I have been feeling this overwhelming sense of despair, frustration, and good old-fashioned anger these past couple of weeks, as I’ve watched the so-called Robo-Call Scandal unfold. My growing sense of hostility has been largely directed at Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party, who may have broken the law on May 2nd, 2011, by calling non-Conservative voters, pretending to be Elections Canada officials, and misdirecting those voters to incorrect or non-existent polling stations. Right now, it remains to be seen who, exactly, was behind the phone calls (not all of which used Pierre Poutine’s robo-dialler), but evidence is certainly pointing towards someone who must have access to national data stored in the CIMS, the Conservative Party’s voter identification database.
I’ve been following this story through numerous sources, and it’s clear to me that the mainstream media’s reporting isn’t keeping pace with information which is first appearing on the internet from citizen reporters. Of particular interest is a new website which has been put together at http://cdnpo.li/ by tweeter @unfuckwithable (and thanks also to @saskboy for sharing many tweets related to robocalls). I note that the website I’ve identified above encourages everyone not to refer to this as a “scandal”, but to instead call it what it is: “the greatest election fraud in Canadian history”.
Anger
I am angry. I’m angry that it’s taken so long for all of this to come to light, given that Green Party Leader Elizabeth May brought these issues to the attention of Elections Canada back on May 19, 2011. The mainstream media seems to have only caught on about a month and a half ago, after access to information requests made to Elections Canada led to the story to “break”. Not that the public is on the receiving end of much in the way of information, either, given that Elections Canada’s investigation is on-going. When Elections Canada’s CEO Marc Mayrand testified at a conveniently scheduled committee hearing on Parliament Hill in Ottawa last Thursday, Mayrand had little in the way of specifics to share. Nonetheless, as the NDP’s David Christopherson pointed out, it seemed that the Conservatives were intent on burying any story about Mayrand’s testimony in the media, by scheduling his appearance at a time when most regular Hill reporters were in lock-up reviewing the budget.
What happened on May 2, 2011, is bigger than the Guelph riding, which was the first riding identified by Elections Canada as being under investigation. Similar calls were reported to have been made in Toronto and Winnipeg ridings, here in Sudbury, and interestingly in the Nipissing-Timiskaming riding, where incumbent Liberal MP Anthony Rota went down to Conservative candidate Jay Aspin by a mere 18 votes. In all, it seems that as many as 200 ridings might have been impacted. The scope of this fraud is clearly national in scale. It stretches belief to think that it might have been orchestrated and carried out by a single individual. However, the Conservatives have already thrown one junior staffer involved in the Guelph campaign under the bus, and are doing what they can to make sure that all fingers remain pointed at him.
Look, I don’t know who was behind this illegal activity, although based on what I’ve been reading, it’s likely that someone higher up in the Conservative’s central campaign would have been positioned to have the sort of access necessary to order the calls. Matthew Day, aka bluegreenblogger, wrote an excellent piece about this on March 4th, “Mechanics of Robo-Calling: Not a fluke or rogue campaigner. Someone who had Access did these things”.
Media Should Report the Story, Not Take Sides
Right now, I’m still a little willing to wait for more information to come to light before definitively pointing the finger in a specific direction. My gut tells me otherwise, sure, but I’ll stick with the known facts for now, and I think that’s a reasonable approach. Let’s get all of the facts on the table first before anyone or any organization is proclaimed guilty – or let off of the hook.
However, many in the mainstream media (not surprisingly, particularly Sun Media) have already decided that the Conservative Party should be absolved of any wrong-doing, suggesting that it just makes no sense for the Conservatives to jeopardize the electoral outcome by making fraudulent phone calls. This line of reasoning completely ignores the fact that, prior to the evening of May 2nd, 2011, Conservatives did not know whether they would end up in power the next day, or whether Canada would have a new Prime Minister in the form of Jack Layton.
It is beyond reasonable at this time for some in the mainstream media to use their positions of influence to acquit the Conservative Party in the court of public opinion, given the on-going investigation, and the findings of other journalists. Certainly, the actions of the Conservative Party itself since this story broke have been questionable. The Conservatives, unlike the Liberals and the NDP, have been singularly unhelpful in the investigation, besides agreeing to give Elections Canada broader powers to deal with complaints.
What’s even more unhelpful to Canadians is a compliant, political-party friendly media, which would rather spin news stories than write the truth. Increasingly, what can only be called Conservative Party propaganda is being distributed as “news” from some mainstream media outlets, particularly Sun Media, which owns newspapers such as the Sudbury Star. While Sun Media may be the worst offender, it’s clear to me that other media organizations, for whatever reason, are largely content to be echo chambers for political party’s talking points. Call it what you will, but the days of non-partisan investigative journalism are largely behind us now, and our media is starting to inhabit a strange new realm, where it straddles the lines between “info-tainment” and “propaganda”. In the past, our news media may have provided different opinions to media consumers. Today, increasingly, it’s providing different facts. And that is a troubling trend from those who in the past used to champion the public interest.
Answers
Clearly, what’s needed is a national enquiry, which Elizabeth May and the other parties have called for, but which the Conservatives have so far determined that they’re not going to pursue. A public enquiry, however, may be the only way which the public is ever going to get to the bottom of what really happened.
Over the past couple of weeks, the mainstream media’s interest in this story has waned. Two ethical scandals involving Conservative Industry Minister Christian Paradis, an anti-environment budget, and the Auditor-General’s findings slamming the F-35 procurement process have largely changed the media channels on robocalls. That there has been almost a scandal-a-day emanating from the Conservative government over the past month speaks volumes about the fitness of this Party to govern our nation, in my opinion.
Guelph
However, it’s not just the Conservatives who have some explaining to do. In fact, right now, there’s only one Party which appears to have committed a breach to Elections Canada rules through its own admission. Liberal MP Frank Valeriote admitted that one of his campaign workers made calls to electors in Guelph during the 2011 election campaign, in an attempt to assassinate the character of Conservative candidate Marty Burke. It was revealed that the Liberals broke the rules by making the calls anonymously. In an election campaign, you’ve got to identify that you’re calling on behalf of a candidate, and these calls made by the Valeriote campaign had no such identifier (see, “MP Frank Valeriote owes city an apology, election rival says”, Guelph Mercury, March 13/12).
Look, I understand that there’s going to be a certain amount of shenanigans taking place during an election. Yes, I deplore that kind of behaviour, but I understand that it happens. But telling voters that their poll locations have been changed, or engaging in anonymous smear campaigns crosses the line into law-breaking. Keep in mind that election campaigns are largely financed by the public. Almost three quarters of expenses incurred by candidates, including expenses put toward local and national robo-calling, are recouped by political parties after the election. That’s why it behoves political parties and their candidates to follow the rules. In a very real way, these unethical and illegal calls made in Guelph were made at our expense, literally.
As a result of what’s happened in Guelph, I fully expect that Elections Canada will call for a by-election, and at the very least disqualify Valeriote from participating. If it’s found that Conservative campaigners in Guelph were behind the robocalls misdirecting voters, it’s quite within the realm of possibility that Marty Burke may also be prohibited from running in the by-election.
The NDP and Robocalls
The actions of the NDP, too, have come under a lot of scrutiny over the past couple of months, particularly when former NDP MP Lise St-Denis decided to cross the floor and join the Liberal Party. Shortly after her defection, using a telecommunications company push-poll, the NDP organized a flood of robocalls into her parliamentary and constituent offices, disrupting her staff’s ability to carry out important and necessary governmental work. The push-poll did not identify that it was being carried out by the NDP. Those who received the calls were asked to press a button if they disagreed with St-Denis’ decision to change parties, and those pressing the button were routed to St-Denis’ office without their knowledge (see, “NDP dirty tricks campaign in Lise St-Denis’ riding”, ipolitics, January 16/12).
Constituency and parliamentary offices are not political offices. They are locations where citizens of a riding interact with elected officials. They are staffed by individuals on the government’s payroll. These offices are essentially portals for citizens to access our government. They should not be the target of partisan games.
Further, anonymous push-polls are incredibly insulting to people who receive these calls. Common people are being manipulated by political parties into unwittingly taking part in a partisan scheme, in this case one which disrupts the legitimate business of government. That the NDP chose to express its anger on public governmental institutions and by duping unwitting Canadians…well, to me that speaks volumes about how low the NDP is willing to stoop.
The NDP’s defence, of course, hinged on legality. They claimed that the action itself was not illegal, and therefore somehow justified. That was pretty much the same response given by Industry Minister Christian Paradis when it was revealed that he gave special governmental access to non-registered lobbyist and former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer. Yet in that circumstance, the NDP called for Paradis’ head. The NDP has a bit of a reputation for hypocritical behaviour. In my opinion, it continues to be a well-deserved one.
Frustration Boiling Over
I say, A POX ON ALL OF THEIR HOUSES. I am growing tired and angry at the games being played with voters by political parties. Ultimately, democracy itself is the victim when political parties cross legal and ethical lines in partisan attempts to seize or hold onto power. There’s no question that the democratic health of Canada is eroding, as voter turn-out continues to trend downward at all levels, and as Canadians increasingly tune out of politics altogether.
This can’t go on. I know that I’m not the only one who is feeling angry about this. There are simply far too many unjust and unethical games being played by the Conservatives, Liberals and the NDP. I know that many long-time traditional supporters of these parties, including some current members, are disgusted by the actions of the political elites who are making the decisions.
Governing our nation should be about something more than obtaining and holding onto power, yet that appears to be what it’s been reduced to. Whatever happened to good public policy, and putting the interests of Canadians first?
We call our elected officials “public servants”, but I question what’s happened to the idea of public service? In our hyper-partisan political system, where citizen engagement and democracy itself are being victimized by illegal and unethical behaviour, who in Canada is being served by those whom we elect?
This has got to stop. Canadians deserve better.
(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, April 3, 2012
Monday, April 2, 2012
What Does Thomas Mulcair's Leadership of the NDP Mean for the Green Party of Canada?
I’ve been giving a lot of thought lately to what Thomas Mulcair’s recent ascension to the position of Leader of the New Democratic Party (and to Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition) might mean for the Green Party of Canada. What I’ve concluded after considerable thought is that there are too many variables in play right now to be certain of anything, but generally speaking, Mulcair’s leadership of the NDP could ultimately prove to be very problematic for the success of the GPC.
The NDP Leadership Race
In December of 2011, I predicted that Peggy Nash would take the mantle of the NDP’s leadership. My prediction was based on an “anybody but Mulcair” movement arising within the NDP pre-convention, mostly led by Western Canadians. I did not believe that Nathan Cullen would be able to pull off an upset victory, which left only Nash, Topp, and Dewar as serious contenders in my mind (and I had to think that Dewar would be seen to be at a disadvantage, even by Westerners, given his lack of French-language skills). I also did not anticipate that Brian Topp would do as well as he ultimately did, given that I’ve always thought Topp lacks a certain fire in his belly (and I still think this, despite his strong showing at the convention).
For me, Nash was the logical inheritor of Jack Layton’s leadership style, and I figured that the NDP’s membership would have gone looking for more of the same. But even though I picked Nash to win, I had to acknowledge that the needs of Quebec (and maintaining the NDP’s success in that province) might have outweighed the needs of the rest of the Party. But I still didn’t think that the NDP would hand the leadership to someone with such tenuous roots in the Party, and who appeared to want to turn the NDP into the Liberal Party.
But, the NDP has done just that, in choosing Thomas Mulcair as their Leader. And in the process, they might have just chosen the next Prime Minister of Canada, if the Party faithful decide to ride it out.
Tom Mulcair and NDP
First, let me backtrack a little bit. I really don’t believe that Mulcair wants to turn the NDP into the Liberal Party. I’m merely parroting a line which is playing out in the popular media right now. In fact, if you take a close look at the policies which Mulcair is championing, it’s very clear that they are almost entirely those which the NDP membership has approved (and even Mulcair’s position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict can be seen as a nuanced interpretation of the NDP’s policy). Given Mulcair’s clear acknowledgement of the primacy of the Party’s policy, I don’t at all buy that he wants to turn the NDP into the Liberals.
That Mulcair is gunning for support from disenchanted Liberals, however, is quite clear. And who can blame him? The NDP, in picking Mulcair over any of the other candidates (except possibly Nathan Cullen) have determined that they want their Party to govern, rather than to continue to exist as an opposition party. Selecting Brian Topp would almost certainly have guaranteed that Government would have continued to elude the NDP, as Topp, who lacks much in the way of personality, would have had his character broadly assassinated by the Conservatives well in advance of the 2015 election. Likely the same fate would have befallen Nash too (although not necessarily, despite the fact that she and Topp have strong histories with organized labour. I believe that if the Cons would have tried to vilify Nash, there might have been a backlash, especially amongst women voters. But Topp would have been completely destroyed, in my opinion).
The Conservatives are going to have a much harder time defining Thomas Mulcair on their own terms, I believe, given Mulcair’s credentials, and his character, along with his lack of roots in the NDP. Not that this means the Cons won’t try, and maybe they’ll even succeed. Ultimately, the success of the NDP is going to in part be decided on just how successful the attacks from the Conservative Party are.
The NDP and Quebec: Two Solitudes
If Mulcair is vulnerable anywhere, though, it’s on his support for the NDP’s policy related to Quebec, and the Party’s propensity to say one thing to the English-language media, and another to the French-language media. Jack Layton used this approach to his advantage, and Mulcair recently went there, providing two quite-different analyses of last week’s budget to the two different audiences (see: “Mulcair issues two budget messages: One to Quebecers, one to Canadians”, ipolitics, Monday April 2/12)
Coupled with the NDP’s Supreme Court-defying Sherbrooke Declaration regarding the threshold for the success of a Quebec referendum on separation, a good case could be made that the NDP is pandering to Quebec nationalists at the expense of the rest of Canada. While this might play well in Quebec (unless Quebecers decide to choose the real thing in 2015 in a resurgent Bloc Quebecois, rather than the NDP’s pale imitation), it may yet prove to be Mulcair’s Achilles Heel in the rest of Canada.
However, if Canadians find themselves clamouring for change in 2015 (and I think that after 4 more years of despicable, mean-spirited government by the Conservatives, they will be), the NDP’s soft-on-separatists stance might be overlooked, especially if a fire-breathing Mulcair can demonstrate that he’s got what it takes to also be Prime Ministerial. And since Mulcair now has some time to start acting like a Prime Minister in-waiting, I have little doubt that he will present a credible rallying point for progressives and others disenchanted with Harperism.
Good for the NDP, Not-so-Good for Greens
Mulcair’s popularity ultimately spells bad news for the Green Party of Canada, which will continue to experience difficulties in getting its message out to voters. Although the Green Party is not a party of the left, the mainstream media continues to portray it as such (just as the MSM continues to insist that the Liberal Party is a party of the left – and perhaps in contrast to the Conservative Party, the Liberals are just that, but anyone who takes a critical look at the Liberal Party would never conclude that they’re left-wing).
So, if the Green Party continues to be portrayed as a left-wing party, despite it being so, and voters are flocking to the NDP and Thomas Mulcair with the hopes of defeating Harper, Greens will continue to be overlooked except maybe in a few ridings where strong candidates can make a case for serious contention through the sheer force of their personality (and believe you me, the Green Party has not been cultivating these types of politicians, and isn’t likely to enlist many “star candidates” for the upcoming election).
Another problem for the Green Party is Thomas Mulcair’s perceived focus on the environment. Already, in a way that Jack Layton never did, Mulcair has come out as a strong fighter for all things environmental. It’s clear to me that he “gets it”, more so than most in his Party. As a former provincial Minister for the Environment in Jean Charest’s Quebec Liberal government, I guess that’s to be expected.
Sure, I completely disagree with Thomas Mulcair’s championing the NDP’s Cap and Trade carbon pricing policy, but let’s face it, amongst the average voter, the best mechanism for putting a price on carbon likely pales in importance to the notion of being seen to want to take action on the environment, and maybe moving towards a low-carbon economy. I know that there are many others who share my concerns about Cap and Trade, and some of them are within the NDP, but in the grand scheme of things, let’s face it: Mulcair is going to talk the talk on the environment and will make carbon pricing a decent component in the 2015 election campaign. And that should go over well in Quebec.
Voters who are concerned about the environment will be left with a choice of whether to support the Green Party because we Greens have better policy, or whether to support the NDP because they might form government and actually be able to implement an inferior policy (but one perceived as taking necessary action nonetheless). I would think that most voters, if those were the only two choices, would be inclined to choose action.
Wild Cards for Mulcair: Quebec
Generally, then, it seems that Mulcair might prove to be an extremely significant threat to the Green Party. But there are a couple of wild cards which could end up hobbling Mulcair.
First, there’s Quebec itself. As much as I’m reluctant to put much faith in polling (especially lately, as there’s been a bit of an unorganized effort to mislead pollsters), the fact is that the Bloc Quebecois seems to be gaining in popularity in Quebec. Should the Bloc continue to rebuild itself, it’s quite possible that the NDP could start to be seen as a one-hit wonder, with a best-before date well in advance of the 2015 election. A resurgent Bloc could force the NDP to try even harder to hold onto its Quebec seats (which is likely the approach they’ll take), which might mean that the perception of the NDP acting in the interests of the rest of Canada might continue to take a bit of a beating. This will be problematic in the West in particular, and it’s in British Columbia where the Green Party probably has the best opportunity for additional electoral success.
Alternatively, the NDP might decide to write-off holding onto Quebec, in which case they’ll move towards more centrist policies in a bid to pick up suburban ridings in Ontario (and possibly Calgary/Edmonton) and focus on the West. This strategy too favours the Green Party, as a more centrist NDP which starts emphasising the needs of the West will have to tone down the rhetoric on environmental policies. This would certainly create some room for the GPC on the B.C. coast, and possibly in southwestern Ontario. But I can’t see the NDP abandoning Quebec.
Although it may be likely that the NDP tries to do both: shore up Quebec with pro-environmental rhetoric in French, and pander to the west by de-emphasising the environment. This approach too could favour the Green Party, as Greens are not especially strong in Quebec, and could stand to gain by making a strong case the NDP is the Party of greenwashing. Or jump on the “NDP = Pro-Separatist” bandwagon.
However, I’m personally not ready to get excited about a resurgent Bloc Quebecois. I have to here put the interests of my country ahead of the interests of my Party, and I’d certainly be very pleased to see the Bloc bumped into oblivion in the next election. It galls me to no end that in their pursuit of power, the NDP have played partisan politics by pandering to separatists in Quebec. For me, the NDP absolutely and clearly lacks principles when it comes to Quebec’s role within a united Canada, and I stand with former Liberal Leader and Clarity Act author Stephane Dion on NDP’s Sherbrooke Declaration (see, “Stephane Dion: NDP’s separatist pandering threatens national unity”, National Post, March 12/12).
We here in Northern Ontario should be particularly incensed that our NDP MP’s continue to support their Party’s playing to both sides in the separation issue, at the risk of our nation.
So that’s why I can’t get excited about a resurgent Bloc, even if it would benefit the electoral chances for Greens elsewhere.
The British Columbia Wild Card
Another wild card for consideration will be the role which Thomas Mulcair assigns to former leadership candidate and B.C. MP Nathan Cullen. Cullen himself is rapidly becoming a significant rallying point within the NDP, and if Cullen eventually emerges as the NDP’s B.C. deputy (which isn’t an official position, but it’s fair to suggest that NDP MP and Deputy Party Leader Libby Davies currently occupies that role), it could spell bad news for Greens, given his rising popularity.
Either way, though, British Columbia will remain an electoral battleground in 2015. What might work in favour of the Green Party would be the election of an NDP provincial government in B.C. next year, as the B.C. provincial Liberals seem set on a path to self-destruction at the hands of both the NDP and the new Conservative Party. How could an orange wave at the provincial level in 2013 benefit Greens in B.C.? Conventional wisdom would seem to suggest that a popular provincial government should pay dividends for federal cousins, and I actually buy into that argument. The problem in B.C. for the NDP, however, is that I have absolute confidence that an Adrian Dix-led provincial government will reveal itself to be an unmitigated disaster for that province by the time the federal election is called. While this should create new opportunities for Conservatives, it also should create some room for the Greens.
Of course, if the B.C. Green Party figures out a way to send a Green to Victoria in 2013, that too would be a big help for the GPC in B.C. That’s why Greens involved in the national party should be prepared to lend a hand to Jane Sterk’s B.C. Greens right now, and throughout the provincial campaign.
The Televised Leaders Debates
Finally, there is the last wild card: will Thomas Mulcair and Stephen Harper get together as Layton and Harper did in 2011 (and tried to do in 2008) to deny Green Party Leader Elizabeth May a seat at the televised Leader’s debate? Certainly, it is within the interests of both Party leaders to do so, and the NDP has the added motivation of also denying the Bloc a voice in the debate, now that the Bloc rump of 4 seats in the House is no longer considered an “Official Party”.
It’s true that based on past precedent, the Bloc and the Greens shouldn’t have anything to worry about, as with at least one sitting member in the House, the Broadcast Consortium has invited Party leaders to attend. But what might be different this time is that we have in Harper and Mulcair two very strong, communications-focussed personalities who are not afraid to mix it up in a hyper-partisan setting. Mulcair, though, might decide that he’d be playing with fire if he were to try to deny Daniel Paille, the Bloc’s Leader, an opportunity to debate. However, if some kind of Commons Committee could be struck to ultimately lay down non-partisan ground rules for televised leaders’ debates, and should that Committee conclude that only the leaders of “official” parties be invited to the debates, than Mulcair would be able to say that his hands were tied, and that the decision was not his. That would mean no Bloc, and no Green Party.
And the message to Canadians would be, once again, that the Green Party is not to be taken seriously by the electorate. May’s lack of participation in the 2011 televised debates was probably the biggest factor in seeing a reduction of the popular vote, and probably helped contributed to the NDP’s strong showing. Certainly the debates themselves, which is where Jack Layton started to turn the election around to his advantage, would have proven quite different had May been there.
Green Party Electoral Success Strategy
Ultimately, though, the electoral success of the Green Party of Canada lies with the Green Party itself. The Party needs to develop a workable strategy for the election of several MP’s, which wisely utilizes our scarce resources. An aggressive fundraising strategy must also be waged over the next several years. And the recruitment of some “star” candidates to run in key ridings certainly wouldn’t hurt.
Name Recognition
In fact, the Green Party may be developing two home-grown stars right now in the form of our Deputy Leaders. Adriane Carr was recently elected to the City of Vancouver’s municipal council, where she is developing a great reputation for herself as the lone Green on Council. Although Carr has in the past underperformed in her Vancouver Centre federal riding, with her name recognition increasing every day due to exposure on Council (as well as a result of the time she’s invested into the riding), it may finally come to pass that Vancouver Centre could go Green, presuming that the Party can persuade Carr to run in the next election.
And then there’s Deputy Party Leader Georges Laraque, who brings with him wherever he goes a considerable name recognition and a great public story to tell. Laraque insisted that he wasn’t ready to run in 2011, and that ultimately was probably for the best. A more-seasoned Laraque should definitely be persuaded to step up to the plate in a key riding in 2015 (or, hopefully before then, so that he can begin acting like an MP-in-waiting), and the Party should do what it can to support him and the electoral district to which he will belong. Although Laraque hails from Montreal, I sincerely hope that he chooses a riding in Edmonton, where he currently resides part-time. Despite the Conservative’s stranglehold on Alberta ridings, there remains a level of dissent, especially in the urban areas of Calgary and (especially) Edmonton which a star candidate for a progressive party could exploit. Laraque could very well be that star. And the right Edmonton might prove a lot more Green-friendly than any Quebec riding, which is sure to find itself a battleground between the NDP, Bloc and even the Liberals.
Targeted Ridings
Beyond that, the Party should be targeting ridings on Vancouver Island and the lower B.C. mainland, especially those currently held by Conservatives. These ridings would more easily benefit from visits by Green Party Leader Elizabeth May during and before the campaign, being geographically close to May’s riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands. Further, television advertising dollars would go a lot further if they were regionally focussed, rather than nationally. That this strategy may mean that most other Canadian ridings will once again be left on their own should not deter Green Party supporters outside of B.C. A stronger contingent of Greens in Ottawa will ultimately only benefit the Party. And right now, B.C. is where the Party’s best hope is.
However, the Green Party may have a few other regions which it should not lose sight of, and depending on which way the wind is blowing, we should be prepared to make some strategic interventions. This could include by-elections, but it should not automatically include every by-election, as our foray into Jack Layton’s old riding of Toronto-Danforth showed.
First and foremost in my mind is the Ontario riding of Guelph, where Greens have shown some past strengths. The robocall scandal investigation by Elections Canada originated in Guelph, and interestingly one of the first casualties of the scandal has been Liberal MP Frank Valeriote, who had to admit to and apologize for a campaign worker calling homes in Guelph in a bid to assassinate the character of the Conservative Party candidate Marty Burke on the issue of abortion (see, “MP Frank Valeriote owes city an apology, election rival says”, Guelph Mercury, March 13/12). Those calls were made from Valeriote’s campaign office, but the caller failed to identify herself as making those calls on behalf of the Valeriote campaign. That’s a violation of Elections Canada rules, and that Valeriote has gotten off lightly for this in the media doesn’t change the fact. Even with the apology, I have to think that voters in Guelph are getting mighty upset at being played by both the Liberals and the Conservatives. Sure, the NDP has also proven to be somewhat strong in Guelph, but I think that there may be some opportunity for Greens on the ground there, presuming that there remain enough Greens on the ground in Guelph to wage an effective campaign (and honestly, I’m not certain that there are). If Elections Canada’s investigation reveals significant voter suppression activities in Guelph, given the Valeriote campaign’s rule-breaking, Greens should be calling for a by-election in the interests of democracy.
Green Party President John Streiker ran a pretty good campaign in the Yukon in 2011, finishing 3rd behind the Conservatives and Liberals with almost 19% of the vote. The Yukon is a bit of a funny riding, in that it’s voters aren’t afraid to shift around between Cons-Libs-NDP (Yukon is currently held by the Cons, who took it from the Liberals, and it was the riding held by former NDP Leader Audrey McLaughlin). If the winds of change are blowing Conservatives out of office in 2015, it’s quite possible that the Yukon could see a 4-way vote split, with the Greens coming up the middle. Or an outright Streiker victory. But it’s going to be a hard-fought battleground.
But there may be opportunities for Greens in those ridings where a strong candidate and a split vote lead to an upset. With a strong Conservative campaign in 2011 and a strong history of Liberal voting, Sudbury itself could prove to be one of those ridings, despite the relative popularity of our NDP MP Glenn Thibeault in the last election.
If Thomas Mulcair steps into a national unity crisis precipitated by the NDP’s coddling to the separatists, it’s within the realm of possibility that NDP MP’s could be directly defeated by Greens outside of Quebec, but it’s going to depend on a vote split and a strong performance by Leader Elizabeth May in the televised debates. Those ridings, however, should not count on national party support to any significant degree. We need to continue to put our eggs into well-defined baskets. And we can’t wait for 2015 to begin ramping up spending. But that doesn’t mean that non-targeted ridings shouldn’t be giving it all that we’ve got. Look at what happened to the NDP in Quebec, where some MP’s were elected without campaigning or even spending a dime.
It’s important for the Party to identify targeted ridings now, and get nominated candidates in place sooner rather than later, in order to start the process of public exposure. Too often Green Party candidates are unknown within their own communities come election day, and part of this has to do with late nomination processes. We have the luxury of time now between this moment and 2015, and at least one unknown, the Leader of the NDP, has now been determined.
Greens: Look for Opportunities to Exploit
Yes, we Greens are going to have an uphill battle, as the NDP has decided to go with a strong leader who is perceived as being less-ideologically motivated than some of the other choices which didn’t make the cut. Sure, Thomas Mulcair is going to have to walk a bit of a tightrope between now and 2015, but if there is anyone in his Party who is positioned to pull it off, it’s him. And even though the level of Conservative Party scandals which we’ve become used to can’t possibly be sustainable, I’m certain that the Cons will continue to hand ammunition to all opposition parties between now and the next election.
It’s a given that the Green Party of Canada stands in stark opposition to the Conservative Party. What isn’t as apparent, however, is that there are numerous policy positions on which Greens and the NDP disagree. And while it’s true that on some issues, there is a fair degree of policy overlap between the two parties, the NDP’s relentless pursuit of power at all costs (including that Party’s own principles) stands in stark contrast to the Green Party, which wouldn’t know how to be effectively partisan with a month-long summer camp crash course.
I believe that it’s time for the Green Party to begin better defining itself in relation to the NDP, rather than to the Conservative Party. Ultimately, it’s the NDP who we are going to battle at the polls in the next election, now that the NDP itself has decided to put its own partisan interests and success ahead of the good of Canada by giving Thomas Mulcair the leadership. Mulcair has vowed that there is to be no electoral co-operation with the other parties in 2015, and has just as much zeal and desire to destroy the Liberal Party as Stephen Harper has expressed. Canadians already understand that the Green Party stands in stark contrast to the Conservative Party. What we need to do now is tell Canadians that we are different from the NDP, particularly under the leadership of Thomas Mulcair. A part of that story should be the Green Party’s unabashed support of Canadian federalism.
And finally, even if Greens end up being squeezed in 2015, let’s keep in mind that an NDP government may prove to be the disaster that the mainstream media believes it will be. Even if it’s not an unmitigated disaster, given the lack of support that the NDP has in an increasingly right-wing media, it’s within the realm of probability that any NDP government will find itself limited to one-term, and facing a voter backlash. In that potential future electoral environment may lie the seeds of considerable success for the Green Party. We just need to be ready to exploit 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)
The NDP Leadership Race
In December of 2011, I predicted that Peggy Nash would take the mantle of the NDP’s leadership. My prediction was based on an “anybody but Mulcair” movement arising within the NDP pre-convention, mostly led by Western Canadians. I did not believe that Nathan Cullen would be able to pull off an upset victory, which left only Nash, Topp, and Dewar as serious contenders in my mind (and I had to think that Dewar would be seen to be at a disadvantage, even by Westerners, given his lack of French-language skills). I also did not anticipate that Brian Topp would do as well as he ultimately did, given that I’ve always thought Topp lacks a certain fire in his belly (and I still think this, despite his strong showing at the convention).
For me, Nash was the logical inheritor of Jack Layton’s leadership style, and I figured that the NDP’s membership would have gone looking for more of the same. But even though I picked Nash to win, I had to acknowledge that the needs of Quebec (and maintaining the NDP’s success in that province) might have outweighed the needs of the rest of the Party. But I still didn’t think that the NDP would hand the leadership to someone with such tenuous roots in the Party, and who appeared to want to turn the NDP into the Liberal Party.
But, the NDP has done just that, in choosing Thomas Mulcair as their Leader. And in the process, they might have just chosen the next Prime Minister of Canada, if the Party faithful decide to ride it out.
Tom Mulcair and NDP
First, let me backtrack a little bit. I really don’t believe that Mulcair wants to turn the NDP into the Liberal Party. I’m merely parroting a line which is playing out in the popular media right now. In fact, if you take a close look at the policies which Mulcair is championing, it’s very clear that they are almost entirely those which the NDP membership has approved (and even Mulcair’s position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict can be seen as a nuanced interpretation of the NDP’s policy). Given Mulcair’s clear acknowledgement of the primacy of the Party’s policy, I don’t at all buy that he wants to turn the NDP into the Liberals.
That Mulcair is gunning for support from disenchanted Liberals, however, is quite clear. And who can blame him? The NDP, in picking Mulcair over any of the other candidates (except possibly Nathan Cullen) have determined that they want their Party to govern, rather than to continue to exist as an opposition party. Selecting Brian Topp would almost certainly have guaranteed that Government would have continued to elude the NDP, as Topp, who lacks much in the way of personality, would have had his character broadly assassinated by the Conservatives well in advance of the 2015 election. Likely the same fate would have befallen Nash too (although not necessarily, despite the fact that she and Topp have strong histories with organized labour. I believe that if the Cons would have tried to vilify Nash, there might have been a backlash, especially amongst women voters. But Topp would have been completely destroyed, in my opinion).
The Conservatives are going to have a much harder time defining Thomas Mulcair on their own terms, I believe, given Mulcair’s credentials, and his character, along with his lack of roots in the NDP. Not that this means the Cons won’t try, and maybe they’ll even succeed. Ultimately, the success of the NDP is going to in part be decided on just how successful the attacks from the Conservative Party are.
The NDP and Quebec: Two Solitudes
If Mulcair is vulnerable anywhere, though, it’s on his support for the NDP’s policy related to Quebec, and the Party’s propensity to say one thing to the English-language media, and another to the French-language media. Jack Layton used this approach to his advantage, and Mulcair recently went there, providing two quite-different analyses of last week’s budget to the two different audiences (see: “Mulcair issues two budget messages: One to Quebecers, one to Canadians”, ipolitics, Monday April 2/12)
Coupled with the NDP’s Supreme Court-defying Sherbrooke Declaration regarding the threshold for the success of a Quebec referendum on separation, a good case could be made that the NDP is pandering to Quebec nationalists at the expense of the rest of Canada. While this might play well in Quebec (unless Quebecers decide to choose the real thing in 2015 in a resurgent Bloc Quebecois, rather than the NDP’s pale imitation), it may yet prove to be Mulcair’s Achilles Heel in the rest of Canada.
However, if Canadians find themselves clamouring for change in 2015 (and I think that after 4 more years of despicable, mean-spirited government by the Conservatives, they will be), the NDP’s soft-on-separatists stance might be overlooked, especially if a fire-breathing Mulcair can demonstrate that he’s got what it takes to also be Prime Ministerial. And since Mulcair now has some time to start acting like a Prime Minister in-waiting, I have little doubt that he will present a credible rallying point for progressives and others disenchanted with Harperism.
Good for the NDP, Not-so-Good for Greens
Mulcair’s popularity ultimately spells bad news for the Green Party of Canada, which will continue to experience difficulties in getting its message out to voters. Although the Green Party is not a party of the left, the mainstream media continues to portray it as such (just as the MSM continues to insist that the Liberal Party is a party of the left – and perhaps in contrast to the Conservative Party, the Liberals are just that, but anyone who takes a critical look at the Liberal Party would never conclude that they’re left-wing).
So, if the Green Party continues to be portrayed as a left-wing party, despite it being so, and voters are flocking to the NDP and Thomas Mulcair with the hopes of defeating Harper, Greens will continue to be overlooked except maybe in a few ridings where strong candidates can make a case for serious contention through the sheer force of their personality (and believe you me, the Green Party has not been cultivating these types of politicians, and isn’t likely to enlist many “star candidates” for the upcoming election).
Another problem for the Green Party is Thomas Mulcair’s perceived focus on the environment. Already, in a way that Jack Layton never did, Mulcair has come out as a strong fighter for all things environmental. It’s clear to me that he “gets it”, more so than most in his Party. As a former provincial Minister for the Environment in Jean Charest’s Quebec Liberal government, I guess that’s to be expected.
Sure, I completely disagree with Thomas Mulcair’s championing the NDP’s Cap and Trade carbon pricing policy, but let’s face it, amongst the average voter, the best mechanism for putting a price on carbon likely pales in importance to the notion of being seen to want to take action on the environment, and maybe moving towards a low-carbon economy. I know that there are many others who share my concerns about Cap and Trade, and some of them are within the NDP, but in the grand scheme of things, let’s face it: Mulcair is going to talk the talk on the environment and will make carbon pricing a decent component in the 2015 election campaign. And that should go over well in Quebec.
Voters who are concerned about the environment will be left with a choice of whether to support the Green Party because we Greens have better policy, or whether to support the NDP because they might form government and actually be able to implement an inferior policy (but one perceived as taking necessary action nonetheless). I would think that most voters, if those were the only two choices, would be inclined to choose action.
Wild Cards for Mulcair: Quebec
Generally, then, it seems that Mulcair might prove to be an extremely significant threat to the Green Party. But there are a couple of wild cards which could end up hobbling Mulcair.
First, there’s Quebec itself. As much as I’m reluctant to put much faith in polling (especially lately, as there’s been a bit of an unorganized effort to mislead pollsters), the fact is that the Bloc Quebecois seems to be gaining in popularity in Quebec. Should the Bloc continue to rebuild itself, it’s quite possible that the NDP could start to be seen as a one-hit wonder, with a best-before date well in advance of the 2015 election. A resurgent Bloc could force the NDP to try even harder to hold onto its Quebec seats (which is likely the approach they’ll take), which might mean that the perception of the NDP acting in the interests of the rest of Canada might continue to take a bit of a beating. This will be problematic in the West in particular, and it’s in British Columbia where the Green Party probably has the best opportunity for additional electoral success.
Alternatively, the NDP might decide to write-off holding onto Quebec, in which case they’ll move towards more centrist policies in a bid to pick up suburban ridings in Ontario (and possibly Calgary/Edmonton) and focus on the West. This strategy too favours the Green Party, as a more centrist NDP which starts emphasising the needs of the West will have to tone down the rhetoric on environmental policies. This would certainly create some room for the GPC on the B.C. coast, and possibly in southwestern Ontario. But I can’t see the NDP abandoning Quebec.
Although it may be likely that the NDP tries to do both: shore up Quebec with pro-environmental rhetoric in French, and pander to the west by de-emphasising the environment. This approach too could favour the Green Party, as Greens are not especially strong in Quebec, and could stand to gain by making a strong case the NDP is the Party of greenwashing. Or jump on the “NDP = Pro-Separatist” bandwagon.
However, I’m personally not ready to get excited about a resurgent Bloc Quebecois. I have to here put the interests of my country ahead of the interests of my Party, and I’d certainly be very pleased to see the Bloc bumped into oblivion in the next election. It galls me to no end that in their pursuit of power, the NDP have played partisan politics by pandering to separatists in Quebec. For me, the NDP absolutely and clearly lacks principles when it comes to Quebec’s role within a united Canada, and I stand with former Liberal Leader and Clarity Act author Stephane Dion on NDP’s Sherbrooke Declaration (see, “Stephane Dion: NDP’s separatist pandering threatens national unity”, National Post, March 12/12).
We here in Northern Ontario should be particularly incensed that our NDP MP’s continue to support their Party’s playing to both sides in the separation issue, at the risk of our nation.
So that’s why I can’t get excited about a resurgent Bloc, even if it would benefit the electoral chances for Greens elsewhere.
The British Columbia Wild Card
Another wild card for consideration will be the role which Thomas Mulcair assigns to former leadership candidate and B.C. MP Nathan Cullen. Cullen himself is rapidly becoming a significant rallying point within the NDP, and if Cullen eventually emerges as the NDP’s B.C. deputy (which isn’t an official position, but it’s fair to suggest that NDP MP and Deputy Party Leader Libby Davies currently occupies that role), it could spell bad news for Greens, given his rising popularity.
Either way, though, British Columbia will remain an electoral battleground in 2015. What might work in favour of the Green Party would be the election of an NDP provincial government in B.C. next year, as the B.C. provincial Liberals seem set on a path to self-destruction at the hands of both the NDP and the new Conservative Party. How could an orange wave at the provincial level in 2013 benefit Greens in B.C.? Conventional wisdom would seem to suggest that a popular provincial government should pay dividends for federal cousins, and I actually buy into that argument. The problem in B.C. for the NDP, however, is that I have absolute confidence that an Adrian Dix-led provincial government will reveal itself to be an unmitigated disaster for that province by the time the federal election is called. While this should create new opportunities for Conservatives, it also should create some room for the Greens.
Of course, if the B.C. Green Party figures out a way to send a Green to Victoria in 2013, that too would be a big help for the GPC in B.C. That’s why Greens involved in the national party should be prepared to lend a hand to Jane Sterk’s B.C. Greens right now, and throughout the provincial campaign.
The Televised Leaders Debates
Finally, there is the last wild card: will Thomas Mulcair and Stephen Harper get together as Layton and Harper did in 2011 (and tried to do in 2008) to deny Green Party Leader Elizabeth May a seat at the televised Leader’s debate? Certainly, it is within the interests of both Party leaders to do so, and the NDP has the added motivation of also denying the Bloc a voice in the debate, now that the Bloc rump of 4 seats in the House is no longer considered an “Official Party”.
It’s true that based on past precedent, the Bloc and the Greens shouldn’t have anything to worry about, as with at least one sitting member in the House, the Broadcast Consortium has invited Party leaders to attend. But what might be different this time is that we have in Harper and Mulcair two very strong, communications-focussed personalities who are not afraid to mix it up in a hyper-partisan setting. Mulcair, though, might decide that he’d be playing with fire if he were to try to deny Daniel Paille, the Bloc’s Leader, an opportunity to debate. However, if some kind of Commons Committee could be struck to ultimately lay down non-partisan ground rules for televised leaders’ debates, and should that Committee conclude that only the leaders of “official” parties be invited to the debates, than Mulcair would be able to say that his hands were tied, and that the decision was not his. That would mean no Bloc, and no Green Party.
And the message to Canadians would be, once again, that the Green Party is not to be taken seriously by the electorate. May’s lack of participation in the 2011 televised debates was probably the biggest factor in seeing a reduction of the popular vote, and probably helped contributed to the NDP’s strong showing. Certainly the debates themselves, which is where Jack Layton started to turn the election around to his advantage, would have proven quite different had May been there.
Green Party Electoral Success Strategy
Ultimately, though, the electoral success of the Green Party of Canada lies with the Green Party itself. The Party needs to develop a workable strategy for the election of several MP’s, which wisely utilizes our scarce resources. An aggressive fundraising strategy must also be waged over the next several years. And the recruitment of some “star” candidates to run in key ridings certainly wouldn’t hurt.
Name Recognition
In fact, the Green Party may be developing two home-grown stars right now in the form of our Deputy Leaders. Adriane Carr was recently elected to the City of Vancouver’s municipal council, where she is developing a great reputation for herself as the lone Green on Council. Although Carr has in the past underperformed in her Vancouver Centre federal riding, with her name recognition increasing every day due to exposure on Council (as well as a result of the time she’s invested into the riding), it may finally come to pass that Vancouver Centre could go Green, presuming that the Party can persuade Carr to run in the next election.
And then there’s Deputy Party Leader Georges Laraque, who brings with him wherever he goes a considerable name recognition and a great public story to tell. Laraque insisted that he wasn’t ready to run in 2011, and that ultimately was probably for the best. A more-seasoned Laraque should definitely be persuaded to step up to the plate in a key riding in 2015 (or, hopefully before then, so that he can begin acting like an MP-in-waiting), and the Party should do what it can to support him and the electoral district to which he will belong. Although Laraque hails from Montreal, I sincerely hope that he chooses a riding in Edmonton, where he currently resides part-time. Despite the Conservative’s stranglehold on Alberta ridings, there remains a level of dissent, especially in the urban areas of Calgary and (especially) Edmonton which a star candidate for a progressive party could exploit. Laraque could very well be that star. And the right Edmonton might prove a lot more Green-friendly than any Quebec riding, which is sure to find itself a battleground between the NDP, Bloc and even the Liberals.
Targeted Ridings
Beyond that, the Party should be targeting ridings on Vancouver Island and the lower B.C. mainland, especially those currently held by Conservatives. These ridings would more easily benefit from visits by Green Party Leader Elizabeth May during and before the campaign, being geographically close to May’s riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands. Further, television advertising dollars would go a lot further if they were regionally focussed, rather than nationally. That this strategy may mean that most other Canadian ridings will once again be left on their own should not deter Green Party supporters outside of B.C. A stronger contingent of Greens in Ottawa will ultimately only benefit the Party. And right now, B.C. is where the Party’s best hope is.
However, the Green Party may have a few other regions which it should not lose sight of, and depending on which way the wind is blowing, we should be prepared to make some strategic interventions. This could include by-elections, but it should not automatically include every by-election, as our foray into Jack Layton’s old riding of Toronto-Danforth showed.
First and foremost in my mind is the Ontario riding of Guelph, where Greens have shown some past strengths. The robocall scandal investigation by Elections Canada originated in Guelph, and interestingly one of the first casualties of the scandal has been Liberal MP Frank Valeriote, who had to admit to and apologize for a campaign worker calling homes in Guelph in a bid to assassinate the character of the Conservative Party candidate Marty Burke on the issue of abortion (see, “MP Frank Valeriote owes city an apology, election rival says”, Guelph Mercury, March 13/12). Those calls were made from Valeriote’s campaign office, but the caller failed to identify herself as making those calls on behalf of the Valeriote campaign. That’s a violation of Elections Canada rules, and that Valeriote has gotten off lightly for this in the media doesn’t change the fact. Even with the apology, I have to think that voters in Guelph are getting mighty upset at being played by both the Liberals and the Conservatives. Sure, the NDP has also proven to be somewhat strong in Guelph, but I think that there may be some opportunity for Greens on the ground there, presuming that there remain enough Greens on the ground in Guelph to wage an effective campaign (and honestly, I’m not certain that there are). If Elections Canada’s investigation reveals significant voter suppression activities in Guelph, given the Valeriote campaign’s rule-breaking, Greens should be calling for a by-election in the interests of democracy.
Green Party President John Streiker ran a pretty good campaign in the Yukon in 2011, finishing 3rd behind the Conservatives and Liberals with almost 19% of the vote. The Yukon is a bit of a funny riding, in that it’s voters aren’t afraid to shift around between Cons-Libs-NDP (Yukon is currently held by the Cons, who took it from the Liberals, and it was the riding held by former NDP Leader Audrey McLaughlin). If the winds of change are blowing Conservatives out of office in 2015, it’s quite possible that the Yukon could see a 4-way vote split, with the Greens coming up the middle. Or an outright Streiker victory. But it’s going to be a hard-fought battleground.
But there may be opportunities for Greens in those ridings where a strong candidate and a split vote lead to an upset. With a strong Conservative campaign in 2011 and a strong history of Liberal voting, Sudbury itself could prove to be one of those ridings, despite the relative popularity of our NDP MP Glenn Thibeault in the last election.
If Thomas Mulcair steps into a national unity crisis precipitated by the NDP’s coddling to the separatists, it’s within the realm of possibility that NDP MP’s could be directly defeated by Greens outside of Quebec, but it’s going to depend on a vote split and a strong performance by Leader Elizabeth May in the televised debates. Those ridings, however, should not count on national party support to any significant degree. We need to continue to put our eggs into well-defined baskets. And we can’t wait for 2015 to begin ramping up spending. But that doesn’t mean that non-targeted ridings shouldn’t be giving it all that we’ve got. Look at what happened to the NDP in Quebec, where some MP’s were elected without campaigning or even spending a dime.
It’s important for the Party to identify targeted ridings now, and get nominated candidates in place sooner rather than later, in order to start the process of public exposure. Too often Green Party candidates are unknown within their own communities come election day, and part of this has to do with late nomination processes. We have the luxury of time now between this moment and 2015, and at least one unknown, the Leader of the NDP, has now been determined.
Greens: Look for Opportunities to Exploit
Yes, we Greens are going to have an uphill battle, as the NDP has decided to go with a strong leader who is perceived as being less-ideologically motivated than some of the other choices which didn’t make the cut. Sure, Thomas Mulcair is going to have to walk a bit of a tightrope between now and 2015, but if there is anyone in his Party who is positioned to pull it off, it’s him. And even though the level of Conservative Party scandals which we’ve become used to can’t possibly be sustainable, I’m certain that the Cons will continue to hand ammunition to all opposition parties between now and the next election.
It’s a given that the Green Party of Canada stands in stark opposition to the Conservative Party. What isn’t as apparent, however, is that there are numerous policy positions on which Greens and the NDP disagree. And while it’s true that on some issues, there is a fair degree of policy overlap between the two parties, the NDP’s relentless pursuit of power at all costs (including that Party’s own principles) stands in stark contrast to the Green Party, which wouldn’t know how to be effectively partisan with a month-long summer camp crash course.
I believe that it’s time for the Green Party to begin better defining itself in relation to the NDP, rather than to the Conservative Party. Ultimately, it’s the NDP who we are going to battle at the polls in the next election, now that the NDP itself has decided to put its own partisan interests and success ahead of the good of Canada by giving Thomas Mulcair the leadership. Mulcair has vowed that there is to be no electoral co-operation with the other parties in 2015, and has just as much zeal and desire to destroy the Liberal Party as Stephen Harper has expressed. Canadians already understand that the Green Party stands in stark contrast to the Conservative Party. What we need to do now is tell Canadians that we are different from the NDP, particularly under the leadership of Thomas Mulcair. A part of that story should be the Green Party’s unabashed support of Canadian federalism.
And finally, even if Greens end up being squeezed in 2015, let’s keep in mind that an NDP government may prove to be the disaster that the mainstream media believes it will be. Even if it’s not an unmitigated disaster, given the lack of support that the NDP has in an increasingly right-wing media, it’s within the realm of probability that any NDP government will find itself limited to one-term, and facing a voter backlash. In that potential future electoral environment may lie the seeds of considerable success for the Green Party. We just need to be ready to exploit 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)
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Tom Mulcair and the Tar Sands: One Step Forward, One Step Back
I’ve had the opportunity to consider New Democratic Party leadership contender Thomas Mulcair’s article, “Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Country” published online in Policy Options Magazine. It’s an excellent article by Mulcair, who was Quebec’s Environment Minister prior to resigning from the provincial Liberal Party and running federally for the NDP in the Montreal riding of Outremount. It’s clear that Mulcair understands the need of putting sustainability at the head of decision-making processes. And Mulcair is right to point out that under the current Conservative government, Canada has taken significant steps backwards in its responsibilities to be stewards of the environment.
I’m impressed that Mulcair refers to that area of northern Alberta where bitumen extraction occurs as the “tar sands”, rather than the industry-rebranded “oil sands”, a term which seems to have caught on in the mainstream media. As a result, the use of the term “tar sands” almost invariably radicalizes the term user, despite the historical nature of the term (and frankly, despite being scientifically more correct). Good for Mulcair to call a duck a dirty duck, and to potentially endure the negative political consequences for doing so, especially since Mulcair has gone to great lengths to present himself to Canada as a moderate. Or at least a moderate within the context of the New Democratic Party.
Cynics might suggest that Mulcair is simply trying to demonstrate that he also has within him some radical street cred when it comes to the tar sands. Of course, those same critics may be disappointed that Mulcair hasn’t called for resource extraction in the tar sands to be closed down, in an effort to mitigate the consequences of the climate crisis. Even most those who hold the view that we would be better off to shut down the tar sands recognize that it would be politically suicidal to call for an end to bitumen extraction, and they might want to look at Mulcair’s stated approach of sustainable tar sands development as a good starting point in a conversation to curb extraction.
Actually, Mulcair says nothing of the sort. Let’s be clear here: Mulcair continues to argue that the tar sands will play an important role in Canada’s economy, and development there should proceed, albeit in a much more sustainable fashion, and without taxpayer subsidies for multi-national industries. This approach could be considered a “kinder, gentler” form of development. It’s also a smarter one, and I personally agree with Thomas Mulcair that we need to internalize the complete range of costs when we consider tar sands development.
Sustainable Development
Of course, I’m a Green, and none of this is really surprising (except perhaps to non-Greens, who believe that the Green Party wants to shut down the tar sands and indeed any polluting industry). And as a Green, I welcome Thomas Mulcair’s call for a significantly different approach to tar sands development. I suspect that the majority of those currently contending to become the Leader of the NDP are also onside regarding sustainable development. Jack Layton certainly talked about the tar sands in this manner, too, although perhaps not as poignantly.
The fact is, I think that a majority of Canadians are uncomfortable with the pace of tar sands development, and the breaks our government is giving to multinational industries. Canadians are becoming aware that the Harper Conservatives have declared war on the environment by rewriting environmental laws to better suit multinational industry needs, and tarring environmentalists as foreign subversives. The Conservative’s campaign to brand anyone concerned about environmental health as being “un-Canadian” is, in my opinion, sure to backfire. Equating the expression of environmental concerns with economic warfare being waged against the so-called interests of Canada is certainly creating a lot of unease across the country.
Mulcair’s vision for sustainable tar sands development is far from radical, however, and those considering lending him their vote to become the NDP’s next leader based on Mulcair’s green street-cred should take a closer look. Indeed, if most Canadians are uncomfortable with the runaway pace of tar sands development, and would like to see a greater emphasis on social and environmental priorities (not to mention looking after Canada’s long term economic interests through responsible development, rather than getting as much of the resource out of the ground as quickly and cheaply as possible, which seems to be the Conservative’s preferred “economic” strategy), is Mulcair a leading thinker on this issue, or just the latest follower? Again, leader, follower, whatever, at least Mulcair’s onboard, and that’s important. But it’s not the only thing which is important.
Radical or Run-of-the-Mill?
Mulcair’s article seems to be missing some critical policy pieces regarding how he and the NDP might change the development outcomes of the tar sands. Instead of a fulsome discussion, Mulcair falls back onto NDP-member approved policies: the elimination of federal subsidies for multinational oil companies (also known as “corporate welfare”, although Mulcair doesn’t use that term); ending public investment in research into unproven carbon capture and storage technology (which will only lead to further resource extraction, given that the new technology to store carbon dioxide is also intended to use the stored product to extract every last ounce of bitumen); and, of course, the NDP’s carbon-pricing baby, the Cap & Trade emissions trading scheme. All three have been on the NDP’s policy books for years, and the first two are even good ideas.
Beyond these, Mulcair offers very little when it comes to anything akin to a strategy to better manage resource extraction in the tar sands in a sustainable way. In other words, he’s long on good intentions, but very short on follow-through. Which, in my books, doesn’t say much, aside from what I’ve already said: thanks for coming out, glad you can bat for our team. To continue with the baseball analogy, it’s good that Mulcair might be a skilled right-fielder, but I wouldn’t want him acting as the First Base Coach or the Manager. Yet he aspires to a leadership position.
So, really, Mulcair hasn’t said anything much new here at all, other than to publicly call a dirty duck a dirty duck, and maybe rankle the feathers of those who want to keep branding him a Liberal in an orange sweater.
There is nothing bold about Mulcair’s tar sands policy. There’s no mention of where the resource which he wants to see sustainably developed might go. Even Alberta’s ultra-right-wing Wildrose Party has sensibly suggested that maybe it’s time to look to oil exportation to Eastern Canada, rather than the U.S. or China, given that we here in the East continue to rely on foreign oil exports for our own needs (and are subject to price fluctuations as a result). That kind of policy discussion would probably go over well in Quebec, which I understand is a province which the NDP wants to be seen as a champion.
Why not talk up the need for establishing a national strategic reserve, given that Canada is the only G-8 nation without one? Or better yet, why not couch an argument in favour of sustainable development as part of a much larger discussion about the need for a national energy strategy, one which favours low-carbon renewables and conservation? Really, those are the sorts of no-brainer policy options I would have expected to see from Mulcair in his Policy Options piece. But they’re not there.
Cap & Trade: The Wrong Way to Price Carbon
However, there is a lot to be concerned about with one of the NDP-approved policy proposals which Mulcair wants to continue to push: the Cap & Trade emissions trading scheme. In the Policy Options Magazine article, Mulcair says that a Cap & Trade program will better than a series of regulations (which has been the Conservatives approach to “managing” carbon emissions). In that, Mulcair is absolutely correct; Cap & Trade would certainly be better for industry and for Canada than what the regulatory hurdles the Conservatives are throwing up for businesses. But Mulcair fails to mention that a third generally-acknowledged approach to emissions management exists, and that it’s the only one which has actually been proven to reduce emissions: a revenue neutral carbon tax.
The NDP’s Cap & Trade program, if ever implemented, would be very problematic for many Canadians, including much of the NDP’s traditional core-supporters: working families. What Cap & Trade will do is essentially increase the price of many essential goods and services. Proving that Mulcair can pitch the NDP’s talking points as well as any, Mulcair refers to wanting to make the “polluter pay”, but totally fails to recognize that if big corporations are forced to pay for emissions, they’re going to pass their costs onto consumers in the form of higher prices. This will not only put the squeeze on consumers, it’s also going to put the squeeze on the jobs of those who rely on more carbon-rich inputs for their livelihoods.
Think about this: your food is brought to market on a truck which will have higher fuel costs. The price of food will rise. The independent truck driver’s profit margin will shrink as a result of higher fuel costs. And if you take the bus to the market, you’re likely going to be paying a higher fare for the same reasons.
Now, Cap & Trade supporters will argue that a carbon tax will accomplish the exact same outcomes, and if we were talking about the simple application of a consumption tax, than I would agree with them. However, that’s not what we’re talking about at all. The Green Party has for a long time now advocated for the imposition of a revenue-neutral carbon tax. The Liberals under Stephane Dion proposed a similar policy. The Liberal government of Gordon Campbell actually implemented a revenue-neutral carbon tax in British Columbia, where it remains in place today.
Revenue Neutral Carbon Pricing vs. Emissions Trading
Pricing carbon may lead to higher costs for many consumer goods. However, pricing carbon through a tax has several advantages over emissions trading. First, a tax is far more transparent, and will offer more distinct choices for consumers. Consumers who want to purchase carbon-rich goods and services will pay a premium, while those who want to purchase low-carbon goods and services will save their money.
Second, a carbon tax is predictable, and will allow businesses and industry to better plan for their own fiscal needs. The Cap & Trade scheme requires the establishment of an emissions trading exchange, similar to a stock market, run by middlemen who stand to profit from each transaction. And like a stock market, emissions trading markets will lead to fluctuating prices – sometimes wildly so. If you’re a big industrial player, you may be able to absorb price fluctuations. But if you’re a small business of the sort the NDP pretends to like to champion, you’re likely going to be less able to deal with fluctuating offset prices.
Third, a revenue-neutral carbon tax will actually put money back into the hands of hard-working families, allowing them greater control over their own spending choices. The Green Party has long championed reductions to income tax as the primary means for people to hold onto more of their own money. No other federal political party, except the Dion Liberals in 2008, ever proposed significant cuts to income tax, despite the fact that most taxpayers have expressed an interest in paying less taxes. A revenue-neutral carbon tax in conjunction with income tax reductions would lead to people having more money in their wallets and clearer choices about how they can spend it.
However, cutting income tax alone won’t put more money into everyone’s wallets, given that there is a significant percentage of Canada’s populace who do not pay income tax. To ensure that the economically less well off have the income supports needed, the Green Party has proposed the implementation of a Gauranteed Annual Income, a policy position first brought forward in Canada by Progressive Conservative Hugh Segal. Now, while that’s the Green’s policy (and one which I agree with), there would certainly be other ways to achieve similar results (such as providing those living in poverty with other forms of income supports).
Finally, one of the best advantages a revenue-neutral carbon tax has over Cap & Trade is that a revenue-neutral carbon tax will lead to actual reductions in emissions. Where Cap & Trade schemes have been implemented in Europe, it’s been unclear that they’ve actually led to a reduction in emissions. This may be because the Cap was set too high, but for whatever reason, it’s clear that carbon offset purchases may not actually lead to the desired environmental outcome.
In contrast, a carbon tax is a consumption tax. Whenever consumption taxes are imposed, there have been direct results to consumption: higher prices lead to less demand. Consumption taxes on cigarettes, for example, have led to a reduction in smoking. Consumer buying habits really can be shaped by income policy. And, new low-carbon goods and services may start to appear which are less expensive for consumers than higher-priced carbon rich products, as more room in the market is created. That’s what capitalism is all about after all: competition. It’s just that the kind of capitalism we’ve been practicing has favoured subsidies to businesses and industries which have not internalized all input costs, such as the cost of carbon emissions. The introduction of low carbon goods and services into the marketplace has been historically curtailed, due to the public assumption of pollution costs which make low carbon alternatives less competitive.
All In This Together
For me, it’s clear that if Thomas Mulcair was really concerned about wanting to make the “polluter pay”, he really doesn’t get it. Mulcair and the NDP really need to look into a mirror and acknowledge the fact that he and the NDP have seen the “Polluter” and they are Us. As long as we continue to make carbon-rich lifestyle choices, we are just as responsible as any one person or corporate entity for increasing global carbon emissions. We’re all a part of the problem, and we all need to be a part of the solution.
While the notion of taking personal responsibility for the climate crisis is something which people may be reluctant to do, the only other option will be to embrace lousy public policy, which is exactly what Mulcair and the NDP continue to endorse with their Cap & Trade proposal. Rather than recognize that we’re all in this together, the NDP wants to continue to practice its version of “left” vs. “right” political warfare, which admittedly has proven successful in garnering votes. But it fails abysmally when it comes to implementation and accomplishing desired outcomes. In other words, the NDP continues to talk a good game, but they lack on follow through.
It’s time to move away from the “left” vs. “right” dialectic which the NDP clings to. Ironically, it’s Thomas Mulcair who seems to be the NDP’s champion for reform in this leadership race (well, there’s also Nathan Cullen). Yet, Mulcair’s reforms will be to make the NDP look more like the Liberal Party, in an attempt to appeal to centrist voters. Clearly, there won’t be a shift away from the left/right dialectic under Mulcair, only potentially a shift from the NDP’s relative position on the left side of the political spectrum. Mulcair wants to nudge his party further to the right in order to get votes. I would suggest that instead a better approach would be to abandon this outdated left/right way of looking at the world in order to better get the jobs which need doing done.
For a leadership contender who claims to want to be a champion of sustainable development, a better lens for decision-making is one which doesn’t look at right vs. left, but rather which assesses impacts based on right vs. wrong. And I guess that’s one of the reasons that I joined the Green Party.
(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)
I’m impressed that Mulcair refers to that area of northern Alberta where bitumen extraction occurs as the “tar sands”, rather than the industry-rebranded “oil sands”, a term which seems to have caught on in the mainstream media. As a result, the use of the term “tar sands” almost invariably radicalizes the term user, despite the historical nature of the term (and frankly, despite being scientifically more correct). Good for Mulcair to call a duck a dirty duck, and to potentially endure the negative political consequences for doing so, especially since Mulcair has gone to great lengths to present himself to Canada as a moderate. Or at least a moderate within the context of the New Democratic Party.
Cynics might suggest that Mulcair is simply trying to demonstrate that he also has within him some radical street cred when it comes to the tar sands. Of course, those same critics may be disappointed that Mulcair hasn’t called for resource extraction in the tar sands to be closed down, in an effort to mitigate the consequences of the climate crisis. Even most those who hold the view that we would be better off to shut down the tar sands recognize that it would be politically suicidal to call for an end to bitumen extraction, and they might want to look at Mulcair’s stated approach of sustainable tar sands development as a good starting point in a conversation to curb extraction.
Actually, Mulcair says nothing of the sort. Let’s be clear here: Mulcair continues to argue that the tar sands will play an important role in Canada’s economy, and development there should proceed, albeit in a much more sustainable fashion, and without taxpayer subsidies for multi-national industries. This approach could be considered a “kinder, gentler” form of development. It’s also a smarter one, and I personally agree with Thomas Mulcair that we need to internalize the complete range of costs when we consider tar sands development.
Sustainable Development
Of course, I’m a Green, and none of this is really surprising (except perhaps to non-Greens, who believe that the Green Party wants to shut down the tar sands and indeed any polluting industry). And as a Green, I welcome Thomas Mulcair’s call for a significantly different approach to tar sands development. I suspect that the majority of those currently contending to become the Leader of the NDP are also onside regarding sustainable development. Jack Layton certainly talked about the tar sands in this manner, too, although perhaps not as poignantly.
The fact is, I think that a majority of Canadians are uncomfortable with the pace of tar sands development, and the breaks our government is giving to multinational industries. Canadians are becoming aware that the Harper Conservatives have declared war on the environment by rewriting environmental laws to better suit multinational industry needs, and tarring environmentalists as foreign subversives. The Conservative’s campaign to brand anyone concerned about environmental health as being “un-Canadian” is, in my opinion, sure to backfire. Equating the expression of environmental concerns with economic warfare being waged against the so-called interests of Canada is certainly creating a lot of unease across the country.
Mulcair’s vision for sustainable tar sands development is far from radical, however, and those considering lending him their vote to become the NDP’s next leader based on Mulcair’s green street-cred should take a closer look. Indeed, if most Canadians are uncomfortable with the runaway pace of tar sands development, and would like to see a greater emphasis on social and environmental priorities (not to mention looking after Canada’s long term economic interests through responsible development, rather than getting as much of the resource out of the ground as quickly and cheaply as possible, which seems to be the Conservative’s preferred “economic” strategy), is Mulcair a leading thinker on this issue, or just the latest follower? Again, leader, follower, whatever, at least Mulcair’s onboard, and that’s important. But it’s not the only thing which is important.
Radical or Run-of-the-Mill?
Mulcair’s article seems to be missing some critical policy pieces regarding how he and the NDP might change the development outcomes of the tar sands. Instead of a fulsome discussion, Mulcair falls back onto NDP-member approved policies: the elimination of federal subsidies for multinational oil companies (also known as “corporate welfare”, although Mulcair doesn’t use that term); ending public investment in research into unproven carbon capture and storage technology (which will only lead to further resource extraction, given that the new technology to store carbon dioxide is also intended to use the stored product to extract every last ounce of bitumen); and, of course, the NDP’s carbon-pricing baby, the Cap & Trade emissions trading scheme. All three have been on the NDP’s policy books for years, and the first two are even good ideas.
Beyond these, Mulcair offers very little when it comes to anything akin to a strategy to better manage resource extraction in the tar sands in a sustainable way. In other words, he’s long on good intentions, but very short on follow-through. Which, in my books, doesn’t say much, aside from what I’ve already said: thanks for coming out, glad you can bat for our team. To continue with the baseball analogy, it’s good that Mulcair might be a skilled right-fielder, but I wouldn’t want him acting as the First Base Coach or the Manager. Yet he aspires to a leadership position.
So, really, Mulcair hasn’t said anything much new here at all, other than to publicly call a dirty duck a dirty duck, and maybe rankle the feathers of those who want to keep branding him a Liberal in an orange sweater.
There is nothing bold about Mulcair’s tar sands policy. There’s no mention of where the resource which he wants to see sustainably developed might go. Even Alberta’s ultra-right-wing Wildrose Party has sensibly suggested that maybe it’s time to look to oil exportation to Eastern Canada, rather than the U.S. or China, given that we here in the East continue to rely on foreign oil exports for our own needs (and are subject to price fluctuations as a result). That kind of policy discussion would probably go over well in Quebec, which I understand is a province which the NDP wants to be seen as a champion.
Why not talk up the need for establishing a national strategic reserve, given that Canada is the only G-8 nation without one? Or better yet, why not couch an argument in favour of sustainable development as part of a much larger discussion about the need for a national energy strategy, one which favours low-carbon renewables and conservation? Really, those are the sorts of no-brainer policy options I would have expected to see from Mulcair in his Policy Options piece. But they’re not there.
Cap & Trade: The Wrong Way to Price Carbon
However, there is a lot to be concerned about with one of the NDP-approved policy proposals which Mulcair wants to continue to push: the Cap & Trade emissions trading scheme. In the Policy Options Magazine article, Mulcair says that a Cap & Trade program will better than a series of regulations (which has been the Conservatives approach to “managing” carbon emissions). In that, Mulcair is absolutely correct; Cap & Trade would certainly be better for industry and for Canada than what the regulatory hurdles the Conservatives are throwing up for businesses. But Mulcair fails to mention that a third generally-acknowledged approach to emissions management exists, and that it’s the only one which has actually been proven to reduce emissions: a revenue neutral carbon tax.
The NDP’s Cap & Trade program, if ever implemented, would be very problematic for many Canadians, including much of the NDP’s traditional core-supporters: working families. What Cap & Trade will do is essentially increase the price of many essential goods and services. Proving that Mulcair can pitch the NDP’s talking points as well as any, Mulcair refers to wanting to make the “polluter pay”, but totally fails to recognize that if big corporations are forced to pay for emissions, they’re going to pass their costs onto consumers in the form of higher prices. This will not only put the squeeze on consumers, it’s also going to put the squeeze on the jobs of those who rely on more carbon-rich inputs for their livelihoods.
Think about this: your food is brought to market on a truck which will have higher fuel costs. The price of food will rise. The independent truck driver’s profit margin will shrink as a result of higher fuel costs. And if you take the bus to the market, you’re likely going to be paying a higher fare for the same reasons.
Now, Cap & Trade supporters will argue that a carbon tax will accomplish the exact same outcomes, and if we were talking about the simple application of a consumption tax, than I would agree with them. However, that’s not what we’re talking about at all. The Green Party has for a long time now advocated for the imposition of a revenue-neutral carbon tax. The Liberals under Stephane Dion proposed a similar policy. The Liberal government of Gordon Campbell actually implemented a revenue-neutral carbon tax in British Columbia, where it remains in place today.
Revenue Neutral Carbon Pricing vs. Emissions Trading
Pricing carbon may lead to higher costs for many consumer goods. However, pricing carbon through a tax has several advantages over emissions trading. First, a tax is far more transparent, and will offer more distinct choices for consumers. Consumers who want to purchase carbon-rich goods and services will pay a premium, while those who want to purchase low-carbon goods and services will save their money.
Second, a carbon tax is predictable, and will allow businesses and industry to better plan for their own fiscal needs. The Cap & Trade scheme requires the establishment of an emissions trading exchange, similar to a stock market, run by middlemen who stand to profit from each transaction. And like a stock market, emissions trading markets will lead to fluctuating prices – sometimes wildly so. If you’re a big industrial player, you may be able to absorb price fluctuations. But if you’re a small business of the sort the NDP pretends to like to champion, you’re likely going to be less able to deal with fluctuating offset prices.
Third, a revenue-neutral carbon tax will actually put money back into the hands of hard-working families, allowing them greater control over their own spending choices. The Green Party has long championed reductions to income tax as the primary means for people to hold onto more of their own money. No other federal political party, except the Dion Liberals in 2008, ever proposed significant cuts to income tax, despite the fact that most taxpayers have expressed an interest in paying less taxes. A revenue-neutral carbon tax in conjunction with income tax reductions would lead to people having more money in their wallets and clearer choices about how they can spend it.
However, cutting income tax alone won’t put more money into everyone’s wallets, given that there is a significant percentage of Canada’s populace who do not pay income tax. To ensure that the economically less well off have the income supports needed, the Green Party has proposed the implementation of a Gauranteed Annual Income, a policy position first brought forward in Canada by Progressive Conservative Hugh Segal. Now, while that’s the Green’s policy (and one which I agree with), there would certainly be other ways to achieve similar results (such as providing those living in poverty with other forms of income supports).
Finally, one of the best advantages a revenue-neutral carbon tax has over Cap & Trade is that a revenue-neutral carbon tax will lead to actual reductions in emissions. Where Cap & Trade schemes have been implemented in Europe, it’s been unclear that they’ve actually led to a reduction in emissions. This may be because the Cap was set too high, but for whatever reason, it’s clear that carbon offset purchases may not actually lead to the desired environmental outcome.
In contrast, a carbon tax is a consumption tax. Whenever consumption taxes are imposed, there have been direct results to consumption: higher prices lead to less demand. Consumption taxes on cigarettes, for example, have led to a reduction in smoking. Consumer buying habits really can be shaped by income policy. And, new low-carbon goods and services may start to appear which are less expensive for consumers than higher-priced carbon rich products, as more room in the market is created. That’s what capitalism is all about after all: competition. It’s just that the kind of capitalism we’ve been practicing has favoured subsidies to businesses and industries which have not internalized all input costs, such as the cost of carbon emissions. The introduction of low carbon goods and services into the marketplace has been historically curtailed, due to the public assumption of pollution costs which make low carbon alternatives less competitive.
All In This Together
For me, it’s clear that if Thomas Mulcair was really concerned about wanting to make the “polluter pay”, he really doesn’t get it. Mulcair and the NDP really need to look into a mirror and acknowledge the fact that he and the NDP have seen the “Polluter” and they are Us. As long as we continue to make carbon-rich lifestyle choices, we are just as responsible as any one person or corporate entity for increasing global carbon emissions. We’re all a part of the problem, and we all need to be a part of the solution.
While the notion of taking personal responsibility for the climate crisis is something which people may be reluctant to do, the only other option will be to embrace lousy public policy, which is exactly what Mulcair and the NDP continue to endorse with their Cap & Trade proposal. Rather than recognize that we’re all in this together, the NDP wants to continue to practice its version of “left” vs. “right” political warfare, which admittedly has proven successful in garnering votes. But it fails abysmally when it comes to implementation and accomplishing desired outcomes. In other words, the NDP continues to talk a good game, but they lack on follow through.
It’s time to move away from the “left” vs. “right” dialectic which the NDP clings to. Ironically, it’s Thomas Mulcair who seems to be the NDP’s champion for reform in this leadership race (well, there’s also Nathan Cullen). Yet, Mulcair’s reforms will be to make the NDP look more like the Liberal Party, in an attempt to appeal to centrist voters. Clearly, there won’t be a shift away from the left/right dialectic under Mulcair, only potentially a shift from the NDP’s relative position on the left side of the political spectrum. Mulcair wants to nudge his party further to the right in order to get votes. I would suggest that instead a better approach would be to abandon this outdated left/right way of looking at the world in order to better get the jobs which need doing done.
For a leadership contender who claims to want to be a champion of sustainable development, a better lens for decision-making is one which doesn’t look at right vs. left, but rather which assesses impacts based on right vs. wrong. And I guess that’s one of the reasons that I joined the Green Party.
(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)
Thursday, February 23, 2012
The Price of Dirty Oil: Canada, the EU, the WTO and National Sovereignty
So, today was supposed to be the big day. I’ve had it circled on my calendar for some time now, so imagine my surprise when it all turned into a non-event. Of course I’m talking about today being the day when the European Union was to decide on whether or not Canada’s tar sands oil should be listed as “dirty” under the EU’s “Fuel Quality Directive” and subject to a higher carbon offset charges at the time of importation. But instead of making a decision, it looks like EU decision makers deferred, and now an ultimate decision appears to be in the hands of some kind of committee, to be made at some point in the future, maybe.
Had a positive decision been made today, the EU’s “Fuel Quality Directive” would have listed bitumen-derived oil from Canada’s tar sands as a product requiring the payment of a higher carbon offset for importation than would oil derived from conventional sources, due to the amount of pollution created through processing. The government of Canada, of course, was hoping that a negative decision would have been made, and after intensive lobbying efforts by our government and its oil industry partners, directed at EU decision makers, the end result is….more waiting.
Dirty Oil
That the production of tar sands oil is, on the whole, dirtier than conventional oil, has long been an established fact. This week, a report published in Nature Climate Change, written by renowned Canadian climate scientist Andrew Weaver, assessed the relative levels of warming which the world can expect should all economically viable deposits of bitumen in the Alberta tar sands be developed for use. Weaver’s results have been interpreted by some national media sources as the green light for tar sands development, given that Weaver’s findings show that relative to some other fossil fuel energy sources, anticipated warming from the tar sands is less than what we would expect from other fossil fuel sources (specifically, coal and shale gas).
The Toronto Star, on Wednesday February 22nd, published a great article from Weaver himself about the study; if you’re interested in finding out more about the study in Weaver’s own words, read “The oilsands are a symptom of the bigger problem of our dependence on fossil fuels”.
However, Weaver’s findings do not dispute the central fact of the matter at hand, as least as far as the European Union is concerned: oil derived from the tar sands is typically dirtier than oil derived from other conventional sources. As a result, Europe continues to consider whether anybody importing tar sands oil into Europe will be required to pay a higher offset charge for the privilege of importing dirty oil.
What this means isn’t exactly clear, on the one hand, given that hardly anybody in Europe has been importing oil derived from Alberta bitumen. On the other hand, a European decision to essentially tax Canada’s dirty oil at a higher rate than conventional oil must be very troubling for Alberta oil producers and the Conservative government they’ve bought to act in their interests.
Canada, the EU and the World Trade Organization (WTO)
As a result, over the past year or so, the Conservative government of Canada has been engaged in an intensive lobbying effort in partnership with multi-national oil corporations in an attempt to influence today’s vote. Ultimately, the lobbying initiative appears to have reaped some level of payout, as a few nations which were intensively lobbied (the U.K. and France) decided to stay away from the vote (see today’s Globe & Mail, “EU blocks passage of Canada’s ‘tar sands’ ranking”, February 23/12). So while today’s decision wasn’t the outright victory sought by Canada’s Conservative government and its oil industry partners, the lobbying effort at least has stalled the process for the time being. Of course, Canada has also threatened the EU with a World Trade Organization challenge over unfair business practices if it doesn’t ultimately get its way.
Many believe that Canada has a strong case to make at the WTO, and that the European Union’s Fuel Quality Directive is, in fact, discriminatory, because it treats a single product, oil, differently depending on where it’s manufactured. Generally speaking, this is a big no-no in the realm of international trade, and I happen to agree with many of the experts who have been watching this issue play itself out: Canada will likely be successful at the WTO in arguing for its interests, if it comes to that. Based on current international trade rules, Europe’s Fuel Quality Directive does appear to be a discriminatory trade practice.
Lawrence Herman, an international trade consultant with a respected Canadian legal firm, shared his opinion on a WTO challenge in yesterday’s Globe & Mail (“The ground war with Europe over Alberta’s Oil”, Globe & Mail, February 22 2012). Herman refers to the FDQ as being a “border tax…to compensate for carbon emitted in…production”. Herman goes on to explain the concept of “differential measures” for “like” products which compete for the same market, and concludes that in those circumstances where two products which compete for the same market, such as bitumen-derived oil and conventional oil, are so similar, it would be discriminatory to punish one in preference to the other.
Let me be clear about this: while I believe that a decision which rules discrimination will likely be the outcome at the WTO, I do not agree that it should be the outcome. Such an outcome would be, in my opinion, immoral, and an affront to the sovereignty of nations, and frankly to humanity. But sometimes, as they say, the law is an ass.
In Whose Interests?
Getting back to Herman’s opinion…think about this for a moment: If the production processes of one product leads to greater pollution outputs, it would be illegal in the opinion of the Government of Canada and in the opinion of many trade experts like Herman for that product to be penalized at the time of importation into another jurisdiction if the importation of a less-polluting product isn’t subject to the same penalty. If this is the case, what would be the incentive for polluting industries to clean up their processes? What does that say about proactive governments which are trying to encourage better business practices, and using the market as a tool for cleaner energy choices?
Clearly, what such a decision would be saying is that the environment doesn’t matter, as least as far as international trade goes, and that national states such as the European Union which want to use market forces as leverage for greener consumer choices are out of luck. And humanity is just going to have to put up with pollution generated by corporations in the pursuit of profits.
And that, to me, is absurd. And I know that I’m not the only one who views it this way. If a company is producing a product which entails the creation of more pollution, that product should be taxed at a higher rate than a similar product which doesn’t require the emission of as much pollution. That’s why Europe has been considering listing Canada’s bitumen-derived oil as “dirtier” than oil derived from conventional sources. Nations should have the ability to discriminate when its in the public’s interests to do so. And clearly, with regards to climate changing greenhouse gas emissions, the public has a considerable stake in the energy decisions made by their elected representatives.
Human vs. Corporate Rights
You can probably see where I’m going with this. Clearly, if our international trading structure doesn’t permit a nation to impose a tariff on a product whose production is more polluting than that of a similar product, what does that say about national sovereignty, or the importance of the health of people and the natural environment? We know that there’s a lot which is going wrong in this world already, but when a nation, or in this case the European Union, decides that it’s going to take a small step in an attempt to right a wrong, and finds that its ability to do so is thwarted by international trade rules which favour corporations over people, well, I ask you: is that right?
Last I looked, corporations weren’t impacted by pollution. Their children don’t suffer from respiratory diseases in the same way that human children do. Their livelihoods, for the most part, aren’t impacted by higher food prices resulting from shortages brought on by climate change. Yet we, you and I, through our elected governments, have decided to create international institutions like the World Trade Organization which will favour corporations over people and progressive national governments. That, to me, just illustrates that it’s time that we, meaning you and I, get our act together and begin to elect a government which is going to look out for our own interests.
Canada Chooses Corporate Interests Over People
In Canada’s case, it’s clear that the Conservative government has chosen to champion multinational corporations over people in its pursuit of thwarting the European Union’s imposition of the Fuel Quality Directive. We Canadians will have a chance in a few years to tell the Conservative Party what we think of their decisions to favour corporations over people. Let’s not forget the taxpayers dollars which were spent by Canada’s Conservative government in an effort to influence today’s vote, or how Canada’s Conservatives tried to hide their partnerships with Big Oil (see: “Feds hid names of big oil companies at lobbying retreat”, Mide De Souza, PostMedia News, February 13/12)
I hope that Canada doesn’t go through with its WTO challenge, but it probably will. I hope that, despite what experts like Lawrence Herman say, the WTO decides that it’s all right for a nation to impose a tariff on a product which requires more pollution than a similar product, but I don’t think it will. I do, however, know that it’s time we, the people, began reigning in corporate power, as we’ll be the ones to pass on this world to our – living and breathing – children. We are, you and I, ultimately responsible for the world which our children inherit. That the power structure that we and our parents created appears monolithic is no reason to throw our arms up into the air in frustration, claiming that we can’t do anything about it. People can, and do, affect change. We’ve seen it happen throughout the world in 2011, and it will continue to happen over the course of the global long emergency in which we are now in the midst of.
(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)
Had a positive decision been made today, the EU’s “Fuel Quality Directive” would have listed bitumen-derived oil from Canada’s tar sands as a product requiring the payment of a higher carbon offset for importation than would oil derived from conventional sources, due to the amount of pollution created through processing. The government of Canada, of course, was hoping that a negative decision would have been made, and after intensive lobbying efforts by our government and its oil industry partners, directed at EU decision makers, the end result is….more waiting.
Dirty Oil
That the production of tar sands oil is, on the whole, dirtier than conventional oil, has long been an established fact. This week, a report published in Nature Climate Change, written by renowned Canadian climate scientist Andrew Weaver, assessed the relative levels of warming which the world can expect should all economically viable deposits of bitumen in the Alberta tar sands be developed for use. Weaver’s results have been interpreted by some national media sources as the green light for tar sands development, given that Weaver’s findings show that relative to some other fossil fuel energy sources, anticipated warming from the tar sands is less than what we would expect from other fossil fuel sources (specifically, coal and shale gas).
The Toronto Star, on Wednesday February 22nd, published a great article from Weaver himself about the study; if you’re interested in finding out more about the study in Weaver’s own words, read “The oilsands are a symptom of the bigger problem of our dependence on fossil fuels”.
However, Weaver’s findings do not dispute the central fact of the matter at hand, as least as far as the European Union is concerned: oil derived from the tar sands is typically dirtier than oil derived from other conventional sources. As a result, Europe continues to consider whether anybody importing tar sands oil into Europe will be required to pay a higher offset charge for the privilege of importing dirty oil.
What this means isn’t exactly clear, on the one hand, given that hardly anybody in Europe has been importing oil derived from Alberta bitumen. On the other hand, a European decision to essentially tax Canada’s dirty oil at a higher rate than conventional oil must be very troubling for Alberta oil producers and the Conservative government they’ve bought to act in their interests.
Canada, the EU and the World Trade Organization (WTO)
As a result, over the past year or so, the Conservative government of Canada has been engaged in an intensive lobbying effort in partnership with multi-national oil corporations in an attempt to influence today’s vote. Ultimately, the lobbying initiative appears to have reaped some level of payout, as a few nations which were intensively lobbied (the U.K. and France) decided to stay away from the vote (see today’s Globe & Mail, “EU blocks passage of Canada’s ‘tar sands’ ranking”, February 23/12). So while today’s decision wasn’t the outright victory sought by Canada’s Conservative government and its oil industry partners, the lobbying effort at least has stalled the process for the time being. Of course, Canada has also threatened the EU with a World Trade Organization challenge over unfair business practices if it doesn’t ultimately get its way.
Many believe that Canada has a strong case to make at the WTO, and that the European Union’s Fuel Quality Directive is, in fact, discriminatory, because it treats a single product, oil, differently depending on where it’s manufactured. Generally speaking, this is a big no-no in the realm of international trade, and I happen to agree with many of the experts who have been watching this issue play itself out: Canada will likely be successful at the WTO in arguing for its interests, if it comes to that. Based on current international trade rules, Europe’s Fuel Quality Directive does appear to be a discriminatory trade practice.
Lawrence Herman, an international trade consultant with a respected Canadian legal firm, shared his opinion on a WTO challenge in yesterday’s Globe & Mail (“The ground war with Europe over Alberta’s Oil”, Globe & Mail, February 22 2012). Herman refers to the FDQ as being a “border tax…to compensate for carbon emitted in…production”. Herman goes on to explain the concept of “differential measures” for “like” products which compete for the same market, and concludes that in those circumstances where two products which compete for the same market, such as bitumen-derived oil and conventional oil, are so similar, it would be discriminatory to punish one in preference to the other.
Let me be clear about this: while I believe that a decision which rules discrimination will likely be the outcome at the WTO, I do not agree that it should be the outcome. Such an outcome would be, in my opinion, immoral, and an affront to the sovereignty of nations, and frankly to humanity. But sometimes, as they say, the law is an ass.
In Whose Interests?
Getting back to Herman’s opinion…think about this for a moment: If the production processes of one product leads to greater pollution outputs, it would be illegal in the opinion of the Government of Canada and in the opinion of many trade experts like Herman for that product to be penalized at the time of importation into another jurisdiction if the importation of a less-polluting product isn’t subject to the same penalty. If this is the case, what would be the incentive for polluting industries to clean up their processes? What does that say about proactive governments which are trying to encourage better business practices, and using the market as a tool for cleaner energy choices?
Clearly, what such a decision would be saying is that the environment doesn’t matter, as least as far as international trade goes, and that national states such as the European Union which want to use market forces as leverage for greener consumer choices are out of luck. And humanity is just going to have to put up with pollution generated by corporations in the pursuit of profits.
And that, to me, is absurd. And I know that I’m not the only one who views it this way. If a company is producing a product which entails the creation of more pollution, that product should be taxed at a higher rate than a similar product which doesn’t require the emission of as much pollution. That’s why Europe has been considering listing Canada’s bitumen-derived oil as “dirtier” than oil derived from conventional sources. Nations should have the ability to discriminate when its in the public’s interests to do so. And clearly, with regards to climate changing greenhouse gas emissions, the public has a considerable stake in the energy decisions made by their elected representatives.
Human vs. Corporate Rights
You can probably see where I’m going with this. Clearly, if our international trading structure doesn’t permit a nation to impose a tariff on a product whose production is more polluting than that of a similar product, what does that say about national sovereignty, or the importance of the health of people and the natural environment? We know that there’s a lot which is going wrong in this world already, but when a nation, or in this case the European Union, decides that it’s going to take a small step in an attempt to right a wrong, and finds that its ability to do so is thwarted by international trade rules which favour corporations over people, well, I ask you: is that right?
Last I looked, corporations weren’t impacted by pollution. Their children don’t suffer from respiratory diseases in the same way that human children do. Their livelihoods, for the most part, aren’t impacted by higher food prices resulting from shortages brought on by climate change. Yet we, you and I, through our elected governments, have decided to create international institutions like the World Trade Organization which will favour corporations over people and progressive national governments. That, to me, just illustrates that it’s time that we, meaning you and I, get our act together and begin to elect a government which is going to look out for our own interests.
Canada Chooses Corporate Interests Over People
In Canada’s case, it’s clear that the Conservative government has chosen to champion multinational corporations over people in its pursuit of thwarting the European Union’s imposition of the Fuel Quality Directive. We Canadians will have a chance in a few years to tell the Conservative Party what we think of their decisions to favour corporations over people. Let’s not forget the taxpayers dollars which were spent by Canada’s Conservative government in an effort to influence today’s vote, or how Canada’s Conservatives tried to hide their partnerships with Big Oil (see: “Feds hid names of big oil companies at lobbying retreat”, Mide De Souza, PostMedia News, February 13/12)
I hope that Canada doesn’t go through with its WTO challenge, but it probably will. I hope that, despite what experts like Lawrence Herman say, the WTO decides that it’s all right for a nation to impose a tariff on a product which requires more pollution than a similar product, but I don’t think it will. I do, however, know that it’s time we, the people, began reigning in corporate power, as we’ll be the ones to pass on this world to our – living and breathing – children. We are, you and I, ultimately responsible for the world which our children inherit. That the power structure that we and our parents created appears monolithic is no reason to throw our arms up into the air in frustration, claiming that we can’t do anything about it. People can, and do, affect change. We’ve seen it happen throughout the world in 2011, and it will continue to happen over the course of the global long emergency in which we are now in the midst of.
(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, February 21, 2012
Will Greater Sudbury Be Forced to Hike Taxes to Pay for Legal Challenges Made by Taxpayers Association?
The Greater Sudbury Taxpayers Association (GSTA) is at it again, practicing the politics of fear and division within our City. At first, the GSTA’s smear campaign against our locally-elected officials was, for me, an academic interest; something interesting to watch unfold, from an intellectual perspective. However, with the GSTA’s most recent news conference, the actions of this group of neo-liberals in our midst is going to have a direct impact on me, a taxpayer of this City, in a place where it will hurt the most – my wallet.
Yes, it’s extremely ironic that a group which claims to be on a mission to look out for taxpayers financial interests has set its sights on – get this! – potentially contributing to raising the taxes of all municipal residents! But if reports published in the Sudbury Star (online, Monday February 20th, “City councillors face slush fund showdown”, and in print, Tuesday, February 21st, “Slush fund showdown”) are to be believed, it seems that the Taxpayers Association is threatening to take our municipal Councillors to court if the Association doesn’t get its own way.
Who, pray tell, does the Greater Sudbury Taxpayers Association think is going to be picking up the legal costs for a court challenge? Why, I think that it will end up being me, and all of the other taxpayers in our City, that’s who!
The "Healthy Community Initiative"
Since before its inception as an incorporated entity, members of the GSTA have been speaking out against something called the “Healthy Community Initiative” (HCI), which they (and others) label a “slush fund”. Essentially, each local councillor is allocated $50,000 for leisure spending in their wards each year (although apparently any unspent funds can be used by a Councillor in the following year of their 4 year mandate). This past Monday, the GSTA held a press conference to announce their intention to file lawsuits against Council if the Healthy Community Initiative isn’t reformed to the GSTA’s satisfaction.
Look, the Healthy Community Initiative in its present form is completely indefensible, in my opinion. On that, the GSTA and I agree. That a lot of good ultimately comes out of ward-specific spending on leisure activities is undeniable, but the fact is that all of this spending – now as much as $600,000 a year, is happening in an unaccountable vacuum, at the direction of only the ward Councillor. There is no public oversight, until after the fact, and then only through the media. There is no accountability regarding how funds are spent.
The Healthy Community Initiative is also a boon for incumbent municipal Councillors come election time. Essentially, each Councillor has access to a pool of money, now totalling $200,000 over 4 years, on which they can draw on to promote projects in their ward. At election time, Councillors often refer back to HCI spending that they’ve made within their wards as reasons for re-election, and as reminders to voters that they’ve done some good locally. Of course, the public is rarely advised whether other good projects might have been turned down in preference to other good projects. And since there is no requirement for public oversight, there’s no knowledge being shared as to which proponents might have benefited from HCI spending, and which proponents didn’t.
Accountability, Oversight and a Healthy Democratic Environment
As a resident of the City of Greater Sudbury, I’m happy that the City has expressed an interest in investing in leisure activities at the ward level, to the tune of $600,000 a year. As a taxpayer, however, I’m dismayed by the lack of oversight of this spending. And as a member of the Green Party of Canada, and CEO of the local federal electoral district association, I’m frankly appalled by the abuse of democracy which is occurring at the local level of my municipal government.
Not that I have any particular interest in municipal government in my role as CEO of the Sudbury Federal Green Party Association, as we are focussed only on the federal politics. But as a capital-G partisan Green, I, like thousands of Canadians, share a set of values, which my Party has articulated in its Constitution. But you don’t have to be a partisan Green or a member of my Party to subscribe to these values, as many ordinary Canadians share some or all of these values. I just happen to belong to a political party which has codified these shared values, and which uses these values as a basis for all decision-making. When applied to the Healthy Community Initiative, it’s clear to me that such a program involving government spending isn’t in keeping with those values.
Specifically, Greens believe in breaking down the inequalities of wealth and power that inhibit participation in democracy. We believe that all elected representatives should be committed to the principles of transparency, truthfulness and accountability in government. A spending program which lacks oversight and accountability, with a budget in excess of a half million dollars in any given year, administered by an elected official at their discretion, and seemingly to their electoral advantage, well, that’s just not in keeping with those values. Those are the sorts of undemocratic initiatives which my Party is fighting against at the federal level (google: “Tony Clement” and “Gazebo” to find out more about recent unaccountable spending by the federal government).
There can be no defending how HCI spending is being implemented in this City. So I agree with the Greater Sudbury Taxpayers Association’s call for reform of the HCI.
Bully Tactics and the Politics of Fear & Division
What I don’t agree with is the GSTA’s threats to bring lawsuits against Council or individual Councillors if they don’t get their way. Look, I understand that with regards to the HCI, Monday’s press conference wasn’t the GSTA’s starting point on this issue. They’ve been making their opinion known about the HCI for some time now. The GSTA has, apparently, hired a lawyer to prepare a 10-page report on HCI spending, and now armed with the findings of the Report, the threats of legal action are flying around fast and furiously.
With this Report in their backpocket, why did the GSTA not first choose to bring the findings of the Report to Council’s attention through a delegation process? Or make the Report available to individual Councillors, as a courtesy, or even simply through a press conference which still could have elicited coverage in our local media? Instead of taking those proactive steps to provide further education to our elected officials, with the hopes that this time they might see the light on the HCI spending issue, what happened instead has escalated this issue into an entirely different political realm.
And if the GSTA was serious about reforming the HCI, they never would have taken the step to threaten law suits. Clearly, there’s another agenda at play here. What the threat of a law suit actually does is to put Council and individual Councillors against a wall. If they decide to reform HCI spending, they’ll be handing a public victory to an organization that has been critical of Council, many individual Councillors, and municipal staff. If Council doesn’t reform the HCI, they’ll continue to have to defend the indefensible, however since that’s the track which our current Council has been on anyway, it seems likely that it will continue to follow suit for the next few years now, rather than hand the GSTA a moral victory.
An opportunity for real reform was lost as a result of issuing the legal threat. In its short history, the GSTA has frequently relied on bully tactics to make its point, such as calling for the resignation of the municipal CAO over his perceived role in the transit ticket scandal, instead of waiting for all of the facts to be exposed. In the case of the HCI, the GSTA’s very real threat of legal action against the municipality can only be considered yet another adversarial bully tactic, intended to intimidate Councillors. Of course, by issuing the threat, the GSTA can’t lose on this issue – unless of course, they follow through on the legal proceedings and fall flat on their faces. Even a legal loss, however, could still likely be spun as a win of some sort for the GSTA.
Political Game-Playing at the Municipal Level
And that’s why it’s pretty clear to me that the GSTA is playing a political game in our City, while claiming to be the champion of taxpayers. The old saying goes, “you get more flies with honey than vinegar”. The GSTA had other options available to it, especially now, armed with a report from a legal expert. The GSTA could have used this opportunity to build bridges with Council, and regain some credibility lost in the community through their use of over-heated rhetoric and bully tactics. Instead of using their Report as an incentive for reform, the GSTA has chosen to wield it as a club.
Backed up against a wall, if Council doesn’t blink, it now seems certain that our taxes are going to have to pay defending lawsuits filed by the so-called Taxpayers Association! Just whose interests is the GSTA really looking out for?
(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)
Yes, it’s extremely ironic that a group which claims to be on a mission to look out for taxpayers financial interests has set its sights on – get this! – potentially contributing to raising the taxes of all municipal residents! But if reports published in the Sudbury Star (online, Monday February 20th, “City councillors face slush fund showdown”, and in print, Tuesday, February 21st, “Slush fund showdown”) are to be believed, it seems that the Taxpayers Association is threatening to take our municipal Councillors to court if the Association doesn’t get its own way.
Who, pray tell, does the Greater Sudbury Taxpayers Association think is going to be picking up the legal costs for a court challenge? Why, I think that it will end up being me, and all of the other taxpayers in our City, that’s who!
The "Healthy Community Initiative"
Since before its inception as an incorporated entity, members of the GSTA have been speaking out against something called the “Healthy Community Initiative” (HCI), which they (and others) label a “slush fund”. Essentially, each local councillor is allocated $50,000 for leisure spending in their wards each year (although apparently any unspent funds can be used by a Councillor in the following year of their 4 year mandate). This past Monday, the GSTA held a press conference to announce their intention to file lawsuits against Council if the Healthy Community Initiative isn’t reformed to the GSTA’s satisfaction.
Look, the Healthy Community Initiative in its present form is completely indefensible, in my opinion. On that, the GSTA and I agree. That a lot of good ultimately comes out of ward-specific spending on leisure activities is undeniable, but the fact is that all of this spending – now as much as $600,000 a year, is happening in an unaccountable vacuum, at the direction of only the ward Councillor. There is no public oversight, until after the fact, and then only through the media. There is no accountability regarding how funds are spent.
The Healthy Community Initiative is also a boon for incumbent municipal Councillors come election time. Essentially, each Councillor has access to a pool of money, now totalling $200,000 over 4 years, on which they can draw on to promote projects in their ward. At election time, Councillors often refer back to HCI spending that they’ve made within their wards as reasons for re-election, and as reminders to voters that they’ve done some good locally. Of course, the public is rarely advised whether other good projects might have been turned down in preference to other good projects. And since there is no requirement for public oversight, there’s no knowledge being shared as to which proponents might have benefited from HCI spending, and which proponents didn’t.
Accountability, Oversight and a Healthy Democratic Environment
As a resident of the City of Greater Sudbury, I’m happy that the City has expressed an interest in investing in leisure activities at the ward level, to the tune of $600,000 a year. As a taxpayer, however, I’m dismayed by the lack of oversight of this spending. And as a member of the Green Party of Canada, and CEO of the local federal electoral district association, I’m frankly appalled by the abuse of democracy which is occurring at the local level of my municipal government.
Not that I have any particular interest in municipal government in my role as CEO of the Sudbury Federal Green Party Association, as we are focussed only on the federal politics. But as a capital-G partisan Green, I, like thousands of Canadians, share a set of values, which my Party has articulated in its Constitution. But you don’t have to be a partisan Green or a member of my Party to subscribe to these values, as many ordinary Canadians share some or all of these values. I just happen to belong to a political party which has codified these shared values, and which uses these values as a basis for all decision-making. When applied to the Healthy Community Initiative, it’s clear to me that such a program involving government spending isn’t in keeping with those values.
Specifically, Greens believe in breaking down the inequalities of wealth and power that inhibit participation in democracy. We believe that all elected representatives should be committed to the principles of transparency, truthfulness and accountability in government. A spending program which lacks oversight and accountability, with a budget in excess of a half million dollars in any given year, administered by an elected official at their discretion, and seemingly to their electoral advantage, well, that’s just not in keeping with those values. Those are the sorts of undemocratic initiatives which my Party is fighting against at the federal level (google: “Tony Clement” and “Gazebo” to find out more about recent unaccountable spending by the federal government).
There can be no defending how HCI spending is being implemented in this City. So I agree with the Greater Sudbury Taxpayers Association’s call for reform of the HCI.
Bully Tactics and the Politics of Fear & Division
What I don’t agree with is the GSTA’s threats to bring lawsuits against Council or individual Councillors if they don’t get their way. Look, I understand that with regards to the HCI, Monday’s press conference wasn’t the GSTA’s starting point on this issue. They’ve been making their opinion known about the HCI for some time now. The GSTA has, apparently, hired a lawyer to prepare a 10-page report on HCI spending, and now armed with the findings of the Report, the threats of legal action are flying around fast and furiously.
With this Report in their backpocket, why did the GSTA not first choose to bring the findings of the Report to Council’s attention through a delegation process? Or make the Report available to individual Councillors, as a courtesy, or even simply through a press conference which still could have elicited coverage in our local media? Instead of taking those proactive steps to provide further education to our elected officials, with the hopes that this time they might see the light on the HCI spending issue, what happened instead has escalated this issue into an entirely different political realm.
And if the GSTA was serious about reforming the HCI, they never would have taken the step to threaten law suits. Clearly, there’s another agenda at play here. What the threat of a law suit actually does is to put Council and individual Councillors against a wall. If they decide to reform HCI spending, they’ll be handing a public victory to an organization that has been critical of Council, many individual Councillors, and municipal staff. If Council doesn’t reform the HCI, they’ll continue to have to defend the indefensible, however since that’s the track which our current Council has been on anyway, it seems likely that it will continue to follow suit for the next few years now, rather than hand the GSTA a moral victory.
An opportunity for real reform was lost as a result of issuing the legal threat. In its short history, the GSTA has frequently relied on bully tactics to make its point, such as calling for the resignation of the municipal CAO over his perceived role in the transit ticket scandal, instead of waiting for all of the facts to be exposed. In the case of the HCI, the GSTA’s very real threat of legal action against the municipality can only be considered yet another adversarial bully tactic, intended to intimidate Councillors. Of course, by issuing the threat, the GSTA can’t lose on this issue – unless of course, they follow through on the legal proceedings and fall flat on their faces. Even a legal loss, however, could still likely be spun as a win of some sort for the GSTA.
Political Game-Playing at the Municipal Level
And that’s why it’s pretty clear to me that the GSTA is playing a political game in our City, while claiming to be the champion of taxpayers. The old saying goes, “you get more flies with honey than vinegar”. The GSTA had other options available to it, especially now, armed with a report from a legal expert. The GSTA could have used this opportunity to build bridges with Council, and regain some credibility lost in the community through their use of over-heated rhetoric and bully tactics. Instead of using their Report as an incentive for reform, the GSTA has chosen to wield it as a club.
Backed up against a wall, if Council doesn’t blink, it now seems certain that our taxes are going to have to pay defending lawsuits filed by the so-called Taxpayers Association! Just whose interests is the GSTA really looking out for?
(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, February 6, 2012
Why Restricting Rural Residential Development in Greater Sudbury Makes Sense
The following was originally posted in a somewhat different format in response to a comment made on the Sudbury Star’s website (post #2), itself in response to a letter to the editor from my friend Richard Paquette, published in the Monday, February 6 2012 edition of the Sudbury Star (“Changes would cause more urban sprawl”). I didn’t know that Richard was intending on writing his letter, but as a resident of Azilda, I can understand why he would be concerned at promoting even more sprawl in rural parts of the City of Greater Sudbury.
I spoke about the need to severely restrict additional rural residential development in Greater Sudbury at a recent meeting of Planning Committee, at which the 5-year review of the City’s Official Plan was being discussed. Earlier that evening, I had been delighted to hear that the City had identified rural residential development as one of the issues which was going to be looked at as part of the review. This acknowledgement of the importance of the issue motivated me to speak at the meeting, about an issue which I believe to be the flip-side of the smart growth coin.
Little did I understand at the time that the primary reason that the City had chosen to review rural residential development policies was for the purpose of allowing more as-of-right development by loosening policies further, and directing growth to our rural areas instead of to existing, already built-up parts of our City (like the Azilda community) which are fully serviced and which have an abundance of capacity. Given that the City itself acknowledges that there are over 500 vacant and developable rural residential lots already in existence, it just boggles my mind that the City would be looking at facilitating the creation of more expensive rural residential lots, to be subsidized by our limited taxpayer dollars!
However, Richard Pacquette, in his letter to the editor of the Sudbury Star, suggests that perhaps there is something else at play here: politics. In my reply to dhuglas (one of the more socially-conscious posters on the Sudbury Star site, I might add, and oft-time ally in seemingly never-ending battles with on-line Conservative trolls), I state that there is no good reason for allowing more rural residential development. But there are a lot of very bad reasons.
I have blogged about this issue before, in the context of cottage lot development (“Exurban Development in Greater Sudbury: Fiscally Irresponsible, Environmentally Unsustainable”). A lot of what I wrote then continues to be germane to the conversation which we’re just starting to have in Greater Sudbury around rural residential development.
Rural Residential Development: A Net Cost to Taxpayers
With regards to the cost/benefits of rural residential development, on the surface it may seem that a greater number of freehold properties should produce higher tax revenues for a municipality, especially if those properties are assessed at a residential rate rather than an agricultural one. Indeed, splitting lots does lead to increased revenues for municipalities. This argument is often used by speculators and other rural land owners as a justification for subdividing rural properties.
But the facts of the matter strongly suggest otherwise. Indeed, rural residential development is the very most expensive form of residential development in municipalities. The increased property tax revenues generated by additional rural residences never pay for themselves in the long run, and what we end up with is a form of development (primarily for wealthier land owners who may have multiple residences, or larger homes in rural settings) which is subsidized by other municipal taxpayers.
That Greater Sudbury already has a significant amount of this uneconomical form of development may be one of the reasons that our property tax circumstance always appears to be on the increase. Although many rural homeowners complain that taxes can become a burden (especially those with older homes on waterfronts, which have disproportionately been affected with higher assessment rates due to rising property values), the fact is that higher property taxes financially impact all homeowners throughout the City. And since urban taxpayers are, in essence, subsidizing rural homeowners, it is important to understand why rural residential development should be limited in order to improve the economic health of a majority of residents.
Smart Growth
A denser form of development, which isn’t desirable for everyone, is nonetheless a more efficient form of development in just about every way. The delivery of public services costs far less in urban situations than in suburban areas of the City, and far, far less than in exurban areas. While some exurban areas may not receive the same levels of servicing as others (especially public sewer and water), the fact is that road maintenance alone often compensates for increased costs.
Exurban development opportunities also detract from a community’s ability to grow more densely in urban areas. Since any given municipality is only going to attract a certain number of new households with a defined period of time, directing those new households to exurban areas, where servicing prices are high, means that there will be fewer people living in urban parts of a community where servicing costs are much lower. It also detracts from community redevelopment opportunities where a better mix of residential and commercial activities can take place side-by-side, often with greater densities.
Food Security
Creating rural residential lots in agricultural areas also has an incredibly negative impact on new and existing agricultural operations. In Greater Sudbury, we’ve already sterilized a significant area of what might otherwise be excellent agricultural lands due to poor lot creation policies. Right now, our primary agricultural areas aren’t under as significant a threat as they once were, due to protective land use policies, but secondary agricultural areas continue to be at risk. At a time when the idea of food security is fast becoming a major concern for residents of communities (especially those which find themselves hundreds of kilometres along a supply chain dependent on just a few transportation arteries, such as Greater Sudbury does), it only makes sense that we do what we can to protect our agricultural lands and make it easier, not more difficult, for our farmers to do their jobs. That’s another reason why directing residential development to already-established areas makes sense.
Cost-Effective Use of Existing Infrastructure
We have a number of core areas in the City of Greater Sudbury which would benefit from increased development. Often, infrastructure which can accomodate additional development is already in place in these core areas, and additional development will increase infrastructure efficiencies.
Rural residential development, when viewed as an opportunity lost, as well as a form of development with higher costs which are subsidized by taxpayers, the impacts which this form of development has on a community can be quite substantial. This isn’t just my opinion, by the way. Study after study has shown that the real costs of rural residential development create a long-term burden to taxpayers.
The Need to Place Limits on Rural Residential Development
Once created, it takes a significant effort to go back and reconsolidate residential lots. A better approach would be for a municipality to severely limit this form of development, or establish higher rates of taxation so that rural residential landowners pay their fair share. Both of these measures are often politically unpalatable for rural residential landowners and speculators, but that’s the sort of solution we need to be looking at in these times of fiscal restraint. The justification that increased taxation from new lots leads to a better economic circumstance for a city just isn’t supported by the empiric evidence.
In Greater Sudbury, with an abundance of vacant rural residential lots already in existence, there really is no need to create more lots in our rural areas. Since the costs are too high (both in terms of real costs and opportunity costs), and the built-form created is detrimental to other rural land users, it only makes sense that we prohibit opportunities for the creation of any further rural residential lots in our City. Simply put, there is no need for more lots, and no justifiable economic argument which can be made to support the creation of more lots.
With all levels of government looking to save costs, it's time that we acknowledge that we can no longer continue to subsidize inefficient and unsustainable rural residential development. We need to plan for the future in which are going to find ourselves in. It's time for the City to include policies in its land use plan which will prohibit the creation of new residential lots in rural areas, and preserve our rural areas for appropriate rural land uses, while protecting taxpayers from unnecessary tax increases.
(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)
I spoke about the need to severely restrict additional rural residential development in Greater Sudbury at a recent meeting of Planning Committee, at which the 5-year review of the City’s Official Plan was being discussed. Earlier that evening, I had been delighted to hear that the City had identified rural residential development as one of the issues which was going to be looked at as part of the review. This acknowledgement of the importance of the issue motivated me to speak at the meeting, about an issue which I believe to be the flip-side of the smart growth coin.
Little did I understand at the time that the primary reason that the City had chosen to review rural residential development policies was for the purpose of allowing more as-of-right development by loosening policies further, and directing growth to our rural areas instead of to existing, already built-up parts of our City (like the Azilda community) which are fully serviced and which have an abundance of capacity. Given that the City itself acknowledges that there are over 500 vacant and developable rural residential lots already in existence, it just boggles my mind that the City would be looking at facilitating the creation of more expensive rural residential lots, to be subsidized by our limited taxpayer dollars!
However, Richard Pacquette, in his letter to the editor of the Sudbury Star, suggests that perhaps there is something else at play here: politics. In my reply to dhuglas (one of the more socially-conscious posters on the Sudbury Star site, I might add, and oft-time ally in seemingly never-ending battles with on-line Conservative trolls), I state that there is no good reason for allowing more rural residential development. But there are a lot of very bad reasons.
I have blogged about this issue before, in the context of cottage lot development (“Exurban Development in Greater Sudbury: Fiscally Irresponsible, Environmentally Unsustainable”). A lot of what I wrote then continues to be germane to the conversation which we’re just starting to have in Greater Sudbury around rural residential development.
Rural Residential Development: A Net Cost to Taxpayers
With regards to the cost/benefits of rural residential development, on the surface it may seem that a greater number of freehold properties should produce higher tax revenues for a municipality, especially if those properties are assessed at a residential rate rather than an agricultural one. Indeed, splitting lots does lead to increased revenues for municipalities. This argument is often used by speculators and other rural land owners as a justification for subdividing rural properties.
But the facts of the matter strongly suggest otherwise. Indeed, rural residential development is the very most expensive form of residential development in municipalities. The increased property tax revenues generated by additional rural residences never pay for themselves in the long run, and what we end up with is a form of development (primarily for wealthier land owners who may have multiple residences, or larger homes in rural settings) which is subsidized by other municipal taxpayers.
That Greater Sudbury already has a significant amount of this uneconomical form of development may be one of the reasons that our property tax circumstance always appears to be on the increase. Although many rural homeowners complain that taxes can become a burden (especially those with older homes on waterfronts, which have disproportionately been affected with higher assessment rates due to rising property values), the fact is that higher property taxes financially impact all homeowners throughout the City. And since urban taxpayers are, in essence, subsidizing rural homeowners, it is important to understand why rural residential development should be limited in order to improve the economic health of a majority of residents.
Smart Growth
A denser form of development, which isn’t desirable for everyone, is nonetheless a more efficient form of development in just about every way. The delivery of public services costs far less in urban situations than in suburban areas of the City, and far, far less than in exurban areas. While some exurban areas may not receive the same levels of servicing as others (especially public sewer and water), the fact is that road maintenance alone often compensates for increased costs.
Exurban development opportunities also detract from a community’s ability to grow more densely in urban areas. Since any given municipality is only going to attract a certain number of new households with a defined period of time, directing those new households to exurban areas, where servicing prices are high, means that there will be fewer people living in urban parts of a community where servicing costs are much lower. It also detracts from community redevelopment opportunities where a better mix of residential and commercial activities can take place side-by-side, often with greater densities.
Food Security
Creating rural residential lots in agricultural areas also has an incredibly negative impact on new and existing agricultural operations. In Greater Sudbury, we’ve already sterilized a significant area of what might otherwise be excellent agricultural lands due to poor lot creation policies. Right now, our primary agricultural areas aren’t under as significant a threat as they once were, due to protective land use policies, but secondary agricultural areas continue to be at risk. At a time when the idea of food security is fast becoming a major concern for residents of communities (especially those which find themselves hundreds of kilometres along a supply chain dependent on just a few transportation arteries, such as Greater Sudbury does), it only makes sense that we do what we can to protect our agricultural lands and make it easier, not more difficult, for our farmers to do their jobs. That’s another reason why directing residential development to already-established areas makes sense.
Cost-Effective Use of Existing Infrastructure
We have a number of core areas in the City of Greater Sudbury which would benefit from increased development. Often, infrastructure which can accomodate additional development is already in place in these core areas, and additional development will increase infrastructure efficiencies.
Rural residential development, when viewed as an opportunity lost, as well as a form of development with higher costs which are subsidized by taxpayers, the impacts which this form of development has on a community can be quite substantial. This isn’t just my opinion, by the way. Study after study has shown that the real costs of rural residential development create a long-term burden to taxpayers.
The Need to Place Limits on Rural Residential Development
Once created, it takes a significant effort to go back and reconsolidate residential lots. A better approach would be for a municipality to severely limit this form of development, or establish higher rates of taxation so that rural residential landowners pay their fair share. Both of these measures are often politically unpalatable for rural residential landowners and speculators, but that’s the sort of solution we need to be looking at in these times of fiscal restraint. The justification that increased taxation from new lots leads to a better economic circumstance for a city just isn’t supported by the empiric evidence.
In Greater Sudbury, with an abundance of vacant rural residential lots already in existence, there really is no need to create more lots in our rural areas. Since the costs are too high (both in terms of real costs and opportunity costs), and the built-form created is detrimental to other rural land users, it only makes sense that we prohibit opportunities for the creation of any further rural residential lots in our City. Simply put, there is no need for more lots, and no justifiable economic argument which can be made to support the creation of more lots.
With all levels of government looking to save costs, it's time that we acknowledge that we can no longer continue to subsidize inefficient and unsustainable rural residential development. We need to plan for the future in which are going to find ourselves in. It's time for the City to include policies in its land use plan which will prohibit the creation of new residential lots in rural areas, and preserve our rural areas for appropriate rural land uses, while protecting taxpayers from unnecessary tax increases.
(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)
The Importance of a Public Conversation About Greater Sudbury's Proposed Anti-Idling By-law
I've been following with considerable interest the local print media's reaction to the proposed by-law in the City of Greater Sudbury which would limit unnecessary vehicular idling to one minute. This by-law has been in the making now for over a year and a half. Earlier in January, the proposed by-law came forward for review and recommendation by the City's Operations Committee, where it was adopted unanimously, and forwarded to Council for approval.
In the interim, several stories regarding the proposed by-law appeared in the media, many of which did not fully report on the by-laws many exceptions, which outline circumstances where idling may be permitted due to necessity or because of legal issues. These stories generated a significant number of online comments, as well as follow-up letters to the editor of print media.
Ultimately, Greater Sudbury's municipal Council unanimously refused to endorse the proposed by-law, sending it back to its Operations Committee (never mind that 5 of our Councillors on the Operations Committee had just voted to endorse the by-law at committee level). Our Councillors claimed that they had heard from the public, and that changes to the by-law were needed.
In response to a story about Council's actions, on January 27, 2012, I composed and submitted the following letter to the editor of the Northern Life, a bi-weekly print newspaper. At this time, the letter remains unpublished by the Northern Life. However, upon further review, since the anti-idling by-law was recommended by Operations Committee, the Northern Life has chosen to print two very interesting letters from a Mr. Richard Pulsifer.
The first, "City penny wise and pound foolish" (published online, January 19, 2012), appears to be nothing more than a diatribe against Ward 11 Councillor Terry Kett, who is one of the 5 Councillors on the City's Operations Committee. Mr. Pulsifer's next "letter" (in quotations, because that's a pretty generous term for a two-sentence opinion) was published in both the Northern Life and the Sudbury Star earlier today (February 6, 2012). This link is to the Northern Life's website, where the "letter" was published under the headline, "Idling by-law should apply to politicking".
Now, whether you think a by-law which limits unnecessary idling is a good idea or not, a letter which amounts to nothing more than a personal attack on a member of our Council, and another letter which does nothing but add further hot air to a well-worn climate change cliche does little, even less than nothing, to further public discourse. Indeed, today's letter from Mr. Pulsifer, published by both major print news sources in Greater Sudbury, really belittles the sort of public conversation which the residents of our community should be having on a by-law which proposes to place limits on unnecessary idling.
This is not to suggest that the Sudbury Star or the Northern Life appear to be giving only one side to this story. On the contrary, both the Sudbury Star and the Northern Life have published letters in support of the proposed by-law (just not mine - but don't worry, my fragile ego isn't particularly bruised). My point today has more to do with how, through the publication of letters which belittle public discourse, such as Mr. Pulsifer's does, the print media can end up playing a negative role in the public discourse around a particular issue.
Given the importance of the conversations which should be taking place in our communities regarding issues which have real impacts on real people, it would be better, I think, for our print media to take these issues seriously. Letters such as Mr. Pulsifer's do little to assist with moving public discussions forward, and indeed, they more often act as impediments for people to speak out, lest their own ideas and opinions become the topics of public derision.
The debate about the idling by-law will continue to play itself out in Greater Sudbury over the next few weeks (and maybe longer, although I hope not). What our decision-makers need is informed opinion, not personal attacks on their integrity.
Here is the text of my unpublished letter to the Editor of the Northern Life:
-----
Re: Council sends back idling by-law (January 26, 2012)
I was dismayed to see the proposed by-law to limit unnecessary idling in Greater Sudbury returned to the City’s Operations Committee by Council last week for further review. This by-law, recommended by the City’s Operations Committee for Council’s approval in early January, 2012, has been over a year and a half in the making. The by-law was to take effect on January 1, 2013, after an aggressive education campaign targetted for the latter half of 2012.
There is a clear and present need to limit the unnecessary idling of personal vehicles in our community. A report released by Statistics Canada in 2010 “Greenhouse gas emissions from private vehicles” indicated that Greater Sudbury is the second dirtiest city in all of Canada from a vehicle emissions perspective. The study found that personal vehicles in our city release a startling 2,844 kilograms of carbon dioxide for every resident. Greater Sudbury has quite a ways to go to match Canada's lowest per capita emitter, Montreal, where only 1,219 kilograms of CO2is released per person.
Along with environmental concerns, there are clear documented connections between vehicle exhaust emissions and negative effects on human health, particularly cardiovascular and respiratory effects. Children, pregnant women and elderly are groups that are especially at risk.
It’s well understood that we can not give up our dependence on personal vehicle use at this time, due to a lack of historic investment in other forms of transportation infrastructure. What we can do is to try to limit unnecessary emissions from our vehicles in order to improve Greater Sudbury’s air quality and reduce our climate-changing carbon emissions.
The by-law, modelled on a number of by-laws already in place in over 30 Ontario municipalities, would have allowed a number of sensible exemptions to the 1-minute idling restriction. Where these by-laws have been approved by municipal councils, there have been marked reductions in vehicle idling, due to an increased sense of public awareness.
It’s time for Greater Sudbury to get serious about air quality and climate change. Council needs to revisit this by-law immediately so as to meet the January 1, 2013 effective date recommended by the Operations Committee. We all need to acknowledge that we have a role to play in helping improve our community’s air quality. One way to accomplish that outcome is by sensibly limiting the unnecessary idling of our personal vehicles. Not only is limiting unnecessary idling good for our community’s health and the environment, it will save us money too.
Steve May
Sudbury
-----
(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)
In the interim, several stories regarding the proposed by-law appeared in the media, many of which did not fully report on the by-laws many exceptions, which outline circumstances where idling may be permitted due to necessity or because of legal issues. These stories generated a significant number of online comments, as well as follow-up letters to the editor of print media.
Ultimately, Greater Sudbury's municipal Council unanimously refused to endorse the proposed by-law, sending it back to its Operations Committee (never mind that 5 of our Councillors on the Operations Committee had just voted to endorse the by-law at committee level). Our Councillors claimed that they had heard from the public, and that changes to the by-law were needed.
In response to a story about Council's actions, on January 27, 2012, I composed and submitted the following letter to the editor of the Northern Life, a bi-weekly print newspaper. At this time, the letter remains unpublished by the Northern Life. However, upon further review, since the anti-idling by-law was recommended by Operations Committee, the Northern Life has chosen to print two very interesting letters from a Mr. Richard Pulsifer.
The first, "City penny wise and pound foolish" (published online, January 19, 2012), appears to be nothing more than a diatribe against Ward 11 Councillor Terry Kett, who is one of the 5 Councillors on the City's Operations Committee. Mr. Pulsifer's next "letter" (in quotations, because that's a pretty generous term for a two-sentence opinion) was published in both the Northern Life and the Sudbury Star earlier today (February 6, 2012). This link is to the Northern Life's website, where the "letter" was published under the headline, "Idling by-law should apply to politicking".
Now, whether you think a by-law which limits unnecessary idling is a good idea or not, a letter which amounts to nothing more than a personal attack on a member of our Council, and another letter which does nothing but add further hot air to a well-worn climate change cliche does little, even less than nothing, to further public discourse. Indeed, today's letter from Mr. Pulsifer, published by both major print news sources in Greater Sudbury, really belittles the sort of public conversation which the residents of our community should be having on a by-law which proposes to place limits on unnecessary idling.
This is not to suggest that the Sudbury Star or the Northern Life appear to be giving only one side to this story. On the contrary, both the Sudbury Star and the Northern Life have published letters in support of the proposed by-law (just not mine - but don't worry, my fragile ego isn't particularly bruised). My point today has more to do with how, through the publication of letters which belittle public discourse, such as Mr. Pulsifer's does, the print media can end up playing a negative role in the public discourse around a particular issue.
Given the importance of the conversations which should be taking place in our communities regarding issues which have real impacts on real people, it would be better, I think, for our print media to take these issues seriously. Letters such as Mr. Pulsifer's do little to assist with moving public discussions forward, and indeed, they more often act as impediments for people to speak out, lest their own ideas and opinions become the topics of public derision.
The debate about the idling by-law will continue to play itself out in Greater Sudbury over the next few weeks (and maybe longer, although I hope not). What our decision-makers need is informed opinion, not personal attacks on their integrity.
Here is the text of my unpublished letter to the Editor of the Northern Life:
-----
Re: Council sends back idling by-law (January 26, 2012)
I was dismayed to see the proposed by-law to limit unnecessary idling in Greater Sudbury returned to the City’s Operations Committee by Council last week for further review. This by-law, recommended by the City’s Operations Committee for Council’s approval in early January, 2012, has been over a year and a half in the making. The by-law was to take effect on January 1, 2013, after an aggressive education campaign targetted for the latter half of 2012.
There is a clear and present need to limit the unnecessary idling of personal vehicles in our community. A report released by Statistics Canada in 2010 “Greenhouse gas emissions from private vehicles” indicated that Greater Sudbury is the second dirtiest city in all of Canada from a vehicle emissions perspective. The study found that personal vehicles in our city release a startling 2,844 kilograms of carbon dioxide for every resident. Greater Sudbury has quite a ways to go to match Canada's lowest per capita emitter, Montreal, where only 1,219 kilograms of CO2is released per person.
Along with environmental concerns, there are clear documented connections between vehicle exhaust emissions and negative effects on human health, particularly cardiovascular and respiratory effects. Children, pregnant women and elderly are groups that are especially at risk.
It’s well understood that we can not give up our dependence on personal vehicle use at this time, due to a lack of historic investment in other forms of transportation infrastructure. What we can do is to try to limit unnecessary emissions from our vehicles in order to improve Greater Sudbury’s air quality and reduce our climate-changing carbon emissions.
The by-law, modelled on a number of by-laws already in place in over 30 Ontario municipalities, would have allowed a number of sensible exemptions to the 1-minute idling restriction. Where these by-laws have been approved by municipal councils, there have been marked reductions in vehicle idling, due to an increased sense of public awareness.
It’s time for Greater Sudbury to get serious about air quality and climate change. Council needs to revisit this by-law immediately so as to meet the January 1, 2013 effective date recommended by the Operations Committee. We all need to acknowledge that we have a role to play in helping improve our community’s air quality. One way to accomplish that outcome is by sensibly limiting the unnecessary idling of our personal vehicles. Not only is limiting unnecessary idling good for our community’s health and the environment, it will save us money too.
Steve May
Sudbury
-----
(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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)