Greenwashing on Climate Change Starting to Take a Toll on NDP

The NDP is in trouble on the environment, and it’s really starting to show. Engaged environmentalists across Canada have really started in on the NDP over that party’s support of bitumen pipelines, and over a recent vote on the Canada-South Korea trade deal which includes investor state provisions – mechanisms designed to frustrate democratic laws passed in Canada which may threaten the profits of rich, multinational corporations. Repeatedly, the NDP is being called out – asked to do more to address the climate crisis. The response so far has been incredibly pathetic. The NDP’s strategy appears to be “dodge questions, confuse the issue and slam Elizabeth May and the Green Party”.

Growing Concerns about Climate Change

Things have really started coming to a head recently. Last week, TransCanada filed for approval of the Energy East pipeline with the National Energy Board (NEB). While this action has long been anticipated by environmentalists, the NEB filing really ratcheted things up a notch in the eyes of the media. As a result, all parties have come under media scrutiny for their stances on the pipeline. More on that later.

On Sunday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the final installment of its 5th Assessment Report – the Synthesis Report, which essentially says that while there is still time to hold warming to 2 degrees Celsius, decisive action must now be taken to reverse emissions by reducing the consumption of fossil fuels. This means that alternative sources of energy must be found and our reliance on carbon fuels (coal, oil & gas) must be reduced. To achieve this result, a significant amount of the world’s fossil fuel reserves must be left in the ground as unburnable carbon (see: “IPCC Press Release”, November 2, 2014).

About a month ago, what is sure to be one of the most important books of the first half of the 21st Century was published. Naomi Klein’s “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate” profoundly makes the case that business as usual isn’t working for the planet, and that only significant reforms made to our corporate capitalist economic model are going to move us forward. These changes have to acknowledge the natural limits of the planet to absorb climate changing greenhouse gas emissions. What’s standing in the way, according to Klein, is the political will to champion the planet over profit.

As a growing number of readers pick up Klein’s book, even those who might not agree with her thesis are probably coming to realize that most of the western world’s leading political parties are woefully equipped to champion the planet over corporate profit margins. Here in Canada, this realization is apparently coming as a bit of a surprise to many long-time supporters of the NDP – a party which has moved against the tide of history and towards the centre of the Canada’s political spectrum in a bid to gain vote share and govern. For the most part, environmentalists and those concerned about climate change had already abandoned the Liberal Party after Stephane Dion stepped down as leader. Michael Ignatieff really took the Liberals in a different direction on climate change, and although Justin Trudeau now wants Canadians to believe that his party will take some sort of (very ill defined) action, it’s not at all clear what that might be, or how it could ever be reconciled with his stated support for grossly expanding the Alberta tar sands.

For many, that has largely left the NDP as the only “mainstream” (read: “likely to be elected”) party who has a somewhat decent position on climate change. After all, starting in 2006, it was the NDP that introduced the Climate Change Accountability Act, which made it all the way to the Senate before Conservative Senators killed it without debate. And the NDP has long championed a cap and trade emissions scheme for large emitters, which would put a price on carbon and might even lead to a reduction in emissions. For those paying attention, those actions had resonance.

But while a (slightly) revamped Climate Change Accountability Act and a cap and trade scheme remain in the cards for today’s NDP, that’s about all the NDP has on offer regarding climate change. And while those two measures would be vast improvements over what’s in place in Canada today, it’s the other issues that the NDP are championing which would take Canada in the opposite direction on climate change. Specifically, the NDP’s reversal on the Kinder-Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline and outright support for the Energy East pipeline are incompatible with the kind of action envisioned by Naomi Klein and others, as the creation of these pipelines will lead to the expansion of the tar sands – more than doubling the rate of production by 2030.

The NDP, Energy East, Trans Mountain and 2 Degrees C

The NDP won’t admit that their support of these two massive pipeline projects will lead to an expansion of the tar sands – even though it is self-evident. Energy East will have more than double the capacity than Northern Gateway, and Trans Mountain will have about two thirds more. The only reason these pipelines are being proposed in the first place is to facilitate the expansion. By not acknowledging that pipeline infrastructure is directly tied to the expansion of the tar sands, the NDP is being as disingenuous as the National Energy Board, the regulatory body which has refused to include climate change impact assessments as part of the scientific review of the pipelines. As with the Northern Gateway approval process, the NEB believes that down-stream impacts (like greenhouse gases emitted from the refining of bitumen and burning of fossil fuels) are out of scope for their review.

Yesterday, in a live Facebook chat, straight-forward questions by environmentalists and private citizens were put to NDP MP and Environment Critic Megan Leslie about whether the NDP would demand the NEB consider climate change impacts in its assessment of Energy East. Leslie dodged and wove and wrote about how Stephen Harper has fundamentally altered the environmental assessment process – but she refused to answer a pretty easy “yes” or “no” question about climate change. I even felt a little embarrassed for her, as it was quite clear to me that the majority of the participants in her Facebook chat were there to hear about the NDP’s position on Energy East and Trans Mountain.

In contrast, when tweeted about her Party’s position on Energy East by 350.org’s tar sands organizer, Cam Fenton, Green Leader Elizabeth May offered a straight-forward response: the Green Party “has been clear. We oppose Energy East and any other pipeline to get bitumen to tidewater.” (see: tweet). Fenton's earlier questions to the NDP about Energy East remain unanswered (see: "10 Questions for the NDP on Energy East & Climate", 350.org, November 3, 2014). Likely, there won't be any answers to these questions coming from the NDP, because if they were to answer them, the edifice of their climate change policies would begin to crumble because expanding the tar sands isn't compatible with holding the line on warming to 2 degrees C.

Meanwhile, BC Green Party MLA Andrew Weaver has been very outspoken and clear about the need for the NEB to include an assessment of climate change impacts in its review of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline (see, “Determining the Scope of the Trans Mountain's Pipeline Consultations”, September 3, 2014, and “Confidence Lost in NEB Assessment Process for Trans Mountain”, November 3, 2014 – both from www.andrewweaver.mla). The NDP has been relatively silent on Trans Mountain, after Tom Mulcair reversed his party’s position of opposition which former BC NDP leader Adrian Dix had voiced on Earth Day during the 2013 election (see, “Mulcair confident in face of sinking polls”, the Vancouver Sun, December 23, 2014).

NDP Browns Triumphing Over Greens

Some brown NDP pundits, including former national leadership contestant Brian Topp, in part blamed Dix’s decision to oppose the pipeline for the NDP’s historic election night loss to Christy Clark’s Liberal Party. Clearly, Mulcair bought into Topp’s analysis this past December when he announced a change in the NDP’s position on Trans Mountain, favouring the browns in his own party over the greens, and putting partisan interests ahead of the public good (see, “Brian Topp Reveals how NDP Plays Cynical Partisan Games with Environmental Issues”, Sudbury Steve May, September 24, 2013).

The NDP’s support for Energy East is no different. Mulcair believes that there are votes at stake, and that a majority of Canadians want the tar sands to expand because of all of the jobs that will be created. He’s also trying to pick up the support of some of the labour unions like LIUNA and UNIFOR which have either abandoned him completely, or have vowed to back a Liberals on a case by case basis. Many in the labour movement are greedy about the jobs which they believe will be created through pipeline construction.

Again, though, a simple truth continues to emerge. None of this is compatible with holding warming at 2 degrees Celsius. Investing in pipelines will guarantee an expansion of the tar sands enterprise, locking Canada even further into putting all of our energy eggs in the bitumen basket. Mulcair has talked a good game about using the proceeds of an expanded economy to invest in renewables, but the reality of the matter is that we just can’t grow our economy this way and hope to hold the line on warming. The other reality is that the fastest growing industrial sector in the world right now is the renewable energy sector, and the longer that Canada delays its significant entry into that market, the more we expose ourselves to risk – from border adjustments, and from the bursting of a carbon bubble. With this in mind, it is fair to say that the NDP’s plan to expand the tar sands through pipelines is a bad one for both the environment and the economy.

Tar Sands Expansion and Cap & Trade Insanity

Yet, the NDP believes that it can limit emissions from an expanded tar sands through cap and trade. Theoretically, that might be possible, but the implications for Canada’s resource extraction and manufacturing sector would be too much to bear. If the NDP’s plan to expand the tar sands and cut emissions through cap and trade were to play itself out, what we would have would be emissions continuing to rise like there’s no tomorrow due to the tar sands – and a corresponding massive offset in emissions from all other industrial sectors, including manufacturing, mining , agriculture and transportation. In this scenario, the oil industry is put front and centre, while those engaged in industrial activity in other sectors are penalized so that Big Oil can get bigger.

Here in Northern Ontario, we are especially at risk from the NDP’s cap and trade insanity. Almost certainly, a national cap on emissions coupled with an expanding tar sands will continue to put on hold any new development in the Ring of Fire. It’s almost impossible to believe that energy-intensive mining industry wouldn’t suffer from the cap – unless carbon credits were priced so low as to be almost useless. The thing is, we just don’t know, because aside from simple declarations about targets, the NDP has actually said very little about the mechanics of its proposals. Nevertheless, if the NDP is serious about climate change (or at least as serious as it claims to be), it is fair to conclude that the NDP’s current plan is reckless in the extreme – to the environment and to Northern Ontario’s well-paying mining jobs.

A much better carbon pricing mechanism – one with an actual track record of proven reductions to emissions – is a carbon tax, using either a straight taxation model (with corresponding offsets to income taxes), or through a revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend, where taxes collected are then redistributed back to all citizens. Industry would benefit from the certainty of a taxation model. Smaller businesses won’t be squeezed by bigger players in a free-for-all stock market-like carbon credit trading scheme. And real money would be much more easily returned to every day citizens to allow them to make smarter decisions about low-carbon goods and services.

Environmental organizations such as Citizens Climate Lobby have championed a carbon fee and dividend approach to carbon pricing, as it’s becoming increasingly apparent that a cumbersome cap and trade scheme as proposed by the NDP is not likely to accomplish its intended outcomes.

The Green Party is Driving the Climate Change Debate in Canada

Back in 2012, the membership of the Green Party of Canada decided to adopt the carbon fee and dividend model for carbon pricing – a slight change from a tax-shifting carbon tax proposal. This action might have had an adverse effect on the NDP, leading that Party to continue on with cap and trade. The NDP continues to feel threatened by the Green Party on its environmental flank. As a result, some (including Brian Topp) have suggested that the NDP has had no choice but to move away from environmental issues. In his “Campaign Post-Mortem” of August 21, 2013, Topp wrote:

“Indeed, the existence of the Green party provides a compelling electoral incentive for all other parties at all levels of government -- New Democrat, Liberal and Conservative -- to marginalize environmental issues, an important reason why these critical issues have faded from Canadian politics. The Green party is a perfectly legitimate player in Canadian politics with every right to contest elections – just as the NDP does. So far, their work is having the opposite effect of their aims.”

What underscores the assumption made by Topp and other NDP strategists regarding environmental issues is poor position the NDP (and the Liberals, for that matter) are in to talk about climate change and the environment more generally in a way which is both serious and sincere. What’s becoming increasingly clear is that the more climate change is talked about, the more apparent the NDP’s anti-climate hypocrisy. When brought out into open daylight, the NDP is exposed as just another pro-corporate greenwashed political party. I realize that probably sounds rather harsh, but I’ve really no other way to reconcile what the NDP says about climate change with the NDP says about pipelines and free trade agreements. I’ve read Naomi Klein’s book, and to me it’s extremely apparent that the NDP is a significant part of the problem – and in a way that the Conservative Party isn’t – mainly because the NDP pretends to be serious about climate change.

The NDP really does need to either up its game on climate change, or get out of the way. It has to stop pretending that it will be a leader – or else it has to actually lay out a realistic program about how it will lead. Clearly, leadership in this circumstance can’t include support for infrastructure projects which lead to an expansion of the tar sands.

Game Playing and Lies from the NDP

And frankly, the NDP has to stop attacking climate allies like Elizabeth May. Yesterday, Megan Leslie tweeted a shameful little personal attack on Elizabeth May for taking “pot shots” at other progressives over climate change – all for the purpose of raising money for the Green Party. Today, the NDP issued a press release about Elizabeth May’s climate hypocrisy, repeating Leslie’s story about May maligning progressives.

All of this stems from an email that Green Party Executive Director Emily McMillan sent to members on the morning of Monday, November 3rd. In that email, McMillan pointed out that neither the Liberals or the NDP had sent anybody to the United Nation’s Conference of the Parties conferences for the past 3 years. Clearly, she was questioning the commitment of each of these parties to taking a strong stand on climate change, in contrast to Elizabeth May, who continues to attend yearly.

However, there was no “ask” for money in this email, which is in my experience unusual for the Green Party. The email directed readers to sign a petition to “Stand with Elizabeth May”. But there was no request for money.

So the NDP have clearly blown it on a couple of fronts. First of all, the email wasn’t from Elizabeth May, but rather from the Executive Director of the Party – not the same person at all (but I suppose in the leader-centric world of the NDP, everything that the Party does must perforce be about the Party leader – something which frankly just doesn’t fly in the Green Party). And second, the NDP has completely made stuff up about this being a fundraiser. And the quote that they used from Elizabeth May was one she made about Rio +20, and not the UNFCC's Conference of the Parties as the NDP would have readers believe. That last one may seem like semantics to some, but not in the world of climate change advocacy. It leads me to question whether the NDP actually know the difference between the various international climate change negotiations which have been going on for decades now. Maybe if they sent some reps to some of them...

I’ll add another to my own list which might not be on everybody’s – and that’s the notion that May bashed other “progressives”. When I look at the Liberals and NDP’s support of Trans Mountain and Energy East, along with their greenwashed approach to climate change, I tell you this: I don’t see either of those two parties as remotely “progressive”.

Only the Green Party Has the Courage to Speak the Truth on Climate Change

Only the Green Party is standing up for climate change action in Canada. At our Biennial General Meeting held earlier this year in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Greens voted to adopt policies which would restrict building significant new fossil fuel infrastructure, such as the Trans Mountain and Energy East pipelines. Infrastructure would only be contemplated where it would be proven to reduce climate change impacts – impacts which would perforce be looked at as a part of any environmental assessment.

The Party also voted to restrict shipping raw bitumen through Canadian waters with the hopes that this would reduce emissions created overseas in jurisdictions with poor environmental regulations. Off-shoring Canada’s responsibility to control emissions might be a part of the Liberal and NDP plans to reduce Canada’s overall emissions, but Greens know and understand that the atmosphere doesn’t care where the bitumen is burned – it all ends up in the same place, and Canada has to take responsibility for what comes out of the ground here.

Eliminating opportunities for off-shoring our responsibilities may lead to the creation of opportunities to do more value-added in Canada. In recognition that existing production might be restrained during the needed shift to renewables, the membership agreed to an increase in refinery capacity within Canada – again, under strict conditions that increasing capacity will lead to an overall reduction in emissions. Clearly, new capacity won’t be put in place to allow tar sands expansion, but rather used as interim measure for existing operations, if necessary.

Behind all of this membership-approved policy is a comprehensive understanding that limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius has to be the outcome of any and all policy initiatives. The health of our living systems – not to mention the health of our economy – is dependent on limiting the impacts of climate change. There really are no other options.

NDP Must Get Out of the Way of Real Progressives Demanding Climate Action

And that’s why, increasingly, those who are concerned about climate change are turning away from the NDP. The more light that is shone on the NDP’s contradictory policies – not to mention the outright lying and bully tactics the party employs to vilify its political opponents – the more voters are going to come to realize that only the Green Party represents a viable choice for Canadians. The Green Party has long had a comprehensive plan in Vision Green – which has been available online since before I joined the Party in 2007. In fact, it was after reading Vision Green that I knew I had found a political organization which shared my views and values.

The NDP must be aware that they are faltering on climate change and the environment. New Democrats are a very poll-driven focus-grouped party. No doubt they’ve been looking at their own softening numbers on climate change, and that’s why we’ve seen the recent assaults on the Green Party – a party whose name the NDP is reluctant to utter, and a party which the NDP has done everything in its power to shut out of legitimate democratic discourse, including the two times that Jack Layton opted to keep Green Leader Elizabeth May out of the televised leader’s debates. Likely, Tom Mulcair will pursue the same course of action regarding May's participation in the 2015 televised debates, in an effort to silence Greens and minimize the public discussion about climate change, given his Party's indefensible and contradictory policy position.

One might think that rather than attack the Green Party, a better move for the NDP would be to change its own policies and positions so that they are more in keeping with the health of the planet. However, that appears to be too difficult for the NDP now in the run-up to 2015. Perhaps after the next federal election – and maybe after Tom Mulcair steps down as leader of the NDP – perhaps then the NDP might decide to look for some consistency on climate change. In the meantime, it appears that the only option available to them will be to lie to voters about Elizabeth May and the Green Party as part of an overall campaign to marginalize Greens.

It would have been my hope that the NDP decided to get serious about climate change. Canada could have used a strong voice in the NDP. But instead, the NDP seems content to play games while the planet continues to heat up. Shame on them!

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

Electoral Reform & Lobbyist Registry: Sleeper Issues Arising from the Greater Sudbury Municipal Election

Now that the results of the municipal election have been made official, I’d like to take some time to explore a few of the “sleeper” issues which arose during the latter part of the campaign period, and discuss how I think some of those issues might have legs, moving forward over the next four year term of Council.

Most of my Sudbury-based readers will be familiar with the election issues largely covered in the mainstream media, but for the sake of those readers from other areas, let me provide a quick re-cap of what went on in “Greater Sudbury” over the past couple of months.

A Short History Lesson

“Greater Sudbury”, as many know, was created via amalgamation under former Premier Mike Harris. The former City of Sudbury (often now referred to as the “inner city” or just “Sudbury”), with a population of around 90,000 people, was combined with 6 other municipalities (with population around 70,000) in the Region of Sudbury to create the City of Greater Sudbury. The regional level of government, made redundant by the amalgamation, ceased its operation.

Today, the City of Greater Sudbury remains a divided municipal entity, with tensions continuing to be apparent between the “inner city” and the “outlying areas” – those parts of the 6 former municipalities of Rayside-Balfour, Onaping Falls, Nickel Centre, Valley East, Capreol and Walden (along with areas previously unorganized, which were incorporated into the City in 2001). These divisions have manifested themselves on Council throughout the history of the Greater City since 2001. Specifically, concerns have been raised from the outlying areas over the perception that residents living in those area are now paying higher taxes for the same level (or a reduced level) of services, and that they are being ignored by the inner City. Often, these clashes occur over the attention which the former City of Sudbury’s downtown seems to enjoy from the City, seemingly at the expense of other outlying downtowns.

Ward Boundaries

In an attempt to address some of these tensions, the ward boundaries which ultimately came into being for the City of Greater Sudbury were drawn in such a way as to (in some cases) combine areas of the new City which had little or no historical association with another, creating “combination wards” between former inner city and outlying area communities. For example, Ward 4 consists of the Donovan neighbourhood in the former City of Sudbury, along with Azilda, a community in the former Township of Rayside-Balfour. These two communities are about 10 km apart, separated by Vale (formerly INCO) mining lands. They have very little in common geographically, socially or culturally.

And Azilda has about twice the population as the Donovan. And that's a very critical element present in all of the combination wards: the population in the outlying areas exceeds that in the former City usually by about a 2:1 ratio.

A map of the City's wards shows that wards 1, 8, 10, 11 & 12 are entirely within the former City of Sudbury, while wards 3, 6 & 7 are exclusive to the outlying areas. Wards 2, 4, 5 & 9 are combination wards, all of which have populations higher in the outlying areas than in the former City. A quick review of electoral history since 2006 reveals that on only one occasion has an inner-city councillor been elected in a combination ward (and arguably this has been off-set by the one time that an outlying area councillor was elected in an exclusive inner-city ward).

The Mayor is elected at large. Since the inception of the City of Greater Sudbury, only one Mayor out of 5 has been elected from the outlying areas. When this is all put together, it means that the relative power structure on Council has resided with the smaller-based population of the outlying areas. The former City of Sudbury has been, and continues to be, under-represented on a Council which elects its members based on geographic jurisdictions, with 7 positions favouring the outlying areas (with a smaller population) to 6 positions favouring inner-city representation, where a majority of the population resides.

Electoral Reform - Ranked Ballots and Redrawing the Ward Map

Some in the City are calling for a change in the way that we elect our Councils, including looking at moving to an at-large election process. Others want the ward boundaries re-drawn, but many of these are making this call under the false impression that the outlying areas are the ones which are suffering from under-representation. In the recent election, electoral reform became a bit of an issue which some candidates, especially outlying area candidates, started talking about.

A session was hosted in the City during the municipal election about the Province's indication that it may allow municipalities to move to a ranked ballot system for electing municipal Councils. Given that just about every municipal councillor and the Mayor were elected with less than 50% of the vote, I don't think that there's any question that a ranked ballot will prove to be an effective electoral tool for the City.

I'm less convinced that moving to an “at large” electoral system will prove a sensible choice, given the existing tensions between the inner and outer City, and given that higher spending limits for at-large candidates will likely mean that those with modest incomes are even further discouraged from seeking a seat on Council.

Nevertheless, the reform of electoral system, including ward boundaries, is likely to prove to be a sleeper issue going forward over the next few years of Council. There will be calls for Greater Sudbury to adopt a ranked ballot, and those calls will be made as part of a larger call for electoral reform. I only hope that should electoral reform happens, that ward boundaries are adjusted so as to bring better representation on our municipal council based on population within existing communities of interest. Combination wards are inherently anti-democratic, no matter how they are drawn. It's time for Greater Sudbury to do what the federal government is doing in Saskatchewan – eliminate combination jurisdictions in favour of those which have at their heart the concept of “community of interest”.

Transparency & Accountability

One of the other big election issues in Greater Sudbury was “accountability and transparency” - a platform plank which almost every single municipal candidate ran on. Local perceptions have been that the past Council was too secretive, and not being accountable for their decisions. These perceptions were fuelled by the fireing of the Ontario Ombudsman, Andre Marin, the City's open meetings investigator, shortly after Marin delivered a scathing report which singled out a number of councillors for the lack of co-operation during one of his investigations. The motion to fire the Ombudsman was brought forward without notice, but received the consent of a majority of Councillors, so it was quickly debated at the end of an hours long Council meeting, and passed. Many thought that the real debate had taken place before the meeting, either in a back room or via email exchanges, and a number of complaints about a secretive closed door meeting to fire the Ombudsman were ultimately made to the City's new closed meeting investigator.

Vowing to bring transparency to City Hall, former Auditor General Brian Bigger (who at one point took the City – his employer - to court to obtain the information he needed to do his job) ran for the office of Mayor, and received 46% of the popular vote. Bigger wants to implement something akin to the “Vaughan Charter”, which he believes will provide a greater moral direction to Council. Another prominent mayoral candidate, second-place finisher Dan Melanson (former head of the Greater Sudbury Taxpayers Association) campaigned on the idea of the City establishing the position of Integrity Commissioner, something echoed by some of the other council candidates.

All mayoral candidates vowed to bring back the Ombudsman as open meetings investigator, including Ron Dupuis, who was the Councilor for Ward 5 at the time of the vote to fire him – something Dupuis voted in favour of at the time. Brian Bigger went further, praising the provincial government for its stated desire to give the Ombudsman much more significant investigative authority over municipal matters, as part of Bill 8. It was unclear to me if Bigger ever stated his support for the appointment of an Integrity Commissioner.

A Lobbyist Registry

Arising out of the discussion around oversight and transparency tools was the interesting idea of instituting a lobbyist registry. This issue first came to my attention in the municipal election from Ward 1 candidate Matt Alexander – a candidate who despite having more good ideas than the other 69 election candidates combined – finished a distant third in his ward. Soon after raising the issue publicly at a Ward 1 debate, other municipal election candidates picked up the torch – although to my knowledge, none of those running for Mayor did.

Indeed, John Rodriguez, Greater Sudbury's former Mayor (2006-2010), took an opposite track, vowing to organize private meetings with developers, Council and municipal staff, in order to better address the needs of the development community. This kind of backroom meeting is exactly the sort of access which a lobbyist registry would provide residents with information about. A registry itself wouldn't permit these sorts of interactions, but it would provide the public with an idea of who met with whom, when, and what they talked about. Right now, these meetings can go on behind closed doors and the public is none the wiser.

And this is a big deal, given the limited access to municipal Council which the rest of us enjoy. And it's also a big deal given the financial contributions to candidates campaigns made by developers and others who lobby City Hall. While I hope that the Province will end the anti-democratic practice of allowing non-people (like corporations and unions) to influence electoral outcomes by allowing them to give money to election campaigns, we here in our own municipality could be doing more to shine some light on the secret dealings which these “non people” have with our elected officials and staff. The establishment of a lobbyist registry only makes sense.

For those interested, here is the City of Toronto's website for their Office of the Lobbyist Registrar. The website explains what a Registry is, who should register, want the responsibilities of lobbyists and those being lobbied are. It would be a great model for Greater Sudbury. I understand that both Ottawa and Hamilton have also created lobbyist registries.

Moving from the Back Burner to the Front

Other issues, like the store hours by-law, dealing with Healthy Community Initiative funds, handi-transit, the new casino, a new Arena for the Sudbury Wolves, and finding money for Maley Drive are sure to be on the front burner at Council sooner rather than later (as is the 2015 budget for that matter). But I believe that electoral reform and a lobbyist registry are two issues which are going to gain traction moving forward – issues that citizens are going to demand that our Council deal with over the course of its next four years.

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

UFCW's Anti-Democratic Position on Sudbury Store Hours Referendum Outcome Reflects Poorly on Labour Movement

So, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) is claiming victory in the recent referendum on store hours in the City of Greater Sudbury. 3 questions were asked of voters with regards to changing the by-laws which currently prohibit stores from setting their own hours, and opening on the August Civic Holiday and Boxing Day. By pretty healthy majorities (between 60% and 75%), voters in Greater Sudbury said “Yes” to the proposed changes. However, the Ontario Municipal Act requires 50% of eligible voters to vote on each question or else the referendum results are non-binding. While voter turn out in Greater Sudbury was just over 50%, not everyone voted on the questions, meaning that no question met the 50% threshold.

Although UFCW did not register as a lobbyist for the referendum question (only lobbyists were allowed to campaign for or against the questions), they are nevertheless now interjecting themselves into our democratic processes – after the fact. Today, the Sudbury Star is reporting that a member of the UFCW's region 8 is insisting that since the questions failed on the 50% threshold, that the matter has been resolved. “It's a done issue, and we should move on.” (see: "Both sides claim victory", the Sudbury Star, October 30, 2014).

As a supporter of democracy, I absolutely agree with the Union's rep – but clearly, not in the same way that the Union sees it. The electorate, in its wisdom, made a clear declaration to the City through a democratic process. The 50% threshold is simply one which would bind Council to take action. The threshold itself is not a part of any expression of democratic will – at least not in a democratic process which does not require everyone is eligible to participate.

UFCW is doing itself no favours in this community – not for itself, and not for the broader labour movement. By trying to confound the democratic expression of voters through a semantic – and frankly, quite silly – argument based on the idea that 50% turn-out of eligible voters is necessary to interpret the results as an expression of the will of the electorate. Frankly, this is an anti-democratic position to adopt.

As a long-time supporter of the labour movement, and as a current union member, I am appalled the UFCW has taken the extraordinary position that the expression of a majority of voters should be discarded in this circumstance. Their position is not democratic – and it will only enrage and provide more fodder to those who are actively working to under the labour movement.

Shame on UFCW.

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

Energy East Pipeline in Need of a Rethink

At a seminar hosted by the World Bank last week, Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, told attendees that a significant amount of the world’s fossil fuel reserves will need to remain in the ground. Carney, former head of Canada’s central bank, warned investors of a “carbon bubble” which could negatively impact the value of assets, such as heavy oil and gas fields, which are likely to become stranded as a result of market failures which don’t adequately assess environmental liabilities (see: "Mark Carney: Most fossil fuel reserves can't be burned", The Guardian, October 13, 2014)

Equally, Carney could have warned investors about the risk of sinking money into infrastructure needed to expand of fossil fuel extraction, including the many pipelines now being proposed to transport tar sands bitumen. Increasingly, it is becoming apparent that significantly expanding fossil fuel enterprises such as the Alberta tar sands is incompatible with limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius – a limit acknowledged at Copenhagen in 2009 by all national governments as one we dare not pass.

With this in mind, there are only two options available. We could continue to expand the burning of fossil fuels, which leads to between 4 and 6 degrees of warming by the end of the century. Or, we seriously begin shifting towards a renewable energy economy, and leave unburnable carbon safely sequestered in the ground.

If we follow the path we’re on, we will almost certainly doom our children to a future of political, economic and social turmoil caused by global warming and high energy prices. Taking the path towards a renewable energy future, however, requires that we change how we buy, sell and use energy. Specifically, it means shifting our private and public sector investments out of coal, oil, gas and pipelines and into conservation and renewables.

The latest pipeline proposal up for approval is TransCanada’s Energy East – a $12 billion project which will transport dilbit (diluted bitumen) by converting an existing 40-year old natural gas pipeline between Alberta and Ontario, and constructing about 1,500 km of new pipeline through Quebec and News Brunswick. Over 1.1 million oil-equivalent barrels per day will flow out of Alberta, at about twice the rate of Enbridge’s recently approved Northern Gateway. Most of this unrefined product will be shipped out of Canada.

Alex Pourbais, TransCanada’s Executive Vice President and President of Development, referred to the federal government’s approval of the Energy East pipeline as “virtually a done deal” (see: "Keystone be Darned: Canada finds Oil Route Around Obama", Bloomberg, October 8, 2014). It seems that TransCanada is anticipating yet another rubber-stamp exercise from the National Energy Board (NEB) through a rigged review process. The Pembina Institute estimates that Energy East’s approval would allow the tar sands to significantly expand, adding an additional 30 million tonnes of carbon pollution to the atmosphere from extraction alone.

Yet, the NEB, in its “List of Issues” notes that it does not have “authority over upstream or downstream activities associated with the development of the oilsands” and won’t consider higher carbon emissions from expanded industrial activity as part of its review (since publication of the print edition of this post, the National Energy Board has removed this document from its website). That the regulatory authority tasked with assessing pipeline proposals doesn’t have the mandate to examine known negative impacts is an absurdity brought to us by Canada’s Conservative government through sneaky changes made to the environmental review process in omnibus budget bills.


In its approval of Northern Gateway, the NEB concluded that the pipeline would provide Canada with a net economic benefit because it would lead to increased output from the tar sands. With Carney and others warning of a carbon bubble, those who expect positive results from sinking money into fossil fuel extraction should give these plans a serious rethink. That includes the Conservative, Liberal and New Democratic parties, all of which support Energy East.

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

Originally published in the Sudbury Star, Saturday, October 18, 2014 online as "Rethink Energy East Pipeline", without hyperlinks)

Bad News Out of Quebec for the Green Party of Canada

Uh-oh. There's bad news for the Green Party of Canada coming out of Quebec today. It looks like Jean-Francois Larose, MP for the Quebec riding of Repetigny, has quit the New Democrats and will join together with Bloc Quebecois-turned-Independent MP Jean-Francois Fortin (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia) to create a new Quebec-only political party to be known as “Forces et Democratie” (see: "Fourth Quebec MP quits federal NDP to form newparty with ex-Bloc MP”, the Canadian Press, October 21, 2014).


On the surface, this story probably has little resonance with most Greens. The Quebec ridings in question aren't likely to be in play for our Party in 2015, and if anything, should the new Party start to catch on a little bit, the effect it might have in Quebec might simply be to fracture the vote even further, which, generally speaking, could be a good thing for Greens, if we had the ability to seize on that opportunity in Quebec (which I don't see at the moment, but that's subject to change based on the candidates that the Party recruits). No, this story seems to be more of an indictment of the New Democrats (who can't seem to keep their caucus from shrinking) and the Bloc (is that Party still around?). And while the story may be that, the fact of the matter is that this is very bad news for the Green Party of Canada.


After two Bloc MP's quit their Party earlier this year over a lack of confidence in their new Leader Mario Beaulieu, I wrote about “Whata Bloc Collapse Might Mean for the Green Party of Canada” (Sudbury Steve, August 25, 2014), and took the position that a BQ Party in decline could pose a threat to the Green Party for a very singular reason. I worked through (what I thought at the time to be) a number of permutations, twisting myself up like a pretzel to demonstrate the risk. What I didn't want to write about was the very scenario which appears to be happening today – the rise of a brand new regional political party with sitting Members of Parliament.

Thwarting Democracy: The Money Game


When Forces et Democratie officially registers itself as a political party, both Jean-Francois's will be able to start collecting money from supporters for a re-election bid next year. As an Independent, Fortin couldn't actually receive political contributions (which can only be made to a political party or a division of a political party, such as an Electoral District Association). As an MP about to lose a nomination contest in Repitiginy (if the CP article is to be believed), Larose would have had to run either under the banner of another party, or as an Independent – and if the latter, he would have found himself in the same situation as Fortin: unable to raise (and spend) money until the writ is dropped next year. Given this circumstance, is it any wonder that these two have come together to form a new Party?


And so Forces et Democratie appears to be the off-spring of two uninspiring MP's who aspire to be re-elected – and Canada's archaic anti-democratic election laws which favour organized political parties over individual, independent representation.


To me, what's surprising is that this move took as long as it did, at least for Fortin. Maybe the two Jean-Francois's will be joined by the other two dissident Bloc MP's, Marie Mourani (kicked out of the Bloc caucus over her disagreement with the PQ's Charter of Values) and Andre Bellevance (who left the Bloc shortly after Fortin). It seems that the two sitting Bloc MP's, Louis Plamondon and (former NDP-turned Bloc MP) Claude Patry will continue to sit in the House as BQ Members of Parliament.


It remains to be seen if the Forces et Democratie Party will ever be a serious political entity, or whether it's been created simply to fuel the electoral ambitions of the two Jean-Francois's. What surprises me, however, is the fact that Independents hadn't already come together to create a new Party – even if one in name only – simply to help with re-election bids. I've often wondered whether an “Independent Party” could have legs as a money-raising operation centred on local electoral districts. Its creation could be a paper exercise – no fuss and bother about policy or holding national conventions. Just a meeting of the minds of Independents in ridings across the nation, with a nominal Leader appointed to fulfil Elections Canada requirements. EDAs could be created to raise and spend money to further the re-election chances of sitting Independent MP's and maybe some others who aspire to challenge the Party system.


Anyway, maybe that's kind of what we're seeing today, only regionally-based.

Composition of the House


So, how does this affect the Green Party of Canada at all? Well, I'll finally spell out why the creation of an obscure regional political party with uninspiring MP's is a massive threat to the Green Party of Canada's electoral chances in 2015. At some point in the near future, when Fortin and Larose get their act together and make the FED Party (sorry, guys, that's probably not the best acronym for your new enterprise, given your “Quebec” focus – but it is what it is) a reality, here's what the composition of the House will look like in terms of political parties:


We'll have the Conservative Party, the NDP, and the Liberals – all of which have “official” party standing in the House, because they've elected MP's above and beyond the 12 MP threshold for official party status.


Then, there will be the Green Party (2 MP's), the Bloc Quebeois (2 MP's) and Forces et Democratie (2 MP's) – all three will be recognized as political parties in the House, although they will not have “official” party standing.


Finally, there will be a few Independent MP's (Mourani, Bellevance and Brent Rathgeberger) and one Independent-Conservative MP (I think he calls himself) in Dean Del Mastro.


Televised Leaders Debates

Fast-forward to next year. The Prime Minister asks the Governor-General to dissolve parliament. The writ is dropped, and the race is on. All of Canada's political parties are jockeying for position. A critical test of leadership appears on the horizon in the form of the televised leader's debates, one in each of Canada's official languages. All of the political party leaders are invited by the Broadcast Consortium....


Oh wait. No their not. Just Harper, Mulcair and Trudeau.


But what about historical precedent? In the past, every political party which had an MP sitting in the House at the time of its dissolution (including those whom had not been formally recognized by the House) has been invited to attend the leaders debates. At times, this has meant that as many as 5 registered party leaders have sparred with another. Most recently, 5 leaders appeared on stage together in 2008, when Stephen Harper faced off against Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, the NDP's Jack Layton, the BQ's Gilles Duceppe and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May. Late last century, Liberal and NDP leaders went head-to-head with the Bloc, and the leaders of the Progressive Conservative and Reform parties.


Many have been critical of this approach, claiming that the number of leaders on stage makes for bad television, and is a disservice to our democracy in that inevitably it's pretty much impossible that one or more of the leaders will never be Prime Minister (the Bloc has only ever run candidates in Quebec, and the Green Party only elected its first MP in 2011).


To my knowledge, Canada has never seen 6 party leaders share the same stage. But if the Broadcast Consortium is going to decide whom to invite based on historical precedent, that's what Canada will get in 2015 when the FED joins the fray.


So, we'll have the leaders of four truly national party sharing the same stage with a tiny rump-regional Bloc Quebecois's Mario Beaulieu, an un-elected leader, and whomever the FED decides to identify as Leader (and if the two Jean-Francois's are serious about re-election, it's almost going to have to be one of them, in order to gain a level of national exposure for their fledgeling initiative). Four truly national political figures sharing the stage with two leaders most of Canada has never heard of and who lead parties which most Canadians can't vote for? Can you imagine?


I can't. Simply put, it's not going to happen. The Broadcast Consortium is in all likelihood going to abandon precedent and establish some new criteria for inviting leaders to the debate. And just what do you think that criteria is going to include? With three political parties of 2 members each, the Consortium will establish a higher threshold for participation. Canada will get to hear from Harper, Mulcair and Trudeau, the leaders of “official” parties in the House – and that'll be it.

As I wrote back in August, the presence of a depleted BQ Party at least gave me some hope that May would be invited to the debates. But the presence of two tiny Quebec-focused regional parties is pretty much going to be the nail in the coffin for her participation – unless of course Greens can somehow make a case that May should be there because the Party is running candidates in all ridings, and at least theoretically (but really just more mathematically) the possibility exists that the Greens could form government and May could become Prime Minister.


It's a stretch. The presence of candidates in all ridings has never been a criteria for participation. We Greens ran candidates across the nation in 2006 and 2011, and our leaders weren't heard from. In the past, the Bloc and Reform parties have participated even though not all Canadians could cast their ballots for candidates from those parties.


Democracy Denied

While the Bloc and the FED might kick up a fuss, not many are going to care about their absence from the televised debates. Indeed, the Liberals and the NDP would be pleased to have the Bloc shut out of any opportunity to grow its vote in Quebec. And honestly, can you imagine Tom Mulcair consenting to share the same stage as Jean-Francois Larose after he crossed the floor? Sorry, but it's not going to happen.


If Forces et Democratie can't participate in the leaders debate, the Bloc will be absent as well. And if the Bloc is absent, there's really no compelling reason for the consortium to invite the Greens.


And if Elizabeth May is once again denied the opportunity to speak directly to Canadian voters, there stands a very real chance that the Green Party's electoral ambitions will likely amount to little, again. The national exposure of May in the leader's debate is political manna for our upstart party. While we Greens may win a few ridings, the chance to really turn some heads in 2015 will be denied us because an unelected and unaccountable Broadcast Consortium failed (again) to invite our leader to participate in the televised debates. And because the Liberals and the NDP will have (once again) went along with this anti-democratic decision – putting their own partisanship above what's good for Canada and what's good for democracy. Just as the Liberals and the NDP did in 2011 when May was left out of the debates.


And that's why today's news about two obscure Members of Parliament in Quebec is bad news for the Green Party of Canada.

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

Thanks to Government Policies which Subsidize Fossil Fuels, Canada is Short of Options Other Than Resource Extraction to Maintain its Comfy Lifestyle

I started reading this column from the Edmonton Journal’s Gary Lamphier this evening (“Lamphier: Canada is short of options other than resource extraction to maintain its comfy lifestyle”, Gary Lamphier, the Edmonton Journal, October 9, 2014), and after a few paragraphs, it became clear to me that it needed a few edits in order to make any sense.  Lamphier's piece seems to be based on the notion that our lifestyle isn't threatened in any way by climate change, exacerbated by Canada's continued fossil fuel extraction-based economy, and in fact our quality of life can only be sustained by more extraction - a completely absurd notion.

With that in mind, here is my edited version of the column.

Lamphier & May: Thanks to government policies which subsidize fossil fuels, Canada is short of options other than resource extraction to maintain its comfy lifestyle

EDMONTON & SUDBURY - Canadians want it all, and we want it now. Just don’t ask us to help pay for it.

Like whiny toddlers, too many Canadians live in a fantasy world of self-entitlement, where our comfy 21st century lifestyle can be taken for granted. Well, it can’t, and unless those attitudes change, we’re in for a shock.

Like it or not, Canada is built on resource wealth. That’s our competitive advantage. It still is, no matter how much fawning coverage marginal sectors like movie production and video games attract.

Yet many Canadians are now fickle if not openly hostile toward further development of the very resources that made this country one of the wealthiest on the planet.

Even worse better, many Canadian political leaders (including British Columbia Premier Christy Clark) have failed are starting to recognize that the world is changing fast, requiring them to modify their views accordingly.

After making wild-eyed promises about erasing B.C.’s debt and creating a vast prosperity fund built on a world-class coastal liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry, Clark is beginning to realize that now fighting to keep one of the sector’s key players — Malaysia’s Petronas — from bailing out entirely. she may lack the social license to expensively develop LNG in her province, committing British Columbia to becoming a world leader in carbon pollution and ensuring that Canada and the world blows through our Copenhagen commitments of holding the line of warming at 2 degrees Celsius.

My guess is she’ll succeed continue to accede to the will of major fossil fuel corporations intent on putting profit before the plight of the world’s people — but only if she slashes continues to ignore British Columbians who are calling for her to end proposed taxpayer subsidies for LNG income tax from the proposed seven per cent to perhaps four or five per cent.

Even then, If she does listen to the people, Petronas may simply try to bypass the province and its perennially toxic maturing political culture by shipping natural gas by pipeline from its fields in northeast B.C. to a proposed new LNG terminal in Oregon, gambling on the assumption that Oregonians don’t understand the massive global risks from the climate crisis and the need to safely sequester carbon in the ground – and that’s a bet that I wouldn’t want to take.

Time will tell. But so far, there is little growing evidence to suggest that Clark understands that B.C., Canada and the world doesn’t needs Petronas a whole lot more than Petronas needs B.C. The world will soon be awash in have to soon give up its addiction to fossil fuels like LNG, and B.C. is well behind the curve. or else risk a meltdown of the global economy thanks to climate change.

As for the antipathy that many Canadians now show toward the oilsands tarsands, new oil diluted bitumen pipelines and the fracking (natural gas fracturing) revolution, that’s another head-scratcher no-brainer.

Perhaps they buy the green lobby’s spin, understand the severity of the crisis we are facing, and believe based on scientific evidence acknowledge that Canada must end its addiction to greenhouse gas generating fossil fuels and can become a world leader in burgeoning fields like wind and solar power, both of which require hefty a level playing field and the end of governmental interventions in the market place in the form of public subsidies to fossil fuels be economic.

Under the Conservative federal government, forget it. Germany and China, both manufacturing heavyweights, staked out that turf long ago. We’ll continue to be forced to import their technology, but they will manufacture it, keeping the jobs that go with it, until Canadians call for an end to crippling investor state provisions in so-called “free trade” agreements, and institute meaningful border adjustments on high-carbon goods after we finally put a price on carbon pollution here at home.

By permitting outsourcing of our high-tech manufacturing base through a race to the bottom, smartphones? made by Waterloo-based BlackBerry is are now a pipsqueak in a market dominated by behemoths like Apple and Samsung, thanks in part to global trade rules which favour corporate profit over employing local people.

Auto manufacturing? Ontario used to produce more vehicles than any jurisdiction in North America. It’s on the rebound now, but automation has fundamentally changed the business.

It will never again generate the number of solid middle-class jobs it once did. Those days are gone – and we now are positioned to look towards the fastest growing global economic sector in the form of the renewable energy economy for transitioning job creation.

Biotech? Alternative energy? These are still niche industries in Canada. Few players have ever made a profit, thanks to the government heavily intervening in the so-called “free market” by heavily subsidizing fossil fuels, and many are on virtual life support, limping from one financing to the next.

Even in a relatively successful sector like software, Canada’s top players — firms like Open Text and Constellation Software — are mice compared to U.S. goliaths like Microsoft and Google. Mice tend to get eaten, especially when the government refuses to intervene on behalf of Canadians and provide some form of protection to our important commercial enterprises from ravenous multi-national corporate cats.

So again, that leaves us with resources, where Canada remains a key global player. The oilsands tar sands still currently rank as one of the few sources of future production growth in a world that still consumes some an unsustainable 90 million barrels of oil per day. Moving forward into the future with the knowledge and understanding that most of the tar sands deposits must be safely sequestered in the ground to avoid warming beyond 2 degrees Celsius, it is incumbent on Canada to do far more to wean ourselves off of our fossil fuels addiction.

(Please note that the above text was not used with Gary Lamphier's permission.  It was used for the purpose of what I consider to be "political satire".  However, should I receive communication from Mr. Lanthier or his employers with regards to my unauthorized use of this text as a basis for my blogpost, I will gladly remove this post as I can't help but acknowledge that the majority of this text is not my own.  On a day when it has come to light that our Conservative government is trying to secretly change our laws to allow political parties to use materials produced by the media for partisan political purposes and without compensation - something I am gravely opposed to - I feel that it would be incumbent upon me to remove this post, even though my blog is not an official Green Party blog, and that the purpose of this post is primarily satirical and not partisan in the sense of favouring one political party above all others.  Should Mr. Lamphier or officials from the Edmonton Journal review this post, I hope that they understand the satirical nature of this post, and in the interests of free speech, do not request its removal)

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

Time for NDP's Claude Gravelle to Turn Off the Lights

Since relocating to the Val Caron over a year ago, I’ve been bothered by a sight that I see almost every evening when I travel up MR 80 either on foot, bike or in the car. Up the road from where I live, our NDP Member of Parliament, Claude Gravelle, has a constituency office. In front of this office is a large orange sign, advertising the office location. Throughout the evening and well into the night on every single occasion that I’ve passed it by, this sign is lit – despite the office not being open to the public during these evening / early morning hours.

This past weekend, the federal NDP held its Northern Ontario Council Meeting. NDP Leader Tom Mulcair was in town, and both Sudbury NDP MP Glenn Thibeault and Nickel Belt NDP MP Claude Gravelle were nominated by members to carry their party’s banner in the 2015 election. The centre of focus of this sizable NDP gathering was a downtown Sudbury hotel – quite far from Val Caron – maybe a 20 minute drive away.

Yet the sign in front of Claude Gravelle’s constituency office was brightly lit, as seen in this photograph taken around 9 PM.

Why is it that I’m getting upset over a sign? Well, here’s a copy of a letter that I wrote to Mr. Gravelle almost three months ago about his sign. It pretty well sums up my concerns about the sign – and also alludes to broader concerns that I have about the NDP’s ability to take the issue of climate change seriously (more on that below).

In short, although the NDP wants to be seen as the only party capable of wearing a progressive mantle in the upcoming election, the NDP as a Party has far to go in earning the progressive moniker.

At this time, I’ve not received a response from Mr. Gravelle or his staff. Here’s my letter:

Claude Gravelle, MP
2945 Highway 69 North, Suite 203
Val Caron ON
P3N 1N3

July 9, 2014

Re: Leadership on Climate Change, Energy Efficiency – Your Val Caron Constituency Office’s Sign

Dear Mr. Gravelle,

I am a resident of Val Caron, and I have noticed that the sign in front of your constituency office is often lit up throughout the night, during times when your office is not open to the public. I have observed your sign alight on weekends and holidays. As a citizen of Canada, and as one of your constituents, I ask that you consider the need to have an energy-consuming sign turned on during times when your office is not open.

I note that, according to documents you’ve published on your website, your combined office expenses for leases, insurance and utilities for the year 2011-12 (the only year posted there) totalled over $29,000. Likely these expenditures on offices are similar to that of other years for which you’ve been serving the public. Funding is provided to you by the Government of Canada to maintain constituency offices for the necessary work that you do.

Given that public funds are being used to maintain your offices, I believe that it is incumbent upon you and your staff to ensure that value is being achieved at all times, and that opportunities to reduce and eliminate waste are explored comprehensively, and reviewed over time. To that end, I sincerely hope that you will put an end to your practice of using electricity to light your office sign during times when your office is not open to the public.

While I understand that the costs of electricity use for your sign may not be a significant percentage of funds spent in terms of your overall annual office budget, the fact is that every little bit of savings helps, especially when it comes to using tax dollars wisely. As there can be no need for a lit sign when your office is closed, it seems appropriate to save money and switch the sign off.

Further, our elected officials ought to be doing what they can to be real leaders in promoting energy efficiency, particularly now that the perils of the climate crisis have become so very apparent. A sign lit by electricity belonging to a publicly elected official’s office, turned on even at times when the office is closed, could be interpreted as a profligate use of energy.

To that end, I urge you to please consider conserving public dollars and energy. Could you please turn off your constituency office’s sign when your office is not in use?

Thank you for considering this request.

Steve May
Val Caron ON
Email: sudbury_steve@hotmail.com

Look, turning out the lights is a pretty small issue in the grand scheme of things. But to me, it’s the little actions (or lack thereof) which starts to speak volumes about how the NDP remains disengaged on climate change. If they were serious at all about wanting to do what’s right for the planet, each and every MP would make sure that the lights are turned off when they’ve left the building.

If the NDP gets the little things wrong, what about some of the bigger things? In Sudbury, the NDP’s critic for Consumer Affairs, has been pushing a campaign to make driving more attractive, under the guise of ending gasoline price gouging. On his website, Thibeault remarks that “Over the past six years, the price of gas in Sudbury has shot up from an average of just over $1.00/litre to now over $1.40/litre. And there appears to be no end in sight.” (as per this website)

Well, no kidding, Glenn. What’s been driving the hikes to gasoline prices sure isn’t collusion or gouging on the part of the oil industry – it’s the fact that we are running into resource limits for inexpensive energy, and that we are increasingly deriving more of our fossil energy from non-traditional sources, including deep water sources, fracking and the tar sands. These non-traditional sources of energy are more expensive to access – and with a growing demand in places like China and India (nations to which we’ve outsourced much of our industrial plant), we here in Canada can only expect prices to continue to climb.

But the NDP doesn’t seem to get this. Thibeault would rather point to the simplistic argument of price gouging than to the realistic fact of resource limitations. And the NDP’s response to this situation has typically been to try to keep gasoline prices as low as possible (sometimes by outright capping gasoline prices) – a policy which would give a significant benefit to the rich in our nation (who drive a heck of a lot more than the poor do), while continuing to raise greenhouse gas emission levels. In short, the NDP just doesn’t have a clue about what needs to be done to help in the fight against climate change.

To wit, the NDP has taken a position on the East-West dilbit pipeline known as “Energy East” – a pipeline which will create significant capacity to transport diluted bitumen from the Alberta tar sands to a tidewater port for export (see, “Mulcair sticks with pipeline policy as report challenges Energy East”, the Globe & Mail, February 6, 2014). The NDP also has reversed itself on opposition to the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline, which would see an existing pipeline twinned to carry diluents in one direction and dilbit in the other (see, “The Economic Case Against the Tar Sands, Part 2: Tom Mulcair’s Disastrous Kinder Morgan Reversal Opens the Door for the Green Party”, Sudbury Steve May, December 26, 2013). Both of these pipeline projects will facilitate the expansion of the tar sands enterprise – they will lock in future emissions of greenhouse gases, and continue to wed Canada to an unsustainable and economically dangerous fossil fuel resource future.

All of this is happening at a time when the world is finally waking up to the calamity of the climate crisis which is staring us in the face. But rather than embrace proven policies which will lead to real emissions reduction (such as a carbon tax), the NDP wants to leverage tar sands investment to power the renewable energy revolution in Canada. Friends – that’s just not going to work. As long as the tar sands are pumping out more and more oil, Canada’s renewable sector is going to be at risk – even with a price on pollution as envisioned by the NDP in the form of a cap and trade system.

Oh, and about that cap and trade system that the NDP wants to use to price carbon? Why on earth the NDP remains married to this policy I just don’t know. Cap and trade has been a proven failure throughout the world, with carbon markets collapsing, and offset trading negatively impacting indigenous peoples who lose access to lands which have become “carbon sinks”. If you set out to create a policy for reducing emissions which enriches bankers and big business at the expense of common people in the most opaque manner possible, you would arrive at Cap and Trade before too long. Yet that’s where the NDP wants to go.

I realize that we’ve moved a ways from flipping the switch to turn out the lights on a sign to critiquing cap and trade and pipeline policies – but the fact of the matter is all of these signs point to the NDP’s limited grasp of climate change, and what we need to do if we are going to have any hope at all of holding warming at 2 degrees Celsius.

In 2015, a much better option for Sudbury and Nickel Belt would be to say goodbye to Glenn Thibeault and Claude Gravelle and his ever-lit sign. Only the Green Party has a serious plan to shift Canada back into a leadership role on the climate crisis, both domestically and on the international stage. The NDP continues to prove that it is not a progressive party, and that it is little better than the Liberals or the Conservatives with is pro-tar sands growth policies.

If Claude Gravelle won’t turn out his lights by himself, perhaps Nickel Belt voters will do the job for him in 2015.

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