement afoot here to encourage our Council to pass an anti-idling by-law. Why it’s taking a public initiative to move this issue forward is beyond me. In today’s economic environment, it only makes sense to limit needless idling. So do it already, pass the by-law. And to those who think that idling is a personal choice, I’ll only go so far as to suggest that it, like smoking, may be a choice, and I don’t want to choke on your second-hand emissions. Unlike smoking, though, you can’t very well take your car into your home and idle it there in privacy to your hearts content (well, you can I guess…but you’ll probably only just do it the one time). Your needless carbon emissions are polluting my atmosphere. Cut it out already.
Or, how about this one, which is also lawn-related: phosphorus in our fertilizers. Phosphorus is a popular chemical in fertilizers. It helps things grow. Nevermind that most lawns don’t really need phosphorus for good growth (especially naturalized lawns!), fertilizers with P remain popular.
But the problem with phosphorus in fertilizers is that after you apply it to your lawn, a good rain is likely to wash it away…and into your local storm sewer (even if the grate is raised). Once in the storm sewer, here in Sudbury, it ends up in one of our many lakes. In many cases, the lake might be a drinking source for the community, like Ramsey Lake.
Now, phosphorus makes things grow. Too much P in the water (snicker) and you get something called blue-green algae, which produces a toxin. Blue-green algae tends to prevent people from accessing safe drinking water. It’s a health hazard.
So, if most lawns don’t really need phosphorus to begin with, and if fertilizer run-off from lawns contributes to the growth of blue-green algae in lakes, including our drinking water sources…why on this blue-green Earth do we continue to tolerate the application of phosphorus fertilizers on lawns? Maybe it’s time to end this practice.
Here in Sudbury, the good news is that there’s a local effort underway to convince our Council to ban the application of phosphorus fertilizers. But again…it just makes sense…let’s just do it.
I mean, the province banned pesticide-laden lawn care products for health and safety reasons, showing us that these kinds of things can happen when they’re in the public interest. Pesticides and chemicals from lawns also used to get into our drinking water sources. Applying them to our lawns are activities that we just don’t need to be doing any more: we know better now that these practices are dangerous, perhaps not individually, but certainly cumulatively.
Which brings me to another issue…if we know that chemicals are problematic when they get into our water, what about all of the people who continue to wash their cars in their driveways? Their phosphate-laden run-off goes directly into the storm sewer….into our water. Commercial car washes are required to recycle their dirty water…but not the casual residential car washer.
The time has come to end this practice. Not only is it selfish, it looks bad. I cringe when I see people engaging in this kind of activity. It’s potentially more offensive than two-foot high grass on a front lawn, because it’s something that we should know better than to do now. If you really want to wash your car, take it to a location where you’re not going to pollute my water.
To my knowledge, we don’t yet have a local effort underway in the City to address this issue (but maybe it’s only a matter of time). Surely, though, the City is quite capable of figuring out that residential car washing is a dangerous practice which needs correction.
At the end of the day, sidewalk removal, idling cars, phosphorus lawn fertilizers, and shameful driveway car washing are all more egregious than allowing your grass to grow more than 20 cm. The time has come to take a close look at what it is we want to achieve in our communities, and whether the practices we have in place are helping us to get there.
You know what? I understand that’s the way things work. The City has its facts right; there was a contravention. And I’m actually pretty ok with that. It doesn’t hurt, too, that the contravention was taken care of earlier this week, so my wife and I don’t really have to worry about this. But this Notice really got me thinking about whether the City’s by-law continues to make sense in this day and age.
You see, we hadn’t mowed our lawn for some time, and the grass had grown quite high. Certainly higher than the apparent 20 centimetre limit the City has established as the maximum height for grass to grow. You see, I really don’t like mowing the lawn; and this time around, the extension cord had decided to quit, so I had to find an opportunity to buy a new one and….well, you see, I really just don’t like mowing the lawn.
Nevertheless, the lawn got mowed last week, but not apparently before by-law enforcement had been around to note the contravention. Again, I know that the City is just doing its job here.
The by-law that we contravened (ok, that I contravened…I can’t blame my wife, the lawn is my responsibility), by-law 2009-101, pertains to yard clearing and vacant lots. It talks a lot about the need to remove refuse from yards and lots, for health and safety reasons, along with ensuring that “unsightly conditions” do not occur.
OK…health and safety I can understand. Rusting abandoned vehicles loitering around a front yard might be the kind of hazard that really needs to be removed, given that children like to play and don’t understand the concept of invisible property lines acting as trespass barriers.
But what about this notion of “unsightly”? I mean…one person’s “unsightly condition” is another person’s paradise. That being said, I certainly didn’t think that my lawn looked like paradise…I’m sure that I thought of a few stronger terms to describe it than “unsightly”. But why did I feel that way? Maybe it’s because I’ve grown accustomed to seeing nice, green, manicured lawns in my neighbourhood (with the exception of the one in front of my own house), and I’ve come to accept this as “normal”.
But maybe it’s my perception which is out of line here. Let’s think about this a little more. The City demands that I cut my lawn when the grass exceeds 20 cm…so I go and plug in the mower, using energy to trim the grass. I guess I could use a more traditional, carbon neutral mower, but since I hate cutting the grass anyway, I just want it to end as quickly as possible. It’s my experience that most homeowners in this City have either electric or gas-powered mowers.
So, here I am, cutting my lawn to meet the 20 cm height restriction. I guess I’ll have to do this again later this summer…a few more times, in fact.
Yet, what harm is long grass on the front lawn really doing to my community? Sure, maybe it’s upsetting to my neighbours to have to look at (and certainly it was beginning to weigh heavy on my own conscience), but those issues are really related to perception, and not to any physical harm or danger. I don’t know…maybe tall grass attracts snakes. Actually, a few more snakes around wouldn’t be a bad idea, if they helped reduce the field mouse population.
So, by not mowing my lawn, I’m not actually causing any harm. Oh, I guess weeds might take root and send their seeds to the wind, infesting other lawns in my neighbourhood. As if mine is the only lawn with weeds (actually, the weed situation on my own lawn isn’t as noticeable as on some, as the low-lying devils paint brush has pretty much crowded out the dandelions).
What’s wrong with having a naturalized lawn in the first place? Especially when the alternative is to use energy to cut the grass? Haven’t I just written a couple of blogposts about the need to create a culture of conservation, which starts with taking a close and hard look at wasteful energy-intensive practices?
Now look…naturalized lawns make me nervous…certainly my own front lawn did. I guess I’d much rather see a nice manicured lawn, or perhaps what my neighbours a couple of doors down have down: they’ve turned their front lawn into a food garden, with nice raised beds. It’s great to walk by and see the tomatoes and whatever else (that I’m too dim-witted to recognize) growing. I know tomatoes (well, when they start to form on the vine anyway), and they look pretty in the garden. Tall grass like I had on my lawn…not so much. Not all that pretty.
But there’s a lot of things which aren’t particularly pretty in my neighbourhood. The collection of grocery store buggies on the front lawn down the road comes to mind. And then there’s the raised sewer grates in the road, which are a lot of fun when you’re biking.
And what about the constant flow of pedestrian traffic in front of our home? Now, I’m not complaining that people are walking…or even that they’re walking on the street, because our side of the road doesn’t have a sidewalk. When I first moved into the neighbourhood, it used to seem kind of unusual to me that people wouldn’t cross the road to walk on the sidewalk, but then I quickly learned that there had been a sidewalk on our side of the road, up until the City had the bright idea to come along and tear it up, in order to reduce winter maintenance costs.
You know, some city’s require land owners to shovel the sidewalks in front of their homes. Not here in Sudbury, where we get the Cadillac treatment…or at least those remaining homeowners which have sidewalks in front of their homes get that kind of treatment. In a world where energy prices continue to rise, and our population is aging, we can expect to have more pedestrians in our community. I’m not sure that it makes any sense to actually reduce the locations where sidewalks are found…certainly removing the sidewalk seems to have had a negligible impact on the amount of foot traffic on our side of the road.
In comparison to pulling up sidewalks in an aging city, forcing pedestrians to walk on the road itself, keeping the grass on your lawn at a height greater than 20 centimetres really is small potatoes. Or tomatoes, if you prefer.
In some communities, clotheslines were considered unsightly…even though they perform a carbon-neutral clothes-drying function. Municipalities with by-laws on the books banning clotheslines began repealing those by-laws because…they really didn’t make any sense. The use of aesthetics as a rationale for prohibiting environmentally friendly practices is really poorly thought out. Just because something looks bad doesn’t mean that we should outright prohibit it.
My City, though, like most cities, hasn’t yet come to terms with a number of problematic practices which we frankly have to get a handle on if we are to be serious about creating a culture of conservation (although clotheslines have always been ok here). This by-law which prevents naturalized lawns is but one archaic relic which, in my opinion, needs to be abandoned, no matter how nervous long grass might make me feel.
Take these issues, for examples:
Currently, if you are driving your car and you come to a level rail crossing (of which you’re likely to do in Sudbury if you drive your car at all). When the train comes, there is no requirement that you turn your engine off. Sure, some people do, but most simply leave their cars idling, burning gasoline but not getting anywhere. Needlessly adding to our community’s carbon emissions.
There is a movement afoot here to encourage our Council to pass an anti-idling by-law. Why it’s taking a public initiative to move this issue forward is beyond me. In today’s economic environment, it only makes sense to limit needless idling. So do it already, pass the by-law. And to those who think that idling is a personal choice, I’ll only go so far as to suggest that it, like smoking, may be a choice, and I don’t want to choke on your second-hand emissions. Unlike smoking, though, you can’t very well take your car into your home and idle it there in privacy to your hearts content (well, you can I guess…but you’ll probably only just do it the one time). Your needless carbon emissions are polluting my atmosphere. Cut it out already.
Or, how about this one, which is also lawn-related: phosphorus in our fertilizers. Phosphorus is a popular chemical in fertilizers. It helps things grow. Nevermind that most lawns don’t really need phosphorus for good growth (especially naturalized lawns!), fertilizers with P remain popular.
But the problem with phosphorus in fertilizers is that after you apply it to your lawn, a good rain is likely to wash it away…and into your local storm sewer (even if the grate is raised). Once in the storm sewer, here in Sudbury, it ends up in one of our many lakes. In many cases, the lake might be a drinking source for the community, like Ramsey Lake.
Now, phosphorus makes things grow. Too much P in the water (snicker) and you get something called blue-green algae, which produces a toxin. Blue-green algae tends to prevent people from accessing safe drinking water. It’s a health hazard.
So, if most lawns don’t really need phosphorus to begin with, and if fertilizer run-off from lawns contributes to the growth of blue-green algae in lakes, including our drinking water sources…why on this blue-green Earth do we continue to tolerate the application of phosphorus fertilizers on lawns? Maybe it’s time to end this practice.
Here in Sudbury, the good news is that there’s a local effort underway to convince our Council to ban the application of phosphorus fertilizers. But again…it just makes sense…let’s just do it.
I mean, the province banned pesticide-laden lawn care products for health and safety reasons, showing us that these kinds of things can happen when they’re in the public interest. Pesticides and chemicals from lawns also used to get into our drinking water sources. Applying them to our lawns are activities that we just don’t need to be doing any more: we know better now that these practices are dangerous, perhaps not individually, but certainly cumulatively.
Which brings me to another issue…if we know that chemicals are problematic when they get into our water, what about all of the people who continue to wash their cars in their driveways? Their phosphate-laden run-off goes directly into the storm sewer….into our water. Commercial car washes are required to recycle their dirty water…but not the casual residential car washer.
The time has come to end this practice. Not only is it selfish, it looks bad. I cringe when I see people engaging in this kind of activity. It’s potentially more offensive than two-foot high grass on a front lawn, because it’s something that we should know better than to do now. If you really want to wash your car, take it to a location where you’re not going to pollute my water.
To my knowledge, we don’t yet have a local effort underway in the City to address this issue (but maybe it’s only a matter of time). Surely, though, the City is quite capable of figuring out that residential car washing is a dangerous practice which needs correction.
At the end of the day, sidewalk removal, idling cars, phosphorus lawn fertilizers, and shameful driveway car washing are all more egregious than allowing your grass to grow more than 20 cm. The time has come to take a close look at what it is we want to achieve in our communities, and whether the practices we have in place are helping us to get there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)