The Economic Case Against the Tar Sands, Part 2: Tom Mulcair's Disastrous Kinder Morgan Reversal Opens the Door for the Green Party

In Part 1 of this blogseries, I laid out a logic model which started with the most important number to Canada’s, and the world’s, economic health: 2 degrees Celsius. Following from the notion that we must hold global annual warming at no more than 2 degrees Celsius, I laid out the case that Canada is failing to do its part to prevent warming, due to our weak Copenhagen Accord emissions reduction targets – and due to our failure to meet those targets under current economic circumstances, thanks to the tar sands industrial enterprise. I concluded that emissions from the tar sands enterprise cannot be permitted to rise and therefore investing in new pipelines would be a misallocation of scarce financial resources. The only way to hold the line at 2 degrees C of warming will be through heavy investment in renewables and the construction of distributed energy systems which transport and store renewable energy, coupled with the gradual winding down of fossil fuel enterprises, including Canada’s tar sands.

With all of this in mind, the question needs to be asked, what is Canada doing to achieve these necessary outcomes?

Canada: Headed in the Wrong Direction

Of course, the answer is we aren’t doing anything much at all – in fact, when everything is factored in, Canada is actually significantly exacerbating the global climate situation by facilitating the expansion of the tar sands industrial enterprise by approving additional pipeline capacity, and to a lesser but still significant degree, by investing in natural gas extraction.

I’ll leave the natural gas matter for another day. Today, I’d like to focus on those pipelines. In Part 1 of my series, the logic model I drew concluded that if pipelines are ultimately built, the tar sands can expect to see significant expansion. Canada’s Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver has been saying as much now for years, in his efforts to justify Keystone XL to President Obama (and despite what the U.S. Department of Foreign Affairs concluded – which was to say that the tar sands would expand with or without Keystone – which completely ignores what Oliver has been saying). I have always questioned Oliver’s wisdom, along with that of his Conservative Party counterparts – for it’s very clear to me that Canada risks economic upheaval, and potentially ruin, if we continue to invest in fossil fuels.

Northern Gateway Assessment - Absurd Economics

Last week, the National Energy Board (NEB) gave the greenlight to move forward with Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline, subject to 209 conditions. In making this recommendation to cabinet, the NEB did not assess a couple of significant environmental matters, including what would happen to the bitumen once it left the pipeline in Kitimat, and importantly for my post today, what happens to the bitumen before it enters the pipeline. These impacts were simply not assessed by the NEB from an environmental standpoint – but interestingly the planned economic benefits from shipping and tar sands industrial expansion were key to the NEB’s findings that construction of the pipeline would be in Canada’s economic interests.

And that’s just absurd.

You can’t tout the economic benefits of the energy system while simultaneously ignoring the system’s environmental impacts – choosing instead to focus only on the direct environmental impacts which come along with constructing a pipeline (and even in this extremely narrow assessment, the NEB recommended 209 conditions – many of which should never have been conditions of approval at all, but rather addressed upfront as part of the approval process. What happens if Enbridge can’t meet the conditions? The go-ahead has already been given, the money will have already changed hands. You can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube, even after you’ve discovered it tastes horrible).

Mulcair, Trudeau and May on Pipelines

Of course, with regards to the Northern Gateway, there’s a general feeling that what the NEB had to say about the pipeline didn’t really matter anyway – because the pipeline is never going to get built. Opposition from First Nations and environmentalists, along with calls from Leaders of Canada’s two largest opposition parties to shelve the pipeline will almost assuredly kill the project.

Yes, both NDP Leader Tom Mulcair and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau have been vocal in their opposition to Northern Gateway. Trudeau has been against the pipeline due to the physical impacts which the pipeline is anticipated to have on Northern BC’s rugged natural environment, and due to the lack of consultation with impacted First Nations. Mulcair has been critical for both of those reasons, and because he believes that the export of raw bitumen represents a lost opportunity for Canadian job creation and the establishment of a value-added refining industry.

The Green Party’s Elizabeth May has been vocal in her opposition for all of those reasons – and because of the impacts which the expansion of the tar sands will assuredly have on Canada achieving our emissions reduction targets – and doing our part to combat the climate crisis.

Dismissing Justin Trudeau and the Liberals

Justin Trudeau, due to his support of the Keystone XL pipeline, has really put himself in a box when it comes to the climate crisis. And that box is labelled “Not Credible”. I’m not going to spend much time assessing the Liberal Party’s position on energy and climate change, because it is so akin to that of the Conservative Party’s status quo that nit-picking the minor differences would be a futile exercise. A lack of a plan to price carbon, coupled with years of inactivity while in government, has led me to conclude that the Liberals have zero credibility on the issue, in my opinion.

Tom Mulcair and the NDP's New Energy Vision

The NDP, however, is a bit of a different story. Certainly NDP Leader Tom Mulcair has been making some positive noises about taking the climate crisis seriously. In a recent speech to the Economic Club of Canada, Mulcair had a lot of positive things to say about developing the “clean tech” sector (which I discussed earlier in my blogpost, “NDP Ups its Game: One Green’s Take on Mulcair’s Energy Vision”, December 5, 2013).

Further, the NDP have generally been against pipelines, demonstrating their “green cred” on this issue. Mulcair has long opposed both Northern Gateway and Keystone XL. And while the NDP have been rather silent on Enbridge’s proposed Line 9 reversal (even though Line 9 traverses through numerous ridings which are sure to be battlegrounds for the NDP in 2015 – while offering little or no local economic benefit). And in the recent British Columbia provincial election, NDP Leader Adrian Dix publicly expressed his Party’s opposition to the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion proposal, which would see a major increase of bitumen flowing into the Port of Vancouver.

Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain Pipeline

If built, the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain proposal would represent a massive opportunity for flowing unprocessed bitumen to an existing deepwater Pacific port. The Globe and Mail’s comparison of Trans Mountain and Northern Gateway (“Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain: How two pipeline projects compare”, Globe and Mail, December 22 2013) tells a very interesting story. While Northern Gateway, if constructed, would have capacity to transport 595 thousand barrels of bitumen a day, Trans Mountain would triple its current capacity and carry as much as 890 thousand barrels of bitumen a day.

There would also be significant issues for the City of Vancouver if Trans Mountain gets the go-ahead, including impacts on tanker traffic (the Globe and Mail reports that there could be as many as 34 tankers a month traversing the Burrard Inlet in an expansion scenario, versus the current 5 per month). Those, and other physical environmental concerns are important, but I’m not going to dwell on them for the purposes of this post. Instead, my concern is focused simply on how the upgrades to Trans Mountain would facilitate the expansion of the tar sands – and why that would not be in Canada’s long term economic interests.

Tangled Policy Direction: Kinder Morgan and the NDP

It’s not clear to me that former BC NDP Leader Adrian Dix really understood the climate change concerns and negative economic impacts posed by Kinder Morgan before he did a 180 degree turn during the 2013 spring election and rejected the pipeline. Dix was mostly focused on tanker traffic – along with wooing voters from the upstart BC Green Party – when he made his pitch to reject the pipeline. Later, this change of tack in the midst of an election was cited by NDP forensic electoral analysts as one of the major reasons for the NDP’s unexpected election defeat.

Now, Dix is gone, and the NDP are free to chart a new course. And that’s just what federal Leader Tom Mulcair appears to be doing with regards to Kinder Morgan. Interestingly, it appears that the NDP will now embrace Trans Mountain as part of their pre-election strategy to woo voters (presumably from the Liberals and Conservatives) in British Columbia (see: “Mulcair confident in the face of sinking polls”, Peter O’Neil, the Vancouver Sun, December 23, 2013)

NDP's Inconsistencies on Kinder Morgan

What’s clear to me (and will become increasingly clear to voters as well) is that Mulcair’s position on Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain is not at all consistent with his Energy Vision laid out earlier this month to the Economic Club of Canada – not from a climate change perspective, and certainly not internally consistent with this own broad energy policy approach. Let’s look at the second part first.

Mulcair told the Economic Club that Canada must begin the heavy lifting of creating a 21st Century energy system, based on a mix of renewable generation and smart grid technology. He made the connections between this industrial project, job creation and economic prosperity. With regards to fossil fuels, aside from laying out the case for better access and a social license for resource extraction, what Mulcair was really talking about was holding the line on tar sands expansion by insisting that the NDP would put a price on carbon through a cap and trade scheme, and by supporting an East-West pipeline but only if a refining industry could create Canadian jobs first. In essence, both of these measures would negatively impact any and all tar sands expansion plans – while promoting responsible and more sustainable resource development.

Mulcair was not talking about shutting down the tar sands – nobody in Canadian politics today is doing that. But he was talking about slowing down their growth by stalling transport capacity, while simultaneously creating value-added jobs for Canadians in the oil sector, and shifting in a massive and comprehensive way to renewables.

But now that Mulcair has reversed the NDP’s position on Kinder Morgan, all bets are off. The Kinder Morgan pipeline, if approved, will allow for a greater rate of expansion for the tar sands than we are witnessing today – which goes completely against the course outlined by Mulcair to the Economic Club. This recent change in position is not consistent with slowing growth.

Facilitating Tar Sands Expansion - Not Meeting Emissions Reductions Targets

And then there’s climate change. As outlined earlier, pipeline construction will allow the expansion of the tar sands industrial enterprise, and increase greenhouse gas emissions. These increases to emissions will mean that Canada won’t meet our emissions reductions targets – and will exacerbate the warming of the planet beyond 2 degrees Celsius, which threatens to bring about a global economic collapse.

Mulcair, in his New Energy Vision, ostensibly told the Economic Club of Canada that he was going to get serious about tackling the climate crisis. But now, by embracing Kinder Morgan, it’s clear that he was either just bluffing, has decided to pander for votes in BC, or simply doesn’t understand climate change.

Mulcair's Kinder Morgan Reversal - Political Winner for the Green Party

Further, I believe that this reversal of the NDP’s position on Kinder Morgan will prove a loser for Mulcair in the long run. Not only is his reversal inconsistent with the NDP’s New Energy Vision, and inconsistent with measures needed to get serious about climate change, but it creates an opportunity for the Green Party of Canada to corner the anti-Kinder Morgan vote in Vancouver.

Already, the Green Party of Canada is polling very well in British Columbia – the latest EKOS numbers have the Greens at 18%, making BC one of the highest polling jurisdictions for Greens in the world. While those numbers might be somewhat inflated, it is fair to say that the Greens are doing well in BC, having elected Elizabeth May federally in 2011 and Andrew Weaver provincially in 2013. And with BC already a battleground between the Liberals, NDP and Conservatives, it stands to reason that an aggressive Green campaign centred around the right candidate could find the Greens coming up the middle in certain ridings.

With opposition to Kinder Morgan in BC centred in Metro Vancouver and on the Island, it’s pretty fair to think that Mulcair may lose votes to the Green Party – which now remains the only federal party opposed to Kinder Morgan. Interestingly, Vancouver and Vancouver Island are the centres of Green strength in BC, and province-wide polls might actually be underselling voters existing preferences for the Green Party in those regions. If that’s the case (and it probably is), the NDP is going to find itself in real trouble in Vancouver over this move of Mulcair’s.

NDP: Putting Partisan Gain Ahead of Public Good

Now, look, I want to give Mulcair the benefit of the doubt here on climate change. I really think he does understand its dynamics – including the need to hold warming at 2 degrees Celsius. But it’s not clear to me that the NDP hasn’t watered down its past pledges to get serious about climate change. In his Economic Club speech, Mulcair talked only about Canada meeting its current “commitments” (Copenhagen), rather than the emissions reduction targets the NDP had been playing up for years and years now (those that were enshrined in Kyoto). So, if Mulcair does understand how climate change works, why is it he seems poised to take his party backward on the issue?

Clearly, it’s all about pandering to voters. Mulcair knows where his battlegrounds are, and what he must do to win enough votes to form government in 2015. Along with holding Quebec and most of BC, Mulcair needs to win suburban Ontario – and that’s where his step back on Kyoto and embrace of Kinder Morgan will likely win votes.

Kinder Morgan really isn’t a top of the line issue for most Ontario voters, despite its connection to climate change and economic collapse. I think it’s fair to say that most voters throughout Canada might not be thinking the same way that I am about this issue. Point here is that the NDP will be able to tell Ontario voters that they support pipelines and non-renewable resource expansion – as long as it’s the right pipeline (as if there could be such a thing!). Such an approach may warm Ontario voters to the notion that the NDP isn’t the party of economic mismanagement which so many in my province fear they are. This kindler, gentler (from a short-term economic perspective) NDP will sell itself well in Ontario.

And the same goes for relaxing its policy on climate change. Oh, I’m sure they’ll talk a good talk about climate change, in an effort to convince voters that they’ll take real action on the issue (and in comparison to the Conservatives and Liberals, it won’t be a tough sell for the NDP to make to voters) – but at the end of the day, these scoped actions on the part of the NDP will mean that Canada will continue to be a climate laggard, and will do nothing for ensuring that Canada is doing its part to help ensure that the 2 degree Celsius climate threshold isn’t breached.

In short, the NDP is going to sacrifice good public policy for a short term vote grab. And that’s not what Canada needs.

NDP: Leaving the Environmental and Economic Playing Field Open for a Green Party Push

So it really is all about strategy. Mulcair has probably already written off retaining all of his urban BC seats, given the strength of the Liberals and Conservatives in BC. When a small loss is already in the cards, Mulcair’s reversal on Kinder Morgan might actually help with the NDP’s campaign in BC by bolstering the fortunes of the Green Party. This might at first seem counterintuitive, but the fact is that successful Green campaigns are not always drawing voters from the NDP – statistics show that both the Liberals and the NDP are about equally effected, with the Conservatives impacted to a lesser degree. In the right riding, a strong Green campaign could draw enough votes from the Liberals to allow a New Democrat to be elected. 3-way races are a bit of a crap shoot in elections anyway. 4-way races are even more so. Mulcair has always been a gambler – so the Kinder Morgan strategy might make sense for 2015 because of BC’s electoral dynamics and the NDP’s Ontario strategy. At least in 2015.

Beyond that, Mulcair might be jeopardizing the NDP's chances of success if the Green Party is able to capitalize on building a regional power base in BC. It's no secret that the NDP fears the rise of the Green Party - it's gone to extrordinary lengths to keep the Green Party down, often to the silly point of refusing to acknowledge its existence by not naming it publicly. More importantly, the NDP has participated in a concerted effort to keep the Green Party out of televised Leaders debates nationally, and in a number of provinces as well. Greens won't soon forget that former NDP Leader Jack Layton twice publicly sought to keep Green Leader Elizabeth May out of the televised leadership debates. A public outcry (and supportive Liberal Leader) condemned Layton's efforts in 2008 - but in 2011, with Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff onside, May was kept silent.

Greens: Putting Planet Before Party

In some ways, this NDP strategem sits well with me. Goodness knows that I’d rather have Mulcair as Prime Minister than Harper (or any other Conservative) or Trudeau, so if Mulcair thinks he can win this way, more power to him. And, as a Green, I can’t help but applaud circumstances which might allow more of my Party’s candidates to be elected, and that’s one of the outcomes I see from Mulcair’s reversal on Kinder Morgan. That being said, I have to put the value of the planet ahead of any partisan aspirations that I have, and because I value the planet, I am forced to condemn Mulcair’s approach to Kinder Morgan.

To me, it’s very clear that the NDP is not going to take combatting climate change seriously – despite the noises it is making. Yes, at least under an NDP government, some steps forward be taken, while offset by steps backwards. At least, though, that’s a better approach than on offer from the Conservatives and the Liberals – both of whom would take Canada in one direction only – backwards. But half measures at this point in our history are not what we need – not if we are going to stave off economic collapse as a result of blowing through the 2 degrees Celsius warming threshold. And that’s why Mulcair and the NDP are failing Canadians, in my opinion.

The good news is that the Green Party appears to be on the rise in Canada – and certainly the groundwork is being laid now in BC to make the Greens a regional player. If a small caucus of Greens is elected in 2015, come the next election, the Green Party will be able to show Canadians throughout all regions that we are an important contender with different priorities and ideas from any of the other old-line parties mired in their twentieth century views of politics. I really do believe that, thanks to Tom Mulcair, the opportunity for the Green Party to find its way forward has been elevated. The ball is now in our own court to capitalize on Mulcair’s foolish – and economically dangerous – plan to embrace Kinder Morgan and flout Canada’s emissions reductions commitments.

But Canada, and the world, will assuredly come to resent the NDP’s wishy-washy approach to climate change.

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

The Economic Case Against the Tar Sands, Part 1: Why Our Best Future Economic Indicator is 2 Degrees Celsius

2 degrees Celsius is fast becoming the most critical number of the 21st Century. It is the number on which economic decisions are going to have to be based on as we move deeper into the decade. As an economic target, it is more important that GDP growth, more important than the unemployment rate. That’s because if our economic activity takes us past 2 degrees Celsius, it could very well be game over for the economy – and human industrial civilization as we know it.

2 degrees C represents the amount of warming which the Earth can likely tolerate without triggering positive feedback loops which risk taking us into a runaway climate change scenario. The best available science suggests that if the global average temperature rises about 2 degrees C, it is quite likely that northern permafrost in Siberia and Canada will melt, releasing vast quantities of methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, which has the potential as acting as the impetus for an abrupt shift in global climate.

A Science-based Case for Global Economic Health

The perils of the changing climate we are experiencing today are well established. More heat in the air means more humidity – which leads to more intense weather events, such as microbursts and their attendant flash flooding. Trapped heat is also melting glaciers, some of which feed our major river systems – used as a drinking water source by billions. Arctic sea ice continues to melt, causing a rise in sea level which contributes to storm surges (such as the one experienced by New York and New Jersey during hurricane Sandy). All of this has been happening with an average annual global temperature rise of only 0.8 degrees from pre-industrial levels.

Beyond 2 degrees Celsius of warming, in a world which experiences substantial methane release, the changes brought about will be catastrophic. The multiple systems failures expected in this scenario could very well lead to global economic collapse. The breakdown of the global food system alone could lead to starvation for billions. Food system breakdowns on a local scale almost always lead to political unrest. It is not beyond the realm of probability to suggest that the same would likely happen on a global scale.

Already the costs of climate change have been estimated to be $40 billion annually for Canadians by the year 2050 (source: National Roundtable on Environment and Energy – document no longer available on government website)– and that’s not taking into consideration the possibility of abrupt climate change brought on by events triggered by blowing through the 2 degrees Celsius threshold. This may be because scientists have been very firm in their warning that the 2 degrees Celsius barrier is one which we dare not pass through. In fact, many are now suggesting that the barrier itself may be too liberal – and that it would be better to target only 1.5 or 1 degrees Celsius of warming.

Why Staying on Target Won't Work

Getting warming under control will require a massive reduction in fossil fuel use. At Copenhagen climate conference in 2009, international leaders acknowledged the importance of the 2 degrees Celsius threshold, and pledged to reduce carbon emissions. When all of the pledges were ultimately calculated, it was determined that the world would be on target to a 3.5 to 4.2 degrees Celsius rise in global temperatures. And that’s only if emissions reductions targets were actually achieved.

At Copenhagen, Prime Minister Stephen Harper pledged that Canada would reduce its emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. This emission reduction target actually represents a rise in emissions of about 3% from 1990 levels, which Canada had previously committed to under Kyoto. Nevertheless, this new target represented a better outcome for emissions than a “business as usual” approach. And Canada has seen a small reduction in emissions over the past several years, thanks largely to Ontario, which has closed coal generating stations, and which has experienced a significant loss in manufacturing jobs thanks to the economic downturn.

The Threat Posed By the Tar Sands

One industrial project, however, threatens to overwhelm gains in emissions reductions from all other sectors in Canada. The expansion of the tar sands industrial enterprise is already eclipsing those gains made by Ontario and the other provinces, as production continues to ramp up. At current rates of increase, it is certain that because of the tar sands, Canada will fail to meet our watered-down emissions reduction target, barring probably a significant global economic collapse.

When new transport capacity in the form of pipelines are added into the mix, the rate of tar sands industrial expansion is increased significantly – as will be the carbon emissions from the enterprise. Bringing any one of several bitumen pipelines online in the next decade will facilitate the circumstances for expansion.

What We Know

To recap, here’s what we know:

1) Warming must be held at 2 degrees Celsius – or we risk experiencing economic catastrophe brought on by runaway climate change.

2) The only way to avoid blowing through the 2 degrees C barrier is to vastly reduce fossil fuel emissions.

3) At Copenhagen in 2009, global leaders pledged to reduce emissions – but only by enough to hold warming at catastrophic levels of between 3.5 and 4.2 degrees.

4) Canada’s watered-down emissions reduction pledge of 17% below 2005 levels will not be met, based on current trends – thanks to the expansion of the tar sands industrial enterprise already underway.

5) Bitumen pipeline expansion will only increase fossil fuel emissions.

Accordingly, How We Must Act

Based on what we know, let’s work backwards and determine what we must do:

1) Prevent the increase of fossil emissions from the tar sands by constraining tar sands growth through the prohibition of new transport capacity.

2) Work with the international community to develop and meet emissions reduction targets which ensure that the 2 degrees C threshold is not broached.

3) Invest heavily in renewable energy production and distribution systems to replace fossil fuels and carbon-based energy and transportation systems.

There isn’t any other realistic alternatives to the logic model outlined above – not if we’re going to do what we can to prevent a global economic catastrophe thanks to runaway climate change triggered by positive feedback loops from warming beyond the 2 degrees C threshold.

Keep the above in mind throughout 2014 as debate rages about what Canada ought to do with regards to Enbridge’s Northern Gateway and Line 9 reversal pipeline proposals, and Kinder-Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline proposal. Keep it in mind as well as President Obama continues to dither on a decision related to the Keystone XL pipeline. Greenlighting any of these pipeline proposals will be a violation of Item No. 1, above, under “What we Must Do”. The facts are well known, and the logic model is sound.

National Energy Board - A Bogus Environmental and Economic Assessment Process

Yet, Canada’s National Energy Board (NEB) recently came to the conclusion that building the Northern Gateway pipeline would be in Canada’s best economic interest. For me, it is absolutely impossible to understand how the NEB could have possibly come to that conclusion, based on the facts outlined above. The long-term economic interests of Canada, and the world for that matter, can only be served by holding warming at 2 degrees Celsius. Decisions which facilitate more fossil fuel emissions will only quicken the pace of warming and the attendant global economic collapse.

The 21st Century's Defining Industrial Project

As difficult as it may be, we really don’t have any choice but to begin the process of abandoning all fossil fuel energy enterprises, and begin working on what is sure to be the 21st Century’s greatest industrial achievement: the construction of a renewable distributed energy systems. The foundations for these systems are already being laid, but at a maddeningly slow pace thanks to our continued investments in fossil fuel expansion. Investing in fossil fuels at this time in our history is a massive misallocation of public (and private) resources which we can no longer tolerate.

Our political leaders don’t seem to be getting the message – or if they are, they are too timid to speak openly and honestly to the voting public about the coming economic crisis and the need for change.

In Part 2 of this series, I’ll explore what Canada can do to play its role in preventing the coming crisis.

Note: While I have written specifically about Canada’s tar sands, I have to acknowledge that the tar sands are only one piece of the global energy puzzle which must be wound down in order to avoid climate catastrophe. Globally, the use of coal carries a significant risk for the climate – and yet, we continue to invest in coal. Natural gas, too, often touted as “clean” is anything but – and yet, massive investments in new extraction and transport technology are being made throughout the world. My focus on the tar sands was not to suggest that preventing its expansion would save the planet from climate catastrophe – it won’t. Instead, it is one significant major industrial project over which we Canadians have control – and if we are to do our part, it is one enterprise on which we must act.

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

Savage Reaction to Hyer's Greening Shows NDP Can't Be Trusted with Democratic Reform

What a whirlwind the last couple of days have been for the Green Party of Canada. Not only did the Green Party double its caucus on Friday, with the addition of Thunder Bay-Superior North MP Bruce Hyer, but the Green Party became the focus of attack by the NDP this past weekend over Hyer’s move. Throw in Green Party Elizabeth May being named one of Canada’s Top 3 Most Valuable MP’s by the Hill Times today, and it’s clearly been an exciting time.

What was certainly one of the worst-kept secrets in Ottawa became public knowledge this past Friday the 13th, when TBSN MP Bruce Hyer, accompanied by Elizabeth May, met with the press in Thunder Bay. Hyer, who had been serving his constituents as an Independent since leaving the NDP caucus in April, 2012, over vote-whipping, signed a Green Party membership form and announced that he would now be sitting as a Green. Hyer’s announcement was the cue for the NDP to start up their cynical attack machine in a weak effort to downplay the significance of the day’s announcement.

NDP Engages in Scathing Personal Attacks

Interestingly, the majority of the NDP’s attack appeared to centre on New Democratic party members lack of understanding of how Canada’s parliamentary system actually works. Charlie Angus (MP – Timmins-James Bay), led the way by demanding – in the interests of democracy - that Hyer step down and face a by-election. Angus apparently didn’t see the irony in his call for a by-election - the irony being, of course, that the NDP’s own anti-democratic vote-whipping was the primary reason that Hyer left the NDP in the first place. Had the NDP allowed its members to vote in the interests of the very same constituents which Angus was crying fraud on behalf of, it’s doubtful that Hyer would have ever found himself on his year-and-a-half long trek to the Green Party.

Later that day, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair got in on the act in a big way. On Don Martin’s “Power Play”, Mulcair made a number of disgustingly scathing personal comments about Bruce Hyer, calling him “unreliable” and questioning whether Hyer was a “man of his word”. In what must be one of the most over-the-top remarks of the year, Mulcair even stated that Bruce Hyer had “any values whatsoever, he’d resign”. Clearly, from the NDP’s perspective, a man like Hyer who stands up to his Party on behalf of his constituents must be without any and all values.

To engage in their attack, both Angus and Mulcair broke the NDP’s unwritten rule of giving the Green Party credence by mentioning its name. And what a mistake that proved for the NDP, as the point they tried to make – that all but 3% of voters in Thunder Bay-Superior North voted AGAINST the Green Party in the 2011 federal election – made them look foolish. As if anybody really believes that voters in that riding set out to cast their ballots for “anybody but the Greens”. I can promise you that keeping the Green Party down was not on the minds of voters at the ballot box in TBSN in 2011.

Civics Lesson Needed for Mindless NDP Partisans

The mindless and uninformed partisan attacks continued throughout the weekend on media commenting sites, Twitter and Facebook. All appeared to be informed by the NDP’s comprehensive misunderstanding of our parliamentary system – and about what democracy means in Canada. I can understand that the NDP might be upset that Hyer left their Party to eventually join the Greens – and that, despite the intervening time spent as an Independent, Hyer’s move might still be considered a “floor crossing” (even though he’s physically going to stay put in the same seat that he’s occupied for the past year and a half, right next to Elizabeth May). What I just don’t get is why the NDP wants to misrepresent our democratic system to Canadians for their own cynical, partisan gain.

The NDP and its supporters have often been amongst the first to correct the record when right-wing voices bellow about “unelected” governments, such as that of Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne (although the most famous one being one which didn’t happen – when the Liberals and NDP got together back at the end of 2008 to enter into a coalition government – which was eventually thwarted by Stephen Harper proroguing parliament). In these circumstances, the NDP has often leapt to the defence of our Westminster Parliamentary system – or at the very least, have had the good sense to refrain for calls for costly and unnecessary elections. Simply put, the NDP knows that we don’t elect Premiers and Prime Ministers in this country – we elect parliaments.

While radical right-wing voices would have Canadians believe that, for example, Premier Wynne lacks a public mandate to govern because her party never faced an election with her as leader, the fact is that our system doesn’t work that way – and despite having enjoyed significant opportunities to change that system when in power, Conservatives going back to Confederation have opted not to mess around with that aspect of our parliamentary system. For them, calls for resignation have simply become a useful tool to fool Canadians into thinking that we have a Presidential system of governance, similar to that of our southern neighbour. These calls are disingenuous at best – and a blight on our democracy at worst.

Similarly, the NDP’s call for Hyer to face a by-election is based on a complete misunderstanding of our parliamentary system – one which is obviously deliberate on the part of the New Democratic Party, designed to fool the public into thinking a certain way which aligns with their own anti-democratic principles. By calling for a by-election when an elected Member of Parliament moves from one Party to another (or, in Hyer’s case, simply joins a new Party), the NDP has clearly shown its contempt for the voting public.

Elections: People, Not Parties

Simply put, the NDP wants Canadians to think that we elect political parties rather than individuals. The political hue of a candidate, for the NDP, must take precedence over all else – to the point that when that colour changes, the NDP believes that the parliamentarian must resign.

Well, I’ve got news for the NDP – in Canada, we don’t elect colours. We elect people. And more importantly, those elected members of parliament are sent to Ottawa to serve the interests of their constituents as representatives of the geographic areas from which voters elected them. They are intended to serve the interests of the public ahead of all else. Yet the NDP wants Canadians to believe that the interests of political parties must be the first and foremost priority of elected officials – likely because this regressive and shameful way of thinking serves the NDP’s own partisan interest in ironclad party discipline and message control.

Deliberately Misleading

Shame on the NDP for trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadians with their deceptive and incorrect interpretation of our Westminster parliamentary system. This past weekend, I saw numerous NDP supporters opine that floor crossers should be forced to face a by-election when announcing for a new party. Be that as it may, NDP governments have held power provincially in B.C., Ontario, Manitoba and Nova Scotia at times in the past – and at no time was legislation about floor crossing ever debated by provincial parliaments. Which is why, I believe, that we can take the NDP’s “position” on this matter with equal weight to that of the radical right-wingers who believe a change in party leadership should trigger an election.

If you think that I’m wrong about this, consider this little thought experiment. If Charlie Angus chose to resign his seat from parliament tomorrow, would the NDP demand that he be replaced by another New Democrat? Clearly not – in the interests of democracy, a by-election would be held.

But how would Angus’ resignation be any different, from the NDP’s perspective, than Hyer leaving the NDP and joining the Greens? If the NDP asserts that Hyer, a sitting member of parliament, should resign because voters in TBSN voted 97% against the Green Party, wouldn’t the reverse then be true for Timmins-James Bay, where a real majority of voters chose the NDP to represent them? If the actual person doesn’t matter to the NDP (Hyer continues to sit in parliament), why the need for a costly by-election for resigning members?

It’s not a stretch to realize the real similarities between the two scenarios – only in the NDP’s world, people as representatives of the voters appear to be important only in one scenario, while the colour of the political party is paramount in the other.

For NDP, Political Colours Matter. People Don't

I had the pleasure of mixing it up on social media with a number of NDP partisans over the weekend, who attempted to defend the NDP’s indefensible anti-democratic tradition. By and large, it appears that the NDP is confusing voter motivation with the electoral process. While there is certainly merit in suggesting that voters are motivated to vote for an MP based on party affiliation, the actual process of voting itself requires the election of a real person, and not just a party colour stand-in. No matter the party affiliation of an elected representative, that individual will need to explain any and all actions at the time of the next election, should they decide to run again. If voters are motivated to cast their ballots for a different individual based on the past actions of an incumbent, so be it – the fact is, there are a lot of reasons why voters cast their ballots in the ways that they do. Ultimately, it’s a personal process which all voters go through to arrive at the decision for whom to cast their ballot.

NDP partisans, however, appear to be relying on the notion that Members of Parliament run for office on a clearly outlined policy platform, which they promise to never deviate from at every opportunity. By making this declaration, NDP MP’s subject themselves to the will of the Party as manifested by the Party Whip – voting en masse for or against a motion without the need to think further.

This past weekend, Elizabeth May referred to this as “checking your brain at the door” – a practice that I’m pretty sure most Canadians don’t really want to see our MP’s engage in – despite their voting patterns.

For NDP partisans, though, party discipline means everything – and Hyer, who placed the interests of his constituents before those of his party, defying the whip on a long gun registry vote, had already made himself an enemy of the Party. He was duly punished for the better part of a year, forced to sit silently in the back rows of the NDP caucus, not allowed to so much as speak about local events happening the riding, or honour its residents. In short, for breaking party discipline, the NDP forced him to abandon doing his job of looking out for his constituents.

Yet, in the mind of NDP partisans, this is somehow what “democracy” is supposed to be about.

To Defend Democracy, You Should Understand It

I’m sorry, NDP, but your narrow and regressive version of democracy – if it’s what you really believe in - isn’t one that I share. I suspect you’ll find that most Canadians, and even members of your own party, believe that the people we send to Ottawa to represent our interests are more important that the colours that they represent. The very idea that our elected officials should put the interests of their party ahead of their constituents is abhorrent – and says a considerable deal about why our democracy is in shambles today.

But rather than side with the Green Party in a meaningful attempt to reform our democratic practices, the NDP instead has decided to play nonsensical partisan political games over Bruce Hyer’s move to the Green Party. They’ve personally attacked Bruce Hyer, by questioning his integrity and values (suggesting that he doesn’t have any of either). They’re trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadians by pretending our system functions in a way that it doesn’t. The personal attacks and public deceptions on the part of the NDP are assuredly part of the reason why Canadians are turned off of politics in the first place.

Personal Frustrations with the NDP

I regret having to write this kind of blogpost, because it appears that I’ve done nothing here but attack the NDP – albeit for the NDP’s deception and dishonesty. I don’t like to engage in these kinds of counter attacks, but the display put on by the NDP this past weekend over Hyer becoming a Green was truly reprehensible. I live in a riding where the NDP has elected MP’s and MPP’s without much of a contest over the past number of elections. I think that if NDP supporters truly knew how this party operated, they would demand change from within. I know that some are doing that, but they continue to face the wall of party discipline and game-playing which the backroom leadership of the NDP believes is the route to electoral success.

NDP members and supporters should expect – and demand – more from their Party. I was proud of those NDP supporters from across Canada who called on former leader Jack Layton to change his anti-democratic decision to go along with the Broadcast Consortium’s move to bar Elizabeth May from participating in the 2008 televised leader’s debates. This upwelling of democratic support from NDP members showed me that, despite their Party’s track record, there are New Democrats throughout Canada who really are committed to bettering our democracy.

Yet, as the years have gone by, I’ve seen little evidence emerge from the NDP that their so-called democratic reform initiatives are worth the paper that they’re printed on. Since 2008, NDP governments in Nova Scotia and Manitoba have done nothing to enrich democratic processes in those provinces. And now, federal NDP supporters want Canadians to believe that Tom Mulcair’s NDP is going to carry the democratic reform banner in the 2015 national election. It’s just too much to believe.

If I am hard on the NDP, it is because I have always expected better from this Party than from the Liberals or Conservatives. Don’t take my direct criticism of the NDP to mean that I somehow support what the Liberals and Conservatives are doing to advance the interests of Canadians democracy. Indeed, it’s the exact opposite – the actions of those two parties are the ones which have created the gulf of Canada’s democratic deficit in the first place – and which has allowed the NDP to play fast and loose with our democratic principles.
As much as this will sound like my own partisanship, it’s increasingly become clear to me that only the Green Party can be trusted with acting on restoring democracy to Canada and our provinces. I’ve been following the discussions about the need for political parties to co-operate with one another for some time now – as part of an effort to oust the Conservatives from power. There may have been a time which I would have subscribed to such an effort as being a worthy initiative – but clearly, with the behaviour of the Liberals and especially that of the NDP, it’s become clear to me now that neither of these parties is at all interested in advancing the cause of democracy in Canada.

And this really does upset me – because at the end of the day, I am personally far more interested in having this issue advanced by whomever than I am by having partisan gain accrue to my Party because we are its only champion. I would rather see real democratic reform occur under an NDP majority government in a House with zero MP’s elected from the Green Party.

But if the NDP doesn’t even understand how our parliamentary system works – or worse, is being deliberately misleading about it to Canadians (which is what the NDP is doing), how can it be trusted to look after reform?

It can’t.

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

-----

For a less partisan, and more concise take on the NDP’s “stunning degree of civic ignorance” over Hyer’s joining the Green Party, here’s a great post from Dale Smith’s “Routine Proceedings” blog, “Charlie Angus’ Wrongheaded Understanding of Our Democracy”.

Green Party - Table for Two?

There’s been a lot of speculation all week that Thunder Bay-Superior North Member of Parliament Bruce Hyer (Independent) is getting ready to join the Green Party of Canada. Last week, Hyer made it known to local Thunder Bay media that he would be making an announcement on Friday, December 13th, regarding his future plans in parliament – including a shift from Independent status. This past weekend, he told the CBC that he could never return to a party which whipped votes – and that his joining a party would have to be on his terms, as an “Independent-Plus”.

I’ve learned to take little for granted in politics, but the since Hyer’s announcement last week, it’s seemed pretty clear to everybody that the Green Party would be doubling its caucus in Parliament, with Hyer joining Elizabeth May at the table. Interestingly, if MP Hyer does join the Green Party, it will be the shortest-ever “floor crossing” Canada’s parliament has ever witnessed, as Hyer won’t actually be crossing the floor – or even moving at all. May and Hyer are already seated adjacent to one another in the House of Commons (Hyer in seat 308, while May is in seat 309 – not sure why there are 309 seats in a House built for 307 MP’s and 1 Speaker, but there you go).

The Past is Prologue

Bruce Hyer was elected under the NDP’s banner in 2008, and again in 2011. Shortly after the 2011 election, Hyer lost his speaking privileges with the NDP after voting against his Party’s wishes on the dismantling of the long gun registry (along with Thunder Bay-Rainy River MP John Rafferty). After months of being silenced, new NDP Leader Tom Mulcair invited him back into the fold. Hyer questioned what role he would play in shadow cabinet – the answer was “none” – and he asked if he would be able to vote for the wishes of his constituents again or have to face the whip – the answer was the whip comes first, always.

So Hyer quit the NDP to sit as an Independent, where he believed he could do more to express the wishes of his constituents.
And he’s been sitting as an Independent since April, 2012. I shared my thoughts regarding what I thought Hyer’s next move ought to be back in late April, 2012 (see: “Bruce Hyer and the Values of Political Parties” , Sudbury Steve May, April 30, 2012). Not surprisingly, I came to the conclusion that Hyer might really want to think about joining Elizabeth May and the Green Party, for a number of reasons. I’m not sure that it was one of my better blogposts – it received only one comment – but for me, it was a very valuable one – it was from Bruce Hyer.

Many pundits this week are already writing off Hyer’s electoral chances in 2015 should he decide to run for the Green Party. On the surface, given the Party’s lack of success in the riding (and more generally, throughout Northern Ontario), it might seem a stretch to think that the good voters of Thunder Bay-Superior North are going to return Hyer to parliament under the Green Party’s banner. That kind of tree-hugging nonsense doesn’t play well in cold, resource-based communities anyway – so what’s Hyer thinking?

The Green Party - Elusive Electoral Success

Let’s break this down a little further. First off, the Green Party’s success rate in Thunder Bay-Superior North is no better – or no worse – than it has been in a multitude of Canadian ridings. In the 2011 election, the Green Party’s Scott Kyle received just 3% of the vote – which was only slightly below the 3.9% average for all Green Party candidates in that election. In 2008, the Green candidate received a healthier 6.9% - just slightly above the 6.7% average of all Green candidates. And the 2008 race in TBSN was a close one between the NDP and Liberals, with the Conservatives increasing their vote share. In 2011, the NDP widened the gap, the Liberals fell to third place, and the Conservative numbers continued to climb for a second place finish. Interestingly, the outcomes and the narratives of those two elections were almost exactly what we here in Sudbury experienced.

The fact is, even in ridings were Greens did a fair bit better in general elections in 2008 and 2011, for the most part, Greens didn’t challenge the old line parties anywhere – save for Elizabeth May in Central Nova in 2011 and Saanich-Gulf Islands in 2011. In 2011, our next best finishes were 19% (and 3rd place) in the Yukon, and 15% in Vancouver Centre (4th place) and 15% in Dufferin-Caledon (2nd place). This would have been a real downer for the Green Party of Canada had we not succeeded in implementing our election strategy – get leader Elizabeth May elected at all cost.

Green Election Strategies

Some pundits have criticized the Green Party for making the 2011 general election all about May. Unlike in 2008, there really wasn’t much of an effort to engage in a national campaign. May spent most of her time knocking on doors in Saanich-Gulf Islands, both pre-writ and post. The Party poured money into that riding – in order to elect May, and to start building a regional base of operations on Vancouver Island. The strategy paid off – May got elected by a healthy margin, and the regional base continues to grow, with the BC Green Party electing MLA Andrew Weaver from the Island riding of Oak Bay-Gordon Head. In 2012, Green Donald Galloway came within a few percentage points of taking Victoria in a by-election.

May’s election to parliament was critical for another reason – and it has everything to do with 2015. In 2008, Independent MP (and former Liberal) Blair Wilson had publicly joined the Green Party just days before Harper broke his fixed election law and called for a new mandate. With one Green MP in parliament (although never technically recognized as such), May (backed by concerned Canadians) was able to ultimately make a case to the Broadcast Consortium that she deserved to be a part of the televised Leader’s debates. As a result, it’s no wonder that 2008 was the Green Party’s best showing nationally. In 2011, without an MP, May was shut out of the televised debates. With an MP, it only stands to reason that May will be back in the televised debates in 2015, and the fortunes of the Green Party in the next election may very well be tied to her performance in the debate.

The point here is that the previous election isn’t the best indicator of the next election – especially in circumstances where a riding is targeted by a particular political party. Should Hyer decide to join the Greens, it can be expected that Thunder Bay-Superior North will be ground zero for the Green Party on election day 2015. Make no mistake – if Hyer joins the Green Party and runs in 2015, results from this riding are certain to be better than any Green has seen in Northern Ontario.

The Green Party and Resource Development

What about those pesky pro-environmental policies of the Green Party of Canada, though – won’t they turn off voters in a blue-collar town like Thunder Bay? Well – yes, they will turn off some voters – but others are sure to be energized by those policies. First of all, Thunder Bay isn’t really such a blue-collar town any more – it’s a city of 100,000 people, many of whom are employed in excellent jobs in the education and health care sectors. It’s a pretty progressive place, actually – progressive enough to elect an MP in 2008 and 2011 from the NDP despite his having few ties to unions (Hyer is a biologist and a forester, an environmentalist and tourist outfitter).

In my opinion (and let me be frank about “my opinion” here, as it’s one that I’ve given a great deal of thought to over the last several years), the Green Party’s biggest problems in Northern Ontario ridings have a lot more to do with communication than policy. Frankly, I see little reason why the Party’s platform wouldn’t resonate with a plurality of voters in Northern Ontario, particularly in our urban centres – and I’m certain that it would resonate, if only we could do a better job of communicating it to voters.

But the Green Party is anti-resource development, surely? And Northern Ontario cities and towns like Sudbury and Thunder Bay rely on mining and forestry for jobs.

No, the Green Party’s policies are not anti-resource development – we just have a different take on how our resources should be developed – sustainably, rather than not. But sustainable development will require a different way of looking at resource development, and the notion that doing things differently equates with a greater expense and lost jobs is, frankly, the wrong way of looking at the issue. If anything, sustainable resource development, even in non-renewable sectors such as mining, will surely create jobs and reduce expenses for taxpayers.

Sustainable Resource Development - A Compelling Narrative for Canadians

Should Hyer join the Green Party, he’s going to have to explain that trick to voters in his riding. It’s actually a very compelling story, one I know that Hyer will tell well, to all of Northern Ontario’s benefit. Should Hyer join the Green Party, I think it’s fair to say that we’ll finally have a voice which can’t be ignored speaking about sustainable resource development in Northern Ontario.

Think about it – what would sustainable development for Northwestern Ontario’s remote Ring of Fire look like? I’ll leave that with you to ponder – but suffice it to say, it won’t look anything like traditional mining camps which have been developed in the past – which are exactly the way that everybody thinks the ROF should be developed today. Hyer here has a golden opportunity to expound on 21st Century sustainable mining development, which is exactly what’s needed to move the Ring of Fire forward. Unquestionably, one component of sustainable development for the ROF will consist of value-added jobs being created in the region. Thunder Bay, with its major port on the Great Lakes, could benefit from the development of an entire new industry to smelt chromite and produce stainless steel, but only if we take the notion of sustainable development seriously.

The Green Party and Canadian Democracy

With all of that being said, though, it’s clear that there are a number of Green Party policy initiatives which will play very well in Thunder Bay-Superior North, particularly for Mr. Hyer. The Green Party is really the only party which is taking the democratic deficit seriously. In fact, it was the NDP’s own anti-democratic efforts which created this situation in the first place, by cutting Hyer off at the knees (well, at the microphone anyway) when he had the audacity to represent the interests of his constituents – the people whom elected him – rather than the interests of the Party whip.

No doubt died-in-the-wool NDP partisans will criticize Hyer’s “floor crossing” to join the Green Party as being anti-democratic (although, if they do so, they'd be violating the NDP's unwritten rule to never acknowledge the existence of the Green Party by uttering its name). NDP partisans will call for a by-election to be held in Thunder Bay-Superior North, because they want Canadians to believe that politicians elected under a specific banner need to stay in their place, or face the electorate for the gall of exercising their free will. These partisans should be reminded at every opportunity that Canadians elect people – real people, not party colours – to parliament to represent the voters who sent them there. And Bruce Hyer amongst all of Canada’s parliamentarians has clearly taken a principled stand on behalf of his constituents.

If the NDP want to challenge Hyer by trying to play the anti-democracy card, good luck to them.

And that one issue, more than any of the others, is going to be what resonates with voters in TBSN – that their elected official, Bruce Hyer, stood up to the game playing and nonsense of his former party to represent the will of the electorate – his constituents. He was punished for doing so – and by extension, so were his constituents. There can be no question that he will stand up again – in a heartbeat, if push came to shove. But by becoming first an Independent, and second (maybe) a member of the Green Party, Hyer will never again have to face making a choice of representing the interests of his constituents or that of his Party.

No Whip Required

But the Green Party is a political party, right? There will be an expectation that, as a member of that Party, that he’s going to have to vote a certain way on issues, surely? Well, yes and no – as a member of the Green Party, should Mr. Hyer join, there will be an expectation that he follows the party line on issues where the Party’s membership has created policy – but keep in mind, one of those member-approved policies explicitly states that the Green Party will never whip votes (adopted by the Party in August, 2012). We’re the only party which offers its MP’s that degree of flexibility. On matters which the Party has not adopted policy, it may very well be that Hyer and other Green MP’s turn to the party’s values for guidance. They may even discuss how they will vote. But at the end of the day, I would not be surprised to find Green MP’s voting differently on some matters. I think it’s fair to say that had Hyer been a part of the Green Party for the vote on the long gun registry, he and May would not have voted the same way. The difference being, of course, Hyer would not have been punished for voting for the will of his constituents had he been a Green. And that’s the hallmark of a truly progressive and democratic political party, in my opinion – one which tries to keep politics out of the political realm as much as possible.

Party Membership has its Electoral Privileges

Be that as it may, what’s the advantage for Bruce Hyer to now join the Green Party? Some pundits are suggesting that it’s because he likely won’t run again in 2015 (they’ve largely been the ones to write off Hyer’s hopes of being re-elected as a Green). I think it’s the exact opposite: it’s because Bruce Hyer wants to run again and win in 2015, to continue to provide the best possible public service to the voters of Thunder Bay-Superior North, that Hyer (may) join the Green Party, despite the apparent drawbacks.

It is fair to say that Hyer’s electoral success might have been better served if he decided to return to the NDP, or join the Liberals. But remember, Hyer clearly isn’t interested in his own success – at least not at all costs – “success” isn’t the primary engine of motivation here, clearly. Had Hyer been concerned about getting re-elected in 2015, he would have never left the NDP in the first place – and likely not voted on behalf of his constituents in the long gun registry vote.

The fact is, in our current electoral system, Independents have the deck stacked against them. Only members of political parties can reap the full benefits of our current electoral system – and it’s a damn shame, because it really shouldn’t be like this. The reality is, however, that one of the best predictors of electoral success has been, and continues to be, money. If you’re running as an independent, you are subject to the same rules for raising and spending money as are all other candidates, during an election campaign. But outside of the actual writ period, wannabe candidates can’t raise money for themselves or spend it.

But Electoral District Associations – those collections of local partisans who nominate the candidates – can. And do.

If you want to be a successful candidate at any level, part of your effort is going to require self-promotion. As an Independent, Hyer is really restricted in the sort of promotion he could engage in. But, if he had an EDA at his back, he technically wouldn’t have to engage in any self-promotion – he could instead rely on the EDA to do his promoting for him. The EDA can raise money between elections – and spend it. That means mail-outs, billboards, paying the travel expenses of big-name whoevers to come and show their support to the locals. Purchasing ads on the radio and in local newspapers. If you name it, the EDA can do it – whereas an Independent can’t.

Parties and Values

Hyer the Independent can’t help but see that if he really wants to continue representing the good people of TBSN, he can’t risk putting himself at a disadvantage to the other parties, who can spend like drunken sailors before election day. It’s in part because he is motivated by his public service, while grounded in our current, archaic electoral reality, that I believe Hyer will decide to join the Green Party. Of course, it’s also a happy coincidence that Hyer and the Green Party share so many of the same values.

Values which if, I believe, Independent MP Brent Rathgeber were to take a look at, might surprise him too. Rathgeber has already shown Canadians that he values democracy and public service. I sincerely hope that May and Hyer (if he joins the Greens) might have some serious conversations with Mr. Rathgeber about the benefits of whip-free Green Party membership. It's something to think about, Mr. Rathgeber.

And now, let’s wait and see where Friday the 13th takes us.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be considered consistent with those of the Green Party of Canada)

NDP Ups its Game: One Green's Take on Tom Mulcair's Energy Vision

What’s a Green to make of New Democratic Party Leader Tom Mulcair’s December 3, 2013 speech to the Economic Club of Canada, which lays out his party’s vision for Canada’s future energy policy? On the one hand, it’s easy to be flattered that the NDP has finally come around to connecting the dots between energy, climate change and the future health of Canada’s economy – connections Greens made long ago. On the other hand, some serious flaws remain, but they may not be enough to avoid the NDP eclipsing the Green Party on the energy issue – at least in the minds of the public.

The text of Mulcair’s speech is available on the NDP’s website (here’s a direct link, so that you can avoid dealing with the websites annoying ‘splash page’ – a term I learned just recently, thanks to Twitter). It’s a good read. Mulcair uses some of the current buzzwords and concepts such as “social license”, “clean” (rather than “green”) energy, and “negawatts”. The use of terminology, for me at least, is very telling – recall that Mulcair once talked about “Dutch Disease” quite openly, but after critical attacks from the media (and notably from Premier Brad Wall of Saskatchewan), Mulcair doesn’t use that term any longer. But after reading his speech to the Economic Club of Canada, it’s quite clear that combatting “Dutch Disease” remains top of mind for the NDP Leader. As it should.

If you’re reading his speech, pay particular attention to the terms “natural resources” and “energy”. For many Canadians, the term “energy” is often interpreted to mean energy derived from natural resources, so it’s easy to confuse the two. Mulcair, however, has a much broader interpretation of “energy”, one which no doubt makes Conservatives cringe. He doesn’t necessarily equate “energy” with fossil fuels, and it’s worth keeping this broader interpretation in mind when reading his speech.

Elizabeth May and Tom Mulcair

Interestingly, Mulcair gave this speech just a couple of days after Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada, published her own vision for Canada’s energy future in the Hill Times (“Why a green economic future is more robust, resilient than putting all of our eggs in the fossil fuel basket”, Elizabeth May, Green Party of Canada, December 2 2013). It’s interesting to contrast these two leaders’ approaches to dealing with energy issues in the 21st Century. While their starting points are different, it’s clear that Mulcair has started to move closer to May and the Green Party on some of the more substantive matters, such as the right balance between fossil fuel exploitation and renewable energy. While Mulcair appears to want to implement this program by stealth, May is more direct –but both now appear to be on similar pages. And both provide a sharp contrast to where Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau is at.

In many respects, there’s not a lot that’s new here for Mulcair and the NDP – the concepts Mulcair discusses have primarily been broadcast by him and his colleagues for quite some time, for the most part. And clearly, there still needs to be a lot of flesh put on yesterday’s bare-bones announcement, which stands to reason. I can’t fault Mulcair for a lack of specifics, for even though many of the ideas he talked about yesterday have been around for a while, it’s how Mulcair connected the ideas which appears to be new for the NDP. With this in mind, I can’t really expect the NDP to produce comprehensive policy like we Greens have with our “Vision Green” overnight. The specifics will take some time to develop.

Laying the Basis for a Transformational Energy Economy

Unquestionably, there is a lot of good stuff in Mulcair’s speech, and the NDP will be able to build upon the ideas there outlined. Despite what’s being reported in the media about Mulcair’s position on pipelines and environmental assessments (which are important aspects of Mulcair’s overall plan), his speech is actually much more revolutionary than the media suspects, I think. For there can be little doubt, once the dots are connected, that Mulcair and want to make Canada a leader in renewable energy technology – at the expense of fossil fuels.

Mulcair calls for a transformation to a “21st century energy economy”, indicating that such a transformation requires more than just building on what we’ve done in the past. To me, this means Mulcair is envisioning something which isn’t incremental – he’s talking about an economic overhaul. And he’s got a pretty good plan to lay the groundwork to make it happen.

Mulcair wants the government to get back into the business of national leadership – on energy, the environment and the economy. Without such leadership, it’s almost certain that Canada will continue to languish as a fossil-fueled entity, while other nations and regional groupings wisely invest in efficient, inexpensive renewable energy. The long-term health of our economy requires the very change in direction contemplated now by Mulcair. Direct, government investment in green technology (“clean” is Mulcair’s term - for political reasons, the use of the word “green” by the NDP is strictly prohibited) to kickstart the new economy is a major plank of Mulcair’s plan.

Critics, of course, will wonder just how much this is going to cost. A better question, I think, is just how much is this going to save? For Mulcair and the NDP have connected those dots now, and have indicated that these investments will be paid for with monies saved from corporate subsidies to fossil fuel companies – which in Canada alone totals several billions of dollars a year. Further, revenue generated by the NDP’s Cap and Trade scheme will be put back into green tech investments. It looks to me like Mulcair and the NDP have finally come to the realization that there’s money to be made in saving the Earth from climate change.

Jobs are also very important for the NDP, which is why critics are sure to blast Mulcair for killing jobs in the tar sands, as a result of strangling investment. That may be – but the fact is that there are some jobs in sectors which we can’t afford to save, and frankly the fossil fuel industry is going to find itself under global assault in the coming decades. It’s well past time we stopped telling our children that there’s good money to be made working in coal mines or on oil rigs. The real good paying jobs which we’ll need to fill in the future are those in the green tech sector. Mulcair seems to understand this.

Expansion of the Tar Sands Enterprise?

So, what about the tar sands? If there is fault to be found in Mulcair’s speech, it’s here that we’ll find it. Mulcair continues to justify the expansion of the tar sands – even goes so far as to suggest that access to its fossil fuels will remain a priority of an NDP government. But even here, Mulcair offers caveats. Fossil fuel resource development must meet high environmental standards, in order to provide fossil fuel companies with the necessary “social license” to sell their dirty products abroad.

From a mainstream economic standpoint, this argument is compelling – it’s certainly one which I’ve seen repeated time and again in the media. Many have suggested that the lack of American action on the Keystone XL pipeline has been the result of not having our environmental ducks in a row. Ditto for the European fuel quality initiative.

Unfortunately, the argument (which Mulcair has bought into) is internally inconsistent. “If only Canada was serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions and protecting the natural environment, Canada would be in a much better position to open up the tar sands for massive exploitation.” Clearly, if Canada were serious about reducing emissions, we would not allow for the expansion of the tar sands, which produces some of the dirtiest energy on Earth. We certainly would not be thinking about building new liquid natural gas terminals and exporting even more dirty energy to Asia. And we would have banned new coal-fired energy generation outright.

If you want to talk about “social license” in the context of allowing the continued exploitation of dirty fossil fuel resources, you’ve got a strange way of looking at the concept of “social license”. Yet, that’s what Mulcair has done – and I’m certain that it will resonate amongst the pundits (and oil industry execs) who are growing increasingly nervous about figuring out a way to get their product to market.

Towards a Real National Energy Strategy

For me, a real national energy strategy (something which Mulcair almost, but doesn’t quite, recommend – but which the Green Party has long championed) must begin with the notion that we have to hold global warming at 2 degrees Celsius. That number, 2 degrees C, is the critical starting point for a way forward. What it means is that we must begin the lengthy process of weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels in order to achieve the 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century that we’ll need to give ourselves a reasonable chance of not triggering devastating climatic feedback loops (such as permafrost melt – and the resulting massive release of stored methane).

In this scenario, the expansion of the industrial enterprise known as the tar sands must be wound down. There isn’t any other choice.
On some level, though, Mulcair does seem to understand that – even though he says the opposite. Access to the resource for the purpose of economic growth is what Mulcair appears to champion on the one hand – but on the other, Mulcair does talk about initiatives which would have the effect of strangling the industry to an appropriate degree. The NDP reaffirmed its displeasure with both the Keystone XL and Northern Gateway pipelines, which means that there will remain a bottleneck for getting the goods to market, particularly should aggressive expansion (as contemplated by the Conservatives) occur.

West-East Pipeline

Mulcair is now suggesting that he would support a “West-East” pipeline – one which provides finished product to Eastern Canada, thanks to the new refineries he wants to see built in Alberta. Mulcair argues that it makes more sense to do the value-added for bitumen upgrading and processing in Canada, rather than exporting unfinished materials abroad for a quick buck. Creating the refining capacity here in Alberta will also create jobs. And building a new all-Canadian pipeline to the East will increase Canada’s energy security.

On the whole, this part of Mulcair’s speech appears to be lifted almost entirely from Elizabeth May’s April musings about pipelines (see: “Pipelines to the east?”, Elizabeth May, Island Tides, April 25 2013). That being said, I’m pretty sure that Mulcair and May are not the only people in Canada who have arrived at the conclusion that building up Alberta’s refining capacity makes sense for keeping jobs in Canada, and increasing our energy security. But May couched her proposal within the broader context of a broader “carbon plan” (presumably a component of a national energy strategy), based on the fundamentals of science – the need to hold warming at 2 degrees C. And while May left the door open for new West-East pipeline capacity, possibly, maybe – but only if necessary, Mulcair wants to embrace it, sort of kind of, under the right circumstances.

NDP - Still Not Ready for Straight Talk on Climate Change

That may sound like a quibble, but really, it isn’t. The difference is based on a fundamental lack of understanding (or at least on stated understanding) on the part of the NDP regarding the dire circumstances we’re going to find ourselves in if we don’t drastically reduce emissions quickly.

Mulcair could have told the Economic Club of Canada yesterday that it’s important to hold the warming line at 2 degrees Celsius, but he didn’t. He might have mentioned why 450 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere must drive a reduction in fossil fuel consumption, but he said nothing. He could have talked about the coming carbon bubble in order to add some heft to the clean tech economic expansion he outlined, but he left that justification out. No mention of developing a carbon budget for Canada, or of leaving unburnable carbon in the ground. And no calls for public sector divestment of fossil fuel resource stocks. These ideas were not explored as a justification for an NDP energy policy.

Sure, Mulcair at least made the connection between energy and climate change – but he did so quite lightly, almost as an afterthought. From reading his speech, Mulcair seemed to be just as concerned about the economic climate for foreign investment in the tar sands as about climate change.

Mulcair: Fundamental Shift in NDP Policy on Emissions Reduction?

Yes, Mulcair called for a strict adherence to Canada’s “international climate change obligations” – but it’s not at all clear just what Mulcair means by that. Was he referring to our obligations under Copenhagen, which would see Canada’s emissions actually rise 3% from 1990 levels? Or was he referring to emissions reduction targets which the NDP has long championed – those which were enshrined in the Kyoto Accord – 7% below 1990 levels. Given that Canada has pulled out of Kyoto, our only current “international obligation” is outlined in Copenhagen. Did Mulcair just signal a fundamental shift in NDP policy on emissions reduction in his speech? We’ll have to wait to find out, I suppose. But Mulcair’s lack of clarity on this important issue suggests that he might be throwing in the towel on meaningful emissions reductions targets.

Mulcair: Perhaps a Little More Revolutionary than Advertised

All of this being said, it appears to me that the NDP’s “New Vision for a New Century” for a “prosperous and sustainable energy future” provides a pretty good direction for our nation, for the most part. While I continue to have my own preferences, and believe that the NDP still needs to move a little more quickly on green energy, and give Canadians a little more straight talk on climate change, I recognize that Mulcair has provided a framework and narrative on energy issues which appears to balance competing economic interests (fossil fuel exploitation vs. green tech), even though a balance really isn’t what we need at this point in Canada’s history. That being said, while the frame might provide the appearance of balance, a deeper analysis suggests that Mulcair is already contemplating tipping that balance in favour of renewables – which is where we need to go.

It's just unfortunate that Mulcair won't play it straight with Canadians on this. Then again, he's likely to experience more electoral success through this minor deception than by telling the truth.

Implications for the Green Party

Might the NDP and Mulcair put May and the Green Party into eclipse on this issue? Let’s be realistic here – the fact is that in most regions of the nation, the Green Party is already in eclipse, be it to the NDP or the Liberals. What is problematic for the Green Party is that Mulcair is here offering a pretty clear differentiation between the NDP and the Liberals, which, when an election comes, is going to play well with progressive voters, who already tend to rally around the NDP flag. That being said, not all progressives will turn to the NDP – and it’s here that Greens need to start looking to pick up votes in the next election. If voters like the NDP’s energy policies, but not the NDP – those voters could potentially go Green.

Sure, it would be easier for Greens to campaign in an election with the NDP espousing crappy policies on energy and the environment. But ultimately it’s way more important that Canada’s Loyal Opposition begin advocating generally sensible policies on energy, environment and economics. It may not be in the Green Party’s interest, but most Greens (including this one) will put Canada’s interests ahead of the Party’s every time.

Anyway, there are certainly a lot of other policy areas where Greens and New Democrats can find significant disagreement to distinguish themselves. Certainly, the NDP’s flawed (and legally questionable) approach to Quebec independence comes to mind. But let’s save that for another day.

Respecting and Creating New Relationships with First Nations

Before concluding, I feel that it would be remiss for me not to write something about Mulcair’s call for true “nation-to-nation” partnerships with First Nations. This was one of the several connections which I alluded to earlier, and while making a commitment to resolve land claims and treaty disputes has a much wider scope than energy policy, clearly it’s a component of any successful energy strategy. For me, I know that Tom Mulcair and the NDP are being sincere in their call for prioritizing a sea change in the relationship which our Federal government has with aboriginal communities. On that issue, I think it’s fair to say that we Greens are in lockstep with the NDP.

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

The Evolution of Climate Change Lingo in a Warming World

There has been an evolution of words, terminology and ideas which has informed public discussions about climate change over the last 30 years. In the mid-1980s, popular science talk was all about the “greenhouse effect” – how greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere. This trapped heat contributed to “global warming”.

As our understanding of the dynamics of climate broadened, “global warming” morphed into “climate change”. New economic concepts were introduced, including “sustainable development” – the idea that development must not occur at the expense of future generations. Also, terms previously relegated to obscure scientific journals started to become mainstream. Suddenly, the Amazon rainforest was a “carbon sink” where “carbon sequestration” occurred in jungle vegetation, released as part of the “carbon cycle” through forest fires.

As public awareness of climate issues expanded, so too did demands for government action. The first Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, laid the groundwork for an international way forward. The Earth Summit created the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which led in 1997 to the signing of the Kyoto Accord, the first binding international treaty limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Back in the 90’s, the writing seemed to be on the wall for the continued profligate burning of fossil fuels.

But the fossil fuel industries fought back with the promise of cheap energy. Even as the production of conventional non-renewable energy sources started to diminish, new technologies (and rising prices) led to the profitable development of alternative fossil sources, including bitumen from Alberta’s tar sands (rebranded as the consumer-friendly “oil sands” in the 1980s), and more recently through hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”). Although energy prices have risen substantially for consumers, our thirst for their use has not been abated by rising prices – or the threat of a global climate crisis.

In 2009, global national leaders signed the Copenhagen Accord. For the first time, the global community had drawn an emissions line in the sand by agreeing to hold the global average temperature rise at 2 degrees C from pre-industrial levels.

The best available science suggests that if 2 degrees C of warming is exceeded, we risk triggering dangerous positive feedbacks, such as the melting of greenhouse gas-rich northern permafrost, leading to substantially more warming.

This year, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its Fifth Assessment Report, which for the first time provided a global “carbon budget” for the burning of fossil fuels up to the year 2100. This carbon budget can’t be exceeded if temperature rise is to remain below 2 degrees C. Unfortunately, the world is currently on target to completely deplete this budget in just over 20 years.

At international climate negotiations, there is an understanding that to stay within our carbon budget, a significant portion of proven fossil fuel reserves will need to remain buried in the ground. This “unburnable carbon” will prove problematic for the profit margins of fossil industries and their investors. The possibility of a coming “carbon bubble” is very real, and could negatively impact financial markets if not managed. Calls for divestment of risky fossil stock portfolios, particularly on the part of public pension plans, are being made throughout the world.

Our understanding of the complexity of the climate crisis has increased over time. As a result, the vocabulary which we use to discuss a growing number of solutions to the crisis has also expanded.

Yet, for the most part, our political leaders have failed to engage the public on climate mitigation and adaptation strategies.
Is this because our elected officials don’t want to address climate change, or because they don’t understand it?

Steve May is an Officer of the federal and provincial Nickel Belt Greens

-----

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


Originally published in the Sudbury Star, Saturday November 30th, as "May: Climate Change Lingo Has Evolved, Policy Hasn't"

My Open Letter to MP Claude Gravelle, Requesting Support for MP Michael Chong's "Reform Act"

I am reproducing here a copy of a recent letter to my Member of Parliament, Claude Gravelle, urging him to support MP Michael Chong's "Reform Act" when it comes before parliament for a vote.

-----

December 1, 2013

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

Dear Mr. Gravelle,

As my Member of Parliament for the Nickel Belt electoral district, I am writing to you today to express my hope that you will vote in favour of a private member’s bill to be introduced to the House of Commons later this week by MP Michael Chong (Wellington-Halton Hills).

The Bill, which has been given the short title of the “Reform Act”, seeks to transform the current unbalanced and increasingly dysfunctional relationship between elected members of parliament and the authoritarian practices of party leaders.

Specifically, the Reform Act will:

• End the anti-democratic practice of requiring party leaders to sign the nomination papers of local candidates voted to represent their parties by grassroots members;

• Make party leaders more accountable to their caucus peers by providing a new mechanism whereby elected MP’s can initiate immediate leadership reviews should they lose confidence in their party leader, rather than waiting until after a general election;

• Provide a mechanism for elected MP’s to determine the composition of their caucus, and to eject members whom may have had ethical lapses through a democratic process.

These proposed changes will lay a foundation for future reforms needed to restore the democratic health of our parliament. Although they are not comprehensive, they are certainly an excellent start, and could form the building blocks of further transformational changes. As such, I believe that there is no good reason for all elected Members of Parliament not to support Mr. Chong’s Bill.

Too often, our elected Members of Parliament find themselves mired in party politics at the expense of doing what is best for the nation, and representing the wishes of their constituents. When MP Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay-Superior North) voted to scrap the long-gun registry against the wishes (and the whip) of his party, he was disciplined by his party. For representing the views of his constituents, Hyer was told by his party that he could not speak in parliament again – not even to represent the views of those constituents. When told that he would continue to have to vote the party line despite the wishes of his constituents, Hyer left his party caucus to sit as an Independent.

The climate of fear which exists in parliament is real, and detrimental to the health of our democracy. Although this Bill is being brought forward by a member of the Conservative Party of Canada, it deserves the support of all members of the House, no matter their political affiliation. The Leader of the Green Party of Canada, Elizabeth May, has already endorsed Mr. Chong’s Bill, and has urged MP’s of all parties to do the same.

National Post columnist Andrew Coyne says that the Reform Act would “restore the basic principles of the Westminster model on which we were founded, and under which we were governed for many years.” Canada’s democratic health would certainly be bolstered by the changes being proposed in Mr. Chong’s Bill.

With all of this in mind, I sincerely urge you to vote favorably for MP Michael Chong’s Reform Act.

Please note that I have taken the liberty of providing this letter to local media, for their consideration.
Yours truly,

Steve May

Officer of the Nickel Belt Greens (Green Party of Canada Electoral District Association – registration pending)

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