(originally posted at www.greenparty.ca)
Some interesting news from one of my least-favourite polling companies, Harris-Decima (least favourite only because Green Party numbers tend to be lower in their polls, not necessarily because I have any concerns with the nature of their polling). Sunday’s Globe and Mail reports that Canadians are not in a mood to have environmental issues trumped by the need to prop up our economy. I find this interesting, although not particularly surprising, as it has seemed to me that the mood of Canadians has changed in the past couple of years when it comes to the environment. Certainly, there has been a growing sophistication and understanding that we need to start taking action to address the growing climate crisis.
The other interesting news out of Harris-Decima are results from a poll released August 20, 2009, in which it is reported that a majority of Canadians want to see Elizabeth May become a Member of Parliament, and want to see the Green Party play a more important role in Canadian politics. This poll in particular is really exciting to me, although again I can’t say that I’m surprised with its outcome. I’m excited, though, that the topic itself was interesting enough for Harris-Decima to look into (even if it was during the dog-days of August).
I’ve seen Elizabeth May’s name mentioned in the media a little bit more lately, which has largely been a good thing. Even today’s story in the Globe and Mail about Elizabeth’s eyeing a so-called "winnable" seat in B.C. emphasized some of the positive aspects of our Party, including the grass-roots democratic notion that even the Leader can be challenged in a local riding for the candidacy. The more these sorts of stories are shared with Canadians, the better our Party will look to those concerned about the state of our democracy. Indeed, coverage of this sort, supported by polls, will only lend legitimacy to our Party during the next election, and to Elizabeth May’s call to be included in the televised Leader’s debate. While I do not agree with Stuart Hertzog's decision to campaign for the candidacy in SGI at this time, I respect that in our Party, he has every right to do so.
In the run-up to Copenhagen, we will start to see more media coverage with environmental messages. As candidates become nominated throughout Canada, Greens have an opportunity to share messaging about the environment and the economy with local media who are interested in discussing how environmental issues might play out in our local communities. Let’s make a concerted effort to introduce our local candidates to local media, and offer the local media our own expertise should the need for a quote, comment, or op-ed piece arise.
Keep in mind that the International Day of Climate Action is taking place on October 24, 2009 (a Saturday). This might be another date to mark on calendars, to be used to engage local media and introduce candidates to the electorate (if we’re not already in an election), or to reinforce Green Party messages (should we be in the midst of an election campaign).
As the dog-days of summer are wearing thin, and people’s minds begin to slowly turn to the serious issues facing our nation, Greens might yet come out of this summer re-invigorated. Let’s not lose site, though, of ensuring that all EDA’s have candidates selected to run in the next election. And let’s not forget that the Campaign Committee has developed a plan which it needs to share with EDA’s and local candidates in an effort to kick-start the messaging which Greens will have to promulgate over the next 40 days (and nights).
This is our time. This is the Green Party’s chance to seize our opportunity, and to run with it. Let’s not waste this golden/green moment.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
W Minus 53: Time for a Little Damage Control
(originally posted at www.greenparty.ca)
So, the Vancouver Sun is reporting that Green Party Leader Elizabeth May has formally made the decision to run in Saanich-Gulf Islands in the next election (thanks go to Mark Kersten for bringing this story to my attention here in Central Ontario...I don't typically read the Vancouver Sun, living in Sudbury and all).
Interestingly, The Vancouver Sun also reports that Elizabeth was approached by Liberal Party President Alf Apps earlier this summer, to find out whether she'd be interested in joining Michael Ignatieff's Party. The Sun reports that Elizabeth declined, but indicated that she would happily serve as Environment Minister in a Liberal government.
Interesting. Not sure what that was all about. Perhaps a misquote. Perhaps just something tongue-in-cheek. Surely, Elizabeth, you weren't being serious? Perhaps there were a couple of qualifiers in there not reported by the Sun, such as you first being elected as a Green MP, and then, presuming a minority situation in Parliament, the Greens join a formal coalition with the Liberals.
Michael "Tar Sands" Ignatieff and his Liberal Party do not represent the Green values that our Party stands for. They will not take needed action on the environment. What we'll get from the Liberals is window-dressing at best. I'm not sure whose interests would be served should Elizabeth May accept the position of Environment Minister in Ignatieff's cabinent, particularly should Ignatieff win a majority.
Elizabeth, your first response to Alf Apps was the appropriate one: "Thanks but no thanks." No more really needed to be said about this, especially going into a campaign where you will be asking Greens from across Canada to help you get elected. Look, we really want to help you, so that you can be the Leader of the Green Party and a sitting MP in the House. I'm not sure that we'd feel the same way if the goal is to have you join Michael Ignatieff's cabinent.
The good news for the rest of us Green is that Ignatieff won't be looking to turn to our Party for a cabinent posting, given the number of long-serving Liberals likely to be returned to office in the next election. But I have to wonder what on Earth this sort of speculation achieves, other than to frustrate current members of the Party who really want to work towards getting someone elected? This blurring of Party lines between Red and Green does not appear to me to serve the strategic interests of our Party, and in the eyes of some would make our Leader look like a bit of an opportunist again (recall the discussion about her being appointed to the Senate in the Dion-Layton Coalition...which admittedly would have been a heck of a lot better than Mike Duffy, but I digress).
Now, I know that I'm liable to get called out by all sides for writing this post, given that I have been and remain a strong supporter of Elizabeth May. For me, though, the Party has always been paramount, and of course I am concerned when I hear about these sorts of mixed messages. I'm sorry to be so critical, especially since it's very likely that the Vancouver Sun simply did an edit of what was actually said by Elizabeth. Nonetheless, let's cut down this speculation.
Instead of "Elizabeth Chooses SGI", this story may very well be, "Elizabeth Wants to be Iggy's Environment Minister".
Let's have no more speculation about what might happen after the election, and instead let's focus on getting Greens elected.
This was a mis-step. Campaign Committee, it's time for damage control mode. Right now.
So, the Vancouver Sun is reporting that Green Party Leader Elizabeth May has formally made the decision to run in Saanich-Gulf Islands in the next election (thanks go to Mark Kersten for bringing this story to my attention here in Central Ontario...I don't typically read the Vancouver Sun, living in Sudbury and all).
Interestingly, The Vancouver Sun also reports that Elizabeth was approached by Liberal Party President Alf Apps earlier this summer, to find out whether she'd be interested in joining Michael Ignatieff's Party. The Sun reports that Elizabeth declined, but indicated that she would happily serve as Environment Minister in a Liberal government.
Interesting. Not sure what that was all about. Perhaps a misquote. Perhaps just something tongue-in-cheek. Surely, Elizabeth, you weren't being serious? Perhaps there were a couple of qualifiers in there not reported by the Sun, such as you first being elected as a Green MP, and then, presuming a minority situation in Parliament, the Greens join a formal coalition with the Liberals.
Michael "Tar Sands" Ignatieff and his Liberal Party do not represent the Green values that our Party stands for. They will not take needed action on the environment. What we'll get from the Liberals is window-dressing at best. I'm not sure whose interests would be served should Elizabeth May accept the position of Environment Minister in Ignatieff's cabinent, particularly should Ignatieff win a majority.
Elizabeth, your first response to Alf Apps was the appropriate one: "Thanks but no thanks." No more really needed to be said about this, especially going into a campaign where you will be asking Greens from across Canada to help you get elected. Look, we really want to help you, so that you can be the Leader of the Green Party and a sitting MP in the House. I'm not sure that we'd feel the same way if the goal is to have you join Michael Ignatieff's cabinent.
The good news for the rest of us Green is that Ignatieff won't be looking to turn to our Party for a cabinent posting, given the number of long-serving Liberals likely to be returned to office in the next election. But I have to wonder what on Earth this sort of speculation achieves, other than to frustrate current members of the Party who really want to work towards getting someone elected? This blurring of Party lines between Red and Green does not appear to me to serve the strategic interests of our Party, and in the eyes of some would make our Leader look like a bit of an opportunist again (recall the discussion about her being appointed to the Senate in the Dion-Layton Coalition...which admittedly would have been a heck of a lot better than Mike Duffy, but I digress).
Now, I know that I'm liable to get called out by all sides for writing this post, given that I have been and remain a strong supporter of Elizabeth May. For me, though, the Party has always been paramount, and of course I am concerned when I hear about these sorts of mixed messages. I'm sorry to be so critical, especially since it's very likely that the Vancouver Sun simply did an edit of what was actually said by Elizabeth. Nonetheless, let's cut down this speculation.
Instead of "Elizabeth Chooses SGI", this story may very well be, "Elizabeth Wants to be Iggy's Environment Minister".
Let's have no more speculation about what might happen after the election, and instead let's focus on getting Greens elected.
This was a mis-step. Campaign Committee, it's time for damage control mode. Right now.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
W-54: Time to Line Up and Shift into Gear. The Writ Drops in 54 Days.
(originally posted at www.greenparty.ca)
I started writing this blog as a response to a comment made by Daryl Vernon to a post from Matthew Day on another thread, but given that I seem to have meandered away from the topic of that thread, I’ve decided to post this as a new blog post of my own. To read Daryl’s original comment, please go here: "deserve it"
Daryl, I don’t think that Matthew was advocating for a "180 degree" change...I think that he was only pointing out that unless the GPC was ready to make that kind of radical change, targeting a Conservative stronghold would not achieve the result of having our Leader elected. I’m not going to offer an opinion on whether I agree with that assessment or not, as I’m still in the process of formulating it, but I wanted to point out that I don’t believe Matthew is calling for that king of change at this point, given the limited amount of time we have to make the change.
With regards to the GPC being poised on a cliff top, at risk of falling into the abyss should, in the coming election, we fail to elect anybody, I have this to offer. I believe that we are clearly at risk, and that, unless planning for the next election quickly shifts into high gear now, the damage will be irreversible. Indeed, I fear that fundamental damage was already done to our Party during the last election.
Consider for a moment what might happen in a fall election. Without any sitting MP’s, and after having failed at electing anyone just over a year ago, will the media consortium in charge of the Leader’s debate allow Elizabeth May to participate in a televised debate? I hope I’m wrong about this, but really, I can’t see it happening. The only thing we have going for us right now is that we’ve achieved over 2% of the popular vote, which takes us out of "fringe party" status in the eyes of some, but not many. With just over 6% of the popular vote in the last election after polling in the 10% range, does it remain a fair question for Canadians and our media to wonder if we’re a serious party or not?
If Elizabeth isn’t in the debates, look for our popular vote percentage to fall back to around the 5% mark. Why? Well, the media is already making this next election into a contest between only Harper and Ignatieff. With a new Liberal Leader, all eyes will be on Ignatieff, and the media will spend an incredible amount of time and energy in determining whether or not he’s up to the job. Harper, too, will command the media’s attention in a different way, with the media asking (and answering) the question, is it time for him to go? This clash between Conservatives and Liberals will be the theme of the election. All other stories will be just snippets in support of the main theme. Sure, the media might pretend it’s about the economy, or about EI, but in reality and in their coverage, it will be about Harper vs. Ignatieff.
None of the above, I should say, applies to Quebec, which has a completely different dynamic.
So, we’re in trouble, as is the NDP. The NDP, at least, is aware of this situation, and are trying to do something about it by floating the idea of changing their name, looking for ways to "renew" their Party in the eyes of the media, and maybe in the voter’s eyes too. Aside from dumping their Leader (which they will do after this election), how else will the NDP muscle their way onto the Harper/Ignatieff stage in the next election?
At least the NDP can count on continuing to elect MP’s in certain ridings, but look for their overall riding count to drop in the next election, as they are vulnerable to a resurgent Liberal Party in some of the new ridings they have claimed (in Northern Ontario, for example, look for the Liberals to take back many of the seats they lost here; the Liberals have already committed to holding their end of summer MP/Senate retreat here in Sudbury...coincidence? I think not. The Liberals will be targeting Sudbury and other Northern ridings for gain from the NDP...and the NDP will be doing all that they can to hold onto these beach-heads. It’s going to be a Red/Orange war on the ground here when the writ is dropped).
Without Elizabeth May in the debates, and without much in the way of national media coverage, and with diminishing local media coverage as a result of media-convergence, our voice is going to be a very difficult one to have heard by voters. Unless we have a coherent and focussed campaign, one in which our limited and quieted voices are all shouting the same easily-understood message, in the same key, we’re not going to have a chance. Co-ordination between the Leader’s campaign and all of the smaller campaigns, especially those in our top ridings, will be paramount.
If we go into the next election in the same way we went into the last one, we can expect similar results...but not the same. At least in the last election, the Green Party was perceived as somewhat new, untested, with a Leader that people wanted to know more about. And so the media devoted some coverage to our Party, and Elizabeth May’s name was shouted across the country when she was excluded from the debate.
Going into the next election, we will not have those advantages. The Green Party will be that party that failed in the last election. The media won’t bother wasting as much time with a failed Party out their on the fringes of common sense, especially when a more compelling narrative exists: Harper v. Ignatieff. As a result, voters will tune us out, especially if our messaging is off-key. If we spend too much time issuing press releases and discussing our Health Care policies, or our stance on Afghanistan, we will be in trouble, because frankly, we’re not going to grab much in the way of media attention on those issues.
We will need to stick to our core themes: 1) The Environment (especially with Copenhagen around the corner) 2) Democratic renewal (which has an off-shoot: electing our Leader to Parliament). We will need to continue to cultivate our core voters with the range of issues they will expect us to discuss: legalized marijuana, safe food and product labelling, peace, carbon tax, and nothing nuclear. But the more we drift in the media away from the those top two issues, the more diffuse our voice will be, and we’re already going to be challenged to receive coverage anyway.
Some may say that we can counter this loss of mainstream-media attention through alternative media, especially amongst younger voters. To only a very small degree would I agree. Mainstream media continues to dominate when it comes to shaping the attitudes of the electorate. If CTV and CBC say that this election is about Harper and Ignatieff, than that’s what it will be about, in the same way that they said that the last election was about "nothing", until part-way through when they declared it was about the economy.
So, what about falling off of that cliff?
Now, it’s true, with my assessment, I’m making some assumptions in my model here: I’m assuming that Elizabeth May is going to be shut out of the debates, and in the model I’m discussing, our popular vote percentage decreases for all of the reasons I’ve mentioned above. Where does that leave the Party?
Surely, our Leader will have to go, after failing in two elections to have even herself elected. So, she’ll be gone, and more than likely much of the infrastructure she’s put into place will also get the boot, so we’ll be into a bit of a rebuilding phase for a while. We’ll also see our revenues cut, with fewer votes generating money. And, likely we’ll be carrying debt, as we’ll have had to pour money into this election...because there isn’t any choice here.
With a new leader, whether or not she or he is dynamic to Greens, there’s very little chance that they’re going to have the national profile of our existing leader. No offence to anyone who is thinking about stepping up should this scenario play itself out, but I don’t think that there are other stars in our Party who had the kind of pre-Leadership media presence that Elizabeth May had when she became our leader. And without that kind of presence, where will the Party be?
In economic difficulty, on the decline with voters, with an untried leader no one has heard about...all the while the other Parties take bits and pieces of our ideas, and tell the media that they’re doing good work on the environment and other issues important to Canadians. Whether or not they are will be meaningless, only that they are seen to be doing good.
And, given that the next election will likely produce a minority government situation, we’ll have little time to regroup and regenerate before we’re into another election; maybe 2 years if we’re lucky. Better for us as a Party would be a majority Conservative government, which could truly screw up the country even further given four years to implement their own Agenda. Although I think most of us would cringe at that prospect.
Either way, we Greens face the prospect of withering on the vine. Already, our credibility has taken a big hit with the media, and with voters, if recent polls are to be believed. We haven’t used this time to find an issue or two which resonates with Canadian voters. Instead, we’ve been doing a lot of navel gazing. We pinned our hopes that the Democratic Renewal issue would bring us to the forefront, with E. May’s book and with STV in BC at the polls in May. It might have worked, had STV passed. That would have been our issue to own this summer in the media. Instead, there have been only passing blips about election reform. No resonance there.
Admittedly, any message from Greens would have been hard to find resonance with voters, given our failure to breakthrough into the big leagues in the last election. No MP’s really hurt our credibility and our image. If we do the same again, Greens, it’ll be all over except for the dying.
Right now, having squandered this past year to infighting when we should have been getting our message out and building our local infrastructure, it is absolutely critical that we pick ourselves up by our bootstraps and start the campaign. Right now.
But...we’re not quite ready yet, are we? Look, it’s no secret that we are expecting the writ to drop on Sunday, October 4th, after the Liberals and NDP have defeated the government on a September 28th confidence vote. We’ve heard about a Campaign Plan, and seen the priorities, but there haven’t been any details about how to get there. For example, we’ve heard that there will be more focussed messaging, but we’ve not seen what it will be, nor have many of us been tapped on the shoulder to provide input. We’ve heard that we’re going to have a slogan, but we’ve not seen it. We’ve been invited to donate money to help Elizabeth May get elected, but we still don’t know where she’s going to run. We’ve not heard anything about a media strategy. We’ve not seen any materials for candidates to assist them in answering questions from voters and local media. And it’s now the middle of August.
This time out, it’s imperative that our voices be as one. Our federal campaign clearly has to take the lead, and not just because their the ones with most of the resources. Electing our Leader is an identified priority, and I should add a priority which I clearly support. Elizabeth May is going to get the lion’s share of Green coverage in the next election. She’s the leader. She and her people have got to lead the charge here, and the other candidates around the country need to fall in line and speak with her, as one body politic.
And where are those candidates? Rules from the Campaign Committee came out in March of this year, and EDA’s were to have candidates in place by June. Whether or not we agreed with the rules, or with the specific timing (and we here in Sudbury agreed with neither), it is incumbent upon EDA’s to be prepared for an election. Yet we have only a hand-full of candidates in place! Why on earth have we allowed this to happen? Yes, we EDA’s might disagree with the way in which things were handled by the Federal Party here, but their goal was a sensible one: have candidates in place so that the summertime could be used to promote those candidates locally. Instead, we focussed on the disagreements.
And many believed, and continue to believe, that it doesn’t matter, that maybe this isn’t the time for our Party anyway, so we’ll show up and fight the good fight, but perhaps we’ll make it better if we change direction, get a new Leader, devote more money to staff resources to build EDA’s, and then maybe next time out we’ll do better, or the time after that.
Problem is, there won’t be a next time. Like it or not, our time is Now.
Look, I’m all for more resources to build EDA’s, and I think we need some renewal within the Party. I’m certainly unimpressed with a lot which has gone on in the past year, and I’m an advocate for changing that. But I also know that we either put aside our differences and fight the next election with the direction we’ve committed to, or it’s all over. Whether you’re like me and are unhappy with things, or whether you’re like others who are completely ticked-off with the direction of the Party elite, it doesn’t matter. We have to pull together, or this ship will sink.
I know others don’t share my assessment. Others believe that the Party is strong enough to survive another shut-out. Many of those others believe that we will at least increase our popular vote in this next election, even if we don’t elect anyone. Others believe that our popular vote will increase over time, as young voters (who tend to be supportive of Green policies) mature and start showing up at polling stations in greater numbers.
I don’t share that level of optimism, because a withering Party will be written off by the electorate. In a situation of decline, the centre will not hold, and things will break down, pieces will break off. Our good policies will be taken by the other Parties, looking for a strategic edge over each other (not primarily because they make sense). Our members will abandon us because we’re not achieving results. The media will ignore us, unless it’s to report on our in-fighting (but even that’s not a sure thing...look at the lack of national coverage the collapse of the Alberta Greens generated).
Whether you disagree with my assessment or not, Greens, I urge you to line up behind the National Campaign. If you don’t agree with me, and If I’m wrong, well, the worst outcome would be that by speaking with one voice, we’ll increase our chances of winning.
Campaign Committee: I hope you’re hearing the voices of dissatisfaction out here across Canada. You’ve got to get things together now. Right now. We on the ground need more out of you. Your silence is causing considerable concern. Just look at these discussions we’ve been having here. Multiply that by one hundred, for every electoral district association meeting where we scratch our heads and wonder aloud what direction we’ll be going in this fall.
Elizabeth May: I’m a fan of yours, and I have an incredible amount of respect for your intellect and your energy. Please, it’s time to make that hard choice. Choose a riding, and kick things into high gear. Ensure that our message will be focussed on our strengths. Understand that our voice is going to be limited in the upcoming election, an that we have to speak as one locally and nationally.
EDA’s: Get your candidates nominated. Start the ball rolling locally with letters to the editor, showing up at events, etc. Do all the good things that you know that you need to do, and ask for help when and where you need it. And not just from your Organizer. Call up the CEO of a neighbouring organization, or write to one of the bloggers here who seem to have an idea or two. Cross-communicate.
Greens: Show support to local candidates by showing up at events. Stay involved with local organizations that share our values. Get active in promoting an event in your area for World Environment Day on October 24th. The key people in your local Association are getting burnt out already, and an election hasn’t even been called yet. Step up and fill in a niche locally, even if it’s not with the EDA. Make connections in your community. Get involved with something that’s important.
It’s W-54 (54 days until the Writ is dropped). We have to gear up now, or the Party really will be over on E-Day.
I started writing this blog as a response to a comment made by Daryl Vernon to a post from Matthew Day on another thread, but given that I seem to have meandered away from the topic of that thread, I’ve decided to post this as a new blog post of my own. To read Daryl’s original comment, please go here: "deserve it"
Daryl, I don’t think that Matthew was advocating for a "180 degree" change...I think that he was only pointing out that unless the GPC was ready to make that kind of radical change, targeting a Conservative stronghold would not achieve the result of having our Leader elected. I’m not going to offer an opinion on whether I agree with that assessment or not, as I’m still in the process of formulating it, but I wanted to point out that I don’t believe Matthew is calling for that king of change at this point, given the limited amount of time we have to make the change.
With regards to the GPC being poised on a cliff top, at risk of falling into the abyss should, in the coming election, we fail to elect anybody, I have this to offer. I believe that we are clearly at risk, and that, unless planning for the next election quickly shifts into high gear now, the damage will be irreversible. Indeed, I fear that fundamental damage was already done to our Party during the last election.
Consider for a moment what might happen in a fall election. Without any sitting MP’s, and after having failed at electing anyone just over a year ago, will the media consortium in charge of the Leader’s debate allow Elizabeth May to participate in a televised debate? I hope I’m wrong about this, but really, I can’t see it happening. The only thing we have going for us right now is that we’ve achieved over 2% of the popular vote, which takes us out of "fringe party" status in the eyes of some, but not many. With just over 6% of the popular vote in the last election after polling in the 10% range, does it remain a fair question for Canadians and our media to wonder if we’re a serious party or not?
If Elizabeth isn’t in the debates, look for our popular vote percentage to fall back to around the 5% mark. Why? Well, the media is already making this next election into a contest between only Harper and Ignatieff. With a new Liberal Leader, all eyes will be on Ignatieff, and the media will spend an incredible amount of time and energy in determining whether or not he’s up to the job. Harper, too, will command the media’s attention in a different way, with the media asking (and answering) the question, is it time for him to go? This clash between Conservatives and Liberals will be the theme of the election. All other stories will be just snippets in support of the main theme. Sure, the media might pretend it’s about the economy, or about EI, but in reality and in their coverage, it will be about Harper vs. Ignatieff.
None of the above, I should say, applies to Quebec, which has a completely different dynamic.
So, we’re in trouble, as is the NDP. The NDP, at least, is aware of this situation, and are trying to do something about it by floating the idea of changing their name, looking for ways to "renew" their Party in the eyes of the media, and maybe in the voter’s eyes too. Aside from dumping their Leader (which they will do after this election), how else will the NDP muscle their way onto the Harper/Ignatieff stage in the next election?
At least the NDP can count on continuing to elect MP’s in certain ridings, but look for their overall riding count to drop in the next election, as they are vulnerable to a resurgent Liberal Party in some of the new ridings they have claimed (in Northern Ontario, for example, look for the Liberals to take back many of the seats they lost here; the Liberals have already committed to holding their end of summer MP/Senate retreat here in Sudbury...coincidence? I think not. The Liberals will be targeting Sudbury and other Northern ridings for gain from the NDP...and the NDP will be doing all that they can to hold onto these beach-heads. It’s going to be a Red/Orange war on the ground here when the writ is dropped).
Without Elizabeth May in the debates, and without much in the way of national media coverage, and with diminishing local media coverage as a result of media-convergence, our voice is going to be a very difficult one to have heard by voters. Unless we have a coherent and focussed campaign, one in which our limited and quieted voices are all shouting the same easily-understood message, in the same key, we’re not going to have a chance. Co-ordination between the Leader’s campaign and all of the smaller campaigns, especially those in our top ridings, will be paramount.
If we go into the next election in the same way we went into the last one, we can expect similar results...but not the same. At least in the last election, the Green Party was perceived as somewhat new, untested, with a Leader that people wanted to know more about. And so the media devoted some coverage to our Party, and Elizabeth May’s name was shouted across the country when she was excluded from the debate.
Going into the next election, we will not have those advantages. The Green Party will be that party that failed in the last election. The media won’t bother wasting as much time with a failed Party out their on the fringes of common sense, especially when a more compelling narrative exists: Harper v. Ignatieff. As a result, voters will tune us out, especially if our messaging is off-key. If we spend too much time issuing press releases and discussing our Health Care policies, or our stance on Afghanistan, we will be in trouble, because frankly, we’re not going to grab much in the way of media attention on those issues.
We will need to stick to our core themes: 1) The Environment (especially with Copenhagen around the corner) 2) Democratic renewal (which has an off-shoot: electing our Leader to Parliament). We will need to continue to cultivate our core voters with the range of issues they will expect us to discuss: legalized marijuana, safe food and product labelling, peace, carbon tax, and nothing nuclear. But the more we drift in the media away from the those top two issues, the more diffuse our voice will be, and we’re already going to be challenged to receive coverage anyway.
Some may say that we can counter this loss of mainstream-media attention through alternative media, especially amongst younger voters. To only a very small degree would I agree. Mainstream media continues to dominate when it comes to shaping the attitudes of the electorate. If CTV and CBC say that this election is about Harper and Ignatieff, than that’s what it will be about, in the same way that they said that the last election was about "nothing", until part-way through when they declared it was about the economy.
So, what about falling off of that cliff?
Now, it’s true, with my assessment, I’m making some assumptions in my model here: I’m assuming that Elizabeth May is going to be shut out of the debates, and in the model I’m discussing, our popular vote percentage decreases for all of the reasons I’ve mentioned above. Where does that leave the Party?
Surely, our Leader will have to go, after failing in two elections to have even herself elected. So, she’ll be gone, and more than likely much of the infrastructure she’s put into place will also get the boot, so we’ll be into a bit of a rebuilding phase for a while. We’ll also see our revenues cut, with fewer votes generating money. And, likely we’ll be carrying debt, as we’ll have had to pour money into this election...because there isn’t any choice here.
With a new leader, whether or not she or he is dynamic to Greens, there’s very little chance that they’re going to have the national profile of our existing leader. No offence to anyone who is thinking about stepping up should this scenario play itself out, but I don’t think that there are other stars in our Party who had the kind of pre-Leadership media presence that Elizabeth May had when she became our leader. And without that kind of presence, where will the Party be?
In economic difficulty, on the decline with voters, with an untried leader no one has heard about...all the while the other Parties take bits and pieces of our ideas, and tell the media that they’re doing good work on the environment and other issues important to Canadians. Whether or not they are will be meaningless, only that they are seen to be doing good.
And, given that the next election will likely produce a minority government situation, we’ll have little time to regroup and regenerate before we’re into another election; maybe 2 years if we’re lucky. Better for us as a Party would be a majority Conservative government, which could truly screw up the country even further given four years to implement their own Agenda. Although I think most of us would cringe at that prospect.
Either way, we Greens face the prospect of withering on the vine. Already, our credibility has taken a big hit with the media, and with voters, if recent polls are to be believed. We haven’t used this time to find an issue or two which resonates with Canadian voters. Instead, we’ve been doing a lot of navel gazing. We pinned our hopes that the Democratic Renewal issue would bring us to the forefront, with E. May’s book and with STV in BC at the polls in May. It might have worked, had STV passed. That would have been our issue to own this summer in the media. Instead, there have been only passing blips about election reform. No resonance there.
Admittedly, any message from Greens would have been hard to find resonance with voters, given our failure to breakthrough into the big leagues in the last election. No MP’s really hurt our credibility and our image. If we do the same again, Greens, it’ll be all over except for the dying.
Right now, having squandered this past year to infighting when we should have been getting our message out and building our local infrastructure, it is absolutely critical that we pick ourselves up by our bootstraps and start the campaign. Right now.
But...we’re not quite ready yet, are we? Look, it’s no secret that we are expecting the writ to drop on Sunday, October 4th, after the Liberals and NDP have defeated the government on a September 28th confidence vote. We’ve heard about a Campaign Plan, and seen the priorities, but there haven’t been any details about how to get there. For example, we’ve heard that there will be more focussed messaging, but we’ve not seen what it will be, nor have many of us been tapped on the shoulder to provide input. We’ve heard that we’re going to have a slogan, but we’ve not seen it. We’ve been invited to donate money to help Elizabeth May get elected, but we still don’t know where she’s going to run. We’ve not heard anything about a media strategy. We’ve not seen any materials for candidates to assist them in answering questions from voters and local media. And it’s now the middle of August.
This time out, it’s imperative that our voices be as one. Our federal campaign clearly has to take the lead, and not just because their the ones with most of the resources. Electing our Leader is an identified priority, and I should add a priority which I clearly support. Elizabeth May is going to get the lion’s share of Green coverage in the next election. She’s the leader. She and her people have got to lead the charge here, and the other candidates around the country need to fall in line and speak with her, as one body politic.
And where are those candidates? Rules from the Campaign Committee came out in March of this year, and EDA’s were to have candidates in place by June. Whether or not we agreed with the rules, or with the specific timing (and we here in Sudbury agreed with neither), it is incumbent upon EDA’s to be prepared for an election. Yet we have only a hand-full of candidates in place! Why on earth have we allowed this to happen? Yes, we EDA’s might disagree with the way in which things were handled by the Federal Party here, but their goal was a sensible one: have candidates in place so that the summertime could be used to promote those candidates locally. Instead, we focussed on the disagreements.
And many believed, and continue to believe, that it doesn’t matter, that maybe this isn’t the time for our Party anyway, so we’ll show up and fight the good fight, but perhaps we’ll make it better if we change direction, get a new Leader, devote more money to staff resources to build EDA’s, and then maybe next time out we’ll do better, or the time after that.
Problem is, there won’t be a next time. Like it or not, our time is Now.
Look, I’m all for more resources to build EDA’s, and I think we need some renewal within the Party. I’m certainly unimpressed with a lot which has gone on in the past year, and I’m an advocate for changing that. But I also know that we either put aside our differences and fight the next election with the direction we’ve committed to, or it’s all over. Whether you’re like me and are unhappy with things, or whether you’re like others who are completely ticked-off with the direction of the Party elite, it doesn’t matter. We have to pull together, or this ship will sink.
I know others don’t share my assessment. Others believe that the Party is strong enough to survive another shut-out. Many of those others believe that we will at least increase our popular vote in this next election, even if we don’t elect anyone. Others believe that our popular vote will increase over time, as young voters (who tend to be supportive of Green policies) mature and start showing up at polling stations in greater numbers.
I don’t share that level of optimism, because a withering Party will be written off by the electorate. In a situation of decline, the centre will not hold, and things will break down, pieces will break off. Our good policies will be taken by the other Parties, looking for a strategic edge over each other (not primarily because they make sense). Our members will abandon us because we’re not achieving results. The media will ignore us, unless it’s to report on our in-fighting (but even that’s not a sure thing...look at the lack of national coverage the collapse of the Alberta Greens generated).
Whether you disagree with my assessment or not, Greens, I urge you to line up behind the National Campaign. If you don’t agree with me, and If I’m wrong, well, the worst outcome would be that by speaking with one voice, we’ll increase our chances of winning.
Campaign Committee: I hope you’re hearing the voices of dissatisfaction out here across Canada. You’ve got to get things together now. Right now. We on the ground need more out of you. Your silence is causing considerable concern. Just look at these discussions we’ve been having here. Multiply that by one hundred, for every electoral district association meeting where we scratch our heads and wonder aloud what direction we’ll be going in this fall.
Elizabeth May: I’m a fan of yours, and I have an incredible amount of respect for your intellect and your energy. Please, it’s time to make that hard choice. Choose a riding, and kick things into high gear. Ensure that our message will be focussed on our strengths. Understand that our voice is going to be limited in the upcoming election, an that we have to speak as one locally and nationally.
EDA’s: Get your candidates nominated. Start the ball rolling locally with letters to the editor, showing up at events, etc. Do all the good things that you know that you need to do, and ask for help when and where you need it. And not just from your Organizer. Call up the CEO of a neighbouring organization, or write to one of the bloggers here who seem to have an idea or two. Cross-communicate.
Greens: Show support to local candidates by showing up at events. Stay involved with local organizations that share our values. Get active in promoting an event in your area for World Environment Day on October 24th. The key people in your local Association are getting burnt out already, and an election hasn’t even been called yet. Step up and fill in a niche locally, even if it’s not with the EDA. Make connections in your community. Get involved with something that’s important.
It’s W-54 (54 days until the Writ is dropped). We have to gear up now, or the Party really will be over on E-Day.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Winners and Losers: Canadian Businesses, Carbon Pricing, Procurement and Conservative Game-Playing
(originally posted at www.greenparty.ca)
I was at the downtown farmer’s market this past Saturday, where my wife and I bought a Christmas present for my mother from a local merchant who makes her own jewellery. It was exciting, and not just because we can strike a hard-to-buy-for person from our Christmas list in August. It was exciting because in making our purchase, we were supporting a local business. Something to feel good about.
On Tuesday morning, after enjoying a long weekend of not thinking too much about the world outside of my own family, I read an article about this week’s Premiers Conference in the morning paper by Rick Smith of Environmental Defence: "Clean energy, not photo-op, should be premiers priority", Toronto Star, August 5 2009). Mr. Smith’s concerns quickly returned my thoughts to what’s going on in the larger world around me. Looked like it would be "one of those" weeks, I thought at the time. With Friday’s hindsight as my perspective today, looks like I was right.
Smith was writing about winners and losers as they relate to upcoming discussions about carbon pricing. By way of background, it seems to me that carbon pricing through the implementation of a North American cap and trade system is now all but inevitable, as President Obama has tasked Congress with building such a system. Even Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have been discussing it. And as Harper and Obama both want to be seen to be doing something in advance of Copenhagen, and possibly a Federal election, I think carbon pricing through cap and trade is going to happen.
Heck, even Sun Media pundit and climate change-denier Lorrie Goldstein thinks a cap and trade system is inevitable: "Cap and trade or charade?", Sudbury Star, July 13, 2009. So there’s got to be something there.
Both Rick Smith and Lorrie Goldstein are concerned about how the Obama cap and trade system is shaping up, as Canada is sure to join in, rather than build our own system. Concerns relate to the sorts of breaks that might be given to certain industries, specifically the coal and oil industries. The justification will be that both of these industries are hard at work developing "clean coal" and "clean oil" technologies, and just need a little more time before they will be able to fully join the cap and trade system. Arguments will be made that forcing coal and oil to come all the way in now would irreparably damage our economies.
So, the Obama-designed Harper-joined system will likely allow the heaviest polluting industries in North America to continue doing "business as usual" for a while longer yet.
The proposed U.S. system, though, calls for real reductions to greenhouse gas emissions by certain targets. The 2020 target is for a 17% reduction in emissions (from a 2005 base line). So, if the coal industry in the U.S. and the tar sands industry in Canada are to be given large exemptions from being forced to participate in the cap and trade system, how are we going to achieve these even very modest targets?
Looks like other industries are going to be tasked with making up the lion’s share of emission reductions. Those are the winners and losers Rick Smith identifies. The winners will be oil-rich Alberta and Saskatchewan (and Newfoundland to a lesser extent), and U.S. coal-producing States, at the expense of Canada’s manufacturing industry, of which a big chunk is located in Central Canada, specifically in the Greater Toronto Area.
To me, all of this looks to be a politically-motivated manoeuver to reward Conservative friends and punish Conservative foes. That’s what it has to be, because with such a woeful target it sure as heck doesn’t look like it’s going to accomplish anything much on the climate change file.
Now, the Conservatives have already written off Quebec ridings as those to woo in an upcoming election. The Greater Toronto Area, where those manufacturing jobs are located, has always been difficult ground for the Cons and Reform Party before them to make inroads in. In Ontario, the Cons have been successful with wooing rural voters, but the suburban and urban ridings remain largely the bastion of the Liberals and the NDP.
From his perspective, it makes political sense now for Harper to play to his own strengths, particularly since many of those in his camp have been griping about yanking their support because they perceive his $50 billion deficit as a betrayal of his Reform Party roots. If Western ultra-Cons were stay at home on E Day, there could be more than a few chinks in the blue-coloured coat of armour. So he needs to throw them a bone and exempt the oil industry from meaningful participation in the cap and trade system.
At the same time, Harper clearly needs to be perceived as taking action on climate change. Joining in with President Obama’s climate change initiative will give Harper a lot of positive press in the uncritical mainstream media. It’s just too bad that Obama’s plan looks like it’s going to be such a wash out, a big nothing, full of sound and fury but ultimately just a squeak; in short, what politicos like to call "spin".
Greens, you know there must be a problem with Obama’s plan when Saskatchewan Party Leader and Premier Brad Wall, an instrument of the oil interests if there ever was one, comes out in support of it! Wall has been on the record as a virulent opponent of a cap and trade system, claiming such a system will damage his province. Yet, in today’s Globe & Mail, Wall is reported as saying that since cap and trade seems inevitable, Obama’s plan isn’t that bad because it will put less onus on reducing greenhouse gases than even Stephen Harper’s own plan: (Brian Laghi, "Saskatchewan warms to Obama climate plan", Globe & Mail, August 7, 2009).
Wow. Stephen Harper is starting to look like a crusading tree-hugger alongside Michael Ignatieff and Barack Obama, at least in the eyes of Wall and Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach!
So, it looks like that there will be winners and losers in the coming years, as "action" is seen to be taken in reducing ghg emissions.
Here in Sudbury, we’re very familiar already with being on the losing end of the Conservative’s stick. As you may know, approximately 3,500 employees from Vale Inco are now into their second month of what is sure to be a lengthy strike. United Steelworkers Local 6500 has been expressing some very real concerns about their new employer, Brazillian-based Vale SA, which acquired Inco with the permission of the Canadian government in 2006. At that time, Vale entered into a secret agreement with the government; an agreement which a revolving door of Conservative Ministers keep telling us would lead to job creation and a better economic situation for Inco communities in Labrador, Greater Sudbury and Port Colborne.
Here in Sudbury, we’ve not really seen those results. Vale’s acquisition of Inco is turning out to be a bit of a disaster for our community, and not just because of the current strike. Sudbury’s once-vibrant mining supply sector, once touted in this community by economic developers as the cornerstone for an evolving "centre of excellence", has been devastated in the past year, losing over 1,500 jobs, many of which were held by well-paid mining professionals. Sudbury’s mining supply sector has been a leader in mining innovation and the development of sustainable mining practices. These jobs lost are the sort of jobs a community needs to thrive.
Sure, in part, job loss has been a result of the recent economic downturn and falling nickel prices. But, also in part, the mining supply sector has been a victim of Vale’s business practices. In today’s Sudbury Star, editor Brian MacLeod expresses concern that Vale Inco will increasingly shut local industries out of competitive bidding process as Vale "rationalizes" its service delivery by looking for ways of maximizing "global synergies". Given that Vale’s head office is in Brazil, and that Vale operates in 35 countries world-wide, it stands to reason that local mining suppliers will continue to be left behind in the name of "centralized procurement" (see "The new boss isn’t quite like the old boss", The Sudbury Star, August 7 2009)
USW Local 6500 would have us believe that Vale and the Conservatives sold out Inco communities, along with the rest of Canada. Canada’s natural resource sector is certainly no stranger to the international auction block, but if there was a deal made to protect Canada’s interests, as Industry Minister Tony Clement says there was, it doesn’t appear to have been much of a deal, given the situation here in Sudbury. Maybe it was a great deal in contrast to the "Valley of Death" Clement insists Sudbury was facing at the time, but that reality really only ever existed in dark spaces of Clement’s own mind (see: "Sudbury According to Tony Clement")
I believe the Union is onto something here, given that Sudbury and Labrador are never going to elect a Conservative MP. Could it have been that the Conservatives just didn’t really care about Inco and the health of the Canadian mineral resource sector?
Or maybe it was something more insidious than just apathy. Maybe the mining industry, already perceived as an axis of evil by many voters, was being set up as a straw-man. Think about it.
In the next election, Stephen Harper gets up and tells Canadians that he’s taking action on climate change by agreeing to work with Obama by joining a North American cap and trade system. Sure, there will be exemptions for the tar sands, as the Canadian economy would be in dire straits if there weren’t. Even Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals recognize the importance of the tar sands, Harper will say, so really it’s a non-issue. Plus, the tar sands is getting its act together, and the Conservative government is investing billions of dollars in carbon capture and storage technology. What more could Canadians want? Oh yeah...Canadians would want to make sure that other "dirty" industries are doing their fair share. Well, look no further than Sudbury and at the mining industry in general. They’re being forced to reduce emissions under the cap and trade system, while simultaneously investing in local communities.
Nevermind that these local investments are actually just dollars being spent on out-sourcing, which have the effect of devastating local economies built to service the mining sector (and which could actually lead to a reduction in Canadian ghg emissions, as a defunct Canadian business spews no CO2), the story itself will play well in the media. Harper Takes Real Action on Climate Change! Read All About It!
One of the upcoming battles against climate change will be fought on the grounds of PROCUREMENT. With talk in the media about increasing Canadian opposition to "Buy American" policies in the U.S., it’s interesting that International Trade Minister Stockwell Day has been lobbying the provinces to bind themselves and their "creatures", the municipalities, to NAFTA rules for procurement. Day says that this would create a fair and level playing field for these levels of government, in keeping with NAFTA, to procure goods at the lowest prices.
Nevermind that municipal and provincial governments would have to kiss goodbye any "buy local" policies they may have put in place on their own at the demand of their local citizens. Nevermind that local jobs could be lost to lower bids emerging from wage-challenged businesses in the U.S. and Mexico who have little understanding of local realities in our own communities. (see: Stuart Trew and Blair Redlin, "No payoff for premiers in ‘Buy American’ fix", Toronto Star, August 7, 2009)
But, boy, wouldn’t such provincial and municipal procurement policies be in keeping with the sort of globalization that the Conservatives clearly believe in? Wouldn’t it also play well with core Conservative voters? "Look at what we’ve done," they’ll say. "We’ve led the way by requiring provincial and municipal governments to obtain the best deals that they can for spending your hard-earned tax dollars on local infrastructure and service delivery." No matter that local jobs disappear and tax revenues collected from local properties decrease as local businesses are undercut by international firms which play by different rules when it comes to wages and benefits and dealing with environmental concerns.
Sort of like what Vale Inco is doing by favouring low-priced anti-environmental mining sector suppliers over more eco-conscious Canadian businesses who pay their employees decent wages.
Now, I’m not suggesting that Canadian businesses aren’t competitive, only that there need to be other considerations made when we’re talking about building healthy communities. Clearly, outsourcing to international firms instead of investing in Canadian jobs is problematic at the best of times, but if there is a greater value in doing so, yes, we should consider it. Problem is, what is "value" here based on? More often than not, it’s a simple matter of looking at financial costs only: a company in Sao Paulo can provide a service at a lower price than a company in Sudbury can, and the procurement decision is made on that basis alone. Nevermind that the company in Sao Paulo pays its employees $1 an hour in wages and dumps all sorts of carbon into the air as part of their manufacturing processes.
Fair and reasonable compensation for work provided is a Canadian value which is often absent in outsourcing situations. Increasingly, Canadians are coming to value the purchasing of products and services which contribute less pollution to our air and water. In part, the Buy Local initiatives which are growing throughout Canada, as manifested in Sudbury’s downtown Farmer’s Market, are at the leading edge of this trend. With the Wal-Mart-ization of our communities with a heavy dependency on carbon, it’s fair to say that eco-friendly local businesses are on their way to becoming a Canadian value as well.
In the face of this reality, however, the Conservative government of Canada is ready to sell-out Canadian businesses and industries in favour of their oilpatch buddies, and so that they can be seen to be taking action on climate change. Canada’s natural resource sector industries are becoming increasingly internationalized in the name of cost-savings, when the reality is that their business practices are more damaging to the environment and the Canadian economy, which is a bit of a stretch to the definition of "cost savings" in my opinion.
Why is this happening? Well, it’s happening because Conservatives have never really bought into the notion that climate change is real, or that we need to do something about it. Lip-service needs to be paid to it, but no real action is required. Current business practices and economic growth are the centrepiece of any Conservative conversation on conservation.
And it’s happening because too many Canadians remain disengaged. For many, it’s enough to believe that action is being taken, because government officials say it’s going on. Who wouldn’t want to believe President Obama when he refers to "bold steps being taken". Surely something is being done, or else the media wouldn’t print it, right? Oh well, climate change isn’t the sort of sexy issue which lends itself to a sound-bite anyway.
Greens, we need to continue getting the message out there that Conservative and Liberal inaction on climate change can no longer be tolerated, because the crisis is now upon us; we’ve overshot 350 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere where global temperatures will remain stable, and we’re on track to overshooting the anticipated 2 degree rise in global temperature at 450 ppm. With Obama’s 17% plan or even Harper’s plan of 20% reduction of ghg emissions by 2020 using a 2005 baseline, we’ll be in for a world of hurt, and far above 450 ppm.
See? Not sound-bite friendly. But important, important, important.
I’m growing so very weary of all of this Conservative game-playing.
I was at the downtown farmer’s market this past Saturday, where my wife and I bought a Christmas present for my mother from a local merchant who makes her own jewellery. It was exciting, and not just because we can strike a hard-to-buy-for person from our Christmas list in August. It was exciting because in making our purchase, we were supporting a local business. Something to feel good about.
On Tuesday morning, after enjoying a long weekend of not thinking too much about the world outside of my own family, I read an article about this week’s Premiers Conference in the morning paper by Rick Smith of Environmental Defence: "Clean energy, not photo-op, should be premiers priority", Toronto Star, August 5 2009). Mr. Smith’s concerns quickly returned my thoughts to what’s going on in the larger world around me. Looked like it would be "one of those" weeks, I thought at the time. With Friday’s hindsight as my perspective today, looks like I was right.
Smith was writing about winners and losers as they relate to upcoming discussions about carbon pricing. By way of background, it seems to me that carbon pricing through the implementation of a North American cap and trade system is now all but inevitable, as President Obama has tasked Congress with building such a system. Even Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have been discussing it. And as Harper and Obama both want to be seen to be doing something in advance of Copenhagen, and possibly a Federal election, I think carbon pricing through cap and trade is going to happen.
Heck, even Sun Media pundit and climate change-denier Lorrie Goldstein thinks a cap and trade system is inevitable: "Cap and trade or charade?", Sudbury Star, July 13, 2009. So there’s got to be something there.
Both Rick Smith and Lorrie Goldstein are concerned about how the Obama cap and trade system is shaping up, as Canada is sure to join in, rather than build our own system. Concerns relate to the sorts of breaks that might be given to certain industries, specifically the coal and oil industries. The justification will be that both of these industries are hard at work developing "clean coal" and "clean oil" technologies, and just need a little more time before they will be able to fully join the cap and trade system. Arguments will be made that forcing coal and oil to come all the way in now would irreparably damage our economies.
So, the Obama-designed Harper-joined system will likely allow the heaviest polluting industries in North America to continue doing "business as usual" for a while longer yet.
The proposed U.S. system, though, calls for real reductions to greenhouse gas emissions by certain targets. The 2020 target is for a 17% reduction in emissions (from a 2005 base line). So, if the coal industry in the U.S. and the tar sands industry in Canada are to be given large exemptions from being forced to participate in the cap and trade system, how are we going to achieve these even very modest targets?
Looks like other industries are going to be tasked with making up the lion’s share of emission reductions. Those are the winners and losers Rick Smith identifies. The winners will be oil-rich Alberta and Saskatchewan (and Newfoundland to a lesser extent), and U.S. coal-producing States, at the expense of Canada’s manufacturing industry, of which a big chunk is located in Central Canada, specifically in the Greater Toronto Area.
To me, all of this looks to be a politically-motivated manoeuver to reward Conservative friends and punish Conservative foes. That’s what it has to be, because with such a woeful target it sure as heck doesn’t look like it’s going to accomplish anything much on the climate change file.
Now, the Conservatives have already written off Quebec ridings as those to woo in an upcoming election. The Greater Toronto Area, where those manufacturing jobs are located, has always been difficult ground for the Cons and Reform Party before them to make inroads in. In Ontario, the Cons have been successful with wooing rural voters, but the suburban and urban ridings remain largely the bastion of the Liberals and the NDP.
From his perspective, it makes political sense now for Harper to play to his own strengths, particularly since many of those in his camp have been griping about yanking their support because they perceive his $50 billion deficit as a betrayal of his Reform Party roots. If Western ultra-Cons were stay at home on E Day, there could be more than a few chinks in the blue-coloured coat of armour. So he needs to throw them a bone and exempt the oil industry from meaningful participation in the cap and trade system.
At the same time, Harper clearly needs to be perceived as taking action on climate change. Joining in with President Obama’s climate change initiative will give Harper a lot of positive press in the uncritical mainstream media. It’s just too bad that Obama’s plan looks like it’s going to be such a wash out, a big nothing, full of sound and fury but ultimately just a squeak; in short, what politicos like to call "spin".
Greens, you know there must be a problem with Obama’s plan when Saskatchewan Party Leader and Premier Brad Wall, an instrument of the oil interests if there ever was one, comes out in support of it! Wall has been on the record as a virulent opponent of a cap and trade system, claiming such a system will damage his province. Yet, in today’s Globe & Mail, Wall is reported as saying that since cap and trade seems inevitable, Obama’s plan isn’t that bad because it will put less onus on reducing greenhouse gases than even Stephen Harper’s own plan: (Brian Laghi, "Saskatchewan warms to Obama climate plan", Globe & Mail, August 7, 2009).
Wow. Stephen Harper is starting to look like a crusading tree-hugger alongside Michael Ignatieff and Barack Obama, at least in the eyes of Wall and Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach!
So, it looks like that there will be winners and losers in the coming years, as "action" is seen to be taken in reducing ghg emissions.
Here in Sudbury, we’re very familiar already with being on the losing end of the Conservative’s stick. As you may know, approximately 3,500 employees from Vale Inco are now into their second month of what is sure to be a lengthy strike. United Steelworkers Local 6500 has been expressing some very real concerns about their new employer, Brazillian-based Vale SA, which acquired Inco with the permission of the Canadian government in 2006. At that time, Vale entered into a secret agreement with the government; an agreement which a revolving door of Conservative Ministers keep telling us would lead to job creation and a better economic situation for Inco communities in Labrador, Greater Sudbury and Port Colborne.
Here in Sudbury, we’ve not really seen those results. Vale’s acquisition of Inco is turning out to be a bit of a disaster for our community, and not just because of the current strike. Sudbury’s once-vibrant mining supply sector, once touted in this community by economic developers as the cornerstone for an evolving "centre of excellence", has been devastated in the past year, losing over 1,500 jobs, many of which were held by well-paid mining professionals. Sudbury’s mining supply sector has been a leader in mining innovation and the development of sustainable mining practices. These jobs lost are the sort of jobs a community needs to thrive.
Sure, in part, job loss has been a result of the recent economic downturn and falling nickel prices. But, also in part, the mining supply sector has been a victim of Vale’s business practices. In today’s Sudbury Star, editor Brian MacLeod expresses concern that Vale Inco will increasingly shut local industries out of competitive bidding process as Vale "rationalizes" its service delivery by looking for ways of maximizing "global synergies". Given that Vale’s head office is in Brazil, and that Vale operates in 35 countries world-wide, it stands to reason that local mining suppliers will continue to be left behind in the name of "centralized procurement" (see "The new boss isn’t quite like the old boss", The Sudbury Star, August 7 2009)
USW Local 6500 would have us believe that Vale and the Conservatives sold out Inco communities, along with the rest of Canada. Canada’s natural resource sector is certainly no stranger to the international auction block, but if there was a deal made to protect Canada’s interests, as Industry Minister Tony Clement says there was, it doesn’t appear to have been much of a deal, given the situation here in Sudbury. Maybe it was a great deal in contrast to the "Valley of Death" Clement insists Sudbury was facing at the time, but that reality really only ever existed in dark spaces of Clement’s own mind (see: "Sudbury According to Tony Clement")
I believe the Union is onto something here, given that Sudbury and Labrador are never going to elect a Conservative MP. Could it have been that the Conservatives just didn’t really care about Inco and the health of the Canadian mineral resource sector?
Or maybe it was something more insidious than just apathy. Maybe the mining industry, already perceived as an axis of evil by many voters, was being set up as a straw-man. Think about it.
In the next election, Stephen Harper gets up and tells Canadians that he’s taking action on climate change by agreeing to work with Obama by joining a North American cap and trade system. Sure, there will be exemptions for the tar sands, as the Canadian economy would be in dire straits if there weren’t. Even Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals recognize the importance of the tar sands, Harper will say, so really it’s a non-issue. Plus, the tar sands is getting its act together, and the Conservative government is investing billions of dollars in carbon capture and storage technology. What more could Canadians want? Oh yeah...Canadians would want to make sure that other "dirty" industries are doing their fair share. Well, look no further than Sudbury and at the mining industry in general. They’re being forced to reduce emissions under the cap and trade system, while simultaneously investing in local communities.
Nevermind that these local investments are actually just dollars being spent on out-sourcing, which have the effect of devastating local economies built to service the mining sector (and which could actually lead to a reduction in Canadian ghg emissions, as a defunct Canadian business spews no CO2), the story itself will play well in the media. Harper Takes Real Action on Climate Change! Read All About It!
One of the upcoming battles against climate change will be fought on the grounds of PROCUREMENT. With talk in the media about increasing Canadian opposition to "Buy American" policies in the U.S., it’s interesting that International Trade Minister Stockwell Day has been lobbying the provinces to bind themselves and their "creatures", the municipalities, to NAFTA rules for procurement. Day says that this would create a fair and level playing field for these levels of government, in keeping with NAFTA, to procure goods at the lowest prices.
Nevermind that municipal and provincial governments would have to kiss goodbye any "buy local" policies they may have put in place on their own at the demand of their local citizens. Nevermind that local jobs could be lost to lower bids emerging from wage-challenged businesses in the U.S. and Mexico who have little understanding of local realities in our own communities. (see: Stuart Trew and Blair Redlin, "No payoff for premiers in ‘Buy American’ fix", Toronto Star, August 7, 2009)
But, boy, wouldn’t such provincial and municipal procurement policies be in keeping with the sort of globalization that the Conservatives clearly believe in? Wouldn’t it also play well with core Conservative voters? "Look at what we’ve done," they’ll say. "We’ve led the way by requiring provincial and municipal governments to obtain the best deals that they can for spending your hard-earned tax dollars on local infrastructure and service delivery." No matter that local jobs disappear and tax revenues collected from local properties decrease as local businesses are undercut by international firms which play by different rules when it comes to wages and benefits and dealing with environmental concerns.
Sort of like what Vale Inco is doing by favouring low-priced anti-environmental mining sector suppliers over more eco-conscious Canadian businesses who pay their employees decent wages.
Now, I’m not suggesting that Canadian businesses aren’t competitive, only that there need to be other considerations made when we’re talking about building healthy communities. Clearly, outsourcing to international firms instead of investing in Canadian jobs is problematic at the best of times, but if there is a greater value in doing so, yes, we should consider it. Problem is, what is "value" here based on? More often than not, it’s a simple matter of looking at financial costs only: a company in Sao Paulo can provide a service at a lower price than a company in Sudbury can, and the procurement decision is made on that basis alone. Nevermind that the company in Sao Paulo pays its employees $1 an hour in wages and dumps all sorts of carbon into the air as part of their manufacturing processes.
Fair and reasonable compensation for work provided is a Canadian value which is often absent in outsourcing situations. Increasingly, Canadians are coming to value the purchasing of products and services which contribute less pollution to our air and water. In part, the Buy Local initiatives which are growing throughout Canada, as manifested in Sudbury’s downtown Farmer’s Market, are at the leading edge of this trend. With the Wal-Mart-ization of our communities with a heavy dependency on carbon, it’s fair to say that eco-friendly local businesses are on their way to becoming a Canadian value as well.
In the face of this reality, however, the Conservative government of Canada is ready to sell-out Canadian businesses and industries in favour of their oilpatch buddies, and so that they can be seen to be taking action on climate change. Canada’s natural resource sector industries are becoming increasingly internationalized in the name of cost-savings, when the reality is that their business practices are more damaging to the environment and the Canadian economy, which is a bit of a stretch to the definition of "cost savings" in my opinion.
Why is this happening? Well, it’s happening because Conservatives have never really bought into the notion that climate change is real, or that we need to do something about it. Lip-service needs to be paid to it, but no real action is required. Current business practices and economic growth are the centrepiece of any Conservative conversation on conservation.
And it’s happening because too many Canadians remain disengaged. For many, it’s enough to believe that action is being taken, because government officials say it’s going on. Who wouldn’t want to believe President Obama when he refers to "bold steps being taken". Surely something is being done, or else the media wouldn’t print it, right? Oh well, climate change isn’t the sort of sexy issue which lends itself to a sound-bite anyway.
Greens, we need to continue getting the message out there that Conservative and Liberal inaction on climate change can no longer be tolerated, because the crisis is now upon us; we’ve overshot 350 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere where global temperatures will remain stable, and we’re on track to overshooting the anticipated 2 degree rise in global temperature at 450 ppm. With Obama’s 17% plan or even Harper’s plan of 20% reduction of ghg emissions by 2020 using a 2005 baseline, we’ll be in for a world of hurt, and far above 450 ppm.
See? Not sound-bite friendly. But important, important, important.
I’m growing so very weary of all of this Conservative game-playing.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Sudbury According to Tony Clement: The Valley of Death
(originally posted at http://www.greenparty.ca/)
Having to blog about the short-comings of Tony Clement is a pretty lousy way of spending my evenings, I think. Having to blog twice about Clement in one day just royally...well, I don’t want to be impolite.
The Mayor of Greater Sudbury, former NDP MP John Rodriquez, continues to try to invite Tony Clement to come to our fair city for a tour (read: re-education programming). Clement, wisely, has so far resisted any and all invitations, probably knowing that if he ever set foot in these parts he’d be tarred and feathered so quickly it would make your head spin.
Tony Clement, as you may know, is the current Minister of Industry, and in that capacity, he recently shot down a funding request by Montreal’s gay and lesbian arts festival, Divers-Cite, even though his Ministry had given funding to the festival in the past. Clement is also the Minister responsible for the federal Northern Ontario development agency, Fed-NOR, and in this capacity, he’s been involved in a long-running dispute with provincial Liberal MPP Rick Bartolucci (more of an actual shooting war than a "dispute" really...these two guys like to mix it up and shoot from the lip) who has labelled him the Minister responsible for FED-NOT for the funding requests Clement has turned down in this community.
To gall Sudburians further, the Conservative government announced a few months ago that it would be funding a centre of mining excellence in downtown Toronto on the U of T campus, even though Fed-NOR had refused to pony up any funding for the Centre of Mining Excellence here in Sudbury, despite participation by the Ontario provincial government (to the tune of $5 million dollars) and both Sudbury mining giants Vale Inco and Xstrata (formerly Falconbridge), each in for $10 million each.
Clement’s contempt for Sudbury extended to his outright refusal to go to bat for laid-off Xstrata workers this past winter, even though it was quite evident to everybody that swiss-owned Xstrata had violated a commitment they had made to not lay off any workers in Sudbury for a period of three years, which was part of an agreement which allowed the Swiss national firm to take over ownership of Falconbridge. Clement, not one to take criticism lying down (but perhaps ok with lying in general) went completely out on a limb by telling Sudburians to be happy that he’d wrung all sorts of concessions out of Xstrata to keep a particular mine open...even though these plans had been on Xstrata’s books for years and were common public knowledge for even non-mining people like me who just happen to absorb this kind of info by virtue of living in Sudbury.
And this past week, in the midst of what is presumed to be a very lengthy strike by Vale INCO workers, Clement has the nerve to tell Canadians that if it wasn’t for Brazillian mining giant Vale SA (now Vale Inco) coming to INCO’s rescue a few years ago, Sudbury would be a "Valley of Death". These comments have generated a few head-turns locally, and not just from the union. In fact, heads have turned so much that it’s looking like a scene from the movie "The Exorcist" playing itself out again and again here. Everyone is taking this opportunity to wonder if Clement really believes the nonsense that he’s saying and is therefore so out of touch with reality that it does no good to try to bring him back to down to earth, or if this is just the latest attempt to kick Sudbury when its down, because we refuse to elect Conservatives here again and again.
The Globe & Mail has a telling article in today’s Investor section:
Andy Hoffman and Jacquie McNish, "Clement’s takeover hangover", The Globe & Mail, July 22 2009
http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/GAM.20090722.RINCO22ART1949/GIStory/
In the article, the Globe quotes former Inco CEO Scott Hand as saying this about Clement: "He’s either sadly misinformed or he’s ignoring the facts because back in 2006 we were a very successful company. There were lots of companies trying to buy us, not just Vale." Hand, of course, was shown the door by the Brazilians shortly after acquisition, as were most of INCO’s senior management here in Sudbury and in Toronto.
Here in Sudbury, the strike is by United Steel Workers Local 6500 is likely going to be a long one. Let me tell you something about USW Local 6500: these people know how to strike, and I mean that with all respect, as I myself have marched on a picket line in the past. Elsewhere in Ontario, strikers are losing the local public relations wars (I’m thinking here of Toronto and Windsor, where public service employees are on strike...now admittedly, public service unions usually start in a disadvantaged situation to win any media war). Here in Sudbury, there is so much support for the union, it’s not even funny (although there are notable detractors).
One of the union’s "tactics" (my term, not the unions) appears to be playing up the fact this latest strike is not about Local 6500 vs. Vale Inco...it’s about a third world mining conglomerate vs. Canadian values. At first, I was rather reluctant to see this as more than just a media play to gain sympathy for the hearts and minds of Sudburians. Big, Bad Brazilians trying to eliminate all of the gains the organized labour movement have made over the decades is certainly the sort of drama which resonates in the media.
Lately, though, I’m beginning to think that maybe the Union isn’t just engaging in media warfare, and there is actual a significant element of concern here, particularly for those who consider themselves small "g" greens (not to mention the big "G" Greens like me).
Clement, with his "Valley of Death" alternate-reality comments, was echoing earlier comments made by Roger Agnelli, CEO of Vale Inco, in a Dow Jones story, where he said of pre-takeover INCO: "If we hadn’t bought INCO, perhaps now it wouldn’t even be alive."
(Reported most recently in the Sudbury Star editorial: "Industry minister must explain the inexplicable", July 22 2009: http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1667199
Vale Inco has continued to suggest that current mining practices in the Sudbury basin are not sustainable, yet they paid over $19 billion dollars in 2006 to acquire the "unsustainable" INCO. Yes, the price of nickel was going through a bubble, and the bubble has now burst, but Vale Inco continues to post profits each quarter. How is making money for its shareholders unsustainable? Maybe it has more to do with not making enough money, which means cutting back on the price of labour in some way.
Mining is a dangerous job, and those who go underground are, in Canada, compensated fairly well for putting their lives at risk doing their jobs every day. Safety improvements have led to a decrease in lives lost in Sudbury, and INCO can proudly claim to run one of the safest mining operations in the world. It’s as a result of the partnerships which formed between employer and labour (not always harmonious by any means) which have led to this outcome. Don’t misunderstand me: there’s still a long way to go to achieve a truly sustainable mining operation in my opinion, but INCO and its unions have been heading in that direction for a long while now. It seems to me as if the Company now wants to take steps backwards, to keep mining in the Sudbury basin more in line with what their other international experiences have been.
And this is of particular concern to me, because the sorts of mining practices which Vale Inco engages in elsewhere are certainly not to be admired by anyone who is concerned about the destruction and devastation which can be caused by hard-rock mining. If we are to move towards more sustainable mining practices, we can’t be taking these steps backward. I believe Canadian-owned INCO understood that, and I point to a number of the partnerships they entered into with the Sudbury community as evidence. While Vale Inco continues to engage the community in these partnerships on the one hand, it’s content to hit us all over the head on the other by audaciously claiming that mining here (in Sudbury of all places!) isn’t sustainable in the long term under current conditions.
Rather than going around making completely false statements to the media during a strike between a Sudbury local and a Brazilian-owned conglomerate, wouldn’t it be more worthwhile for our Federal Minister of Industry to actually do something in an attempt to resolve the situation? Clement is leading the charge against U.S. Steel to honour the agreements it made with the government of Canada when it took over Hamilton-based Stelco, but when it comes to Vale Inco (and Xstrata-Falconbridge before that), Clement is content to posture and carry on in his own little world of spin and denial.
I’m getting tired of the Honourable Tony Clement and his Conservative deniers.
Having to blog about the short-comings of Tony Clement is a pretty lousy way of spending my evenings, I think. Having to blog twice about Clement in one day just royally...well, I don’t want to be impolite.
The Mayor of Greater Sudbury, former NDP MP John Rodriquez, continues to try to invite Tony Clement to come to our fair city for a tour (read: re-education programming). Clement, wisely, has so far resisted any and all invitations, probably knowing that if he ever set foot in these parts he’d be tarred and feathered so quickly it would make your head spin.
Tony Clement, as you may know, is the current Minister of Industry, and in that capacity, he recently shot down a funding request by Montreal’s gay and lesbian arts festival, Divers-Cite, even though his Ministry had given funding to the festival in the past. Clement is also the Minister responsible for the federal Northern Ontario development agency, Fed-NOR, and in this capacity, he’s been involved in a long-running dispute with provincial Liberal MPP Rick Bartolucci (more of an actual shooting war than a "dispute" really...these two guys like to mix it up and shoot from the lip) who has labelled him the Minister responsible for FED-NOT for the funding requests Clement has turned down in this community.
To gall Sudburians further, the Conservative government announced a few months ago that it would be funding a centre of mining excellence in downtown Toronto on the U of T campus, even though Fed-NOR had refused to pony up any funding for the Centre of Mining Excellence here in Sudbury, despite participation by the Ontario provincial government (to the tune of $5 million dollars) and both Sudbury mining giants Vale Inco and Xstrata (formerly Falconbridge), each in for $10 million each.
Clement’s contempt for Sudbury extended to his outright refusal to go to bat for laid-off Xstrata workers this past winter, even though it was quite evident to everybody that swiss-owned Xstrata had violated a commitment they had made to not lay off any workers in Sudbury for a period of three years, which was part of an agreement which allowed the Swiss national firm to take over ownership of Falconbridge. Clement, not one to take criticism lying down (but perhaps ok with lying in general) went completely out on a limb by telling Sudburians to be happy that he’d wrung all sorts of concessions out of Xstrata to keep a particular mine open...even though these plans had been on Xstrata’s books for years and were common public knowledge for even non-mining people like me who just happen to absorb this kind of info by virtue of living in Sudbury.
And this past week, in the midst of what is presumed to be a very lengthy strike by Vale INCO workers, Clement has the nerve to tell Canadians that if it wasn’t for Brazillian mining giant Vale SA (now Vale Inco) coming to INCO’s rescue a few years ago, Sudbury would be a "Valley of Death". These comments have generated a few head-turns locally, and not just from the union. In fact, heads have turned so much that it’s looking like a scene from the movie "The Exorcist" playing itself out again and again here. Everyone is taking this opportunity to wonder if Clement really believes the nonsense that he’s saying and is therefore so out of touch with reality that it does no good to try to bring him back to down to earth, or if this is just the latest attempt to kick Sudbury when its down, because we refuse to elect Conservatives here again and again.
The Globe & Mail has a telling article in today’s Investor section:
Andy Hoffman and Jacquie McNish, "Clement’s takeover hangover", The Globe & Mail, July 22 2009
http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/GAM.20090722.RINCO22ART1949/GIStory/
In the article, the Globe quotes former Inco CEO Scott Hand as saying this about Clement: "He’s either sadly misinformed or he’s ignoring the facts because back in 2006 we were a very successful company. There were lots of companies trying to buy us, not just Vale." Hand, of course, was shown the door by the Brazilians shortly after acquisition, as were most of INCO’s senior management here in Sudbury and in Toronto.
Here in Sudbury, the strike is by United Steel Workers Local 6500 is likely going to be a long one. Let me tell you something about USW Local 6500: these people know how to strike, and I mean that with all respect, as I myself have marched on a picket line in the past. Elsewhere in Ontario, strikers are losing the local public relations wars (I’m thinking here of Toronto and Windsor, where public service employees are on strike...now admittedly, public service unions usually start in a disadvantaged situation to win any media war). Here in Sudbury, there is so much support for the union, it’s not even funny (although there are notable detractors).
One of the union’s "tactics" (my term, not the unions) appears to be playing up the fact this latest strike is not about Local 6500 vs. Vale Inco...it’s about a third world mining conglomerate vs. Canadian values. At first, I was rather reluctant to see this as more than just a media play to gain sympathy for the hearts and minds of Sudburians. Big, Bad Brazilians trying to eliminate all of the gains the organized labour movement have made over the decades is certainly the sort of drama which resonates in the media.
Lately, though, I’m beginning to think that maybe the Union isn’t just engaging in media warfare, and there is actual a significant element of concern here, particularly for those who consider themselves small "g" greens (not to mention the big "G" Greens like me).
Clement, with his "Valley of Death" alternate-reality comments, was echoing earlier comments made by Roger Agnelli, CEO of Vale Inco, in a Dow Jones story, where he said of pre-takeover INCO: "If we hadn’t bought INCO, perhaps now it wouldn’t even be alive."
(Reported most recently in the Sudbury Star editorial: "Industry minister must explain the inexplicable", July 22 2009: http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1667199
Vale Inco has continued to suggest that current mining practices in the Sudbury basin are not sustainable, yet they paid over $19 billion dollars in 2006 to acquire the "unsustainable" INCO. Yes, the price of nickel was going through a bubble, and the bubble has now burst, but Vale Inco continues to post profits each quarter. How is making money for its shareholders unsustainable? Maybe it has more to do with not making enough money, which means cutting back on the price of labour in some way.
Mining is a dangerous job, and those who go underground are, in Canada, compensated fairly well for putting their lives at risk doing their jobs every day. Safety improvements have led to a decrease in lives lost in Sudbury, and INCO can proudly claim to run one of the safest mining operations in the world. It’s as a result of the partnerships which formed between employer and labour (not always harmonious by any means) which have led to this outcome. Don’t misunderstand me: there’s still a long way to go to achieve a truly sustainable mining operation in my opinion, but INCO and its unions have been heading in that direction for a long while now. It seems to me as if the Company now wants to take steps backwards, to keep mining in the Sudbury basin more in line with what their other international experiences have been.
And this is of particular concern to me, because the sorts of mining practices which Vale Inco engages in elsewhere are certainly not to be admired by anyone who is concerned about the destruction and devastation which can be caused by hard-rock mining. If we are to move towards more sustainable mining practices, we can’t be taking these steps backward. I believe Canadian-owned INCO understood that, and I point to a number of the partnerships they entered into with the Sudbury community as evidence. While Vale Inco continues to engage the community in these partnerships on the one hand, it’s content to hit us all over the head on the other by audaciously claiming that mining here (in Sudbury of all places!) isn’t sustainable in the long term under current conditions.
Rather than going around making completely false statements to the media during a strike between a Sudbury local and a Brazilian-owned conglomerate, wouldn’t it be more worthwhile for our Federal Minister of Industry to actually do something in an attempt to resolve the situation? Clement is leading the charge against U.S. Steel to honour the agreements it made with the government of Canada when it took over Hamilton-based Stelco, but when it comes to Vale Inco (and Xstrata-Falconbridge before that), Clement is content to posture and carry on in his own little world of spin and denial.
I’m getting tired of the Honourable Tony Clement and his Conservative deniers.
Conservative Party Has No Respect for Diversity
(originally posted at www.greenparty.ca)
Ah, here we go. Stephen Harper and his Conservatives continue to show their true, socially-regressive, colours, by revoking funding for Montreal’s Diver-Cite festival after the Toronto Pride fiasco hit home with the social dinosaurs in the Party. I use the word "revoke" here as Divers-Cite had received federal funding in the past, from the same federal Department now headed by Tony Clement, so clearly there has been an established relationship between Economic Development Canada and the Divers-Cite festival.
But, Con MP Brad Trost and the other dinosaurs in the Conservative Party have just scuttled federal funding for this important Quebec cultural event. Politically, this won’t play well in Montreal and Quebec for the Conservatives, which is a good thing, because our Federal government’s lack of participation in Divers-Cite is an absolute shame as well as being hypocritical in the extreme.
I just marched through the streets of downtown Sudbury this past weekend, accompanied by my beautiful wife, our foster son and Sudbury Green Party Candidate Fred Twilley, in celebration of Sudbury’s diverse LGBT community. In this community, the Pride March isn’t a parade in the sense of what takes place in Toronto or Montreal. Instead, it remains largely a political statement to the community that diversity is natural and normal, deserving of respect. For the most part, I believe that message resonates with Sudburians.
As a result, seeing my federal government cut funding for an important community-building event such as Divers-Cite really galls me, because clearly the decision was made based only on the Conservative Party’s lack of understanding about Canadian’s level of tolerance and acceptance. Well, I for one am complete intolerant of this attitude and I am ashamed of my government for taking this backward step.
I want to state that I realize that not all small "c" conservatives feel the same way that the Conservative Party feels. I’m sure that many small "c"’s are equally appalled, either because they know it’s not the right thing to do, or because they realize that as a result of missing federal funds, the Divers-Cite festival won’t generate as much economic activity for the Montreal economy as it might have. Again, I appeal to these small "c" conservatives to abandon Harper and his Cons, because their brand of conservatism does not represent your progressive ideals.
Sometimes our government has to do the right thing, even if it requires sticking its neck out. I would suggest that our government has just shown Canadians that it is not willing to do the right thing even when it was not required to stick its neck out in any way, given its past commitments to Divers-Cite.
I am proud to be a member of a Party which understands that our diversity is something to be celebrated.
Links:
Steve May’s Green Party blog: Toronto Pride Week Under Attack By Conservatives
http://greenparty.ca/blogs/2022/2009-07-08/torontos-pride-week-under-attack-conservatives
Jennifer Ditchburn, "Montreal gay festival won’t get federal cash", The Toronto Star, July 22 2009.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/669809
Ah, here we go. Stephen Harper and his Conservatives continue to show their true, socially-regressive, colours, by revoking funding for Montreal’s Diver-Cite festival after the Toronto Pride fiasco hit home with the social dinosaurs in the Party. I use the word "revoke" here as Divers-Cite had received federal funding in the past, from the same federal Department now headed by Tony Clement, so clearly there has been an established relationship between Economic Development Canada and the Divers-Cite festival.
But, Con MP Brad Trost and the other dinosaurs in the Conservative Party have just scuttled federal funding for this important Quebec cultural event. Politically, this won’t play well in Montreal and Quebec for the Conservatives, which is a good thing, because our Federal government’s lack of participation in Divers-Cite is an absolute shame as well as being hypocritical in the extreme.
I just marched through the streets of downtown Sudbury this past weekend, accompanied by my beautiful wife, our foster son and Sudbury Green Party Candidate Fred Twilley, in celebration of Sudbury’s diverse LGBT community. In this community, the Pride March isn’t a parade in the sense of what takes place in Toronto or Montreal. Instead, it remains largely a political statement to the community that diversity is natural and normal, deserving of respect. For the most part, I believe that message resonates with Sudburians.
As a result, seeing my federal government cut funding for an important community-building event such as Divers-Cite really galls me, because clearly the decision was made based only on the Conservative Party’s lack of understanding about Canadian’s level of tolerance and acceptance. Well, I for one am complete intolerant of this attitude and I am ashamed of my government for taking this backward step.
I want to state that I realize that not all small "c" conservatives feel the same way that the Conservative Party feels. I’m sure that many small "c"’s are equally appalled, either because they know it’s not the right thing to do, or because they realize that as a result of missing federal funds, the Divers-Cite festival won’t generate as much economic activity for the Montreal economy as it might have. Again, I appeal to these small "c" conservatives to abandon Harper and his Cons, because their brand of conservatism does not represent your progressive ideals.
Sometimes our government has to do the right thing, even if it requires sticking its neck out. I would suggest that our government has just shown Canadians that it is not willing to do the right thing even when it was not required to stick its neck out in any way, given its past commitments to Divers-Cite.
I am proud to be a member of a Party which understands that our diversity is something to be celebrated.
Links:
Steve May’s Green Party blog: Toronto Pride Week Under Attack By Conservatives
http://greenparty.ca/blogs/2022/2009-07-08/torontos-pride-week-under-attack-conservatives
Jennifer Ditchburn, "Montreal gay festival won’t get federal cash", The Toronto Star, July 22 2009.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/669809
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Do Canadians Really Think that Majority Governments Are Preferrable?
(originally posted at www.greenparty.ca)
A recent Harris Decima poll suggests that Canadians are growing tired of minority governments in Ottawa, and are longing for a return to majority government rule. Dave Breakenridge of Sun Media suggests an alternative view: that Canadian’s lack of satisfaction with minority governments might have more to do with the lack of civility our elected officials have for one another. I tend to agree with Breakenridge.
Canada’s parliament is dysfunctional. Partisan political games have become more important than accomplishing the good and necessary works which Canadians expect of our elected officials. There is little recognition by any of the currently elected political parties that a degree of co-operation and decorum is necessary to achieve results through considered compromise. Instead, the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP and Bloc are keen to play games in an attempt to score political points in order to sway public opinion.
A majority government might be one way of fixing a broken parliament. It would, however, be a dangerous fix, as it is very unlikely that a majority of voters would be able to definitively choose one of the established political parties over the others. More likely, a majority government would be returned through a "false majority" vote, where only a fraction of ballots, potentially as little as one third, are cast for the political party receiving the so-called majority. This is because Canada’s electoral system served the country well when there were only two parties to choose from, but is woefully inadequate where multiple parties are vying for votes. In our current first-past-the-post system, the party receiving the largest minority of votes is the one which receives the first opportunity to form the government. This probably doesn’t come as news to most Greens, but many Canadians are surprised to discover that "majority" governments aren’t really representative of the majority of voters.
Recently, in comments made to the Globe & Mail, Prime Minister Stephen Harper provided his opinion that there are no good taxes. Jeffrey Simpson, rightfully, expressed complete and utter amazement that a Prime Minister of Canada could be so very dismissive of taxes, which are the fundamental building block of our civilized society. It’s one thing to get upset about paying taxes, but to willfully suggest that there are no good taxes (and by extension that taxes do not accomplish anything positive) is an absolutely mind-boggling opinion for someone to hold. It’s beyond mind-boggling when that person is the Leader of our government. How representative of Canadians’ viewpoints is that stunner?
We know that Harper rules his Party with an iron fist. What might happen should he ever be given a majority government, particularly in a false-majority situation? What do you think he might do when it comes time to address the structural deficit he and his Party have created through their tax cuts and bail outs of the auto sector? Do you think he’s going to want to generate additional revenue by raising taxes, or by taxing pollution?
Right now, Harper and the Conservatives don’t even want to admit that they’ve created a structural deficit because to do so would mean that they might have to come clean about what they’re going to do to get rid of it. The sale of government assets and massive spending cuts to services and programs are what they do not want to talk about (unless those programs are giving money to "gay" cultural events such as Toronto Pride). So instead of laying out a credible plan, they pretend that the problem doesn’t exist. Kind of like what they’ve been doing with the climate change crisis.
Meanwhile, we still don’t know what Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals are really all about, other than they’ve given their unmitigated support to developing the Alberta tar sands without anything more than lip service regarding the stemming of environmental degradation. Right now, the only thing Ignatieff seems to have going for him is that he’s not Stephen Harper. And, in my opinion, that’s not nearly enough of a reason to give him the time of day. Take a position on something, man! As the old saying goes, it’s like trying to nail jello to a wall.
It’s clear that we Canadians deserve better government. Our government should be representative of the way in which ballots are cast. While government might be able to conduct business more easily in a majority situation than in a minority, we need to keep in mind that such a government would not be representative of the political will of Canadians. A better outcome for Canadian voters would be to do away with our out-dated first-past-the-post electoral system, and to elect members of parliament who have expressed a desire to work together to find solutions rather than attack one another for partisan gain.
------
Here are some related links to this blogpost:
Jennifer Ditchburn, July 13 2009, The Globe & Mail: "Canadians grow weary of minority governments"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadians-grow-weary-of-minority-government/article1215629/
Harris-Decima News Release, July 12 2009: "Canadians say its time for a majority government"
http://www.harrisdecima.com/en/downloads/pdf/news_releases/071309E.pdf
Dave Breakenridge, "Point of View", July 13 2009, The Sudbury Star (SunMedia): "Let’s go next time with the majority"
http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1655030
Jeffrey Simpson, July 15 2009, The Globe & Mail: "A very scarey PM: ‘I don’t believe that any taxes are good taxes’"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/a-very-scary-pm-i-don’t-believe-that-any-taxes-are-good-taxes/article1216778/
A recent Harris Decima poll suggests that Canadians are growing tired of minority governments in Ottawa, and are longing for a return to majority government rule. Dave Breakenridge of Sun Media suggests an alternative view: that Canadian’s lack of satisfaction with minority governments might have more to do with the lack of civility our elected officials have for one another. I tend to agree with Breakenridge.
Canada’s parliament is dysfunctional. Partisan political games have become more important than accomplishing the good and necessary works which Canadians expect of our elected officials. There is little recognition by any of the currently elected political parties that a degree of co-operation and decorum is necessary to achieve results through considered compromise. Instead, the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP and Bloc are keen to play games in an attempt to score political points in order to sway public opinion.
A majority government might be one way of fixing a broken parliament. It would, however, be a dangerous fix, as it is very unlikely that a majority of voters would be able to definitively choose one of the established political parties over the others. More likely, a majority government would be returned through a "false majority" vote, where only a fraction of ballots, potentially as little as one third, are cast for the political party receiving the so-called majority. This is because Canada’s electoral system served the country well when there were only two parties to choose from, but is woefully inadequate where multiple parties are vying for votes. In our current first-past-the-post system, the party receiving the largest minority of votes is the one which receives the first opportunity to form the government. This probably doesn’t come as news to most Greens, but many Canadians are surprised to discover that "majority" governments aren’t really representative of the majority of voters.
Recently, in comments made to the Globe & Mail, Prime Minister Stephen Harper provided his opinion that there are no good taxes. Jeffrey Simpson, rightfully, expressed complete and utter amazement that a Prime Minister of Canada could be so very dismissive of taxes, which are the fundamental building block of our civilized society. It’s one thing to get upset about paying taxes, but to willfully suggest that there are no good taxes (and by extension that taxes do not accomplish anything positive) is an absolutely mind-boggling opinion for someone to hold. It’s beyond mind-boggling when that person is the Leader of our government. How representative of Canadians’ viewpoints is that stunner?
We know that Harper rules his Party with an iron fist. What might happen should he ever be given a majority government, particularly in a false-majority situation? What do you think he might do when it comes time to address the structural deficit he and his Party have created through their tax cuts and bail outs of the auto sector? Do you think he’s going to want to generate additional revenue by raising taxes, or by taxing pollution?
Right now, Harper and the Conservatives don’t even want to admit that they’ve created a structural deficit because to do so would mean that they might have to come clean about what they’re going to do to get rid of it. The sale of government assets and massive spending cuts to services and programs are what they do not want to talk about (unless those programs are giving money to "gay" cultural events such as Toronto Pride). So instead of laying out a credible plan, they pretend that the problem doesn’t exist. Kind of like what they’ve been doing with the climate change crisis.
Meanwhile, we still don’t know what Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals are really all about, other than they’ve given their unmitigated support to developing the Alberta tar sands without anything more than lip service regarding the stemming of environmental degradation. Right now, the only thing Ignatieff seems to have going for him is that he’s not Stephen Harper. And, in my opinion, that’s not nearly enough of a reason to give him the time of day. Take a position on something, man! As the old saying goes, it’s like trying to nail jello to a wall.
It’s clear that we Canadians deserve better government. Our government should be representative of the way in which ballots are cast. While government might be able to conduct business more easily in a majority situation than in a minority, we need to keep in mind that such a government would not be representative of the political will of Canadians. A better outcome for Canadian voters would be to do away with our out-dated first-past-the-post electoral system, and to elect members of parliament who have expressed a desire to work together to find solutions rather than attack one another for partisan gain.
------
Here are some related links to this blogpost:
Jennifer Ditchburn, July 13 2009, The Globe & Mail: "Canadians grow weary of minority governments"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadians-grow-weary-of-minority-government/article1215629/
Harris-Decima News Release, July 12 2009: "Canadians say its time for a majority government"
http://www.harrisdecima.com/en/downloads/pdf/news_releases/071309E.pdf
Dave Breakenridge, "Point of View", July 13 2009, The Sudbury Star (SunMedia): "Let’s go next time with the majority"
http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1655030
Jeffrey Simpson, July 15 2009, The Globe & Mail: "A very scarey PM: ‘I don’t believe that any taxes are good taxes’"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/a-very-scary-pm-i-don’t-believe-that-any-taxes-are-good-taxes/article1216778/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)