The following text is taken from Speaking Notes prepared in advance of a special public meeting (September 27/12), hosted by the City of Greater Sudbury's planning staff, as part of the City's 5-year review of our Official Plan. The review has been on-going for sometime. Planning staff had previously identified a number of issues with the OP for which citizen input and review were sought, including active transportation, development on lakes at capacity, etc. One of the items which has worked its way onto the input/review agenda appears as a result of direction given to staff by Council: to assess how existing rural severance policies can be loosened to facilitate more development in rural areas.
The September 27/12 special public meeting was the first public opportunity for input on rural residential development. In response, I put together the following oral presentation, some of which I have stolen from previous blogs which I've written on the subject (especially my earlier four part series, "Greater Sudbury at a Crossroads", appearing in late May/early June of this year; here are "Part 1: Looking Backwards and Moving Forwards"; "Part 2: The Importance of the Decision Making Process"; "Part 3: Planning to get Around in the City of Tomorrow"; and, "Part 4: Towards a Green City"). I have previously blogged about this issue in February, 2012 ("Why Restricting Rural Residential Development in Greater Sudbury Makes Sense") and in August, 2011 ("Exurban Development in Greater Sudbury: Fiscally Irresponsible, Environmentally Unsustainable").
This presentation was not a popular one tonight. Most people at the meeting were rural landowners who have been frustrated by existing development policies. In all fairness, though, I have to say that many speakers were simply looking for a more balanced approach to assessing development. Concerns were expressed as well about the minimum lot size requirements (5 acres). After listening to the speakers tonight, I think it's fair to say that while I am still opposed to loosening existing rural residential development policy in the Official Plan, perhaps there should be greater opportunities to evaluate development proposals on their own merits.
That means, though, creating the right policy environment. Right now, policies indicate that you can create from an original parcel up to 3 new lots, as-of-right, as long as they are all 5 acres or greater. A better approach would be to have policies which restrict development in rural areas, unless it can be adequately demonstrated that a single new lot can be created which can support a septic system and well, and which won't lead to negative public health impacts. Policies should spell out the criteria for landowners to follow, while requiring a site-specific amendment to the Official Plan. That may be the sort of balanced approach which I was not contemplating when I put together the following presentation.
These speaking notes were provided to municipal planning staff at the public meeting, for their records. Subheaders have been included in this blogpost to hopefully make it a little more readable.
-----
My name is Steve May, and I am a resident of the City of Greater Sudbury, Ward 12. I am here this evening after having reviewed the City’s press release regarding tonight’s meeting. I understand that, as part of the 5-year review of the City’s Official Plan, the City is considering making changes to policies regarding rural residential land development applications. Changes currently being considered, and which are the subject of tonight’s meeting, consist of amending OP policies which would have the affect of lowering the area and frontage requirements for new rural residential lots.
It is expected that the lowering of area and frontage requirements will lead to increased opportunities for the creation of rural residential lots. It has been cited that existing Official Plan requirements are prohibiting rural residential development.
I believe that the City of Greater Sudbury should seriously entertain the notion that existing policies for rural residential severances need to be changed. Evidence now strongly suggests that our Official Plan’s existing policies are having a detrimental impact on orderly development within the City, as well as a negative impact on the use of the City’s fiscal resources, including those resources derived from municipal taxpayers.
No Case for Rural Residential Development
Let me be clear: There is no case, no economic, environmental or social case, which can be made which justifies expanding opportunities for the creation of more rural residential lots in the City of Greater Sudbury. No case can be made on the basis of need, either, as demonstrated by the City’s own studies related to land supply and vacant lot analysis. The only case which can be made with regards to changing the City’s Official Plan policies as they pertain to rural residential development is one which adds further restrictions or an outright prohibition on rural residential lot creation in our City.
The only case which could possibly be made to allow additional rural residential severances is one which favours the economic interests of private rural landowners over the interests of all other taxpayers. And I would argue that on that basis, it is clearly not within the interests of the City of Greater Sudbury and the vast majority of its residents to shift land development policies in a direction which financially disadvantages the majority of citizens.
Real Costs
It is well known that the true costs of rural residential development make this form of development activity the most expensive type for taxpayers to maintain over time. Rural residential development is inefficient and costly, and it is subsidized by other taxpayers. The maintenance subsidy is a drain on our scarce resources, which would clearly be better spent providing the sorts of services which the citizens can derive a net benefit from.
Academic and real-world studies, on which sound planning principles and practices are based, have shown time and again that restricting rural residential development makes sense for a community, for a number of reasons. These reasons may be related to land use compatibility issues in the rural area, related to resource extraction and tourism, and the preservation of lands for agricultural activities and uses. Reasons given for restrictions are also related to minimizing requirements for the expansion of services and infrastructure. These reasons are well-known, and land use policies throughout Ontario and here in Greater Sudbury acknowledge the need to limit residential development outside of well-defined settlement areas.
What is not as well-understood, but which is becoming increasingly apparent, is that there are other impacts from rural residential development which should be considered when land use policy is being developed. These impacts are related to resource depletion, climate change, and creating the conditions for local economic prosperity. Our economic prosperity will be determined by how successful we are at planning for and creating communities which meet our anticipated future needs. A city which provides opportunities for people and businesses to thrive in a low-carbon economy will be a better place for all of its residents.
Growth and Settlement Background Report and Issues Paper
In the City’s Growth and Settlement Background Report and Issues Paper, dated May 28, 2012, the City advises that Greater Sudbury will experience modest growth over the next two decades, with a population rising from the existing 160,274 (in 2011) to 170,680 people in the year 2032. Coupled with a declining household size, we can expect the need for an additional 4,400 dwellings over the next 20 years.
Is the City prepared to meet the needs of tomorrow’s residents? The answer is buried in the Growth and Settlement Background Report. When the Official Plan was first put together in 2006, population was forecast to rise to around 170,000 by the year 2021. Now, after 5 years, recent analysis has shown that we are generally on target for a modest increase in population, albeit perhaps at pace which is a little slower.
The Growth and Settlement Background Report, which projects a need for an additional 4,400 units to accommodate a population of approximately 170,000, indicates that there is a need to increase the number of households annual by approximately 220 units. The Report indicates that this annual increase is far smaller than the increase which the City has actually experienced over the past 5 years. Although our needs for new households are modest, we’ve been creating almost 600 new dwelling units a year.
No Need
Clearly, when we look at the real needs of our City, the pace of current development activity is at a level far greater than our needs require. While this level of activity is sure to provide Sudburians with greater choice in the future, likely coupled with lower house prices due to an over-saturated market, it can not justify changes to land use policy which encourage yet more development. In fact, the breakneck pace of development which we’ve been experiencing can only justify a further tightening of development policies, and in particular, those policies which facilitate development in areas which don’t make sense.
Beyond the 600 annual new dwelling units per year created over the last 5 years, we’ve seen extensive development proposals for approximately 1,000 units in the Minnow Lake area, and hundreds of other units along the Paris/Long Lake Road corridor.
Simply put, Greater Sudbury has no need to loosen development policies, and facilitate the creation of more residential lots outside of urban areas. While some will argue that it is incumbent upon the City to allow residents to determine the best locations in which to live, the argument doesn’t hold up for a number of reasons.
First, the Growth and Settlement Background Report identifies that there already exists 475 existing vacant residential lots in the rural area. The Report goes on to clearly identify that at current rates of take-up, this existing vacant lot supply could last up to 50 years. With such a healthy supply of vacant lots already in existence for residential development, there is clearly no need to create more!
The second reason goes back to what I was discussing earlier, and it has to do with the true costs of rural residential development, and how these costs are disproportionately borne by municipal taxpayers.
Complete Communities
Rural residents have few choices when it comes to accessing services and infrastructure. Just this past week, there was a letter to the editor of the Sudbury Star complaining about the traffic in this City. And there have been numerous stories about the cost of road maintenance. What is clear are that the choices which are made with regards to development form have contributed to existing situations. With the knowledge that creating car-dependent communities contributes to traffic congestion and road maintenance costs, it only makes economic sense to create complete communities which offer residents broader choices when it comes to transportation.
Lately, Greater Sudbury has been doing just that. Denser subdivisions, infilling within existing urban areas, and facilitating the creation of second units within existing homes – all of these efforts go towards creating the type of community we need to thrive in the emergent low-carbon economy. Further, infrastructure costs related to this form of development are significantly lower because of the reliance on existing infrastructure, and where tax dollars have to be spent for improvements, there is a higher critical mass of residents who receive the benefit.
Some might say that’s fine, but what does it hurt to allow people the choice to develop in rural areas? The truth, however, is that since we can expect only a limited increase in population, it only makes sense to do the best job that we can to derive the greatest net benefit from this limited increase. If we know that we need only 4,400 dwellings to meet our 20 year needs, it would be best to focus the vast majority of those dwellings within areas where they will bring the largest benefit to the community.
And those areas are within existing settlement areas, where transit-supportive communities can thrive.
Using Limited Resources Wisely
Knowing that only a limited number of new people are coming to our City, it makes no sense to encourage opportunities for those new people to spread out into rural areas, where the costs of servicing are so much higher. In Greater Sudbury, urban taxpayers already subsidize rural landowners to a significant degree through the costs of road building and maintenance, and the provision of emergency services to remote parts of the City. It’s not just the roads in the rural areas, either. Rural commuters add to the urban congestion which the rest of experience in the form of traffic, because of the car-dependent nature of rural development. Vast parking lots for commuters occupy critical public lands – these parking wastelands could be better used to facilitate commercial and industrial expansion, but instead parking lots are taxpayer-subsidized short-term rental properties for car culture convenience. These are the sorts of costs which increase due to development form.
Car-dependent development also carries high health, environmental and social impacts. Better development options are those which seek to offer the greatest level of lower carbon alternatives for transport, and which are based on the principles of smart growth.
Towards a Green City
Generally speaking, Greater Sudbury seems to understand that healthy communities are worth aspiring too. This proposal, which seeks to encourage rural residential development, would be a fundamental step backward in building the sort of community which we need to meet the economic challenges of the 21st Century. The impacts which a higher level of rural residential development will have on servicing and infrastructure needs cannot be tolerated by taxpayers.
To reiterate, there is no economic, social or environmental case which can be made for loosening existing restrictions on rural residential development. No case can be made on the basis of need, either.
I have made this submission before, and I will make it again. Instead of looking at changing policies in the Official Plan to facilitate more rural residential development, our municipal Council should be looking towards greater restrictions, or an outright policy prohibition. In these lean economic times, our decision-makers must take greater care with how public monies are spent, and on decisions which lead to long-term costs. Being that there is no case for continuing to allow this expensive development form, I urge our municipal councillors to take a very close look at the long-term costs of facilitating any more residential development in our rural areas, especially given the 50-year supply of existing vacant lots in the City.
The choices we make today in Greater Sudbury are going to reverberate throughout our collective future like ripples from pebbles tossed into a pond. It’s therefore important that we get things right the first time, at least as best as we can. Decisions should be made based on the best information available at the time. Ideally, decisions should lead to the creation of the most benefit for those making the decision. Let’s continue to invest public dollars where it makes sense to do so. Facilitating costly rural residential development, however, is not a wise use of public money.
(opinions expressed in this blog are my own, and should not be considered consistent with those of the Green Party of Canada)
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Carbon Tax Fall-Out: Tom Mulcair and the NDP Choose Partisan Games Over Good Public Policy
Today, I am at a complete loss to adequately explain the growing frustration which I’ve been feeling with the Tom Mulcair’s New Democratic Party. “Frustration”, frankly, is too light a term to describe the feeling. As I can’t explain the emotion, let me at least relay the facts which have led me to this breaking point.
When Tom Mulcair was elected Leader of the NDP back in March, I was cautiously optimistic that he would bring a higher level of discourse to Ottawa, particularly around the economics of climate change, and why it’s important that action be taken. For me, the NDP has always seemed to be a Party which talked a good game about the environment, but frankly had little clue about what sorts of appropriate actions would be necessary to combat the climate crisis. For every NDP proposal which would have helped reduce our dependence of fossil fuels (eliminate corporate subsidies to multi-national oil companies; put a price on carbon emissions) there was a counter-proposal which would negate impacts and continue to place an economic burden on future generations (capping gasoline prices at the pump; subsidizing electricity bills).
Mulcair Chooses Spin Over Substance
Tom Mulcair, I thought, understood that haphazard uncoordinated actions would not lead to the sorts of emissions reductions which Canada has got to start seriously contemplating if we are truly going to be a world leader in the emerging green economy. Sure, I have never been wild about Cap & Trade, Mulcair and the NDP’s signature economic policy to address climate change impacts. But with the right supports in place, Cap & Trade at least might actually reduce emissions, given enough time, and do so in a way which might not bankrupt the economically challenged. Mulcair, who started his term as NDP Leader talking openly about sustainably developing the Alberta tar sands, seemed like he might “get it”.
In the last week, though, with parliament having returned after a summer break, it’s become crystal clear that for reasons of partisan game-playing, the NDP under Tom Mulcair doesn’t “get it” – and will go to great lengths to ensure that their spin-controlled message replaces anything akin to serious debate about Canada’s economic future.
Climate Change is an Economic Issue, Requiring Economic Policy Responses
Make no mistake: while Canada’s economy might be relatively healthy at present, if we stay the course, we are setting ourselves up to run into serious economic issues related to climate change and resource depletion. Our economy is already experiencing the mild effects of a warming planet, manifested in rising food prices, and the effects of resource depletion through rising gasoline prices. The continued threats posed by global warming and the end of inexpensive energy are real. Many whom traditionally support the NDP understand this.
Yet, Mulcair and the NDP would rather spin-control their message than develop any serious ideas about how best to address the coming economic crisis. This week, we’ve seen Mulcair and his acolytes go on the offensive over Canada’s trade deficit and capping gasoline prices, while ignoring the concerted attacks made by the Conservative Party over the NDP’s alleged support of a carbon tax. The NDP, rather than engage on the issue of carbon pricing (which is both an economic and environmental issue), instead chose to brand the Conservatives as “liars” without any attempt to explain just how their beloved Cap & Trade policy will actually impact Canadians.
Looking for Real Climate Heros?
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, and former Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, took Mulcair to task for this missed opportunity. Instead of engaging, however, Mulcair chose to refer to a “carbon tax” as being “regressive”, a term which in politics is followed by the sound of a door slamming on a potential policy outcome. A change of mind now on the NDP’s carbon pricing policy simply can no longer happen, for the “regressive” sound bite will be played over and over by his pro-climate change Conservative rivals.
And the fact that consumption taxes are anything but “regressive” seems to matter nothing at all to Mulcair. We’ve managed to reduce health-destroying tobacco use through the imposition of consumption taxes. We’ve succeeded in reducing acid rain by pricing the industrial use of sulphur dioxide. What’s regressive about curtailing carbon pollution by making it more expensive for those who choose to pollute?
Elizabeth May had this to say about Mulcair earlier this week:
“Thomas Mulcair should be ashamed for not defending a carbon tax system. British Columbia now has had such a revenue-neutral carbon tax in place for four years. The last time I checked, the economy of the province had not vanished. Not only that, but people in B.C. actually support the system.”
Today in parliament, Elizabeth May was shouted down by the NDP, after asking what Mulcair would do about the climate crisis, if the NDP were to form government. The NDP is clearly on a mission to marginalize other voices in the House, and add fuel to the flames of Canada’s democratic deficit in the process. It seems that they’ve determined that their future electoral success is riding on silencing other voices.
NDP Chooses Partisanship Over Policy
I am troubled by this for so many reasons, not least of which because I see uncritical supporters of the NDP in my own community mimic the politician’s talking points and engage in mindless partisanship. I know that many of these people are actually interested in taking action on climate change, and very concerned about the growing democratic deficit. Yet they are content to throw reasonable debate on good public policy under the bus in order to champion their own talking points, because they believe that the NDP will be more “electable” if they play the message-management game. This is what I’ve come to expect from Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party. It is an absolute shame that the NDP has decided to engage in these same tactics now that they believe themselves to be a government in waiting.
I follow Sudbury NDP MP Glen Thibeault on Twitter. Full disclosure: I believe that Glen Thibeault is a hard-working MP and an asset to Sudbury. I often see Glen at community events both big and small, and I’ve heard Glen speak a number of times about important issues in the community. I think Glen is a really good guy. And that’s why it saddens me to see our NDP MP parrot the Party’s talking points about carbon taxes and Conservative lies, while trumpeting regressive and economically damaging NDP policies around energy use.
The NDP wants Canadians to think that a carbon tax is regressive because it was once championed by the Liberals, a political party which the NDP (along with the Conservatives) is out to destroy as a valid vehicle of political expression. Although they won’t say it, they are also opposed to a carbon tax because the Green Party supports it. The NDP won’t say it because it is an NDP stratagem to *never* talk about the Green Party, for talking about the Greens would be an acknowledgement that the Green Party actually exists and has a place in Canada’s political spectrum, which they see as a threat. Remember: it was Jack Layton’s decision in 2008 to initially deny Elizabeth May an opportunity to participate in the televised leadership debates. I can’t help but wonder if Mulcair will try to pull the same stunt in 2015.
What the NDP does instead is trumpet their Cap & Trade policy without explaining at all how it will actually work. And that is critical, because any Cap & Trade scheme is bound to raise consumer prices on many goods and services. But the NDP doesn’t acknowledge this. And they have no plan about how best to address rising prices (probably because they won’t acknowledge that prices will actually rise). What kind of economic policy does that amount to? Wishful thinking, at best maybe.
Carbon Pricing - Why Getting the Right Policy is Important
In fact, consumer prices are bound to rise under any carbon pricing plan, including the Conservative’s own poorly-implemented (and needlessly expensive) plan for to regulate carbon emission standards for industrial sectors (the Conservatives, too, refuse to acknowledge that their actions will lead to rising prices for consumers). And yes, a carbon tax will also raise prices for consumers. Why run away from these facts? I don’t know. For me, discussing them is part of the informed debate on which process to price emissions (and thereby reducing emissions) works better.
Business and industry leaders in Canada have for years now acknowledged that carbon pricing is coming. They’ve been trying to drive the debate about the best mechanisms to price carbon, and many, including CEO’s in some of the largest multinational oil companies, such as Shell and Exxon, have suggested that a direct tax would be the simplest way to price emissions. It would also lead to stable and predictable prices, which are important for small businesses which don’t have the same flexibilities to absorb market-driven changes to prices. That’s probably the biggest reason that I’m not a fan of Cap & Trade, because it could disadvantage small, local businesses.
But the other advantage of a revenue-neutral carbon tax has over Cap & Trade is that taxation revenues derived from the tax can be put back into programs which will ensure that those least well off are not severely impacted by rising prices. What’s not clear is that the NDP has taken into consideration how, exactly, rising prices might impact the economically vulnerable, particularly those who are living on fixed incomes. This is probably because the NDP continues to want to pretend that Cap & Trade is only going to impact large corporations, and not, well, everyone. Or does the NDP really naively believe that corporations won’t pass along increased costs to consumers?
Sadly ironic is the fact that those very same people who are most at risk from a poorly implemented Cap & Trade scheme are the very same people whom the NDP has traditionally championed – the economically vulnerable.
NDP Paints Itself Into a Carbon Corner
A much better approach would be for the NDP to move away from a wasteful Cap & Trade scheme for carbon pricing altogether, and actually adopt the revenue-neutral carbon tax called for by business and industry. As time has gone by, the verdict on the success of Cap & Trade appears to be negative, with Europe’s carbon trading scheme doing little to reduce emissions, and the private Chicago-based emissions trading scheme having collapsed altogether. In the United States, Congress turned down the Waxman-Markey bill, which would have established Cap & Trade there. Increasingly, revenue-neutral carbon taxes, or carbon fee & dividend approaches, are being championed as a better approach to carbon pricing. However, Mulcair appears to have completely undermined the NDP’s ability to switch horses now with his “regressive” labelling of a carbon tax.
All of this must be very disheartening for Canadians, many of whom have traditionally supported the NDP. For me, it’s beyond frustrating. It’s outright infuriating.
Apparently, Winning is Everything for the NDP
What we’re seeing the NDP turn into under Tom Mulcair’s leadership is a Party more concerned about dividing and conquering than putting good public policy proposals forward. Further, the NDP will continue to wear the mantle of economic mismanagement in the minds of Canadians, since they refuse to acknowledge the likely economic impacts of their own policy proposals. For Canadians concerned about the climate crisis, it should now be clear that the NDP is not the Party which is going to take global warming seriously. We saw it happen in British Columbia recently, with the NDP campaigning against B.C.’s emissions-reducing carbon tax. I fear that the same is now happening with the NDP nationally, and we can expect the NDP to try to silence a legitimate debate on carbon pricing. Likely because the NDP knows that their own policy is poorly conceived.
On carbon pollution, Tom Mulcair says he wants to make the “polluter pay”. But, for partisan political reasons, what he won’t candidly tell Canadians is that the polluter is us. Mulcair cynically wants Canadians to think that the climate crisis can be solved by taxing multinational corporations, while preserving the status quo which we ordinary Canadians have come to enjoy. Now that the era of inexpensive energy use has come to an end, and the world is facing the global challenge of a changing climate, the game has changed. If pretending otherwise is the NDP prescription for prosperity in the 21st Century, Canada under a Mulcair government will be ill-prepared to take advantage of the opportunities which a truly green economy offers. And we will all be worse off for it.
(opinions expressed in this blog are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views of the Green Party of Canada)
When Tom Mulcair was elected Leader of the NDP back in March, I was cautiously optimistic that he would bring a higher level of discourse to Ottawa, particularly around the economics of climate change, and why it’s important that action be taken. For me, the NDP has always seemed to be a Party which talked a good game about the environment, but frankly had little clue about what sorts of appropriate actions would be necessary to combat the climate crisis. For every NDP proposal which would have helped reduce our dependence of fossil fuels (eliminate corporate subsidies to multi-national oil companies; put a price on carbon emissions) there was a counter-proposal which would negate impacts and continue to place an economic burden on future generations (capping gasoline prices at the pump; subsidizing electricity bills).
Mulcair Chooses Spin Over Substance
Tom Mulcair, I thought, understood that haphazard uncoordinated actions would not lead to the sorts of emissions reductions which Canada has got to start seriously contemplating if we are truly going to be a world leader in the emerging green economy. Sure, I have never been wild about Cap & Trade, Mulcair and the NDP’s signature economic policy to address climate change impacts. But with the right supports in place, Cap & Trade at least might actually reduce emissions, given enough time, and do so in a way which might not bankrupt the economically challenged. Mulcair, who started his term as NDP Leader talking openly about sustainably developing the Alberta tar sands, seemed like he might “get it”.
In the last week, though, with parliament having returned after a summer break, it’s become crystal clear that for reasons of partisan game-playing, the NDP under Tom Mulcair doesn’t “get it” – and will go to great lengths to ensure that their spin-controlled message replaces anything akin to serious debate about Canada’s economic future.
Climate Change is an Economic Issue, Requiring Economic Policy Responses
Make no mistake: while Canada’s economy might be relatively healthy at present, if we stay the course, we are setting ourselves up to run into serious economic issues related to climate change and resource depletion. Our economy is already experiencing the mild effects of a warming planet, manifested in rising food prices, and the effects of resource depletion through rising gasoline prices. The continued threats posed by global warming and the end of inexpensive energy are real. Many whom traditionally support the NDP understand this.
Yet, Mulcair and the NDP would rather spin-control their message than develop any serious ideas about how best to address the coming economic crisis. This week, we’ve seen Mulcair and his acolytes go on the offensive over Canada’s trade deficit and capping gasoline prices, while ignoring the concerted attacks made by the Conservative Party over the NDP’s alleged support of a carbon tax. The NDP, rather than engage on the issue of carbon pricing (which is both an economic and environmental issue), instead chose to brand the Conservatives as “liars” without any attempt to explain just how their beloved Cap & Trade policy will actually impact Canadians.
Looking for Real Climate Heros?
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, and former Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, took Mulcair to task for this missed opportunity. Instead of engaging, however, Mulcair chose to refer to a “carbon tax” as being “regressive”, a term which in politics is followed by the sound of a door slamming on a potential policy outcome. A change of mind now on the NDP’s carbon pricing policy simply can no longer happen, for the “regressive” sound bite will be played over and over by his pro-climate change Conservative rivals.
And the fact that consumption taxes are anything but “regressive” seems to matter nothing at all to Mulcair. We’ve managed to reduce health-destroying tobacco use through the imposition of consumption taxes. We’ve succeeded in reducing acid rain by pricing the industrial use of sulphur dioxide. What’s regressive about curtailing carbon pollution by making it more expensive for those who choose to pollute?
Elizabeth May had this to say about Mulcair earlier this week:
“Thomas Mulcair should be ashamed for not defending a carbon tax system. British Columbia now has had such a revenue-neutral carbon tax in place for four years. The last time I checked, the economy of the province had not vanished. Not only that, but people in B.C. actually support the system.”
Today in parliament, Elizabeth May was shouted down by the NDP, after asking what Mulcair would do about the climate crisis, if the NDP were to form government. The NDP is clearly on a mission to marginalize other voices in the House, and add fuel to the flames of Canada’s democratic deficit in the process. It seems that they’ve determined that their future electoral success is riding on silencing other voices.
NDP Chooses Partisanship Over Policy
I am troubled by this for so many reasons, not least of which because I see uncritical supporters of the NDP in my own community mimic the politician’s talking points and engage in mindless partisanship. I know that many of these people are actually interested in taking action on climate change, and very concerned about the growing democratic deficit. Yet they are content to throw reasonable debate on good public policy under the bus in order to champion their own talking points, because they believe that the NDP will be more “electable” if they play the message-management game. This is what I’ve come to expect from Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party. It is an absolute shame that the NDP has decided to engage in these same tactics now that they believe themselves to be a government in waiting.
I follow Sudbury NDP MP Glen Thibeault on Twitter. Full disclosure: I believe that Glen Thibeault is a hard-working MP and an asset to Sudbury. I often see Glen at community events both big and small, and I’ve heard Glen speak a number of times about important issues in the community. I think Glen is a really good guy. And that’s why it saddens me to see our NDP MP parrot the Party’s talking points about carbon taxes and Conservative lies, while trumpeting regressive and economically damaging NDP policies around energy use.
The NDP wants Canadians to think that a carbon tax is regressive because it was once championed by the Liberals, a political party which the NDP (along with the Conservatives) is out to destroy as a valid vehicle of political expression. Although they won’t say it, they are also opposed to a carbon tax because the Green Party supports it. The NDP won’t say it because it is an NDP stratagem to *never* talk about the Green Party, for talking about the Greens would be an acknowledgement that the Green Party actually exists and has a place in Canada’s political spectrum, which they see as a threat. Remember: it was Jack Layton’s decision in 2008 to initially deny Elizabeth May an opportunity to participate in the televised leadership debates. I can’t help but wonder if Mulcair will try to pull the same stunt in 2015.
What the NDP does instead is trumpet their Cap & Trade policy without explaining at all how it will actually work. And that is critical, because any Cap & Trade scheme is bound to raise consumer prices on many goods and services. But the NDP doesn’t acknowledge this. And they have no plan about how best to address rising prices (probably because they won’t acknowledge that prices will actually rise). What kind of economic policy does that amount to? Wishful thinking, at best maybe.
Carbon Pricing - Why Getting the Right Policy is Important
In fact, consumer prices are bound to rise under any carbon pricing plan, including the Conservative’s own poorly-implemented (and needlessly expensive) plan for to regulate carbon emission standards for industrial sectors (the Conservatives, too, refuse to acknowledge that their actions will lead to rising prices for consumers). And yes, a carbon tax will also raise prices for consumers. Why run away from these facts? I don’t know. For me, discussing them is part of the informed debate on which process to price emissions (and thereby reducing emissions) works better.
Business and industry leaders in Canada have for years now acknowledged that carbon pricing is coming. They’ve been trying to drive the debate about the best mechanisms to price carbon, and many, including CEO’s in some of the largest multinational oil companies, such as Shell and Exxon, have suggested that a direct tax would be the simplest way to price emissions. It would also lead to stable and predictable prices, which are important for small businesses which don’t have the same flexibilities to absorb market-driven changes to prices. That’s probably the biggest reason that I’m not a fan of Cap & Trade, because it could disadvantage small, local businesses.
But the other advantage of a revenue-neutral carbon tax has over Cap & Trade is that taxation revenues derived from the tax can be put back into programs which will ensure that those least well off are not severely impacted by rising prices. What’s not clear is that the NDP has taken into consideration how, exactly, rising prices might impact the economically vulnerable, particularly those who are living on fixed incomes. This is probably because the NDP continues to want to pretend that Cap & Trade is only going to impact large corporations, and not, well, everyone. Or does the NDP really naively believe that corporations won’t pass along increased costs to consumers?
Sadly ironic is the fact that those very same people who are most at risk from a poorly implemented Cap & Trade scheme are the very same people whom the NDP has traditionally championed – the economically vulnerable.
NDP Paints Itself Into a Carbon Corner
A much better approach would be for the NDP to move away from a wasteful Cap & Trade scheme for carbon pricing altogether, and actually adopt the revenue-neutral carbon tax called for by business and industry. As time has gone by, the verdict on the success of Cap & Trade appears to be negative, with Europe’s carbon trading scheme doing little to reduce emissions, and the private Chicago-based emissions trading scheme having collapsed altogether. In the United States, Congress turned down the Waxman-Markey bill, which would have established Cap & Trade there. Increasingly, revenue-neutral carbon taxes, or carbon fee & dividend approaches, are being championed as a better approach to carbon pricing. However, Mulcair appears to have completely undermined the NDP’s ability to switch horses now with his “regressive” labelling of a carbon tax.
All of this must be very disheartening for Canadians, many of whom have traditionally supported the NDP. For me, it’s beyond frustrating. It’s outright infuriating.
Apparently, Winning is Everything for the NDP
What we’re seeing the NDP turn into under Tom Mulcair’s leadership is a Party more concerned about dividing and conquering than putting good public policy proposals forward. Further, the NDP will continue to wear the mantle of economic mismanagement in the minds of Canadians, since they refuse to acknowledge the likely economic impacts of their own policy proposals. For Canadians concerned about the climate crisis, it should now be clear that the NDP is not the Party which is going to take global warming seriously. We saw it happen in British Columbia recently, with the NDP campaigning against B.C.’s emissions-reducing carbon tax. I fear that the same is now happening with the NDP nationally, and we can expect the NDP to try to silence a legitimate debate on carbon pricing. Likely because the NDP knows that their own policy is poorly conceived.
On carbon pollution, Tom Mulcair says he wants to make the “polluter pay”. But, for partisan political reasons, what he won’t candidly tell Canadians is that the polluter is us. Mulcair cynically wants Canadians to think that the climate crisis can be solved by taxing multinational corporations, while preserving the status quo which we ordinary Canadians have come to enjoy. Now that the era of inexpensive energy use has come to an end, and the world is facing the global challenge of a changing climate, the game has changed. If pretending otherwise is the NDP prescription for prosperity in the 21st Century, Canada under a Mulcair government will be ill-prepared to take advantage of the opportunities which a truly green economy offers. And we will all be worse off for it.
(opinions expressed in this blog are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views of the Green Party of Canada)
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Greens Not "Absolutely" Opposed to Fossil Fuels, Nuclear and Hydro Power
An edited version of the following text was published in the print version of the Northern Life (Tuesday, September 18, 2012) and on their website on Tuesday, September 24/12. The following text represents my complete submission to the Northern Life, and includes hyperlinks.
The original article appearing in the Northern Life which prompted Pat Rogerson's response can be found at, "Ring of Fire plan burns First Nations: Greens", published online on August 8, 2012. This article was written after Green Party of Ontario Leader, Mike Schreiner, hosted a press conference regarding the Green Party of Ontario's call for the provincial government to develop a Sustainable Northern Development Plan (see: "Greens demand a Sustainable Development Plan for the North to maximize benefits from the Ring of Fire", GPO Press Release, August 8 2012)
Below my original letter to the Northern Life, I have also attached comments which I published online at the Northern Life, in response to the earlier letter to the editor which prompted my letter to the editor.
-----
Re: “Columnist missed a few points”, Letter to the Editor, the Northern Life, published September 11, 2012
As an officer of the Sudbury Federal Green Party Association, I feel compelled to reply to the letter to the editor by Mr. Joel Whipple, published in the Northern Life on September 11, 2012, in response to an earlier column by former Green Party of Ontario candidate Pat Rogerson, published August 28, 2012. Mr. Whipple’s recent letter to the editor contained many statements which were misleading, and in some cases, incoherent. While problematic, there was one assertion made by Mr. Whipple which was completely false, and requires a response.
Mr. Whipple wrote that “the Green Party absolutely opposes hydro dams, as well as nuclear and fossil fuels”. As a member involved in the grassroots policy development processes of both the Green Party of Canada and the Green Party of Ontario, I can assure Northern Life’s readers that neither the provincial or federal Green Party is absolutely opposed to energy produced through hydro-electric generation, burning fossil fuels, or through existing nuclear power facilities. Not only would such opposition be impractical in our society, it would be absurd.
The Green Party’s energy policies emphasize the need to conserve energy as a first priority. Energy savings accrued through conservation means alone would likely address Ontario’s power needs well into the next decade. The least expensive kilowatt of energy is the one which we don’t use. And there are ample opportunities for Ontarians and all Canadians to conserve our energy use.
However, the Green Party acknowledges that we require reliable power. Past investments have left us with an energy system where a significant majority of electricity in Canada is produced by burning fossil fuels, which power our transportation systems and produce electricity. Our governments continue to subsidize fossil fuel energy, to the tune of between $1.2 to $2 billion annually, despite Canada’s commitment to the G20 to eliminate these subsidies. Globally, estimates from the International Energy Agency suggest that governments are subsidizing fossil fuel costs at a staggering $409 billion per year.
In comparison, estimates peg subsidies made to green energy in Ontario as being responsible for a very modest 6% increase to our energy bills. In contrast, 45% of price increases on our electric bills are related to the production of nuclear power in this province. Of course, not all of the real costs of nuclear power appear on our bills. It is estimated that taxpayers will be on the hook for approximately $25 billion to store nuclear waste materials, once a viable plan for long-term storage is in place.
The Green Party has been on record for calls to eliminate the subsidization of fossil fuels, and saying “No” to building expensive new nuclear. Along with eliminating subsidies, we believe that all externalities should be factored into the price of energy production, so that consumers and policy-makers can make informed choices about energy use based on real costs. As far as fossil fuels are concerned, real costs must include the price of climate-changing carbon emissions. If subsidies could be removed from fossil fuel production, and the real costs factored into the price of energy, a significantly stronger case is made for investing in wind, solar, geothermal and hydro (where it makes sense to do so).
Fossil fuels and nuclear power, however, will be a part of Canada’s and Ontario’s energy mix for decades to come, due to the infrastructure choices we have made in the past. The Green Party’s emphasis on conservation, and incorporating full costs into the price of energy use does not mean that Greens oppose all forms of non-renewable energy production, as Mr. Whipple would have you believe. Instead, our policies recognize that Canada must embrace renewables to be a leader in the 21st Century green economy.
-Steve May, Officer, Sudbury Federal Green Party Association
Comments Published Online
As someone with a "few concerns" about Pat's article, I guess I have to express a "few concerns" with Joel Whipple's so-called "facts". First of all, having some experience and understanding with the policies of both the provincial and federal Green Parties, I can say unequivically that neither Party "absolutely opposes" hydro-electrical generation, nuclear power or the use of fossil fuels. Whipple's assertions here are completely misleading.
And speaking of misleading, while it's true that Hollywood made a movie called "Erin Brokovich", it seems that Whipple wants you to forget that there really was (and is) a real Erin Brokovich, who went through significantly greater hardships than those depicted in the fictional film in order to ensure water safety in her community.
As for wind and solar being "unreliable" and "expensive", I suggest that the author take a very close look at the real costs per kilowatt hour for power generation which is paid in this province for the production of electricity. When real costs are factored into the equation, nuclear energy time and again becomes one of the more expensive generating methods available, yet we derive more than half of our baseload supply from nuclear. Real costs for nuclear are impacted not only by the costs of generation, but include mining the product, subsidies and guarantees for insurance, and costs related to transporting and storing waste (something which, although we've been in the business of generating waste for 40 years or more, we still lack a plan to deal with). When externalities are considered, wind and solar energy production compares favorably to hydro, and costs are going down for renewables all the time.
I don't know what to say about someone who compares government scientists to expensive "pen-pushers". Last time I checked, scientists on federal and provincial payrolls (those remaining) were doing pretty good jobs of protecting the public interest. Part of that job includes peer-reviewing the work of private-sector expert-produced reports required by the Environmental Assessment process. Peer review is an integral part of the EA process, and indeed, testable and reproducible science relies on this sort of review, as any grade 10 science student could tell you.
And I'm at a complete loss to even understand what Whipple is trying to say with his last sentence, but it sounds like he thinks Cliffs might have been against hydro-electric generation? I hope not because that just seems bizarre.
-----
Opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own, and should not be construed as being consistent with the views of the Green Party of Canada.
The original article appearing in the Northern Life which prompted Pat Rogerson's response can be found at, "Ring of Fire plan burns First Nations: Greens", published online on August 8, 2012. This article was written after Green Party of Ontario Leader, Mike Schreiner, hosted a press conference regarding the Green Party of Ontario's call for the provincial government to develop a Sustainable Northern Development Plan (see: "Greens demand a Sustainable Development Plan for the North to maximize benefits from the Ring of Fire", GPO Press Release, August 8 2012)
Below my original letter to the Northern Life, I have also attached comments which I published online at the Northern Life, in response to the earlier letter to the editor which prompted my letter to the editor.
-----
Re: “Columnist missed a few points”, Letter to the Editor, the Northern Life, published September 11, 2012
As an officer of the Sudbury Federal Green Party Association, I feel compelled to reply to the letter to the editor by Mr. Joel Whipple, published in the Northern Life on September 11, 2012, in response to an earlier column by former Green Party of Ontario candidate Pat Rogerson, published August 28, 2012. Mr. Whipple’s recent letter to the editor contained many statements which were misleading, and in some cases, incoherent. While problematic, there was one assertion made by Mr. Whipple which was completely false, and requires a response.
Mr. Whipple wrote that “the Green Party absolutely opposes hydro dams, as well as nuclear and fossil fuels”. As a member involved in the grassroots policy development processes of both the Green Party of Canada and the Green Party of Ontario, I can assure Northern Life’s readers that neither the provincial or federal Green Party is absolutely opposed to energy produced through hydro-electric generation, burning fossil fuels, or through existing nuclear power facilities. Not only would such opposition be impractical in our society, it would be absurd.
The Green Party’s energy policies emphasize the need to conserve energy as a first priority. Energy savings accrued through conservation means alone would likely address Ontario’s power needs well into the next decade. The least expensive kilowatt of energy is the one which we don’t use. And there are ample opportunities for Ontarians and all Canadians to conserve our energy use.
However, the Green Party acknowledges that we require reliable power. Past investments have left us with an energy system where a significant majority of electricity in Canada is produced by burning fossil fuels, which power our transportation systems and produce electricity. Our governments continue to subsidize fossil fuel energy, to the tune of between $1.2 to $2 billion annually, despite Canada’s commitment to the G20 to eliminate these subsidies. Globally, estimates from the International Energy Agency suggest that governments are subsidizing fossil fuel costs at a staggering $409 billion per year.
In comparison, estimates peg subsidies made to green energy in Ontario as being responsible for a very modest 6% increase to our energy bills. In contrast, 45% of price increases on our electric bills are related to the production of nuclear power in this province. Of course, not all of the real costs of nuclear power appear on our bills. It is estimated that taxpayers will be on the hook for approximately $25 billion to store nuclear waste materials, once a viable plan for long-term storage is in place.
The Green Party has been on record for calls to eliminate the subsidization of fossil fuels, and saying “No” to building expensive new nuclear. Along with eliminating subsidies, we believe that all externalities should be factored into the price of energy production, so that consumers and policy-makers can make informed choices about energy use based on real costs. As far as fossil fuels are concerned, real costs must include the price of climate-changing carbon emissions. If subsidies could be removed from fossil fuel production, and the real costs factored into the price of energy, a significantly stronger case is made for investing in wind, solar, geothermal and hydro (where it makes sense to do so).
Fossil fuels and nuclear power, however, will be a part of Canada’s and Ontario’s energy mix for decades to come, due to the infrastructure choices we have made in the past. The Green Party’s emphasis on conservation, and incorporating full costs into the price of energy use does not mean that Greens oppose all forms of non-renewable energy production, as Mr. Whipple would have you believe. Instead, our policies recognize that Canada must embrace renewables to be a leader in the 21st Century green economy.
-Steve May, Officer, Sudbury Federal Green Party Association
Comments Published Online
As someone with a "few concerns" about Pat's article, I guess I have to express a "few concerns" with Joel Whipple's so-called "facts". First of all, having some experience and understanding with the policies of both the provincial and federal Green Parties, I can say unequivically that neither Party "absolutely opposes" hydro-electrical generation, nuclear power or the use of fossil fuels. Whipple's assertions here are completely misleading.
And speaking of misleading, while it's true that Hollywood made a movie called "Erin Brokovich", it seems that Whipple wants you to forget that there really was (and is) a real Erin Brokovich, who went through significantly greater hardships than those depicted in the fictional film in order to ensure water safety in her community.
As for wind and solar being "unreliable" and "expensive", I suggest that the author take a very close look at the real costs per kilowatt hour for power generation which is paid in this province for the production of electricity. When real costs are factored into the equation, nuclear energy time and again becomes one of the more expensive generating methods available, yet we derive more than half of our baseload supply from nuclear. Real costs for nuclear are impacted not only by the costs of generation, but include mining the product, subsidies and guarantees for insurance, and costs related to transporting and storing waste (something which, although we've been in the business of generating waste for 40 years or more, we still lack a plan to deal with). When externalities are considered, wind and solar energy production compares favorably to hydro, and costs are going down for renewables all the time.
I don't know what to say about someone who compares government scientists to expensive "pen-pushers". Last time I checked, scientists on federal and provincial payrolls (those remaining) were doing pretty good jobs of protecting the public interest. Part of that job includes peer-reviewing the work of private-sector expert-produced reports required by the Environmental Assessment process. Peer review is an integral part of the EA process, and indeed, testable and reproducible science relies on this sort of review, as any grade 10 science student could tell you.
And I'm at a complete loss to even understand what Whipple is trying to say with his last sentence, but it sounds like he thinks Cliffs might have been against hydro-electric generation? I hope not because that just seems bizarre.
-----
Opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own, and should not be construed as being consistent with the views of the Green Party of Canada.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Motion Sickness: Green Party Members Greenlight Problematic Motions Ahead of 2012 BGM
Please note that this particular blogpost may only be of interest to Members of the Green Party of Canada, supporters, and other political insiders. Also, please be advised that some of the links to specific party motions will not work unless one is first logged into the Green Party of Canada's website. To log in, or to become a member of the Party, please visit www.greenparty.ca .
-----
Earlier this evening, I visited the Green Party of Canada’s website to find out if results had been posted for the membership “Bonser Ballot” voting on policy, directive and constitutional motions. Before every Biennial General Meeting, Green Party members are invited by the Party to vote on numerous motions. The Party uses a Bonser Ballot (explained in detail at this link), but essentially members can vote “Green”, “Yellow” or “Red”. Where 60% of the vote received is Green or Red, the motion is either passed or defeated. All other vote counts mean that the motion will be “workshopped” by members attending the BGM.
This year’s BGM is taking place in Sidney, British Columbia, later this month (August 17 through 19). Earlier this evening, I discovered that the results of earlier voting have now been posted at this location: http://www.greenparty.ca/convention-2012/voting/motions . Information regarding the number of votes is not currently available, only vote percentages.
To my complete horror, I have discovered that the membership, in its wisdom, are about to initiate substantial changes to the policies of the Green Party of Canada. I feel the need to call out the membership for some of these changes, as I can’t believe that the membership wishes to fundamentally change the Party’s policy positions related to so many issues important to the membership and our supporters. It is also my hope that the results of the Bonser Ballot might yet be overturned on the floor of the General Meeting by those in attendance at the meeting, which is specific power granted to the General Meeting through the Party’s Constitution and by-laws.
The Commercial Seal Hunt
Currently, the Green Party of Canada supports phasing out the industrial-scale commercial seal hunt for numerous reasons (although the Party does support sustainable subsistence harvest of seals by aboriginal peoples). While this position has been controversial within the Party, it appears that a version of this policy has been on the Party’s books at least since 2002. Many have suggested that our support for this policy is the biggest reason why the Party has failed to make inroads in the Province of Newfoundland & Labrador. However, the membership of the Party, for varied reasons, has continued to be of the view that phasing out the seal hunt is simply the right thing to do. At least up until now.
Greens were asked to vote on two policy motions which would have the effect of rescinding our existing policies on the seal hunt: Motions G12-P09, which rescinds numerous policies, and G12-P18, which specifically rescinds policies related to the commercial seal hunt. These motions were “greenlighted” by the voting membership with a level of support of 79.3% (G12-P09) and 60.7% (G12-P18).
A related motion, G12-P19, regarding new policies which would see Greens support a call for expanding the commercial seal hunt and the development of new markets for seal products received a majority greenlight votes (52.7%) but did not meet the Bonser Ballot approval threshold of 60%, so it will be workshopped at the BGM. Through the workshop process, the policy motion can be changed by the General Meeting and approved, or it can be defeated outright.
The Green Party of Canada is the only national political party which currently supports phasing out the commercial seal hunt. The Party has worn this policy as a badge of honour and has used the policy to attract many supporters who are primarily concerned about animal welfare issues. In short, I believe it has been a winning policy for the Party, particularly outside of Atlantic Canada. Whether one agrees with the ethics of continuing the seal hunt or not, what is clear is that the hunt is no longer an economic venture, and Canadian taxpayers are subsidizing it, year after year.
A change to our policies regarding the seal hunt may not at first appear to be dangerous, given that the other mainstream parties are in favour of continuing to subsidize the hunt. However, let’s be honest here: many Green supporters are very touchy when it comes to animal welfare issues, and when they discover that the Party has rescinded policy on phasing out the commercial hunt, we will likely lose those supporters and their significant financial contributions. Now, it could be argued that a policy change might open the door to the Party in Newfoundland & Labrador, but I’d suggest that closing doors in urban and suburban ridings in B.C. and southwestern Ontario at the expense of possible future gains in Newfoundland is not the direction which the Party should choose to go in.
Let me be blunt here. The Green Party’s electoral success in the next federal general election will be found in a handful of ridings in British Columbia, Alberta, southwestern Ontario, and the Yukon. And maybe one in Montreal if Deputy Leader Georges Laraque decides to run there (although I think Edmonton Centre would be a better choice for former Edmonton Oiler Laraque). Our current policy supporting the phasing out of the seal hunt is a “winner” in those areas, and therefore it should be maintained.
Historic Policies
A number of motions which have received greenlights from the membership will rescind some of the Green Party’s historic policies. Many of these policies may now be considered out-of-date or stale, and likely should be disposed of. However, other policies, although adopted by the membership many years ago, remain relevant to Greens, and indeed, set us apart from other parties.
In particular, the membership in its wisdom has voted to remove our policies related to our support for same-sex marriages. Again, the Party has worn these policies as a badge of honour in the LGBT2SQA community ever since our membership first adopted a policy supporting gay marriage and common-law partnerships in 1996 (the first national political party to do so). Given that social conservatives, some of whom are currently occupying seats in Parliament, continue to threaten to overturn existing marriage laws, it makes no sense for the Green Party of Canada to be seen to be taking steps backwards from our historic position of support.
Our historic policy with regards to the legalization of cannabis is also on the chopping block. The Green Party has held this policy position since 1998, and is in the only national political party which outright supports and end to prohibition through legalization. Given that polls continue to show that a majority of Canadians support ending prohibition, for many reasons, it just doesn’t make sense that the Green Party would now discard our pot policy.
Some Greens may think that the absence of policy alone doesn’t mean that we’re against gay marriage or ending prohibition, but the truth is that we will be handing ammunition to our political opponents, as well as confusing our existing and potentially new supporters. By rescinding these policies, our political opponents will quite rightly be able to state that we no longer support gay marriage rights and ending prohibition, and that voters should not cast their ballots for Green candidates if these issues are important to them. “Didn’t the Green Party afterall just rescind their policies on these issues? Clearly, Greens want to become social conservatives, instead of progressives.”
Stephen LaFrenie, a very active party partisan, has written about some of the effects of these motions which will eliminate historic policies. He offers a very clear analysis with regards to the policy holes which won’t be filled should the Party ultimately discard some of these policies. See LaFrenie’s excellent analysis: “Green Party Proudly Marches in Pride Parade While Being Asked to Rescind its Historic Policy on Same-Sex Marriages” and “Green Party Being Asked to Rescind its Policy on Cannabis”.
What Does it Mean to be “Green”?
Last, but certainly not least, I need to bring to your attention what is potentially the most dangerous policy which our membership in its wisdom has decided to endorse, that being motion G12-P16, the “Free Vote” policy. Ostensibly, this policy was created to provide guidance to Party members and future MP’s with regards to how votes will be cast, both at General Meetings and by MP’s in Parliament. The Green Party has long prided itself as being a political party which does things differently, and our Leader Elizabeth May is on record saying that she does not support whipping votes. This policy, if approved at the General Meeting, will ensure that MP’s can never be whipped on votes, and that there votes can never lead to the Party taking measures against them.
On the surface, such a motion appears to make sense, especially if there are concerns with regards to whipping MP’s to vote in a certain way. Recall that former NDP MP Bruce Hyer (who will be speaking at the Green Party’s upcoming Biennial General Meeting later this month) cited vote whipping as one of his reasons for leaving the NDP.
Let me be clear: I do not support whipping MP’s to vote a certain way. And if motion G12-P16 limited itself to declaring simply that “there shall be no whipped votes”, I would have supported it.
Instead, however, the motion goes far too far. It indicates that Greens, on matters of conscious (which is not defined in the motion), can choose to vote any way that they want to. The lack of definition with regards to “matters of conscious” is truly problematic, as it can be construed to mean anything anybody wants it to mean. A matter of conscious might be the ethics of implementing a revenue-neutral carbon tax (“it will hurt the poor, I can’t vote for that!”). This despite the fact that the Green Party has member-approved policy which supports the implementation of such a tax through tax shifting.
The approval of this motion will ultimately mean that member-approved policy won’t be worth the paper that its printed on, as MP’s will be free to “vote their conscience” on any and all issues. Again, some might argue that’s not a bad thing, and in fact more MP’s should be doing just that. But recall for a moment that the election of these MP’s will require the expenditure of resources from the Party in the form of a central campaign, along with local campaigns supported financially by Green members and supporters. In short, we could end up financially supporting the election of MP’s who won’t follow our own policies, and who won’t suffer any consequences for not doing so. That’s just an absurd situation.
Party members and supporters, not to mention new future supporters, will be left wondering just what it means to be a “Green” when elected MP’s won’t have to follow Party policy, or even base their votes on our shared Green Values. Simply put, being “Green” won’t any longer mean anything.
And that’s why motion G12-P16 goes too far. In this case, the absence of Party policy with regards to how MP’s should vote will serve the Party well when Elizabeth May is joined by a caucus of Green MP’s.
For more animated discussion, please see the following discussions: Party Members Only discussion on Motion G12-P16, and Paul Maillet’s blog, “2012 Policy Motion Free Votes – Request Support”, in which I have commented extensively (and which is available to the general public for viewing. We Greens really aren't scared to air our disagreements with one another - it's all a part of how we do politics differently. While I don't agree with this motion, I'm glad that Greens are discussing it publicly, as the motion has many supporters as well as detractors).
The Absurdity of Bonser
Now, given that the voting membership in its wisdom have spoken on these proposed motions, many Greens might argue that the Party should follow the will of its voting members. Normally, I’d be in agreement with that approach, but what is not known to me is what percentage of the membership actually cast ballots to authorize these significant and fundamental changes to Party policy?
Further, I have never been a supporter of the foolish “Bonser Ballot” approach used by the Party in an effort to obtain a higher level of consensus on matters coming forward for voting at BGM’s. I see the wisdom of the Bonser process with respect to the fact that the Green Party of Canada does not use a delegate selection process for attending its General Meetings, and nor does it currently permit proxy voting, despite having this provision within the Constitution. Essentially, allowing the membership to express its will through the Bonser process before the General Meeting does, to a degree, offset the fact that only those members who are financially better-off or who can find financial support, or through happenstance live in close proximity to the General Meeting location, can attend the General Meeting.
In practice, however, the Bonser Ballot is a confusing voting process for members, who often have little to rely on when casting ballots other than the extremely biased “WHEREAS” clauses written by the motion movers, and maybe some commentary by the Party which (this time at least) tends to be pretty neutral in tone. Yes, it’s true that voters can read comments written by other members, but only if they click on a link to do so. And even then, many of the motions voted on lacked much in the way of online comments from the membership.
With over 40 constitutional, directive and policy motions to vote on (a lower number than usual, actually), most members decide to opt out of voting altogether. In 2010, the percentage of members in good standing who cast ballots through the Bonser process was the highest ever for the Party, but was still less than 20%.
And, as per usual, the vast majority of motions received a “greenlight” from the membership. This trend to me speaks to the biggest flaw with the Bonser process, at least as it is applied to the Green Party. We Greens, generally speaking, are united by our positivity and general trust in the wisdom of other like-minded people. I really do believe that our shared values create a reluctance to be outright critical of others when it comes to voting, and therefore I think that Greens are far less likely to vote against something than they are to vote for it (if they think others believe it’s a good idea), or at least, in the case of the Bonser Ballot, to vote “yellowlight”.
This time around, out of more than 40 motions considered by the membership, only 6 did not receive 60% or more “greenlight” votes. Not one motion was “redlighted”. I know that I myself voted Red on 20 motions. Clearly, I’m just a contrarian, at least amongst the voting membership!
It’s well past time that the Party abandon the Bonser Ballot process, as it does not serve our Party well. It offers the voting membership too many opportunities to opt out of critical decision making. The decisions which the Party makes with regards to our Constitution and policies really are critical, because they shape our Party from the ground up. With so few members actively engaged in the process, and with the ability to cast a vote neither for or against a particular motion ultimately affecting the outcome of the vote, it’s clear that this process does not serve the Party well. There are too many opportunities to opt out of making critical decisions.
Fixing the Dilemma
Luckily, there does remain an opportunity for the Party to deal with some of these issues which I’ve highlighted (as well as with other issues which I’ve not highlighted. For example, I’ll be frank: I haven’t bothered to go through the list of several dozen policies which the membership has voted to rescind through the adoption of a few motions. I don’t really know what other scorpions might be lurking amongst the weeds of these recent decisions). Ultimately, the General Meeting is tasked with ratifying the Bonser Ballot votes. But the General Meeting also has the power to refuse approval of the Bonser Ballot voting, or refuse the approval of specific motions.
I believe that the Party will be best served by the General Meeting “pulling out” certain motions approved through the Bonser Ballot, and revisiting those motions (or, in the case of the motions I’ve highlighted here, simply discarding them). At first, this may appear to be going against the will of the membership, and while I think that there’s an argument which can be made to that effect, given what is likely to be a low membership vote turn-out, I’m not certain that the argument has a lot of legs.
And given the implications to the Party that these significant changes in policy are likely to have, I believe that the General Meeting must take the action to deny approval to the motions I’ve written about here.
As I wrote earlier, I voted Red on 20 separate motions, but the fact is, as a Green, I guess I can live with about 16 or so of these motions going forward, so I’m not putting my effort into trying to convince the General Meeting of addressing all of my grievances. But with regards to killing our commercial seal hunt policies, along with other important historic policies, and allowing future MP’s to vote against member-approved policies, well, the General Meeting must take action.
A failure to act will almost certainly transform the Green Party into a very pale imitation of itself: one which ultimately has no history, and no clear future destination. A failure to act may mean that we end up becoming a pale green parody of ourselves.
(opinions expressed in this blog are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views of the Green Party of Canada)
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
The NDP’s Dangerous National Unity Game: The Triumph of Talking Points Over Truth
What’s going on with Canada’s New Democratic Party lately? It seems to me that the NDP has decided to imitate Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party, at least when it comes to secrecy. Given that the NDP likes to trumpet that it’s an “open and transparent” political party, ever since Tom Mulcair took over as Leader, it certainly looks as if the NDP is trying to hide a few things from Canadians.
First, with talk of a provincial Quebec election in the air, and the prospect of a separatist Parti Quebecois provincial government, the federal NDP have been going to great lengths to remain silent about their MP’s support for provincial separatists. During the recent student protests in Montreal, NDP MP’s from Quebec were kept in line by the Party. Although many MP’s agreed with the position of the student protesters, including the radical CLASSE student union, MP’s largely failed to speak out or otherwise show support to the students. This was reminiscent of Stephen Harper’s ban on Conservative MP’s supporting the PC or Wildrose Party in the recent Alberta election, only Mulcair proved that when it comes to truly silencing the backbenches, he can teach Harper a thing or two.
On the one hand, the NDP likes to claim to be a champion of the oppressed, but when push came to shove in Montreal, party discipline won out over doing what many NDP Quebec MP’s thought was the right thing to do. And now, with a provincial election on the horizon, it looks like the NDP is going to contort itself into yet another pretzel in order to distance itself from the separatists. They’ll likely be less successful with this exercise, given that there are direct links between the NDP and separatist provincial political parties in Quebec. For example, it’s well-known that former NDP Interim Leader Nycole Turmel was a member of the socialist Quebec Solidaire even while she was leading the NDP (see: “Turmel: Separatist, communist and who knows what else”, by Sun Media’s Brian Lilley, August 14, 2011)
Turmel herself admitted that former NDP Leader Jack Layton was “well aware” of her ties to Quebec Solidaire and her membership in the federal Bloc Quebecois when she agreed to run for the NDP in the 2011 federal election (see: “NDP credibility under attack after Turmel’s Bloc ties revealed”, the Globe & Mail, August 2, 2011)
Recently, Conservative MP Pierre Poilievere, questioned NDP MP and Labour Critic Alexandre Boulerice in the House about a donation made to Quebec Solidaire earlier this year (2012). As usual, the NDP tried to deflect the question, calling it “old news” and claiming that Boulerice no longer supports separatists. (see: “NDP MP accused of supporting separatists”, Canoe.ca online, Sun Media, June 12 2012). Look, I’m not a fan of Pierre Poilevere by any means, but the question to Boulerice doesn’t appear to me to have been satisfactorily answered. Rather than trying to sweep the answer under the rug, why didn’t the NDP just come clean about their MP’s obvious continuing support for Quebec Solidaire and separatist causes? It’s well past time that the NDP stopped playing these games with the truth.
Look, if some of the NDP’s Members of Parliament continue to support separatist causes, that’s their business. I might think it looks bad, but ultimately those MP's have to answer directly to voters in their home ridings (or at least in the ridings which elected them). What troubles me about the NDP’s flirtation with separatists goes a lot deeper than who their MP’s might have, or continue to, support at the provincial level in Quebec.
I’m much more troubled by the NDP’s Official Party policy on Quebec separation, known as the “Sherbrooke Declaration”, which is essentially a repudiation of an Act of Canada’s parliament. NDP Leader Tom Mulcair has refused to acknowledge the primacy of Canadian legislation, known as the “Clarity Act”, when it comes to establishing a threshold regarding a vote for separation, amongst other matters.
The NDP’s Sherbrooke Declaration will allow Quebec to separate from Canada with a “50%+1” level of support, in contrast to the Clarity Act, which was based on the government of Canada's earlier "secession reference" to the Supreme Court of Canada, made in 1998. The Supreme Court has a different idea of what democracy means when it comes to the break up of our nation. “Democracy means more than simply ‘majority rule’” wrote the Court. Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, the federal NDP have established a low-ball threshold for the break-up of Canada – a threshold, by the way, which the NDP doesn’t even use to amend its own Party constitution.
Former Liberal Leader and current MP Stephane Dion (who will be speaking at the Green Party of Canada’s convention later this August) recently wrote a very important piece about the NDP’s dangerous flirtation with Quebec nationalists (see: “NDP’s separatist pandering threatens national unity”, Stephane Dion, the National Post, March 12, 2012). In part, it was Dion’s waving the red flag about the NDP which inspired me to write about this in April (see: "What does Tom Mulcair’s Leadership of the NDP Mean for the Green Party of Canada?”). Back then I indicated that Mulcair was going to have to walk a fine line while trying to convince Canadians that the NDP had all of Canada’s interests at heart. That was written before Mulcair stepped into it on the national stage with what were perceived as divisive comments about Alberta Premier Alison Redford and Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall being the provincial mouthpieces of the Conservative Party of Canada, when the two premiers chastised Mulcair for otherwise pertinent comments about Canada’s dependency on the oil sector.
With the NDP’s popularity remaining at historic high levels, I can’t help but wonder if Canadians understand the true extent of the threat to national unity posed by the NDP’s policy positions and continued support for Quebec separatist causes. I’m curious as to where Sudbury MP Glenn Thibeault and Nickel Belt MP Claude Gravelle stand on the Sherbrooke Declaration? Do they support NDP policy over an Act of Parliament based on the direction given by our Supreme Court? I think voters in Sudbury and Nickel Belt should get some straight answers from Thibeault and Gravelle on this.
Should the next Quebec provincial election produce a separatist government in the form of the Parti Quebecois, it looks like PQ Leader Pauline Marois is promising to “create a crisis” between Quebec and Ottawa, and use the manufactured crisis as a starting point for an ultimate referendum on separation. If Marois is running Quebec, and Tom Mulcair becomes Canada’s next Prime Minister, it could very well be that Mulcair will also be the last Prime Minister of Canada as we know it given the dangerous game his NDP is playing with Canada’s national unity.
Yet the NDP just doesn’t want to talk about any of this.
And finally, while this doesn’t have to do with national unity, I came across this article in the Toronto Star today regarding the NDP’s refusal to disclose how much money it had returned to Union advertisers in contravention of Election Canada’s rules (see: “NDP stays mum on money returned to unions after advertising fracas”, the Toronto Star, July 31, 2012). The NDP has been very critical of the Conservative Party of Canada with regards to its over-spending in the past several elections. Yet now that it’s come to light that the NDP has also violated Elections Canada rules, it refuses to be transparent with Canadians regarding the extent of the violation. And that’s just very unfortunate, as I’m sure that the NDP’s discretions pale in comparison to those of the Conservative Party. When the matter was brought to the attention of Elections Canada, rather than play hardball like the Cons have done in the past, the NDP admitted to the mistake and corrected itself. Which makes me wonder why the NDP isn’t being completely honest now with regards to the extent of the correction. What does the NDP have to lose by telling Canadians the amount of money it had to give back to its union backers?
The NDP clearly wants to be able to control the conversations with Canadians in which it engages. Whether it’s an MP denying continued financial support for separatist causes, or whether it’s the Leader of the NDP refusing to support an Act of Parliament in preference to party policy, or whether it’s trying to distance itself from it’s continued financial support of labour unions, for the NDP, it looks like talking points triumph over doing what’s right for Canadians.
(opinions expressed in this blog are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views of the Green Party of Canada)
Monday, July 23, 2012
Voting Morally, Not Strategically in Melbourne and Etobicoke Centre
Ahhh…the summertime! Long days spent pushing the stroller through my community. Hot nights spent drinking beer on the front porch. What better time to think / talk politics? Well, maybe if there were an election going on…but there’s not, at least not yet. Certainly, we know that federally, there will be at least two by-elections called in the near future (Durham, where Conservative cabinet minister Bev Oda has resigned from parliament; and Calgary Centre, where long-serving Conservative backbencher Lee Richardson has stepped down to pursue a job as Alberta PC Premier Alison Redford’s principal secretary). And, there might be another by-election called in Etobicoke Centre, where defeated Liberal candidate and former MP, Borys Wrzesnewskyj, initiated a court challenge after voting irregularities were identified in that riding. After a lower court ordered a new election, that court’s decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada by Conservative MP Ted Opitz; the Supreme Court’s decision will issue soon.
Etobicoke Centre
What happens in Etobicoke Centre really matters to all Canadians, that much is clear. Lawyers for Wrzesnewskyj and Opitz both argued that Canadian’s faith in our electoral system would be shaken if there was no new election, and if there was one. Interestingly, in my opinion, they’re both correct, as our faith in our electoral system has already been shaken, in part due to what’s happened in Etobicoke Centre, and in part due to a lack of action on Elections Canada’s part regarding election-day calls directing voters to incorrect polling stations. And of course, before that, we had the In-and-Out scandal, in which the Conservative Party of Canada was determined to have spent more than it was legally allowed to do so during an election campaign. So sure, voters faith in our system has clearly been shaken, and in some cases, the very legitimacy of our current government is being questioned.
In part, because what happens in Etobicoke Centre matters to Canada, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May last week called on her own party not to run a candidate in that riding, should the Supreme Court uphold the lower court’s decision authorizing a by-election. Not only did May call on the Green Party to sit out a by-election, she also called on the NDP to consider not running a candidate, ostensibly so that Wrzsenewskyj and Opitz can go head-to-head to determine which MP (the former or the current one) gets to represent the riding. However, May’s call is actually in keeping with a much broader desire on the part of May and the Green Party to work with other political parties in the interests of Canadians. Given that May and many in the Green Party view the Conservative Party of Canada as a threat to Canada, the values of Canadians, and our democratic institutions, her call for a Liberal-Conservative head to head makes sense, especially since Green and NDP participation will likely end up working in favour of the Conservatives. Neither the Green Party nor the NDP candidates were contenders in Etobicoke Centre in the last election, and although one should never base future results on past results, the fact is that with fewer candidates running, there is a less of a chance of splitting votes.
Strategic Decisions
I wrote about May’s call for sitting out a hypothetical by-election in Etobicoke Centre last week, in my blogpost, “Greens Doing Politics Differently: A Smart Play by Elizabeth May in Etobicoke Centre”. As a result of last week’s piece, I’ve come under a little friendly fire for what appears to be my own endorsement of strategic voting. Let me be clear: Elizabeth May has not endorsed strategic voting by suggesting that her Party, who has the final say, opt out of a by-election there. In fact, by not running a candidate, there will be no need for strategic voting to happen, which is why, in part, May has also suggested that the NDP sit that by-election out.
Strategic voting arises when voters are faced with making a tough decision, usually based on their dislike of a candidate who they fear will win. As a result, they end up casting their ballot for a candidate whom they think can defeat the candidate they fear, and thus end up voting not for their candidate of choice, but rather against the candidate they fear.
Often, it ends up being strategic for a political Party to opt out of a particular contest, for many reasons. As I indicated in my earlier post, there are certainly problems when this occurs, mostly amongst party supporters at the local level, who may view the Party’s decision not to run a candidate as problematic. Sometimes, the negatives resonate outside of a riding, should the Party itself come under scrutiny by regional or national media, who might publicly wonder why the Party is not running a candidate, and perhaps determine that the Party is having internal issues (personality/economic) which has led to their opting out of a particular contest.
Unfortunately, a political party can’t control the media narrative, and there will always be those in the media who have their own personal pet theories or axes to grind. What a political party can do, however, is attempt to get out in front of a story, tell the facts as they see it, and hope that the public understands why decisions are being made about certain matters. And although the Green Party of Canada has not to my knowledge decided whether to heed May’s advice regarding Etobicoke Centre (and likely they haven’t, because the Supreme Court of Canada has yet to rule), but should the Green Party choose to listen to May, it could very well be that Green supporters in Etobicoke Centre will have a better understanding than any others in Canada have ever had about why their Party is choosing to sit out a particular by-election.
It could even be a possibility that the Green Party takes the extraordinary step of endorsing another Party’s candidate in Etobicoke Centre. I’m not saying that will happen, but it could. And in my opinion, it probably should, if the Party decides to sit out the by-election. As I wrote last week, although I am a rabid Green partisan, the needs of my nation have to outweigh what’s good for my Party. Electing a Conservative in Etobicoke Centre will prove to be a bad thing for Canada. Sure, a Green candidate could repeat the 2011 general election’s result, gathering in almost 1,000 votes, but if ultimately a Conservative is elected there, that’s not a victory by any means for Canada.
Electoral Outcomes
When I wrote about Etobicoke Centre last week, I cast around looking for an interesting example where the absence of a political party’s candidate may have led to an unexpected outcome in a particular riding. Of course, we all know that Elizabeth May and then-Liberal Leader Stephane Dion had a no-compete agreement in their respective ridings of Central Nova and Saint Laurent-Cartierville, during the 2008 General Election. Dion won his seat easily; for May, however, the absence of a Liberal candidate did not stop he re-election of Conservative MP Peter McKay. In neither case could the absence of a candidate be said to have influenced the outcome.
Yes, there was the interesting case involving the NDP in Saanich-Gulf Islands during the 2008 general election. Julian West, the NDP’s nominated candidate, resigned during the election, but it was too late to remove his name from the ballot. West still ended up with about 3,000 votes. Interestingly, in the days leading up to the election, SGI voters received a robocall from a phone number belonging to the NDP riding association’s President. Bill Graham, the local NDP President, insisted that the calls were not coming from the NDP. More details about the story are offered at, “Automated phone calls urge vote for B.C. candidate who withdrew”, from the Victoria Times Colonist, October 14, 2008, reprinted by Canada.com. What is interesting, however, is the origin of the calls was never determined. And of course, when the RoboCalls voter-suppression scandal involving multiple-ridings in the 2011 general election hit the news, people began to recall what had happened in SGI, and publicly wondered what Elections Canada had found out. The answer, of course, is nothing. Which isn’t very reassuring to Canadians.
But what happened in SGI in 2008 is not a good example of how an election’s outcome might be influenced by the absence of a candidate, for although candidate West had absented himself from the contest, his name still appeared on the ballot. That his name remained on the ballot might have ultimately influenced the election’s outcome, as less than 2,000 votes separated the winning Conservatives from the second-place Liberals.
The Melbourne By-Election, Victoria State
An interesting (and very current) electoral contest was brought to my attention this past weekend, thanks to Nova Scotia’s SkyGods vs. Earthlings blogger, Michael Marshall (who wrote about this by-election in his blogpost, “Greens lead in Australian by-election because Australian socialists are to the right of Stephen Harper”). Apparently, in a by-election held in the Melbourne riding of the Australian State of Victoria this past weekend, the right-wing Liberal Party did not run a candidate, which forced the left-wing Labor Party to court the ultra-right-wing Family First Party (which wants to discriminate against same sex couples, amongst other social conservative policies). What reason could the generally-progressive Labor Party have had for courting socially conservative voters? Well, there were two reasons: one, the Australian electoral system; and two, to prevent the Greens Party from winning.
In Australia, voters cast ballots which include preferences. Unless a candidate gains 50% of the vote outright, second place preferences are counted until the 50% goal is reached. In the Melbourne by-election, the Greens candidate obtained 36.4% of the popular vote, but after “preferences” were added, the Greens were defeated by Labor. Many pundits speculate this was because of Labor aggressively courting the votes of the fourth place finishing Family First Party. And because the Liberal Party did not run a candidate, as Family First voters may have “preferred” the Liberals to Labor. Interestingly, the third-place finishing Sex Party of Australia appears not to have worked with either Labor or the Greens on preferences, although Greens and Sex had worked together in the past.
(For more coverage, please see: “Labor claims victory in Melborne by-election”, ABC News)
Winning At All Cost
Now, I don’t share Michael Marshall’s view that the Australian Labor Party is to the right of the Conservative Party of Canada. Instead, it’s clear that Labor’s courting of social conservatives had more to do with playing a political game in an attempt to win the election. That the Greens and Labor are in a coalition of sorts at the federal level in Australia is indicative that the two parties can, and do, work together, and have overlapping policy interests. It’s also fair to say that the Australian Greens may be a little more to the left of Canada’s Green Party, and Labor a little more to the right of Canada’s NDP. But it’s probably best to say neither, as there are significant nuanced differences between Australian and Canadian politics that make direct comparisons quite problematic.
What does appear similar to me, though, is Labor’s desire to do whatever it must in order to win. In that, I see a direct comparison between Australian Labor and Canada’s NDP. And frankly, it disgusts me. When politics becomes about winning at all cost, instead of about advancing good public policy and doing what’s right for people, I have to shake my head. Yet, that’s largely where things are at throughout Canada (and apparently Australia) today.
In Canada, we have the NDP, a party which has recently launched attack ads directed against the Prime Minister, even though an election won’t be held until 2015. Party whips forced two sitting NDP members to remain silent for the better part of a year because they voted against the Party’s preferred position on the long gun registry. And apparently, if comments appended to my earlier blogpost are to be believed, the NDP has an inflexible policy of always running candidates in each and every riding and in every electoral contest. Such a policy clearly goes against any potential for electoral co-operation with other parties, and could be the reason why the NDP has shown so little desire to do so, despite the fact that many of its own supporters have called for a significant degree of co-operation.
Sure, I’m still bitter about former NDP Leader Jack Layton’s calls for keeping Green Party Leader Elizabeth May from attending the 2008 televised Leader’s debate, despite the Green Party having met the media consortium’s previous threshold for attendance: having a sitting MP in parliament. When the media consortium first decided to exclude May, Layton offered his clear support to the media consortium. It was only an outcry from Canadians (many of whom were NDP supporters) which led Layton to reconsider his position. In 2011, of course, Layton did nothing when the consortium successfully excluded May from participating.
What's Good for Democracy Does Not Always Equal What's Good for the NDP
The NDP may talk a good game when it comes to democracy, but when push comes to shove, it seems that the NDP always puts its own interests ahead of any other interests. Now, it’s true: that’s a prerogative of a political party, and more likely than not, it’s a strategy for political success. But with voters growing increasingly dissatisfied with the status quo, how long will it be now before NDP supporters come to the realization that the NDP offers little substantive change the status quo? Unfortunately, with our media-driven Leadership-based politics, it may yet take a while, as the media seems insistent that the next election will be an epic confrontation between Left vs. Right. In such battles, spin and rhetoric are king, and good public policy has little to do with outcomes.
And I fully expect that there will be efforts to exclude Green Party Leader Elizabeth May from future televised debates as well, as neither the Conservatives or the NDP stand to gain anything from her participation, as Greens votes are drawn from progressives of all political stripes. The Green Party is only a “party of the left” in that our politics are to the left of the Conservative Party’s ultra-right wing oil-based neo-liberal platform.
Moral Voting, Not Strategic Voting
If the Green Party decides to do things a little differently in Etobicoke Centre, I sincerely hope that Green supporters in that riding understand that it’s about doing politics differently, rather than abandoning those supporters for other reasons. Instead of a strategic, political decision being made, should the Green Party opt out of the by-election, the decision could and should be viewed as a moral decision, one which puts the interests of the nation ahead of partisan gain.
I can only hope that NDP supporters are asked by their Party to understand this rationale too, and cast moral ballots rather than strategic ones. But I’m not holding my breath.
(opinions expressed are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with those of the Green Party of Canada)
Etobicoke Centre
What happens in Etobicoke Centre really matters to all Canadians, that much is clear. Lawyers for Wrzesnewskyj and Opitz both argued that Canadian’s faith in our electoral system would be shaken if there was no new election, and if there was one. Interestingly, in my opinion, they’re both correct, as our faith in our electoral system has already been shaken, in part due to what’s happened in Etobicoke Centre, and in part due to a lack of action on Elections Canada’s part regarding election-day calls directing voters to incorrect polling stations. And of course, before that, we had the In-and-Out scandal, in which the Conservative Party of Canada was determined to have spent more than it was legally allowed to do so during an election campaign. So sure, voters faith in our system has clearly been shaken, and in some cases, the very legitimacy of our current government is being questioned.
In part, because what happens in Etobicoke Centre matters to Canada, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May last week called on her own party not to run a candidate in that riding, should the Supreme Court uphold the lower court’s decision authorizing a by-election. Not only did May call on the Green Party to sit out a by-election, she also called on the NDP to consider not running a candidate, ostensibly so that Wrzsenewskyj and Opitz can go head-to-head to determine which MP (the former or the current one) gets to represent the riding. However, May’s call is actually in keeping with a much broader desire on the part of May and the Green Party to work with other political parties in the interests of Canadians. Given that May and many in the Green Party view the Conservative Party of Canada as a threat to Canada, the values of Canadians, and our democratic institutions, her call for a Liberal-Conservative head to head makes sense, especially since Green and NDP participation will likely end up working in favour of the Conservatives. Neither the Green Party nor the NDP candidates were contenders in Etobicoke Centre in the last election, and although one should never base future results on past results, the fact is that with fewer candidates running, there is a less of a chance of splitting votes.
Strategic Decisions
I wrote about May’s call for sitting out a hypothetical by-election in Etobicoke Centre last week, in my blogpost, “Greens Doing Politics Differently: A Smart Play by Elizabeth May in Etobicoke Centre”. As a result of last week’s piece, I’ve come under a little friendly fire for what appears to be my own endorsement of strategic voting. Let me be clear: Elizabeth May has not endorsed strategic voting by suggesting that her Party, who has the final say, opt out of a by-election there. In fact, by not running a candidate, there will be no need for strategic voting to happen, which is why, in part, May has also suggested that the NDP sit that by-election out.
Strategic voting arises when voters are faced with making a tough decision, usually based on their dislike of a candidate who they fear will win. As a result, they end up casting their ballot for a candidate whom they think can defeat the candidate they fear, and thus end up voting not for their candidate of choice, but rather against the candidate they fear.
Often, it ends up being strategic for a political Party to opt out of a particular contest, for many reasons. As I indicated in my earlier post, there are certainly problems when this occurs, mostly amongst party supporters at the local level, who may view the Party’s decision not to run a candidate as problematic. Sometimes, the negatives resonate outside of a riding, should the Party itself come under scrutiny by regional or national media, who might publicly wonder why the Party is not running a candidate, and perhaps determine that the Party is having internal issues (personality/economic) which has led to their opting out of a particular contest.
Unfortunately, a political party can’t control the media narrative, and there will always be those in the media who have their own personal pet theories or axes to grind. What a political party can do, however, is attempt to get out in front of a story, tell the facts as they see it, and hope that the public understands why decisions are being made about certain matters. And although the Green Party of Canada has not to my knowledge decided whether to heed May’s advice regarding Etobicoke Centre (and likely they haven’t, because the Supreme Court of Canada has yet to rule), but should the Green Party choose to listen to May, it could very well be that Green supporters in Etobicoke Centre will have a better understanding than any others in Canada have ever had about why their Party is choosing to sit out a particular by-election.
It could even be a possibility that the Green Party takes the extraordinary step of endorsing another Party’s candidate in Etobicoke Centre. I’m not saying that will happen, but it could. And in my opinion, it probably should, if the Party decides to sit out the by-election. As I wrote last week, although I am a rabid Green partisan, the needs of my nation have to outweigh what’s good for my Party. Electing a Conservative in Etobicoke Centre will prove to be a bad thing for Canada. Sure, a Green candidate could repeat the 2011 general election’s result, gathering in almost 1,000 votes, but if ultimately a Conservative is elected there, that’s not a victory by any means for Canada.
Electoral Outcomes
When I wrote about Etobicoke Centre last week, I cast around looking for an interesting example where the absence of a political party’s candidate may have led to an unexpected outcome in a particular riding. Of course, we all know that Elizabeth May and then-Liberal Leader Stephane Dion had a no-compete agreement in their respective ridings of Central Nova and Saint Laurent-Cartierville, during the 2008 General Election. Dion won his seat easily; for May, however, the absence of a Liberal candidate did not stop he re-election of Conservative MP Peter McKay. In neither case could the absence of a candidate be said to have influenced the outcome.
Yes, there was the interesting case involving the NDP in Saanich-Gulf Islands during the 2008 general election. Julian West, the NDP’s nominated candidate, resigned during the election, but it was too late to remove his name from the ballot. West still ended up with about 3,000 votes. Interestingly, in the days leading up to the election, SGI voters received a robocall from a phone number belonging to the NDP riding association’s President. Bill Graham, the local NDP President, insisted that the calls were not coming from the NDP. More details about the story are offered at, “Automated phone calls urge vote for B.C. candidate who withdrew”, from the Victoria Times Colonist, October 14, 2008, reprinted by Canada.com. What is interesting, however, is the origin of the calls was never determined. And of course, when the RoboCalls voter-suppression scandal involving multiple-ridings in the 2011 general election hit the news, people began to recall what had happened in SGI, and publicly wondered what Elections Canada had found out. The answer, of course, is nothing. Which isn’t very reassuring to Canadians.
But what happened in SGI in 2008 is not a good example of how an election’s outcome might be influenced by the absence of a candidate, for although candidate West had absented himself from the contest, his name still appeared on the ballot. That his name remained on the ballot might have ultimately influenced the election’s outcome, as less than 2,000 votes separated the winning Conservatives from the second-place Liberals.
The Melbourne By-Election, Victoria State
An interesting (and very current) electoral contest was brought to my attention this past weekend, thanks to Nova Scotia’s SkyGods vs. Earthlings blogger, Michael Marshall (who wrote about this by-election in his blogpost, “Greens lead in Australian by-election because Australian socialists are to the right of Stephen Harper”). Apparently, in a by-election held in the Melbourne riding of the Australian State of Victoria this past weekend, the right-wing Liberal Party did not run a candidate, which forced the left-wing Labor Party to court the ultra-right-wing Family First Party (which wants to discriminate against same sex couples, amongst other social conservative policies). What reason could the generally-progressive Labor Party have had for courting socially conservative voters? Well, there were two reasons: one, the Australian electoral system; and two, to prevent the Greens Party from winning.
In Australia, voters cast ballots which include preferences. Unless a candidate gains 50% of the vote outright, second place preferences are counted until the 50% goal is reached. In the Melbourne by-election, the Greens candidate obtained 36.4% of the popular vote, but after “preferences” were added, the Greens were defeated by Labor. Many pundits speculate this was because of Labor aggressively courting the votes of the fourth place finishing Family First Party. And because the Liberal Party did not run a candidate, as Family First voters may have “preferred” the Liberals to Labor. Interestingly, the third-place finishing Sex Party of Australia appears not to have worked with either Labor or the Greens on preferences, although Greens and Sex had worked together in the past.
(For more coverage, please see: “Labor claims victory in Melborne by-election”, ABC News)
Winning At All Cost
Now, I don’t share Michael Marshall’s view that the Australian Labor Party is to the right of the Conservative Party of Canada. Instead, it’s clear that Labor’s courting of social conservatives had more to do with playing a political game in an attempt to win the election. That the Greens and Labor are in a coalition of sorts at the federal level in Australia is indicative that the two parties can, and do, work together, and have overlapping policy interests. It’s also fair to say that the Australian Greens may be a little more to the left of Canada’s Green Party, and Labor a little more to the right of Canada’s NDP. But it’s probably best to say neither, as there are significant nuanced differences between Australian and Canadian politics that make direct comparisons quite problematic.
What does appear similar to me, though, is Labor’s desire to do whatever it must in order to win. In that, I see a direct comparison between Australian Labor and Canada’s NDP. And frankly, it disgusts me. When politics becomes about winning at all cost, instead of about advancing good public policy and doing what’s right for people, I have to shake my head. Yet, that’s largely where things are at throughout Canada (and apparently Australia) today.
In Canada, we have the NDP, a party which has recently launched attack ads directed against the Prime Minister, even though an election won’t be held until 2015. Party whips forced two sitting NDP members to remain silent for the better part of a year because they voted against the Party’s preferred position on the long gun registry. And apparently, if comments appended to my earlier blogpost are to be believed, the NDP has an inflexible policy of always running candidates in each and every riding and in every electoral contest. Such a policy clearly goes against any potential for electoral co-operation with other parties, and could be the reason why the NDP has shown so little desire to do so, despite the fact that many of its own supporters have called for a significant degree of co-operation.
Sure, I’m still bitter about former NDP Leader Jack Layton’s calls for keeping Green Party Leader Elizabeth May from attending the 2008 televised Leader’s debate, despite the Green Party having met the media consortium’s previous threshold for attendance: having a sitting MP in parliament. When the media consortium first decided to exclude May, Layton offered his clear support to the media consortium. It was only an outcry from Canadians (many of whom were NDP supporters) which led Layton to reconsider his position. In 2011, of course, Layton did nothing when the consortium successfully excluded May from participating.
What's Good for Democracy Does Not Always Equal What's Good for the NDP
The NDP may talk a good game when it comes to democracy, but when push comes to shove, it seems that the NDP always puts its own interests ahead of any other interests. Now, it’s true: that’s a prerogative of a political party, and more likely than not, it’s a strategy for political success. But with voters growing increasingly dissatisfied with the status quo, how long will it be now before NDP supporters come to the realization that the NDP offers little substantive change the status quo? Unfortunately, with our media-driven Leadership-based politics, it may yet take a while, as the media seems insistent that the next election will be an epic confrontation between Left vs. Right. In such battles, spin and rhetoric are king, and good public policy has little to do with outcomes.
And I fully expect that there will be efforts to exclude Green Party Leader Elizabeth May from future televised debates as well, as neither the Conservatives or the NDP stand to gain anything from her participation, as Greens votes are drawn from progressives of all political stripes. The Green Party is only a “party of the left” in that our politics are to the left of the Conservative Party’s ultra-right wing oil-based neo-liberal platform.
Moral Voting, Not Strategic Voting
If the Green Party decides to do things a little differently in Etobicoke Centre, I sincerely hope that Green supporters in that riding understand that it’s about doing politics differently, rather than abandoning those supporters for other reasons. Instead of a strategic, political decision being made, should the Green Party opt out of the by-election, the decision could and should be viewed as a moral decision, one which puts the interests of the nation ahead of partisan gain.
I can only hope that NDP supporters are asked by their Party to understand this rationale too, and cast moral ballots rather than strategic ones. But I’m not holding my breath.
(opinions expressed are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with those of the Green Party of Canada)
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Greens Doing Politics Differently: A Smart Play by Elizabeth May in Etobicoke Centre
Yesterday, it was reported by Globe & Mail political columnist Gloria Galloway that Green Party of Canada Leader Elizabeth May would urge her party not to run a candidate in the riding of Etobicoke Centre, should the Supreme Court of Canada determine that a by-election is necessary due to voting irregularities which transpired at certain polling stations on the May 2nd, 2011 general election. May also suggested that, in the spirit of co-operation, the NDP also should refrain from running a candidate, which would essentially create the conditions for a “run off” style vote between Conservative Ted Opitz, who was declared the winner of the riding in 2011, and Borys Wrzesnewskyj, who lost by just 26 votes.
(See: “May: Greens and NDP should stay off of Etobicoke by-election ballot” , the Globe and Mail, July 18, 2012)
May’s comments appear to have taken many Greens by surprise, including myself. Given that the Supreme Court of Canada has yet to rule on the Etobicoke Centre appeal, it appears to be completely premature to start speculating about how a by-election could shape up, including whether the Green Party should participate or not. On first glance, it seems that maybe May has got too far out in front of an issue which may never become an issue, should the Supreme Court overturn the Ontario Superior Court’s ruling to hold a by-election.
A "Spectacularly Silly Idea"
Certainly Globe & Mail guest political columnist and Liberal partisan Adam Goldenberg took May to task – not for being out in front of the by-election issue, but for proposing a radical, dangerous and “spectacularly silly” idea in Etobicoke Centre: a face-off between the Liberals and Conservatives with other potential players opting to sit out (See: “And now, a dangerous idea from Elizabeth May”, the Globe & Mail, July 19 2012). One might think that Goldenberg and his Liberals would be pleased to see the other parties sit any hypothetical by-election out, as strong Green and/or NDP candidates are probably more likely to hurt the Liberal cause in Etobicoke Centre than they are the Conservatives.
Instead, Goldenberg seemingly wants to take the high ground, argues that elections are about allowing voters to cast ballots for candidates of their choice. In elections, even candidates which have little realistic hope of winning, should not be discouraged from running, as they provide a certain segment of voters with an opportunity to show support. Goldenberg believes that there are no wasted ballots in our first-past-the-post electoral system, as each ballot is an expression of voter desire (although even Goldenberg admits that it would be easier to make the “no wasted vote” argument if we had a system of proportional representation in place).
I’ve always been a firm believer in providing voters with an opportunity to cast ballots for a candidate whom voters believe to be their best representative, and whose values may be most in keeping with their own. As a result, I’ve always believed that allowing voters more choice, rather than limiting choices, has been the way to go. I continue to believe this.
As a result, it would seem that Elizabeth May’s call for the Green Party and the NDP to sit out the Etobickoke Centre by-election (if there is to be one) would accomplish the exact opposite of allowing voters an opportunity to cast ballots for a candidate of their choice. That’s certainly Goldenberg’s assertion as well. However, what Goldenberg does not mention, and what may not be apparent to voters is the fact that no political party is required to run candidates in each and every riding in Canada, and in each and every election or by-election. While not running a candidate carries a certain risk for a political party (example: it could upset local supporters), there may be some very good reasons why a political party opts out of a particular race.
Doing What’s Right
One of those reasons might be that it’s more important to do what’s right than to do what it is politically expedient. And that appears to be the thrust of May’s call for the Greens and NDP to sit this one out, should there be a by-election in Etobicoke Centre.
It’s clear that May believes that a direct contest between Opitz and Wrzesnewskyj, between the existing and former MP’s, between the two parties (along with Elections Canada) at the centre of the recent legal proceedings, is the right thing to do. It’s reported that Wrzesnewskyj has spent several hundred thousand dollars of his own money to launch the legal challenge. In the specific circumstance of Etobicoke Centre, May appears to believe that the uniqueness of the unfolding narrative is enough to suggest that it’s right for the Liberals and Cons to go head to head, and to recommend that the Party which she leads opt not to run a candidate (and to call for the NDP to sit it out as well).
In my opinion, the argument isn’t the strongest one which can be made, although I do see May’s point. Certainly former Green and NDP candidates would still have the option to run as Independents if they didn’t agree with a future hypothetical decision of their parties to not field candidates in a future hypothetical by-election. In fact, with proper registration in place, and subject to meeting all legal criteria, just about anyone can run in the by-election. The future hypothetical decision of political parties need not actually deny providing voters with the choice which Goldenberg champions; such decisions would only limit the participation of political parties, and not the potential participation of candidates.
I, for one, don’t believe that co-operation amongst political parties is a dangerous idea at all. In fact, I see it happening every day, all over Canada. While parties may have fundamental differences with regards to numerous policy and process issues, the fact is that most elected MP’s in Canada share similar values which cross party lines. They often work together to better our nation. While co-operation might not be occurring as often as I’d like it, there’s no denying that it often does occur.
Goldenberg, however, criticizes May, calling her a “non-Conservative first, and a Green second”. It’s very clear to me that Goldenberg just doesn’t understand the Green Party of Canada, or Elizabeth May for that matter. May’s desire to work with the other parties, including Mr. Goldenberg, does not make her less of a partisan. It’s only indicative that she belongs to a party which values doing what is right for Canada above politics. Frankly, most of her Party shares these values, including rabid Green partisans like myself. For most of us, that’s why we’re here.
Right now, doing what’s right for Canada means doing everything possible to defeat Stephen Harper’s Conservatives – even if that means we must elect a Liberal in Etobicoke Centre. And this is where May’s argument for the Greens and NDP to sit out the by-election starts to make a little more sense. Although the Liberals, NDP and Green parties are not in ideological agreement on many issues, there is enough overlap to suggest to political supporters that any candidate put forward by these three parties would be preferable to electing a Conservative. So why not have the Greens and NDP back off in Etobicoke Centre, which would (in theory) increase the chance of victory for a Liberal?
Why Etobicoke Centre?
Well, isn’t it hypocritical for May to suggest electoral co-operation in Etobicoke Centre, but remain silent on non-hypothetical by-elections in Calgary Centre and Durham? May said nothing about co-operating with other parties there. Why is that?
Well, it’s not hypocritical in the slightest, because the circumstances in which by-elections have come about in Calgary Centre and Durham (as a result of the resignation of sitting MPs) are completely different than Etobicoke Centre (a court-challenge brought about by the losing candidate based on voting irregularities). The uniqueness of the Etobicoke Centre situation is enough to differentiate it from just about every other by-election in the history of Canada, as a by-election has never been ordered by our Supreme Court.
None of this means that May wouldn’t be open to the idea of electoral co-operation in Calgary Centre or Durham. It’s just that she’s not called for it, and she probably won’t. At least not until the other parties, particularly the NDP, shows it hand.
The NDP: In Whose Interests?
And this is yet another piece of May’s argument. Many NDP members and supporters have long called for some form of electoral co-operation amongst the centre-left political parties. Recently, NDP MP Nathan Cullen ran for the leadership of his party in part on the platform of having negotiating with the Liberals and Greens to have joint nomination contests at the riding level in Conservative-held ridings, so as to better be able to defeat Conservatives.
Look, this all comes down to the idea that the interests of Canada must outweigh the interests of any one political party. Many NDP supporters know this. And maybe the Liberals are starting to catch on too. Organizations like LeadNow are growing in numbers every day, because we all understand that unless the Conservatives are defeated, the Canada that we know and love will be transformed beyond our recognition should the Cons win another general election.
Yet the NDP’s new Leader, Thomas Mulcair, has unequivocally said that there will not be any co-operation between the NDP and the other political parties. Mulcair is more than willing to roll the dice and shoot for an outright NDP victory than to work with others to bring the Conservatives down. Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae described Mulcair as a “mini-Harper” when Mulcair was elected NDP Leader. There certainly appears to be a lot of truth to that, as the NDP has really emerged as the left-wing equivalent to the Conservatives, at least from a tactics point of view. I can’t understand why NDP supporters feel that their party is right to engage in negative attack ads, name-calling, and engaging in the politics of division, all in the name of achieving power.
Yet, it’s been my opinion that the NDP has really turned itself into a fierce electoral machine, obsessed only with achieving power, whatever the cost. The election of Mulcair as the new Party Leader only reinforced my opinion. I don’t think most NDP supporters realize this yet, but as the years go by, it’s likely going to become evident that the NDP’s interest in obtaining power will always outweigh their interest in Canada. In short, the NDP will continue to put partisan political gain ahead of doing what’s right.
And I’m sorry, but a political party obsessed with power (getting it and keeping it) is not going to help create the Canada that we should be building for our children.
So, will the NDP play ball in Etobicoke Centre? Probably not. Their candidate had a decent showing in the last election (7,000+ to Conservative Opitz 21,000+), and under Tom Mulcair, the NDP has found a new sort of hubris to accompany their quest for power. That they will not win Etobicoke Centre does not matter. That they be seen to be an active part of the political game is more important. That they may play foil to the Liberals by siphoning votes away from Wrzesnewskyj would also be seen as a benefit to the NDP, as the NDP stands to gain just as much (or more) through the destruction of the Liberal Party than the Conservatives do.
Really, for the NDP, as a political party, running a candidate in a riding which they won’t win is appears to be a no-brainer, once you understand that the NDP values its own success over Canada’s.
That’s a bold statement, but I’m still waiting for the NDP to prove me wrong. And as Elizabeth May points out, the unique circumstances of an Etobicoke Centre by-election are an excellent place for the NDP to start doing so. I just don’t think that they will.
Taking the High Road
Which brings me to my last reason regarding why Elizabeth May is calling for the Greens and NDP to sit out the by-election. Look, I’m a Green Party partisan, that’s pretty clear. But I also like to talk as straight as I can about what I see going on around me. Clearly, there’s a partisan motive at play for May and the Greens here too.
The fact is, the Green Party likely would not be competitive in Etobicoke Centre anyway, so really, there’s little to lose by sitting a by-election out. While by-elections do offer exposure for candidates, both locally and more broadly through the media, the fact of the matter is that the Etobicoke Centre by-election is going to play itself out as a clash of the titans between Opitz and Wrzesnewskyj, and any Green candidate will be lucky to receive a mention in the news media (do we really need more news articles whose last lines are “Also running for the Green Party is [insert mis-spelled name here]?)
Further, by-elections cost money. Sometimes, they cost even more money than a general election would in the same riding, because a party figures that more than just local eyes are watching by-elections (and that’s a good assumption to make). Normally, a by-election in a media-rich Toronto riding like Etobicoke Centre would be a gift for a smaller party like the Green Party, because any media exposure is going to be seen by a wider audience. For example, the Toronto Star is more likely to report on a by-election in Etobicoke Centre than they would be to provide coverage of this one riding in a general election.
And that’s why our very able candidate, Adriana Mugnatto-Hamu, had such a public profile in the March by-election in Toronto Danforth, Jack Layton’s old riding. Although that by-election was often portrayed as a straight contest between the NDP and Liberals, it was important for the Greens to show up and wave the flag. Doing so, however, cost money. A smaller party like the Green Party can only spend so much of our scarce resources in unwinnable ridings, just to wave the flag (and to get a little media coverage).
Etobicoke Centre would be another such riding. What would the Green Party lose if we sat this one out? Very little. We may upset some local supporters, and potentially a few active Greens who might have been toying with the idea of seeking the Party’s nomination to run, but even they might be able to see the greater good in opting out.
What’s to gain? Plenty. The Green Party is seen nationally as the Party that puts the interests of Canada ahead of partisan gain. By not running a candidate, the Party saves money and looks good doing it. And gains national media attention beyond what we could ever hope to achieve in a by-election. Now, when the press reports on the by-elections, there’s a greater chance that the Green Party’s decision to sit out Etobicoke Centre will continue to be mentioned. And no doubt some pundits will recall that Elizabeth May challenged Tom Mulcair and the NDP to sit it out as well, and they chose not to follow good advice, in the name of partisan gain.
I very much like the idea of educating NDP supporters about their party’s pursuit of power at all costs, even when it’s not in the interests of Canadians. Maybe I’ll be surprised by Tom Mulcair and the NDP, and watch as the NDP decides to sit out the by-election in Etobicoke Centre, or actually begin talking with the other parties about some sort of electoral co-operation for the upcoming general election. But I’m not holding my breath that organizations such as LeadNow are going to find much traction with the Mulcair’s NDP, even though those organizations tend to attract many partisan NDP supporters.
The Green Party: Doing Politics Differently
A couple of last items are worthy of note here. First, if you’re not a Green, you may find it interesting that May is calling on her own Party not to run a candidate in Etobicoke Centre. You may think that May could easily “make it so” by laying down the law “thou shalt not run”. Well, it doesn’t work that way in the Green Party of Canada, unlike in the other parties. While it’s true that May ultimately must sign the nomination papers of any would-be candidate (and withholding a signature would ultimately deny a candidate the ability to run as a Green), it’s actually the Party’s Federal Council which recommends a candidate to May, through the Nominations Committee. May would put herself at loggerheads with our member-elected Federal Council if she refused to sign the nomination papers of a candidate they had recommended. And although May also sits on Fed Council as Party Leader, she only has one vote. Ultimately, the decision to run a candidate in a by-election needs to be made by Fed Council, hopefully in consultation with a local electoral district association, if one exists.
The second point is that the Green Party members recently voted on two proposals regarding electoral co-operation with the NDP and Liberals (motions authorizing our Fed Council to negotiate with those two parties should the opportunity arise). Greens are thinking ahead about realistic and plausible opportunities for real electoral co-operation in advance of the 2015 general election. Again, we grassroots members are driving this process. The fact that Greens were casting ballots about electoral co-operation couldn’t have been far from May’s mind when she made her comments to the Globe & Mail about Etobicoke Centre. I am optimistic that one or both of the resolutions will be adopted by the Party at our upcoming General Meeting in Sidney, B.C. later in August. Interestingly, Liberal MP Stephane Dion, and former NDP MP (now Independent) Bruce Hyer, will be giving speeches at the BGM (I was about to write “will be joining Greens at the BGM”, but thought maybe that language was either too ambiguous, or just wishful thinking on my part!).
Note to Adam Goldenberg (and to other pundits who can’t help but view the world through blue-, red- or orange-coloured glasses), it’s time you try to make an effort and understand what being a Green is like. Maybe if a few more of you asked Greens how we think, you wouldn’t find yourself tied up in a pretzel, expounding about things like May’s call for electoral co-operation in Etobicoke Centre. We Greens value our party, but we inhabit an existence which is about so much more than mere politics. Adapting to the future is paramount, beyond obtaining power. If we can accomplish our desired outcomes through influence, education and co-operation, that’s all the power we need.
Smart play, Elizabeth May.
(opinions expressed are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with those of the Green Party of Canada)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)