Green Party, Sudbury

Earth, Our Savior

2010-12-04T18:57:00.005-05:00

I am not a religious person, but I do believe that something must have created the universe and everything in it. Most humans believe that humans are God’s (creator’s) most remarkable achievement. I would have to disagree, with over 6 billion people on this planet, I would have to say, we humans are a dime a dozen. What is truly spectacular is the planet EARTH.

The Earth provides everything we humans as well as other species need to survive. There is only one like it, as far as we know. Earth alone sustains life. The Earth has been here for billions of years, while humans have not. The Earth has the ability to repair itself and reinvent itself. Humans, while very unique, are just a little more than parasites of the Earth. We take what we need from our host, Earth, with little consideration as how our actions affect it. In nature some parasites kill its host without realizing it is doing so, and as a result, kills itself. We humans are such parasites. I read that a successful parasite provides some benefits to its host, referred to as symbiosis. A successful parasite must do the following: withstand the unfavorable condition, reproduce within the host, locate a new host, (not possible yet) enter the host simply, and AVOID KILLING THE HOST.

We will continue to take from the Earth until the Earth has no ability to sustain life upon it. Who will be here in the end? Earth will survive no matter what we do to it. We humans will not, and we may take a few other species with us.

I often wonder if humans showed the same devotion to mother Earth as we do to God the Creator whether we would be much better off. Imagine if all schools were required to pray for mother Earth daily in school. Imagine if we all were to pledge allegiance to Earth, our savior, instead of treating it so badly. Perhaps God created humans to save the planet, not destroy it and not use it for our own selfishness. Humans alone are unique in the abilities we have to work together and achieve great things.

What many people do not understand is by “saving the planet” we strive to help our planet remain capable of sustaining life. If we put our minds together and work on serious solutions, we can save this planet not to save the planet for its own sake, but to save it for ourselves and human kind’s future.

Candice Goodmurphy-Colussi

Fundraising/Events Chair Sudbury Green Party of Ontario CA

National Breastfeeding week is August 1-7.

2010-07-30T23:09:00.002-04:00

Even though “breast is best” many women opt not to breastfeed at all or stop breastfeeding before their infant is 6 months old, due to lack of information on breastfeeding, support and/or lifestyle.

The World Health Organization recommends that women breastfeed for a minimum of 6 months and up to 2 years. Over 90% of women can breastfeed, however many women do not and claim health reasons even though there are very few health conditions that prevent breastfeeding. Another reason given for not breastfeeding is baby’s poor latch or not latching on. Although this problem is real (especially with low birth weight and premature babies), it can usually be overcome with help from a good lactation consultant, and with mom’s patience and determination. Even when this problem cannot be overcome women can still pump milk to feed their infant. In the end, formula should only be used as a last resort as it cannot mimic breast milk 100%.

Many women are not informed that during the first 4-6 weeks (or longer) when breastfeeding is being established, baby will feed frequently (10 to 12 times/day or more) and may even feed for a long period of time (over 20 minutes). A lot of women feel overwhelmed or that they are not producing enough milk, even though a lack of milk production is rare. The fact is that Mother Nature created this period so that women’s milk will become well established and baby will be close to mom during this delicate period for bonding and comfort. Some pediatricians call this period the “4th trimester” because baby needs to be close to mom as much as possible to adjust to life outside of the womb without being shocked and overwhelmed. It is also a very important time for mom to recover from birth instead of jumping into her regular routine; being “stuck” to baby assures that proper rest is established.

Sadly in our society this bonding and comforting time is not commonly acceptable and right from the start a vulnerable mother is often told by others that baby is too clingy, or that they are setting themselves up to spoil baby, or are wrapped around their baby’s little itty bitty pinky or that they are just being used as a soother. Mothers are told to establish a feeding routine right away, even though it is recommended that mothers feed on demand (babies which are fed on demand thrive much better than babies which are fed on a schedule). The fact is mothers and babies both need this bond, and you cannot spoil a baby, nor are babies being manipulative, and there is really nothing wrong with baby using mom as a soother as long as mom can tolerate it (most babies will grow out of this habit when they are ready).

The first year of life is about bonding with baby and establishing trust and a relationship that will create a stable, independent and happy child and later adult. In many aboriginal cultures, always having baby near (baby wearing and co-sleeping) is acceptable and normal; however in our modern culture it is frowned upon even though we evolved and are designed this way. Babies are cute and cuddly for a reason, and when they cry it upsets parents for a reason. We are programmed this way for a purpose.

Women who are properly educated on the benefits of nursing and have proper support from friends and family (especially their partners) are more likely to be successful at breastfeeding then those that don’t have this support. It is also the responsibility of our society (which includes you) to make our culture more accepting of breastfeeding. Some women experience rude comments when breastfeeding in public or dirty looks that make them feel uncomfortable when leaving the house, and which can lead to resentment of breastfeeding. Some women find it inconvenient to breastfeed in public due to a lack of accessibility to quiet areas (not to be confused with hiding) and comfortable seating for nursing. It is everyone’s job to be educated on the importance of breastfeeding and to support women who are breastfeeding by not making them feel uncomfortable or like they are doing something wrong.

To help educate people and future breastfeeding moms and their partners, I thought I would post 10 common breastfeeding myths

1. Many women do not produce enough milk or enough nutrients in their milk:
False. Most women produce enough milk. In fact having too much milk is more common. Babies that do not gain weight properly usually do so because of poor latch or are not getting to the hind milk due to frequent switching of the breast. Women in third world countries that are malnourished have plenty of milk full of nutrients for their babies. It is only when the baby is no longer nursing that the infant becomes malnourished and sick.

Women who do have problems with milk supply can easily reverse this problem by taking teas and increasing milk by providing baby more time at the breast as breast milk is created by supply and demand. Providing baby with too much supplemented milk, smoking, not being well hydrated or even a negative attitude or resentment can also be a culprit in lack of supply. Feeding on a schedule as opposed to feeding on demand can create issues with milk supply; that is why feeding on demand is recommended and not scheduled feeding.

2. A breastfeeding baby needs water especially during hot weather and when their sick.
False. Breast milk is all that baby needs for the first 6 months. Breast milk contains all the water that an infant needs. Breast milk is 80% water.

3. Formula is just as good as breast milk:
False. Breast milk is designed for human infant consumption; it has the right amount of fat, protein & carbohydrates for a human baby. It has all the nutrients (vitamins & minerals) a baby needs for the first 6 months & contains antibodies (something that cannot be replicated). Formula has synthetic nutrients that are harder to absorb and/or not as effective at nourishing the body. Formula does not contain antibodies.

Most formula is created using cow’s milk as its base, which has the fat, protein, and carbohydrate rates for a calf, not a human. Cow’s milk contains two main proteins: casein (80%); and whey (20%). Breast milk contains the same proteins but in a different ratio: whey (80%); and casein (20%). As a woman breastfeeds and as her infant grows, this ratio slowly changes; once the infant is about 12 to 24 months (human weaning age) the ratio slowly reverses. Casein is a protein that is not easily digested by humans in high amounts. When an infant under weaning age consumes a cow-base formula, the infant is consuming too much casein. Casein has been shown to cause or aggravate many illnesses and conditions such as heart disease, type 1 diabetes and other autoimmune disorders. Cow’s milk also contains naturally too much estrogen for humans and in a lot of cases has had estrogen either fed to them or injected into them in the form of growth hormones (to help fatten them and their offspring), increasing the amount of estrogen in their milk and meat. Human mothers produce estrogen in their milk in the correct amount for their infants to promote bone growth and development. Too much estrogen can lead to serious health problems!

Formula containing goat’s milk also has some of the same issues as cow’s milk although the ratio of whey and casein is closer to that of humans. Goat’s milk still contains too much casein for human consumption.

Soy based formulas are also a concern due to allergies to soy and nuts. Non-organic soy contains protein from nuts and is estrogenic as opposed to its organic natural form, which contains an estrogen-balancing component called isoflavones , which is beneficial. Finding certified organic soy formula is hard and there is still a concern about an allergy to soy itself. Soy formula also does not contain all the nutrients and antibodies of breast milk.

4. Formula feeding is easier than Breastfeeding:
False. Breastfeeding is usually easier than bottle-feeding. Bottle-feeding requires sterilization of bottles and the proper preparation of the formula. Breastfeeding is as simple as putting baby to your breast. When breastfeeding, you don’t have to worry about packing bottles and finding a way to warm up milk. Most mothers who breastfeed dread pumping or preparing formula because it requires more prep time. Hence the expression “I am too lazy to bottle feed” which is commonly found on t-shirts worn by breastfeeding moms!

When a baby is hungry it may mean baby has to fuss or cry before his or her needs are met when bottle-feeding. When breastfeeding, a baby’s needs are generally met immediately. The faster a baby’s needs are met the less stress a baby has to go through, the more trust is created and the more confidence baby has with communicating (which is beneficial when babbling and talking commence). Babies which are left to cry for long periods also produce too much cortisol, a stress hormone that is hard on the body. There is also evidence that babies which are left to cry for long periods are pre-disposed to anxiety disorders when they are older.

5. Women should not night nurse, it can cause ear infections, dental cavities and mom will be too tired in the morning:
False: Although formula and cows milk or juice before bed or in the middle of the night can cause cavities, due to the antimicrobial and antibacterial properties of breast milk, this rarely happens to babies who night nurse. However some babies who have sensitive teeth may be more prone to cavities and breast milk may aggravate this.

Nursing in bed does not cause ear infections for several reasons. Babies who nurse in bed are on their sides as apposed to baby’s who are bottle-fed who are reclined or flat on their back. If night nursing caused ear infections so would a baby in a cradle or football position as they are in the same side lying position. Even if milk worked its way up the ear canal the antimicrobial and antibacterial properties would prevent an ear infection from occurring. Breastfed babies have fewer ear infections than formula fed infants, which is one of the reason’s it’s promoted by health care practitioners.

Women who nurse in bed and co-sleep or do partial co-sleeping get better sleep than mothers who do not or bottle-feed. Babies also sleep longer as they can nurse instinctively in their sleep and some mothers nurse without waking up or even realize they are doing so. Co-sleeping is perfectly safe as long as it’s done safely and can even prevent SIDS if done correctly. A well-rested mother has more patience, energy and responds better to a baby then an overtired mother. Many lactation consultants and pro-breastfeeding doctors and midwives often recommend nursing in bed at night so mom and baby get better rest and to create a wonderful bonding experience when baby needs it most.

6. Breastfeeding Hurts:
False: Breastfeeding should not hurt; any pain is usually due to a poor latch. A poor latch can lead to pain, cracked nipples, mastitis and other problems that can or will cause pain.

7. Breastfeeding ties mom down:
This depends on the mother’s attitude and situation but it does not have to be this way: Breastfeeding should not tie a mother down. However in some situations it can be difficult due to our society: although breastfeeding women have a right to breastfeed anywhere an infant is allowed, some situations make women uncomfortable due to comments made, looks and or no place to comfortably breastfeed. Some women are asked to leave even though they have a right to breastfeed.

Traveling in a vehicle for a long period of time can also be a little difficult as one would have to pull over in order to breastfeed as baby has to be strapped in a car seat while a vehicle is in motion. Some creative women won’t let this stop them however and will pull over gladly or breastfeed hovering over the baby in the car seat.

8. Women with small breast don’t produce enough milk or no milk.
False: Size does not matter when it comes to producing milk for your child; milk is produced by supply in demand not by the size of the container!

9. Doctors know a lot about breastfeeding:
False: Most doctors know very little about breastfeeding as they don’t learn very much about it in medical school and most of their knowledge is outdated. Most doctors don’t even use the proper growth charts for breastfed babies leaving mother thinking her baby is not getting enough milk or not growing properly. However, there are exceptions to this rule; some doctors take lactation courses and receive certifications. If you need help with breastfeeding or information seek the advice of a lactation consultant, a doctor who has studied lactation, a nutritionist who has lactation knowledge or certification, a breastfeeding support person or a Naturopathic Doctor who has lactation knowledge or certification. You can also visit several sites that will be listed at the end of this article for more information on breastfeeding.

10. Breastfeeding is just a nuisance:
False: Many people blame breastfeeding for women being tired, sick, moody and overwhelmed. Some people even blame marital stress on a woman breastfeeding. The fact is a woman who wants to breastfeed is happy, healthy, and as well rested or more than any other mother with an infant who is not breastfeeding. Babies do lead to lack of sleep but it’s not because they need to be nursed. Having a baby is a lot of work and even more so depending on the baby or the attitude of the mother and/or parents. Nursing is not the culprit in situations where the above is happening. Some mothers who resent nursing may have these problems but it’s their attitude not the nursing that is causing these problems. Marital stress is common during the first year especially with new parents, but most couples come out of this new adjustment fine and stronger and happier than before it has nothing to do with breastfeeding. Breastfeeding is only a nuisance to those who make it so. Sadly again our society has the wrong attitude toward breastfeeding (although slowly changing) and this is the actual nuisance, especially to a breastfeeding mother, her child and partner.

August 1 to 7 is National Breastfeeding week. Talk about breastfeeding to others especially those who have issues with it and inform them how important it is. Talk about breastfeeding with mothers who are doing it and learn more from them. Stand up to your governments and demand full breastfeeding rights that do not just include the right of a women to breastfeed in public but to make it easier for her to do so. Many women stop breastfeeding due to financial issues that do not let them stay home from work even though they are entitled to a year. The fact that partners have to split the year instead of taking it off together is also another issue. Not having one’s partner around during the first few weeks or months when baby is breastfeeding frequently and mom needs help is also another deterrent in encouraging mothers to breastfeed for the minimum 6 months period. What about mothers who want to breastfeed the full term recommended by the WHO (2 years), one year is not enough for those who want to breastfeed? Mothers should be allowed up to 2 years with full financial support.

In the end, what breastfeeding moms want is support; so, give support to the breastfeeding mothers around you in any way you can. It can be as simple as giving her an encouraging smile when you see her breastfeeding in public.

Resources:

NBCI: Dr Jack Newman’s website.
http://www.nbci.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1

La Leche League Canada: http://www.lllc.ca/

The world Health Organization on Breastfeeding: http://www.who.int/topics/breastfeeding/en/

Dr Sears on Breastfeeding: http://www.askdrsears.com/html/2/T020100.asp

Sudbury District Health Unit, Breastfeeding Resources: http://www.sdhu.com/content/healthy_living/folder.asp?folder=25&parent=4&lang=0

Dana Clark, CHC, CHA, CNHP
President, Sudbury Green Party of Ontario Constituency Association

Communicaitons Chair, Sudbury Federal Green Party Association

Dana Clark is a Certified Herbal Consultant, Community Health Advisor and Certified Natural Health Practitioner. She is also in the process of achieving her Nutritional Counseling designation. Dana is also experienced in breastfeeding and is proudly still breastfeeding her 12-month-old son.

Is the Green Party Ready for a Shot-Gun Wedding of the Liberals and the NDP?

2010-06-10T21:06:00.002-04:00

It’s beginning to look like something serious really is going on behind-the-scenes with the Liberals and NDP. Today, CBC News is reporting that talks are on regarding a possible merger: Liberal-NDP Insiders Talk Merger. Liberal insider Warren Kinsella, former advisor to Jean Chretien, is reported by CBC as saying, "The reality is that we (the Liberals) are in a bad position. Serious people are involved in discussions at a serious level." So, it really does look like the potential of a merger is being investigaed, as per Chretien’s "If it’s doable, do it" sentiment expressed last week.

The merger talks appear to be on, despite the apparent denial by both the Liberal Party and the NDP that talks are taking place. Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal Leader, apparently had slammed the door shut on the possibility of a coalition with the NDP, not to mention to a merger. Why should Ignatieff be honest with Canadians about what’s going on behind closed doors? These parties have never been truly honest with Canadians about what they would do if they formed government, so why start now?

I’m not certain that a merger between the Liberals and NDP would be in the interests of Canadians, but I’m leaving the door open to the possibility that it might be. Certainly, any party being led by Michael "Tar Sands Forever" Ignatieff is, in my books, a non-starter. The Liberal Party of Canada, as currently constituted, has nothing of value to add to the Canadian conversation about the future which we need to engage in...other than to pipe up and say, "We’re not the Stephen Harper Conservatives!", which might be the single valid point they bring to the conversation. Still, that’s not enough.

The NDP, however, occupies a bit of a different location on the spectrum of addressing many of the issues the Liberals and Conservatives both fail to acknowledge as important issues. Certainly the NDP have been far more pro-active on climate change; it was an NDP private-members bill which eventually became the Climate Change Accountability Act, which while still a very flawed piece of legislation (it says little about how Canada will actually achieve the ambitious CO2 reduction targets it sets), is still a step in the right direction. From a policy perspective, the NDP has a lot to offer in terms of framing a conversation about the future.

From an implementation perspective, however, the NDP has traditionally proven itself to be another woeful example of how a mainstream party talks the talk while in opposition, but once in power, all of its ambition goes out of the window. Now, I know that the Federal NDP has never been in power, however it’s Provincial Partners have formed governments in B.C., Ontario, Saskatchewan, and most recently in Nova Scotia. By way of example, all of these Provincial NDP parties say that they believe in democratic renewal and the need to assess changes to our electoral systems, some with a bent towards implementing proportional representation to better elect a parliament which reflects the true will of voters. However, in power, none of these parties have done anything to actually address the democratic deficit (Liberal parties in both B.C. and Ontario held lop-sided referendums, but the NDP hasn’t ever walked their talk).

Further, the NDP continues to be mired in the politics of yesterday. It continues to view our political reality as carefully segmented into discrete issues: the economy; the environment; housing; etc. Although it has started to move in a direction of addressing all issues holistically through interconnected policy proposals (linking housing and poverty, for example, to building better communities), the NDP can’t seem to adequately wrap its head around why it’s important for local solutions to be discussed and implemented around matters which affect individuals. Truly, the NDP remains a party of "big government", looking for big solutions to problems which might better be served by more local initiatives. In the year 2010, to me, this is further evidence that the NDP remains stuck in the politics of the brown economy.

And finally, the NDP is very good with production value. They are a slick political machine, excellent at staying on message. I’m not sure that any government run by Jack Layton would be all that different than Stephen Harper’s in terms of command and control from the centre. The NDP have invested heavily in the sound-bite politics of spin. While one can argue that they’ve also experiences some real electoral successes from such investment, I would suggest that this is not the sort of politics that Canada needs to address the very real issues facing us in the next several decades. Partisan rhetoric and politicking will do little to lay the necessary groundwork to move Canada from a fossil fuel-based economy to a green economy.

If the NDP and the Liberals get their collective acts together before the next election or not remains to be seen. I strongly suspect that they won’t, and I don’t even think that they will have a riding-by-riding agreement not to oppose each other. I do, however, suspect that if the numbers work out after the next election, we could be in for a Liberal-NDP government, likely supported by the Bloc, and potentially by other parties (like the Greens) on an issue-by-issue basis.

However, what might happen if a merger proves to be successful? And how might that impact the Green Party? Of course, the answer to these questions would depend on the resolution of two big issues: what sorts of policies would the "Liberal Democrats" adopt, and who would lead the Party.

Regarding policies, given issues related to timing, the new Liberal Democrats might have to ask Canadians to trust them, while putting out a hasty and vaguely worded platform which would appeal to centre-left voters. Details likely would be filled in later. In many respects, this is where the Liberal Party seems to be headed today anyway: "Trust us, we’ll do well by you. Oh, and we’re not the Harper Conservatives". The Liberal Democrats, however, would be able to add the post-script, "We’ll get our act together in short order, when there’s a little more time, after the election when we form government". Essentially, voters will be asked to cast their ballots based on hope, rather than ideas. Since it’s already been suggested that elections are notoriously poor times to have policy discussions anyway, the Liberal Democrats could certainly pull off winning without saying much about what, exactly, they might do with the power they’re asking Canadians to give to them.

The Leader question is much more relevant. A recent poll has suggested that Jack Layton, or even Bob Rae, would be a much better leader of a united Liberal/NDP government than Ignatieff. Since many Libs want to dump the underperforming Iggy anyway, I just could not see Ignatieff leading a new party. So...what about Jack Layton? I admire Layton, although I wish that he weren’t so slick and would actually address real issues rather than grandstanding. But I would have to think that as part of the Liberal concession, a leader would have to come from their ranks. So, what about Bob?

Now, I understand that Bob Rae has a lot of baggage, both with voters and in his own Party. He might even carry more baggage as a result of a Liberal/NDP merger, as I understand that there are many in the NDP who see him as a turncoat traitor (I wonder why). I don’t know if he would be palatable to a new party, but I think a Liberal Democrat party would be well-served.

Of course, outsiders should also be considered: how about Roy Romanow, or even Dalton McGuinty? McGuinty, in particular, would be well-suited to lead, given his more fiscally-conservative leanings.

Now, what about the Green Party? A Liberal-NDP merger would present both an opportunity and a threat to the Green Party. The threat comes from the notion that the "left" is uniting in an effort to dump Harper, so why should voters turn to the Green Party when the goal is to oust the Conservatives? Don’t discount this threat, as it’s very real. However, I believe that the opportunities for our Party are far greater.

Greens would be able to benefit by making a clear impression with Canadians that our Party offers an even more real alternative between a new form of science and policy-led democracy on the one hand, and partisan politicking on the other. With a platform which outlines what, exactly, voters could expect if they elected Greens, we would likely be ahead of an airy-fairy "vote for us, we’ll figure these things out later" Liberal-NDP merged Party. Further, we could use this opportunity to play up our fiscally-responsible approach to budgeting, including putting a price on carbon (and set out how, exactly, we would do that). Canadians, I would hope, would be able to compare our approaches to that of the other Parties: where we’ve given some thought to doing things, and doing them well and differently, the other parties continue to offer vague promises with little or nothing tangible attached.

Greens need to star thinking about how we would strategically place ourselves should the federal political landscape suddenly shift. As a first priority, we should engage in significant outreach to disenchanted NDP and Liberals, especially those currently in parliament. I’m not suggesting that Stephane Dion would be one of the disenchanted, but his personal politics have always appeared to me to be much closer with our party’s ideology than that of his own. At the very least, we should start courting him and others. And then there are the "blue Liberals" who might not feel at home in a merger with the NDP, and who could see the financially sound policies our Party has on offer.

To take advantage, though, we’ll need to have our Leader due the bulk of the work with sitting MP’s. We need to start outreach at lower levels right now, including at the EDA level in those areas like Sudbury where one or the other of the Liberal or NDP currently have an MP. If those two parties merge, there will be a few upset locals, including some currently nominated candidates, who may have to give up their dreams of parliament in favour of an incumbent from the "other side". Nominated NDP candidates with an environmental bent in particular might make excellent acquisitions. We need to start thinking ahead.

Now, some in the Green Party might think that ending up in bed with the Liberals and NDP would benefit Canada and the environmental movement. They may rationalize that if we added our 10% of the vote share to a United Left movement, the anticipated benefits from ousting Harper would outweigh our lack of involvement, so let’s jump on the bandwagon. To those Greens, I really want to point out that a united Liberal-NDP party would still represent the old way of thinking about politics, and more importantly, thinking about "big government" solutions to the many issues facing Canada today.

A Liberal-Democrat Party would surely remain beholden to the interests of corporate Canada at the expense of being able to move forward with real reform in areas where its needed. The "environment" (whatever that is) would remain a secondary afterthought, while the "economy" (whatever that is) would continue to be placed at the fore-front of policy and legislative initiatives. Instead of looking at the environment and the economy as parts of a wider system, the political culture of both of these to-be-merged parties would continue to lead Canada in a direction which is ultimately not beneficial for Canadians.

In short, if Greens want a green government, we need to encourage voters to cast their ballots for a Green Party. And right now, that’d be us: the Green Party of Canada. It won’t be the Liberal-Democrats.

While I agree that getting rid of the Conservatives would be a wonderful, liberating, and sublime experience, I’m not sure that there is a lot of real benefit with believing that a merged Liberal/NDP would take the real step which need to be taken to address the many issues Canada is facing. Both the Liberals and the NDP are part of the current problem with democracy in this country. I just don’t see how a shot-gun wedding of these two parties could truly be part of a solution.

Posted by Green Party Sudbury at 1:07 PM 0 comments
Labels: Steve May
Friday, February 5, 2010

Vision Green 2010: A Full-On Assault on the Existing Political Culture of Apathy
Over the past little while, I’ve been reading articles from various mainstream media, and watching journalists on TV lament the current state of affairs amongst Canada’s top parties. Particularly, journalists and pundits have been crying that the major parties lack direction and vision, and really have nothing to offer the Canadian electorate, aside from defining themselves as who they are not. The Liberal Party under Michael Ignatieff’s leadership has particularly been singled out as not really standing for much of anything, except as a Party not led by Stephen Harper. Some have speculated that the Liberal’s lack of direction and vision is the result of a "safe" plan of attack for the next election. The theory goes that Stephane Dion released too much information into the public realm regarding what he would do differently if he were made Prime Minister, which left him open to attacks from the Conservatives. And attack they surely did.
Maybe there is some merit to keeping silent. However, it has been really frustrating to watch the Liberals refrain from speaking out about much of anything, and using non-binding weasel words most often when they do deign to speak. Sure, maybe the pundits have it right, and this is part of an election strategy. But don’t Canadians deserve better?
Jack Layton has been a little more forthcoming with what the NDP would do differently if they formed government, but even these pronouncements leave one scratching their head regarding what the NDP’s true vision of a future Canada is. The NDP under Layton have become a political chameleon, changing their skin when it best suits them. Witness Layton’s decision to have his party support the Harper government on a fall confidence vote, reversing years-long policy of non-support for the benefit of passing a flawed Employment Insurance bill which was but a shadow of what Layton said he’d previously support. Yes, it put off having an election which people didn’t want, but it gave us more of Stephen Harper, a commodity that a lot of us would also rather do without.
The NDP have flip-flopped on all sorts of principled issues, especially those pertaining to climate change. Instead of embracing a form of carbon pricing which experts throughout the world acknowledge as being workable and successful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the NDP remain opposed to a carbon tax, and have instead embraced an industry-friendly cap and trade scheme which is sure to keep the price of carbon hidden from consumers, and punish the least vulnerable in our society. Even today, the NDP continues to maintain that a carbon tax is the wrong way of pricing carbon; look no further than the attack on the B.C. Liberal’s during the spring provincial election.
No, the NDP don’t offer a whole lot when it comes to vision for this country, but at least they have shown a few of their cards, unlike the Liberals, who may not even be holding any cards.
And if the Liberals and NDP are bad, well, the Conservatives want you to think that you’re living in a fantasy-land where economic recovery will do away with structural deficits, where taxes need never be raised, and only redundant programs are cut. The Conservative’s approach is actually worse than that of the Liberals and NDP: rather than saying next to nothing, they’re selling Canadians a fairy-tale story.
Where, then, is a vision for a realistic future for which Canadians can cast their ballots? If the current way of thinking about elections is to say as little as possible about what your party would do when in power for fear of being skewered by your opponents, or standing up for your principles only when they don’t conflict with polling, or whistling "Don’t Worry, Be Happy", what is a Canadian to do?
Well, keeping true to its principles, and not worrying about being attacked for its vision, yesterday the Green Party of Canada released "Vision Green 2010", a powerful and comprehensive document of where the Greens would take Canada given the opportunity. This updated document addresses issues important to Canadians, putting everything the Greens have to offer on the table, and telling the other Parties to go ahead and find fault. This is not some glossy picture-laden "Red Book" of promises not to be kept; it’s a full-on assault on the current culture of apathy which exists in our Federal system.
Vision Green 2010 calls for over-riding and fundamental changes to Canada based on the shared values of Canadians. For too long, our government has been beholden to special interests who do not have our best interests first and foremost in their minds. We have tolerated environmental, economic and social destruction at the expense of increasing profits. To mitigate, we’ve talked about sustainable development as a "nice to have", rather than a fundamental over-riding principle for decision-making.
The Green Party understands that the course Canada is on is perilous in the extreme, and without fundamental changes to the way in which our government conducts its business, the interests of the majority will never be paramount. Instead, the casino economy created by the biggest and wealthiest players will continue to jeopardize our future and that of our children. Without recognition that there are limits to growth, our current system is headed for disaster. Yet the other political parties aren’t telling you any of this.
I was very pleased to see that some of the updates made to Vision Green are based on the notion that the end of inexpensive fossil fuels is upon us. This is the reality in which we are living; yet you’re not hearing Harper, Layton or Ignatieff discuss peak oil and what that means for our communities, industries and our lifestyle built around a culture of cars. Whether we like it or not, our situation is changing, and we should proactively plan for change, rather than react when it is thrust upon us.
Now, don’t get me wrong, Vision Green 2010 is a heavy read. But it’s also presents an incredibly enlightened and optimistic view of Canada’s future, if only the wherewithal to actually implement these necessary changes could be found. Yes, Greens will undoubtedly be bashed for many of the bold initiatives proposed in Vision Green 2010. Certainly there are those out there who are opposed to change, and who will continue to insist that it doesn’t have to happen. That point of view, however, is not grounded in our current reality, and should be dismissed. So let the dinosaurs bash away.
If the pundits are looking for bold vision and initiative, here it is. Yes, it’s the little Green Party who has the strongest, most comprehensive vision for Canada, and that might surprise many. I hope that more and more people take a look for themselves. I hope that they will see that a bright and sustainable future is within our grasp if we have the courage to initiate truly fundamental changes, starting with our taxation system. Getting the price right, eliminating corporate subsidies for the biggest players, and finally putting a price on pollution, are the starting points to creating a sustainable Canada.
Go and take a look for yourself. Browse through the Table of Contents and find a few issues which are important to you. Take a look and see what Greens would do differently. You may be excited about what you read.
Steve May, CEO Sudbury Federal Green Party Association
Posted by Green Party Sudbury at 8:23 AM 0 comments
Labels: Steve May
Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Cap and Trade Concerns: Is This The Best We Can Come Up With?
It was with shock that I read in the Sudbury Star a recent editorial by Sun Media’s Lorrie Goldstein. Now, "shock" isn’t an unusual emotion for me to experience when I start reading Goldstein, but this time the shock was a little different. This time, I found that I had little to disagree with Goldstein on in his editorial "Carbon credits are a scam to be feared".
Goldstein has been a vocal opponents of carbon credits emission trading. His opposition appears to stem from his belief that concerns about climate change are overblown by the "enviro-nuts". He has consistently argued that Canada would be economically disadvantaged if we actually tried to do something about reducing our carbon emissions. He also argues that it’s the biggest polluters, China and the U.S. who should be taking the lead, not Canada.
Goldstein likes to point out what he refers to as the "failure" of the European Emissions Trading Scheme in support of his opposition to carbon trading (what we used to call "cap and trade" not all that long ago). While I’m not ready to agree with Goldstein on this failure (Goldstein believes it has been a failure because global emissions continue to rise), I certainly have to question whether it’s been a success.
Goldstein’s general argument against carbon trading is that market manipulation has the potential to wreak havoc on the entire economy, potentially creating a bubble which could burst, making the current recession look insignificant. Goldstein suggests that it’s the bankers and big businesses who will be the ultimate beneficiaries of a carbon trading scheme, as they would be the ones to primarily profit, while the cost of emissions credits would be passed along to the consumers, who will be the losers.
Consumers will actually lose twice: first, by paying more for just about everything; second, for not actually seeing much in the way of benefit from reduced emissions, because Goldstein believes that the cap will be set so low as to have a negligible impact on reducing emissions (coupled with increased emissions from China and India). Goldstein is also not a big fan of off-sets, as he believes that they’re a complete boondoggle.
Goldstein believes that Canadians should be standing up and calling our government out for even thinking about involving us in such a negligent scam. Not only will global emissions continue to rise, but the economic impacts to Canadian businesses and consumers will be detrimental to our economy.
I think he’s on to something here. In theory, a "cap and trade" carbon emissions scheme would end up reducing emissions, but the cap has to be set high enough. Also, there needs to be clear direction regarding how the funds generated through the purchase of carbon credits are intended to be spent, with the majority going to real offsets (and certainly not to investments in questionable technology, like carbon capture and storage). The offsets have to be real and tangible.
In any event, though, the costs of pricing carbon in this way are going to be passed along to consumers. Sure, we consumers will expect to pay more for the same good or service in the future, but we may not be aware of how much more we ought to be paying. Hence, businesses could use the price of carbon credits as an opportunity to generate more profit, thus hurting consumers even more.
If the cap isn’t high enough, and if the majority of money goes into general revenues, and if the offsets purchased are of questionable value, and if companies are able to hoard credits during years of economic downturn when emissions are down anyway, and if clear pricing on goods and services are provided to consumers and if...
Oh my. There are already a lot of "ifs" there. Since I don’t really trust my government to get any of those "ifs" right, what chance is there on all of them?
Yes, clearly the bankers and big businesses might like the idea of carbon emissions trading. It need not be a threat to their bottom lines, as they may actually be able to take advantage of a scheme to generate revenue. And as those businesses grow along with their profits, will emissions be reduced? I think that the jury is still out on that.
What I do believe is that carbon emissions trading appears to be capitalism’s answer to being seen to be taking action on the environment, while having a positive impact on the bottom-lines of the business community.
I can understand that the Conservatives and Liberals would support this "solution" to address the climate change crisis. What I can’t understand is why the NDP have come out in favour of this particular mechanism as their primary method of reducing carbon emissions. It boggles my mind that the three major parties in Canada believe that this sort of scheme is the best way to price carbon. Well, maybe it is the best way to "price carbon" if the goal is to make money off of pollution. If you really want to reduce emissions, though, surely there must be a better pricing mechanism, no?
Here’s the kicker: even Lorrie Goldstein says that "if our governments are hell bent on putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions, a carbon tax would be better, with 100% of the money returned to taxpayers in income tax cuts."
Hmmm...that sounds very close to the Green Party’s position on taxing carbon. Put a hefty price on carbon emissions (something we don’t like), but pull back on other taxes, particularly income tax (something we want...less tax on our income). So we end up paying more for some goods and services, but we have more money in our pockets to do so. And the best thing is, if we choose to purchase goods and services with less of a carbon footprint, rather than carbon-rich goods and services, we will actually end up with more money in our pockets. Yes, we may have to make some changes to our personal spending habits, but that’s a good thing, because not only will we be helping reduce emissions, we’ll be enriching ourselves in the process.
We pay taxes, in theory, for the greater public good. Why not price goods and services accordingly? If something is bad for the public good, tax it at a higher rate. Right now, with regards to carbon emissions, we’re actually subsidizing them, because we used to believe that they were a net positive on the public good ledger.
Yes, yes, I know: Stephane Dion proposed something like this in the last election, and he was destroyed for it. Of course, we Greens also ran on this policy, and our percentage of the popular vote went up. As the federal Liberals have abandoned this method of carbon pricing, in the next election it appears that only the Greens will be presenting this option to voters.
Canadians should be very concerned about the carbon emissions trading scheme that our major political parties, and governments at the federal and provincial levels have been talking about (not to mention to the U.S.). It seems to me that it’s inevitable that before too long, such a program will be up and running, and our governments will say, "Look at us! We’re serious about fighting climate change!" We will have squandered all sorts of resources and political capital on getting this thing going, with only dubious results to show in a decades worth of time.
Here in Canada, you can certainly expect the oil industry to be exempted from having to participate. In the U.S., the coal lobby is doing all that it can to obtain an exemption for itself. If the biggest polluters are exempt from participation, how can that work to actually reduce emissions? The arguments for exemption, though ("jobs will be lost if no exemptions") will likely win the day under the current configuration in parliament.
Maybe we can get Lorrie Goldstein to endorse us.
Just joking.
Steve May, CEO Sudbury Federal Green Party Association
Posted by Green Party Sudbury at 10:23 AM 0 comments
Labels: Steve May
Sunday, December 6, 2009

Personal Observations on the Munk Debate Results.
I just wanted to provide a quick update (heavily flavoured with my opinion) of last night’s Munk Debate. If you weren’t able watch, you really missed out on a sensational, entertaining, raucus event. Even I was surprised at the level of passion the debaters showed last night, as well as the level of attacks, some of which were quite personal. For me, that was unexpected.
At the outset of the event, they live audience (where the debate was being held) were polled about the resolution: "That climate change is mankind’s defining crisis, and requires a commensurate response". 61% agreed with the resolution, while 31% disagreed (presumably leaving 8% undecided). 79% of the audience indicated that their opinion could still be changed.
Elizabeth May and George Monbiot were the debaters for the PRO side of the resolution, while Bjorn Lomborg and Nigel Lawson were on the CON side. It looked like Lomborg and Lawson were facing a moderately hostile audience, and would have their work cut out for them.
At this point in the debate (before it began), I turned to the person sitting beside me and expressed my concern about the 61% number. A very recent Harris-Decima poll had come out the day before, asking a quite similar question of the Canadian public at large. Harris-Decima’s results were a little higher than those in attendance: just under 66% of Canadians believed climate change to be our defining crisis.
Maybe the audience wasn’t as "hostile" to the CON side as might be expected.
At the end of the debate, the audience was polled again, in an effort to determine which side "won" the debate, based on changed opinions. The final results: 56% agreed with the resolution, while 44% disagreed (no undecided).
This works out to a change of 5% for those who had "decided" that they agreed with the resolution. The CON side, though, benefited from an overall increase of 13%, which accounts for the 5% shift from the PRO side, and took all 8% of the undecided.
Now, this doesn’t mean that every undecided individual cast their vote for the CON side at the end of the debate; but if they didn’t, there was likely a larger shift in the PRO side numbers. I speculate that’s what happened, but the fact is we’ll never know.
Anyway, the result of the debate is quite clear to me: with the shift to the CON side of 13%, it is clear to me that the CON side is able to boast that they "won" the debate. And boast I’m sure they shall.
Admittedly, had I been one of those polled in the audience, I would have identified my own support for the PRO side, and indicated that my opinion could not be shaken. Watching last night’s debate, my own opinion was only reinforced by the discussions. So do keep in mind my own bias when I say that I’m not sure what debate these 13% were watching to arrive at the conclusion that the CON side presented the better arguments. They did not. And Elizabeth and George did quite a bit to diffuse those arguments, including a fairly personal attack on Bjorn by Elizabeth, which may have been over the top (although her issue with Bjorn’s lack of concern about stimulus spending is a good one: if he’s so damn caught up in these other issues, why hasn’t he been raising a stink about all of this stimulus money being spent which doesn’t address these other big issues? Maybe because it’s "all about" climate change to him after all!).
One thing during the debate struck me as odd (and admittedly, I was viewing this on a webcast, so my observations might not reflect what was really happening). Bjorn received a heck of a lot of applause fairly early on from an audience who was 61% in favour of the Resolution. More than Elizabeth and George received. Maybe there were just a few supporters of Bjorn’s in the audience making a lot of noise, maybe his arguments were having an immediate impact on people’s decision making. I don’t know. And I won’t know.
But what I do know is that the format for obtaining a "winner" in this debate is one which is easily tampered with. Tickets were sold out for this event very quickly. If they were snapped up by CON side supporters, the initial audience vote on the Resolution clearly could have been tainted if the CONs voted PRO, only to reverse themselves on the final vote so that a CON "victory" could result. It’s easy to manipulate. I say this tongue-in-cheek: I’m sure that none of the PRO side supporters would have engaged in such shenanigans.
So, when the climate change deniers trot this result out to bolster their own case, take it with a super-huge grain of salt. The process for obtaining a "winner" was anything but a secure process.
In defence of the Munk Debates, no one associated with the debate ever used the term "winner" or "loser" with reference to this process (at least not that I observed), likely because they understood very well the flaws inherent in the process. Having said that, though, by setting things up this way, clearly one side would be able to "claim victory" over the other. And in last night’s debate, the CONS won it at least one "con" of their own (and I’m not talking about vote-rigging here; I’m talking about the continual con they try to pull over people’s eyes about the science of climate change...which is a much bigger con than having a few a supporters switch their votes).
If you are able, listen to or watch the debate. It really is a must-see. But do expect to experience a fair degree of frustration!
Steve May, CEO Sudbury Federal Green Party Association
Posted by Green Party Sudbury at 3:25 PM 0 comments
Labels: Steve May
Monday, September 21, 2009

Are Jack Layton and the NDP Getting Ready To Sell-Out Their Values in a Cynical Political Game?

There are early rumblings from all corners that the NDP may be getting read to support Stephen Harper’s Conservative government from being defeated later this month, either through a vote on a ways and means bill currently scheduled for later this week, or later this month when the Liberals are likely to call for a vote on a confidence motion. It would come as a personal shock to me if Jack Layton and the NDP do not use one or both of these opportunities (particularly the confidence motion) to defeat the Harper government, given the NDP’s track record of opposing Stephen Harper at every opportunity. And quite rightly, I might add, particularly given the NDP’s ideology, which is completely out of synch with the Conservatives.
But there are signs that Jack may be willing to support Stephen Harper for a very, very low price indeed: EI Reform.
Now look, I’m not suggesting that EI reform isn’t an important issue, because it is, and certainly reform is needed. What I am suggesting is that the Conservative government of Canada remains a menace to the future of this nation, and that’s something that Jack Layton and I have agreed upon wholeheartedly...up until now. How on earth, I have to wonder, will Jack justify propping up the Conservatives at the price of EI reform, while ignoring the lack of action which Harper will be taking on so many issues which are of importance to Canadians?
Even just this past weekend, Layton laid down a number of items which would need to be addressed by Harper should the Conservatives look to the NDP for support on. The media and pundits alike universally panned this list, insisting that Conservatives would have no stomach for it. I wasn’t all that impressed with it either, as the calls for credit card reform and green job creation really seemed pretty wishy-washy to me. And that’s when I began to get nervous that the NDP was once again selling itself out for short term gains, just as they did when they helped defeat Paul Martin’s government.
Yes, for Jack Layton, it’s to be "politics as usual". He’ll prop up whichever party is in power to buy himself some time, because his own Party apparently isn’t ready to face the Canadian electorate, as they really have nothing new on offer. Sure, it’s true that Canadians don’t want another election, and I have to respect acceptable efforts where parties figure out ways to work with one another for the good of Canada. But the price the NDP may be settling on here is not in Canada’s interests, and really tells us all a lot about the NDP.
My main issue with the New Democratic Party is that the Party really stands for very little. They will bend in the slightest political wind, looking for political opportunity at every opportunity. They present their uncosted platforms with slick marketing, rather than with careful consideration. They look to fooling to electorate, rather than working for Canadians. They are not a party of action, but they are a party of results: results defined in the electoral success of their party.
(I’ll avoid a significant rant here on the NDP’s continuing desire to prop up the brown economy and refusing to walk the talk on the environment; please just take that as a given for now)
In short, this kind of thinking by the NDP, this political game-playing, led me to joining the Green Party, which, as far as I can gather, actually has some integrity and will stand up for what it believes in. Since we also don’t seem to possess the political acumen to play the sorts of political games the other party’s play at, I have high hopes that we Greens will never find ourselves in these same silly situations.
Look, I don’t want an election either. I sincerely hope that the other Parties figure a way to get their act together and actually get down to doing the job that we elected them to do, that being governing our nation. What I can not accept, however, are these cynical ploys by the NDP to pretend to be doing Canadians some good by propping up a government which they have claimed on so many past occasions to have irreconcilable differences with. And as I said, up until now, I’ve found myself in agreement with the NDP on this.
Jack Layton will pay a price within his own Party if he decides to lend his support to the Conservatives for such a low price. Sure, some Canadians will be relieved that we’ll have avoided another election (or at least put it off until February or so), but true NDP ideologues will realize that Jack’s support is simply a power play. Some might applaud because it will buy the NDP time to organize. But many, already disenchanted with the "politics as usual" tenor within the NDP will recognize this as a cynical political ploy.
The NDP can do better than this. If they can’t, or don’t, it will certainly be time for many of the NDP’s supporters to turn to a party which is focussed on taking action, rather than playing politics. It is time for them to vote Green.
Steve May, CEO Sudbury Federal Green Party Association
Posted by Green Party Sudbury at 9:55 AM 1 comments
Labels: Steve May
Monday, August 31, 2009

W Minus 40: A Golden / Green Opportunity for us to Seize!
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.
Steve May, CEO Sudbury Federal Green Party Association
Posted by Green Party Sudbury at 9:58 AM 0 comments
Labels: Steve May
Friday, August 7, 2009

Winners and Losers: Canadian Businesses, Carbon Pricing, Procurement and 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: http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/676159. 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: http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=1653542. 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", http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/saskatchewan-warms-to-obama-climate-plan/article1244727, 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.http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1690224)
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: http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/2022/2009-07-22/sudbury-according-tony-clement-valley-death)
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, 2009http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/677478)
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.
Steve May, CEO Sudbury Federal Green Party Association
Posted by Green Party Sudbury at 9:23 PM 2 comments
Labels: Steve May
Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Green Party-Sudbury

Welcome to Green Party Sudbury
Here in Sudbury we have been hard at work developing a volunteer base and talking to members of the community. What we're hearing is that Sudburians want more from their government. We want a government we can be proud of. We want a government that does not just speak about environmental challenges, but actually does something about them. We want a government that doesn't talk about tearing down our public health care system, but works to make it better. We want a government with a vision of the great potential of this country and a plan that can move it forward.Increasingly, Sudburians, like all Canadians, are realizing that the Green Party can form that government.We're working hard to make this blog & our website a go-to place for information on our party and on local issues that are important to Sudburians. We hope that you will take the time to look over our blog & site and learn more about what the Green Party stands for.N.B: Not all views expressed in these blogs reflect the views of the Green Party of Canada, the Green Party of Ontario, the Sudbury Federal Green Party Association, or the Sudbury Green Party of Ontario Constituency Association.

Steve May CEO, Sudbury Federal Green Party Association

More Contempt for Parliament: Conservatives Stall for Time on Guergis

2010-04-21T13:07:00.001-04:00

(Written on Tuesday, April 13, 2010) I’ve been taking some time off lately, to prepare for Earth Day, which comes early to Sudbury (on Saturday, April 17th, at Market Square! Hope to see you there). So, for those of you wondering what’s become of me in the past few weeks, now you know.

It’s not as if there hasn’t been a lot to blog about. Today, though, I’m going to focus on subject material that I really didn’t have much of an interest in, figuring that the blogosphere has already been quite atwitter over it all already. Yes, I’m talking about ex-Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer and MP Helena Guergis, who was up until last Friday the Minister of State for the Status of Women. I’m not going to re-cap this whole situation for you. Instead, I wanted to focus on events which have taken place since Friday, when the Prime Minister "referred" certain allegations pertaining to Guergis over to the RCMP and Ethics Commissioner. As you know, Guergis has been kicked out of the Conservative caucus, and is now sitting as an Independent in the nether-reaches of the House (actually, I understand that she’s still on a beach somewhere in the tropics).

Since the brief statement late last Friday afternoon, there has been little information regarding what prompted Harper to accept Guergis’ resignation to ask for investigations. Given that the request went to the Ethics Commissioner, Mary Dawson, there had been speculation that the allegations pertained to an ethical situation which Guergis might have found herself involved in, which may have had legal implications, given the RCMP’s involvement. Given that there have been recent suggestions in the media that her husband, Rahim Jaffer, had been telling potential business clients that the had special access to the government for funding, there has been some suggestion that maybe the allegations Harper received on Friday had to do with influence peddling.

Thing is, though, here we are four days later, and no one really knows why there’s a cloud hanging over Guergis’ head. Since then, opposition parties have been looking for answers during question period, only to find none. The only new information which seems to have come to light so far is that the allegations were made by a third party, who is not an MP or someone who works for the government, which doesn’t rule out all that many people.

Earlier today, Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson announced that she would not be investigating Guergis, because there hasn’t been anything brought to her attention which would warrant an investigation. Plus, Dawson indicated that she can’t investigate anyway while the RCMP is investigating. The RCMP haven’t hinted at anything at this point, but one must think that since the matter was referred to the RCMP by the Prime Minister, they’re likely looking into it. Usually, though, the RCMP keeps the specifics of investigations under wraps while the investigation is on-going.

So, in the House we have Conservatives refusing to answer questions about what, exactly, Helena Guergis might have or not have done which warranted her removal from cabinet. Questions aren’t being answered because the matter is under investigation. The investigators aren’t talking, because they’re investigating, at the behest of the Conservative Prime Minister; one of the investigators has already dropped the matter because there wasn’t anything there to be investigated.

And we Canadians are growing more and more despondent with a government which refuses to provide answers for its actions. That’s what has me really ticked about this whole matter. That and the fact that parliament’s precious time is being wasted on what really should have been something cleared up by the Prime Minister or his spokesperson in the early goings fo question period yesterday afternoon. Instead, the Cons are mum, because the matter is under investigation.

Look, I’m no fan of Helena Guergis, but whatever is going on sounds like it may be serious, given the Prime Minister’s actions. As a Canadian, I have a right to know why a member of government has essentially been forced to resign from her position. I want to know why there is a cloud hanging over the head of a sitting MP. But, as long as the Conservatives presume that they are unable to discuss the matter while the RCMP are investigating, I’m not likely going to find out.

This all stinks. Yet again, the Conservative government is trying to get away with providing Canadians with no explanation regarding its actions. And it’s not just us Canadians out here in the blogosphere who are being denied answers, it’s Parliament itself, which the Conservatives have an obvious contempt for. What’s been going on with regards to withholding information related to the Afghan detainee issue is disgusting in the extreme, and now they’re at it again with Helena Guergis.

I suspect that some of the answers might come out eventually, but unless the RCMP actually lay some charges, we’re not likely ever going to get the full story here. Given that the Ethics Commissioner has already backed off, I have my doubts that the RCMP will be laying any charges. Which would then lead to the following questions: if the accusations on which Guergis was forced to resign aren’t enough for a legal or ethical investigation, why did the Prime Minister refer the matter to the RCMP and Ethics Commissioner? Was he simply trying to stall for time in answering questions swirling around Guergis and her husband Jaffer? If so, boy, that’s a pretty low partisan game being played with parliament and the Canadian people.

Steve May CEO, Sudbury Federal Green Party Association

Vision Green 2010: A Full-On Assault on the Existing Political Culture of Apathy

2010-02-05T08:23:00.002-05:00

Over the past little while, I’ve been reading articles from various mainstream media, and watching journalists on TV lament the current state of affairs amongst Canada’s top parties. Particularly, journalists and pundits have been crying that the major parties lack direction and vision, and really have nothing to offer the Canadian electorate, aside from defining themselves as who they are not. The Liberal Party under Michael Ignatieff’s leadership has particularly been singled out as not really standing for much of anything, except as a Party not led by Stephen Harper. Some have speculated that the Liberal’s lack of direction and vision is the result of a "safe" plan of attack for the next election. The theory goes that Stephane Dion released too much information into the public realm regarding what he would do differently if he were made Prime Minister, which left him open to attacks from the Conservatives. And attack they surely did.

Maybe there is some merit to keeping silent. However, it has been really frustrating to watch the Liberals refrain from speaking out about much of anything, and using non-binding weasel words most often when they do deign to speak. Sure, maybe the pundits have it right, and this is part of an election strategy. But don’t Canadians deserve better?

Jack Layton has been a little more forthcoming with what the NDP would do differently if they formed government, but even these pronouncements leave one scratching their head regarding what the NDP’s true vision of a future Canada is. The NDP under Layton have become a political chameleon, changing their skin when it best suits them. Witness Layton’s decision to have his party support the Harper government on a fall confidence vote, reversing years-long policy of non-support for the benefit of passing a flawed Employment Insurance bill which was but a shadow of what Layton said he’d previously support. Yes, it put off having an election which people didn’t want, but it gave us more of Stephen Harper, a commodity that a lot of us would also rather do without.

The NDP have flip-flopped on all sorts of principled issues, especially those pertaining to climate change. Instead of embracing a form of carbon pricing which experts throughout the world acknowledge as being workable and successful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the NDP remain opposed to a carbon tax, and have instead embraced an industry-friendly cap and trade scheme which is sure to keep the price of carbon hidden from consumers, and punish the least vulnerable in our society. Even today, the NDP continues to maintain that a carbon tax is the wrong way of pricing carbon; look no further than the attack on the B.C. Liberal’s during the spring provincial election.

No, the NDP don’t offer a whole lot when it comes to vision for this country, but at least they have shown a few of their cards, unlike the Liberals, who may not even be holding any cards.

And if the Liberals and NDP are bad, well, the Conservatives want you to think that you’re living in a fantasy-land where economic recovery will do away with structural deficits, where taxes need never be raised, and only redundant programs are cut. The Conservative’s approach is actually worse than that of the Liberals and NDP: rather than saying next to nothing, they’re selling Canadians a fairy-tale story.

Where, then, is a vision for a realistic future for which Canadians can cast their ballots? If the current way of thinking about elections is to say as little as possible about what your party would do when in power for fear of being skewered by your opponents, or standing up for your principles only when they don’t conflict with polling, or whistling "Don’t Worry, Be Happy", what is a Canadian to do?

Well, keeping true to its principles, and not worrying about being attacked for its vision, yesterday the Green Party of Canada released "Vision Green 2010", a powerful and comprehensive document of where the Greens would take Canada given the opportunity. This updated document addresses issues important to Canadians, putting everything the Greens have to offer on the table, and telling the other Parties to go ahead and find fault. This is not some glossy picture-laden "Red Book" of promises not to be kept; it’s a full-on assault on the current culture of apathy which exists in our Federal system.

Vision Green 2010 calls for over-riding and fundamental changes to Canada based on the shared values of Canadians. For too long, our government has been beholden to special interests who do not have our best interests first and foremost in their minds. We have tolerated environmental, economic and social destruction at the expense of increasing profits. To mitigate, we’ve talked about sustainable development as a "nice to have", rather than a fundamental over-riding principle for decision-making.

The Green Party understands that the course Canada is on is perilous in the extreme, and without fundamental changes to the way in which our government conducts its business, the interests of the majority will never be paramount. Instead, the casino economy created by the biggest and wealthiest players will continue to jeopardize our future and that of our children. Without recognition that there are limits to growth, our current system is headed for disaster. Yet the other political parties aren’t telling you any of this.

I was very pleased to see that some of the updates made to Vision Green are based on the notion that the end of inexpensive fossil fuels is upon us. This is the reality in which we are living; yet you’re not hearing Harper, Layton or Ignatieff discuss peak oil and what that means for our communities, industries and our lifestyle built around a culture of cars. Whether we like it or not, our situation is changing, and we should proactively plan for change, rather than react when it is thrust upon us.

Now, don’t get me wrong, Vision Green 2010 is a heavy read. But it’s also presents an incredibly enlightened and optimistic view of Canada’s future, if only the wherewithal to actually implement these necessary changes could be found. Yes, Greens will undoubtedly be bashed for many of the bold initiatives proposed in Vision Green 2010. Certainly there are those out there who are opposed to change, and who will continue to insist that it doesn’t have to happen. That point of view, however, is not grounded in our current reality, and should be dismissed. So let the dinosaurs bash away.

If the pundits are looking for bold vision and initiative, here it is. Yes, it’s the little Green Party who has the strongest, most comprehensive vision for Canada, and that might surprise many. I hope that more and more people take a look for themselves. I hope that they will see that a bright and sustainable future is within our grasp if we have the courage to initiate truly fundamental changes, starting with our taxation system. Getting the price right, eliminating corporate subsidies for the biggest players, and finally putting a price on pollution, are the starting points to creating a sustainable Canada.

Go and take a look for yourself. Browse through the Table of Contents and find a few issues which are important to you. Take a look and see what Greens would do differently. You may be excited about what you read.

Steve May, CEO Sudbury Federal Green Party Association

Cap and Trade Concerns: Is This The Best We Can Come Up With?

2010-01-20T10:23:00.003-05:00

It was with shock that I read in the Sudbury Star a recent editorial by Sun Media’s Lorrie Goldstein. Now, "shock" isn’t an unusual emotion for me to experience when I start reading Goldstein, but this time the shock was a little different. This time, I found that I had little to disagree with Goldstein on in his editorial "Carbon credits are a scam to be feared".

Goldstein has been a vocal opponents of carbon credits emission trading. His opposition appears to stem from his belief that concerns about climate change are overblown by the "enviro-nuts". He has consistently argued that Canada would be economically disadvantaged if we actually tried to do something about reducing our carbon emissions. He also argues that it’s the biggest polluters, China and the U.S. who should be taking the lead, not Canada.

Goldstein likes to point out what he refers to as the "failure" of the European Emissions Trading Scheme in support of his opposition to carbon trading (what we used to call "cap and trade" not all that long ago). While I’m not ready to agree with Goldstein on this failure (Goldstein believes it has been a failure because global emissions continue to rise), I certainly have to question whether it’s been a success.

Goldstein’s general argument against carbon trading is that market manipulation has the potential to wreak havoc on the entire economy, potentially creating a bubble which could burst, making the current recession look insignificant. Goldstein suggests that it’s the bankers and big businesses who will be the ultimate beneficiaries of a carbon trading scheme, as they would be the ones to primarily profit, while the cost of emissions credits would be passed along to the consumers, who will be the losers.

Consumers will actually lose twice: first, by paying more for just about everything; second, for not actually seeing much in the way of benefit from reduced emissions, because Goldstein believes that the cap will be set so low as to have a negligible impact on reducing emissions (coupled with increased emissions from China and India). Goldstein is also not a big fan of off-sets, as he believes that they’re a complete boondoggle.

Goldstein believes that Canadians should be standing up and calling our government out for even thinking about involving us in such a negligent scam. Not only will global emissions continue to rise, but the economic impacts to Canadian businesses and consumers will be detrimental to our economy.

I think he’s on to something here. In theory, a "cap and trade" carbon emissions scheme would end up reducing emissions, but the cap has to be set high enough. Also, there needs to be clear direction regarding how the funds generated through the purchase of carbon credits are intended to be spent, with the majority going to real offsets (and certainly not to investments in questionable technology, like carbon capture and storage). The offsets have to be real and tangible.

In any event, though, the costs of pricing carbon in this way are going to be passed along to consumers. Sure, we consumers will expect to pay more for the same good or service in the future, but we may not be aware of how much more we ought to be paying. Hence, businesses could use the price of carbon credits as an opportunity to generate more profit, thus hurting consumers even more.

If the cap isn’t high enough, and if the majority of money goes into general revenues, and if the offsets purchased are of questionable value, and if companies are able to hoard credits during years of economic downturn when emissions are down anyway, and if clear pricing on goods and services are provided to consumers and if...

Oh my. There are already a lot of "ifs" there. Since I don’t really trust my government to get any of those "ifs" right, what chance is there on all of them?

Yes, clearly the bankers and big businesses might like the idea of carbon emissions trading. It need not be a threat to their bottom lines, as they may actually be able to take advantage of a scheme to generate revenue. And as those businesses grow along with their profits, will emissions be reduced? I think that the jury is still out on that.

What I do believe is that carbon emissions trading appears to be capitalism’s answer to being seen to be taking action on the environment, while having a positive impact on the bottom-lines of the business community.

I can understand that the Conservatives and Liberals would support this "solution" to address the climate change crisis. What I can’t understand is why the NDP have come out in favour of this particular mechanism as their primary method of reducing carbon emissions. It boggles my mind that the three major parties in Canada believe that this sort of scheme is the best way to price carbon. Well, maybe it is the best way to "price carbon" if the goal is to make money off of pollution. If you really want to reduce emissions, though, surely there must be a better pricing mechanism, no?

Here’s the kicker: even Lorrie Goldstein says that "if our governments are hell bent on putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions, a carbon tax would be better, with 100% of the money returned to taxpayers in income tax cuts."

Hmmm...that sounds very close to the Green Party’s position on taxing carbon. Put a hefty price on carbon emissions (something we don’t like), but pull back on other taxes, particularly income tax (something we want...less tax on our income). So we end up paying more for some goods and services, but we have more money in our pockets to do so. And the best thing is, if we choose to purchase goods and services with less of a carbon footprint, rather than carbon-rich goods and services, we will actually end up with more money in our pockets. Yes, we may have to make some changes to our personal spending habits, but that’s a good thing, because not only will we be helping reduce emissions, we’ll be enriching ourselves in the process.

We pay taxes, in theory, for the greater public good. Why not price goods and services accordingly? If something is bad for the public good, tax it at a higher rate. Right now, with regards to carbon emissions, we’re actually subsidizing them, because we used to believe that they were a net positive on the public good ledger.

Yes, yes, I know: Stephane Dion proposed something like this in the last election, and he was destroyed for it. Of course, we Greens also ran on this policy, and our percentage of the popular vote went up. As the federal Liberals have abandoned this method of carbon pricing, in the next election it appears that only the Greens will be presenting this option to voters.

Canadians should be very concerned about the carbon emissions trading scheme that our major political parties, and governments at the federal and provincial levels have been talking about (not to mention to the U.S.). It seems to me that it’s inevitable that before too long, such a program will be up and running, and our governments will say, "Look at us! We’re serious about fighting climate change!" We will have squandered all sorts of resources and political capital on getting this thing going, with only dubious results to show in a decades worth of time.

Here in Canada, you can certainly expect the oil industry to be exempted from having to participate. In the U.S., the coal lobby is doing all that it can to obtain an exemption for itself. If the biggest polluters are exempt from participation, how can that work to actually reduce emissions? The arguments for exemption, though ("jobs will be lost if no exemptions") will likely win the day under the current configuration in parliament.

Maybe we can get Lorrie Goldstein to endorse us.

Just joking.

Steve May, CEO Sudbury Federal Green Party Association

Personal Observations on the Munk Debate Results.

2009-12-06T15:25:00.003-05:00

I just wanted to provide a quick update (heavily flavoured with my opinion) of last night’s Munk Debate. If you weren’t able watch, you really missed out on a sensational, entertaining, raucus event. Even I was surprised at the level of passion the debaters showed last night, as well as the level of attacks, some of which were quite personal. For me, that was unexpected.

At the outset of the event, they live audience (where the debate was being held) were polled about the resolution: "That climate change is mankind’s defining crisis, and requires a commensurate response". 61% agreed with the resolution, while 31% disagreed (presumably leaving 8% undecided). 79% of the audience indicated that their opinion could still be changed.

Elizabeth May and George Monbiot were the debaters for the PRO side of the resolution, while Bjorn Lomborg and Nigel Lawson were on the CON side. It looked like Lomborg and Lawson were facing a moderately hostile audience, and would have their work cut out for them.

At this point in the debate (before it began), I turned to the person sitting beside me and expressed my concern about the 61% number. A very recent Harris-Decima poll had come out the day before, asking a quite similar question of the Canadian public at large. Harris-Decima’s results were a little higher than those in attendance: just under 66% of Canadians believed climate change to be our defining crisis.

Maybe the audience wasn’t as "hostile" to the CON side as might be expected.

At the end of the debate, the audience was polled again, in an effort to determine which side "won" the debate, based on changed opinions. The final results: 56% agreed with the resolution, while 44% disagreed (no undecided).

This works out to a change of 5% for those who had "decided" that they agreed with the resolution. The CON side, though, benefited from an overall increase of 13%, which accounts for the 5% shift from the PRO side, and took all 8% of the undecided.

Now, this doesn’t mean that every undecided individual cast their vote for the CON side at the end of the debate; but if they didn’t, there was likely a larger shift in the PRO side numbers. I speculate that’s what happened, but the fact is we’ll never know.

Anyway, the result of the debate is quite clear to me: with the shift to the CON side of 13%, it is clear to me that the CON side is able to boast that they "won" the debate. And boast I’m sure they shall.

Admittedly, had I been one of those polled in the audience, I would have identified my own support for the PRO side, and indicated that my opinion could not be shaken. Watching last night’s debate, my own opinion was only reinforced by the discussions. So do keep in mind my own bias when I say that I’m not sure what debate these 13% were watching to arrive at the conclusion that the CON side presented the better arguments. They did not. And Elizabeth and George did quite a bit to diffuse those arguments, including a fairly personal attack on Bjorn by Elizabeth, which may have been over the top (although her issue with Bjorn’s lack of concern about stimulus spending is a good one: if he’s so damn caught up in these other issues, why hasn’t he been raising a stink about all of this stimulus money being spent which doesn’t address these other big issues? Maybe because it’s "all about" climate change to him after all!).

One thing during the debate struck me as odd (and admittedly, I was viewing this on a webcast, so my observations might not reflect what was really happening). Bjorn received a heck of a lot of applause fairly early on from an audience who was 61% in favour of the Resolution. More than Elizabeth and George received. Maybe there were just a few supporters of Bjorn’s in the audience making a lot of noise, maybe his arguments were having an immediate impact on people’s decision making. I don’t know. And I won’t know.

But what I do know is that the format for obtaining a "winner" in this debate is one which is easily tampered with. Tickets were sold out for this event very quickly. If they were snapped up by CON side supporters, the initial audience vote on the Resolution clearly could have been tainted if the CONs voted PRO, only to reverse themselves on the final vote so that a CON "victory" could result. It’s easy to manipulate. I say this tongue-in-cheek: I’m sure that none of the PRO side supporters would have engaged in such shenanigans.

So, when the climate change deniers trot this result out to bolster their own case, take it with a super-huge grain of salt. The process for obtaining a "winner" was anything but a secure process.

In defence of the Munk Debates, no one associated with the debate ever used the term "winner" or "loser" with reference to this process (at least not that I observed), likely because they understood very well the flaws inherent in the process. Having said that, though, by setting things up this way, clearly one side would be able to "claim victory" over the other. And in last night’s debate, the CONS won it at least one "con" of their own (and I’m not talking about vote-rigging here; I’m talking about the continual con they try to pull over people’s eyes about the science of climate change...which is a much bigger con than having a few a supporters switch their votes).

If you are able, listen to or watch the debate. It really is a must-see. But do expect to experience a fair degree of frustration!

Steve May, CEO Sudbury Federal Green Party Association

Are Jack Layton and the NDP Getting Ready To Sell-Out Their Values in a Cynical Political Game?

2009-09-21T09:55:00.002-04:00

There are early rumblings from all corners that the NDP may be getting read to support Stephen Harper’s Conservative government from being defeated later this month, either through a vote on a ways and means bill currently scheduled for later this week, or later this month when the Liberals are likely to call for a vote on a confidence motion. It would come as a personal shock to me if Jack Layton and the NDP do not use one or both of these opportunities (particularly the confidence motion) to defeat the Harper government, given the NDP’s track record of opposing Stephen Harper at every opportunity. And quite rightly, I might add, particularly given the NDP’s ideology, which is completely out of synch with the Conservatives.

But there are signs that Jack may be willing to support Stephen Harper for a very, very low price indeed: EI Reform.

Now look, I’m not suggesting that EI reform isn’t an important issue, because it is, and certainly reform is needed. What I am suggesting is that the Conservative government of Canada remains a menace to the future of this nation, and that’s something that Jack Layton and I have agreed upon wholeheartedly...up until now. How on earth, I have to wonder, will Jack justify propping up the Conservatives at the price of EI reform, while ignoring the lack of action which Harper will be taking on so many issues which are of importance to Canadians?

Even just this past weekend, Layton laid down a number of items which would need to be addressed by Harper should the Conservatives look to the NDP for support on. The media and pundits alike universally panned this list, insisting that Conservatives would have no stomach for it. I wasn’t all that impressed with it either, as the calls for credit card reform and green job creation really seemed pretty wishy-washy to me. And that’s when I began to get nervous that the NDP was once again selling itself out for short term gains, just as they did when they helped defeat Paul Martin’s government.

Yes, for Jack Layton, it’s to be "politics as usual". He’ll prop up whichever party is in power to buy himself some time, because his own Party apparently isn’t ready to face the Canadian electorate, as they really have nothing new on offer. Sure, it’s true that Canadians don’t want another election, and I have to respect acceptable efforts where parties figure out ways to work with one another for the good of Canada. But the price the NDP may be settling on here is not in Canada’s interests, and really tells us all a lot about the NDP.

My main issue with the New Democratic Party is that the Party really stands for very little. They will bend in the slightest political wind, looking for political opportunity at every opportunity. They present their uncosted platforms with slick marketing, rather than with careful consideration. They look to fooling to electorate, rather than working for Canadians. They are not a party of action, but they are a party of results: results defined in the electoral success of their party.

(I’ll avoid a significant rant here on the NDP’s continuing desire to prop up the brown economy and refusing to walk the talk on the environment; please just take that as a given for now)

In short, this kind of thinking by the NDP, this political game-playing, led me to joining the Green Party, which, as far as I can gather, actually has some integrity and will stand up for what it believes in. Since we also don’t seem to possess the political acumen to play the sorts of political games the other party’s play at, I have high hopes that we Greens will never find ourselves in these same silly situations.

Look, I don’t want an election either. I sincerely hope that the other Parties figure a way to get their act together and actually get down to doing the job that we elected them to do, that being governing our nation. What I can not accept, however, are these cynical ploys by the NDP to pretend to be doing Canadians some good by propping up a government which they have claimed on so many past occasions to have irreconcilable differences with. And as I said, up until now, I’ve found myself in agreement with the NDP on this.

Jack Layton will pay a price within his own Party if he decides to lend his support to the Conservatives for such a low price. Sure, some Canadians will be relieved that we’ll have avoided another election (or at least put it off until February or so), but true NDP ideologues will realize that Jack’s support is simply a power play. Some might applaud because it will buy the NDP time to organize. But many, already disenchanted with the "politics as usual" tenor within the NDP will recognize this as a cynical political ploy.

The NDP can do better than this. If they can’t, or don’t, it will certainly be time for many of the NDP’s supporters to turn to a party which is focussed on taking action, rather than playing politics. It is time for them to vote Green.

Steve May, CEO Sudbury Federal Green Party Association

W Minus 40: A Golden / Green Opportunity for us to Seize!

2009-08-31T09:58:00.003-04:00

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.

Steve May, CEO Sudbury Federal Green Party Association

Winners and Losers: Canadian Businesses, Carbon Pricing, Procurement and Conservative Game-Playing

2009-08-07T21:23:00.004-04:00

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: http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/676159. 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: http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=1653542. 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", http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/saskatchewan-warms-to-obama-climate-plan/article1244727, 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.http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1690224)

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: http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/2022/2009-07-22/sudbury-according-tony-clement-valley-death)

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, 2009http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/677478)

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.

Steve May, CEO Sudbury Federal Green Party Association

Sudbury According to Tony Clement: the Valley of Death

2009-07-23T17:06:00.003-04:00

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 2009http://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.

Steve May, CEO Sudbury Federal Green Party Association

Do Canadians Really Think that Majority Governments are Prefferable?

2009-07-23T16:59:00.004-04:00

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/

Steve May, CEO Sudbury Federal Green Party Association

Tomorrow Will Not Be Like Today

2009-06-12T17:12:00.003-04:00

This speech, "Tomorrow Will Not Be Like Today", was given at the Sudbury Federal Green Party Association’s Candidate Nomination Meeting, on June 11, 2009.

It’s so great to see all of you here tonight for this historic occasion. As far as we can tell, this is the first contested nomination the Green Party has ever had in Sudbury. In fact, across Canada in the Green Party, I’ve been told that there are only a handful of nomination contests taking place where two or more people have stepped forward to want to represent the Green Party in the upcoming federal election. Maybe that says something about the collaborative nature of our Party. If so, I’m not sure what it says about us here in Sudbury!

But in Sudbury we’re so lucky to have two nominees of exceptional quality before us tonight to choose from. It’s not going to be an easy choice for us to make.

I’ve had the pleasure of working closely with both Fred and Gordon over the past year, and I can tell you that although the choice isn’t going to be easy for you to make, there is some good news here; you can’t go wrong with either of these two gentleman, as they both have the substance, the smarts, the personality, and the experience to represent us in the next election, whenever that may be.

Increasingly, it’s looking like a summer election will not be happening this year. The Liberals rise in the polls after coronating Michael "Tar Sands Forever" Ignatieff seems to have levelled out somewhat now, but his popularity did take a bite of the other party’s support. Even if Ignatieff wanted to, he can not bring down the government on his own. He’d need the support of the NDP and the Bloc to do it, and those are the same parties he’s been stealing support from. Jack Layton, watching NDP support plummet, can’t be all that enthusiastic about terminating the Harper government, just to watch the Liberals sweep away the gains he made in seats last fall.

And Stephen Harper isn’t likely to suicide his own government the way he did last September, as his personal popularity and support continue to trend downwards in the rest of Canada, and have completely bottomed out in Quebec. There is no majority to be gained for Harper, which is kind of a good thing, kind of not, because it means that it looks like we’re going to have to live with the Stephen Harper-Michael Ignatieff Liberal-Conservative co-alition for a while longer yet.

And every day we live with these guys is a day less where action can be taken on the issues which have brought us all together.

We Greens understand that many of the issues which are important to us are being ignored by successive Conservative and Liberal governments. Action is not being taken on the environment, and Canada has become an international outcast for ignoring its Kyoto commitments, and has instead chosen to let greenhouse gas emissions rise with impunity.

Action is not being taken to address the democratic deficit, when almost half of the voting age population of this country doesn’t bother to cast a ballot any more, because they know their votes don’t really matter, because the MP’s they elect will fall in line behind their party leaders like lemmings.

These are but two important issues to Greens, two of many which our governments continue to ignore. We, as citizens of this nation, know that Canada, acting in concert with all other nations, needs to begin reducing carbon emissions. Just about all of us practice this in our daily lives, subscribing to the principles of Reducing, Re-using and Re-cycling. Many of us have banded together in efforts to educate others, to promote the need to reduce carbon emissions at all cost, because we do not want our children to live in a world where no action to reduce was taken by our generation.

Education and advocacy are incredibly important roles for all of us to play. Leading by example is the best way to show our neighbours and others in our community that the small choices that we make have huge pay-offs when coupled with the choices of others.

We in the Green Party, though, understand that education and advocacy alone will not lead to the shifts our society must undertake to avoid the worst of, to paraphrase James Howard Kuntsler, the author of the Long Emergency, to avoid the worst of the coming "clusterfuck" of crises sitting out their on the horizon, 5 maybe 10 years out in the future.

Action on these issues requires political will. The Conservatives and Liberals have no political will to do anything more than be seen to be addressing these issues. They want to greenwash Canadians. They want to fool us into thinking that they are taking necessary steps to addressing these issues of importance. But they are creatures of the status quo, creatures who have a vested interest in continuing to insist that tomorrow will be like today and yesterday.

Well, tomorrow will not be like today. Not at all. And that’s why we Greens have come together, because we realize that we can no longer sit idly by while our Leaders sit on their hands and play make-believe games. It’s long past the time to be playing political games when our country’s health, indeed our planet’s health, is at stake.

Change is a political process, as much as an educational one. We’ve been doing very well with education, not so much with the political side of change.

Why is this? Most Canadian voters continue to buy into the myths created by the spin of the other political parties; repeated by a mass media where an ever decreasing number of voices are allowed to be heard. We know these myths: Conservatives are best at managing finances. Liberal policy will sway any which way to get votes. The NDP are tax and spend socialists which will lead us all to financial ruin.

And the Green Party? Well, we’re simply a "One Issue" Party. Not to be taken seriously.
You’d think that Canadians would realize that these myths are just that: myths. But because they are repeated time and again, they’ve come to take on significant prominence in the minds of many. And we in the Green Party have a lot of work to do to counter these myths.

Pollsters tell us, again and again, that when it comes to the discrete issue of how to handle the environment, Canadians believe that the Green Party is the party of choice to tackle environmental issues. The same polls show the Conservatives would be the ones most Canadians would pick to tackle economic issues, with the Liberals in second place and the Green Party just barely showing.

The very questions themselves are telling of the political paradigm we’ve created and have allowed to flourish. Somehow, in this paradigm, the environment and the economy are two separate issues, best handled in two completely different and unconnected ways. Greens need to start doing a better job of telling Canadians, starting with the pollsters, why environmental and economic issues are actually one and the same, and that when you mismanage the environment you also mismanage the economy.

We need look no further than to the Conservative and Liberal Parties to prove this point. It is a prevailing myth that the Conservatives and Liberals are good financial managers.

In the January version of the Conservative budget which the Liberals supported through their votes, a deficit of approximately 34 billion dollars was projected. That means that the government planned to spend 34 billion more than they were going to collect. The Conservatives told Canadians that such a huge deficit was necessary in order to inject "stimulus" money into the economy.

Interestingly, the January budget also highlighted approximately 34 billion dollars worth of tax cuts, 12 billion of which came from lost GST revenue as a result of the Conservatives move to lower the GST by 2 percentage points during the course of previous budgets.

Funny how the amount of the projected deficit equalled the amount of the tax cuts. It’s almost like the Conservatives and Liberals back in January said, "Well, we still need to spend all of the money we’re taking in, but since our political agenda is to cut taxes so that we can get votes, we’ll just ignore sound financial policies and make Canadians pay for the difference somehow later on." And they can do this because most Canadians continue to believe that the Conservatives and Liberals are good financial managers.

Now the projected deficit sits at 50 billion dollars; 50.2 was just announced today. Largely, this has been as a result of bailing out Chrysler and General Motors, which operate in the Liberal-Conservative battleground of Southern Ontario.

50 billion in deficit. Wow. Can you imagine Stephen Harper’s government going there this time last year? I mean, if you were a supporter of the Conservatives, wouldn’t you be shocked and appalled about this deficit? We Greens might think so.

I mean, come on, how can you spend $50 billion more than you take in in a single year? And still call yourself a small-government Conservative? Or a fiscally-sound money manager?

So are Stephen Harper and the Conservatives shaking in their boots? Not at all. They’ve been viewing this economic crisis as an opportunity to finally get to do what they’ve been wanting to do all along. By creating this largely artificial deficit, and spending stimulus money for projects they can send their MP’s out to cut ribbons for, the Conservatives have accomplished their goals: they’re appearing to be sensitive to the needs of Canadians by injecting money into the economy while at the same time cutting taxes. And they’ve created a new structural deficit which will need to be slain in the future.

And how do you slay a structural deficit in the budget? You’ve got two options. Raise taxes, or cut expenses. Which do you think the Conservatives will choose? Will Stephen Harper turn to Canadians and say, "Ok folks, the spending orgy is over, now that the economy is turning itself around, sorry about this, but we need to pay to our tab, so time for your taxes to go up." Or will they follow the Chretien-Martin Liberal program of reducing expenses by cutting government services and programs, or downloading them to the Provinces, who will also be up to their ears in red ink.

The word "tax" is never going to make anyone feel warm and fuzzy. Benjamin Franklin said that there are only two gaurantees in life: death and taxes. We don’t particularly look forward to either. But another great American, Oliver Wendell Holmes, had a bit more of a pragmatic and optimistic outlook on taxes, one we all need to keep in mind and remind our fellow Canadians of. Holmes told us that taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.

Jim Flaherty and the Conservatives tell us that taxes need to be reduced, especially on businesses, in order that Canadian businesses can be more competitive. This is despite the fact that between 1984 and 2006, the Conservatives and Liberals gave up over 250 billion dollars in revenue through tax cuts, a good portion of which went to wealthy businesses.

And were businesses more competitive as a result? Well, the World Economic Forum ranked Canadian businesses as the 5th most competitive in the world back in 1999. In 2008, we’d fallen to 10th spot. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for those who believe that lower taxes leads to more competitiveness. Although they will still likely point out that being 5th or 10th in the world is still something to crow about.

Until they look around and discover that out of the top ten countries in the world who have the most competitive businesses, 6 of those nations are some of those same Northern European countries who Conservatives get all a-twitter about because of their high tax rates! Clearly, competitive business are not made by lowering taxes. Which stands to reason if you step back and think about it, because our taxes are re-invested in making our society more civilized. A business employee is a lot less likely to miss productive work time, for example, if she is receiving state-sponsored health care rather than having to remain sick because she can’t afford to pay her own medical bills.

Clearly, Conservatives do not understand that important issues are all tied-together. Your social well-being is an environmental issue; business competitiveness is a social issue. And a healthy environment is an economic issue!

Canadians should start exploding the myth that Conservatives and their kissing cousin Liberals are sound managers of finances. They are not. Down the road, this financial mismanagement which we’re seeing out of Ottawa today will mean more pain for all Canadians, and disproportionately more pain for the least well-off amongst us, as funding for public services and programs dries up.

That also means less money will be available for our government to begin making investments in the green economy, needed investments to stimulate truly green enterprises, rather than the sorts of brown projects the so-called economic stimulus has largely been providing money for. Rather than investing in streetcars for Toronto, the Conservatives want to see more highways!

Greens, we have a story to share with Canadians, a story which they need to hear. The future is not going to be the same as today. Our finances are in chaos, and our governments are interested in doing only what it takes to get elected, and not interested in doing what needs to be done. Public Representatives like Fred and Gordon and Elizabeth May will do things differently, but we Canadians have to give them the chance to do so.

There isn’t any more time left to delay in taking the actions which we need to take. Change requires education and advocacy, but real change ultimately requires political will. Time and again the Conservatives and Liberals have shown that they do not have the political will to address, or even admit to, the coming crises.

Through your own expression of political will this evening, by casting a ballot for a Green Party candidate, you’ll have taken yet another step in the long march we’ve all embarked on. The road, as we know, will be a hard one, but together we can help each other along, and remain committed to the endeavour. For together, we are strong, and our strength and unity will no longer be ignored.

Thank you.

Steve May, CEO Sudbury Federal Green Party Association

A Message from the President of the Sudbury Green Party of Ontario CA

2009-05-06T15:06:00.000-04:00

Dear Sudbury Greens,
I just wanted to start out by thanking everyone who put their confidence in me by nominating and voting me in as President for the Sudbury Green Party of Ontario Constituency Association for the 2009-2010 year. I promise that I will work hard in making sure that this year will be a banner year in fundraising, increasing membership and community involvement. I want to congratulate those people who are on the executive with me. Yollande Twilley as Chief Financial Officer, Leo Anger as Membership Chair, Dana Clark as Communications Chair and Melanie Johncox as Fundraising Chair. You could not have chosen a better group of hardworking individuals. For those who are interested, there are some executive positions still vacant. Please do not be shy. All that we ask is to show up to our (4) meetings/ year and to be able to volunteer your time as much as you are able. Please remember also that you must be a member in good standing to apply for one of these positions. The positions available are as follows: Secretary, Organization Chair, and (3) Members at Large. If you are interested in learning more about these positions, please contact myself at 560-7499 or email me at candicegoodmurphy@hotmail.com.

My Goals for the 2009-2010 year are to move the constituency association forward in order to become ready for the 2011 Provincial election. Thankfully, we have 2 ½ more years to work towards this goal. To be prepared for the election, we need to find a candidate. My hope is to have a nomination meeting for the Sudbury riding by March 2010. For those of you who want to make a difference by representing the Green Party in Sudbury, now is your chance to become involved. If you choose to represent the Green Party you will have the added support of the Constituency Association to help you along every step of the way.

In the meantime the priorities of the executive will be fundraising, and increasing membership and increasing our volunteer base, and effectively communicating these goals to the membership and our constituency.

I am looking forward to working with everyone in the upcoming year and to get people thinking about electing a Green in Sudbury.

Candice Goodmurphy-Colussi
President, Sudbury Green Party of Ontario Constituency Association

Are Compact Florescent Lights (CFL’s) really green or just Green washing?

2009-05-05T09:52:00.000-04:00

Currently it is mostly widely accepted that Compact Florescent lighting (also known as “CFL’s”) is the way to go to reduce energy. David Suzuki, Canada’s foremost environmental advocate, has been pushing people to switch from regular incandescent lights to CFL’s through government-sponsored advertising. CFL’s use less energy than regular light bulbs which leads to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from coal powered plants and non-renewable energy sources. Most are so convinced about the benefits of these light bulbs that governments in a variety of countries are implementing a ban on incandescent lights and promoting the use of CFL’s instead (Australia being the leader in the movement). However, some researchers and scientist are looking a little more into this movement and finding some pretty interesting impacts from the use of CFL’s.

In order for something to be considered really “green” it should have a closed loop cycle. It would appear that Compact Florescent lighting with their mercury content doesn’t fit into this category. Mercury is a highly toxic heavy metal in even small amounts. It leaches into the soil and into water systems from different sources and is toxic to all mammals (that includes us humans). Dropping a CFL bulb can be extremely toxic to those doing the clean up even if done properly.

Because CFL’s only contain 5mg of mercury, in Canada we don’t recognize them as hazardous material and are not forced to dispose of them as such. However, in Europe, 5mg of mercury is considered hazardous and all things containing this amount of mercury or higher must be disposed of as hazardous material. Our Government’s continuous lack of standards when it comes to heavy metal toxicity is not only detrimental to our health and the environment, products such as CFL’s don’t come with proper warning labels to advise those who use them of the dangers they could possibly pose. Nor do CFL’s come with messaging regarding their proper disposal after use. Luckily there are businesses that recognize one of these issues and offer a recycling centre for them (such as Home Depot).

There are also some health concerns with these light bulbs, although considered minor it can be an annoyance to the person who suffers from the health related problems. Some people will experience headaches, migraines, and visions problems due to the type of light emitted from these bulbs. All of these symptoms have been know for a long time when it comes to any florescent light. For those who are sensitive to electromagnetic radiation (a health issue not openly recognized in North America but recognized as disability in some European countries), these lights can cause symptoms of headaches, nausea, aches and pains, sleep problems, depression and anxiety. Although these health-related issues may seem minor to some, for those experiencing them it can be rather overwhelming especially knowing that soon they will have no choice but to buy the bulbs that are the cause of their discomfort. A study in the UK also showed that those who sit too closely to the lights for a period of an hour or more a day (sitting closely to a reading lamp) could experience the same radiation produced from the sun. (Health Canada testing compact fluorescent bulbs for harmful radiation http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/01/21/bulbs.html)

CFL’s are not even made for northern climates. Anything below –15 Celsius is not recommended, so for those who use them for outdoor lights in our Canadian climate they are pretty much useless for the darkest part of the year. There have been studies showing an increase in greenhouse gas emissions due to the use of CFL’s because people are heating their houses more because CFL’s don’t produce as much heat as regular light bulbs so we don’t benefit from our regular light bulbs aiding in heating our homes. (Do CFL’s Save? http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/consumer_watch/do_cfl_bulbs_save.html) So instead of benefiting from this heat we have to rely on using more electricity, natural gas, oil & wood stoves to heat our homes. CFL’s benefit southern climates much more as they reduce heat and the need for air conditioners, it only benefits northern climates on the hottest days of the summer. So why would forcing people to convert from regular bulbs to CFL’s in Canada really benefit us when some studies are showing the opposite?

Using CFL’s in places such as closets & bathrooms is also not very beneficial as they take approximately 3 minutes before they become energy efficient. As most people only turn the lights on briefly in these and similar locations, the CFL’s are using the same amount of energy as incandescent light bulbs. The only solution to this problem is leaving lights on in these areas instead of turning them off after leaving the room. This solution goes against the concept of turning lights off when not in a room to save energy.

Some researchers say the new HD LED technology is the possible solution, however it is very expensive and may contribute to the same issues with heating in the winter. Some say sticking with our current incandescent light bulbs and learning to shut off unnecessary lights is the best way to go.

I say that we start doing some more research into this issue to find out if CFL use might constitute greenwashing by being dangerous to our health, and problematic from an environmental standpoint. We should be looking at the big picture before jumping feet first into unlimited and government-required CFL use here in Canada. This must be done in a complete unbiased manner, which is not always the case when looking at new products that are supposed to improve our lives. Importantly, this type of complete assessment is something we should do with all new “green” technologies to make sure we don’t put ourselves into the same mess we’re already in, or go even further into that mess!

Sources & Further reading:

As the Light Dims: http://www.alive.com/6923a17a2.php?subject_bread_cramb=59
Dirty Electricity: http://www.dirtyelectricity.ca/

Dana Clark,

Organizing Chair, Sudbury Federal Green Party Association

Communications Chair, Sudbury Green Party of Ontario CA

Speaking Truth To Power: The Need for Adult Conversations with Canadian Voters

2009-05-05T09:40:00.000-04:00

Speaking to the Globe and Mail about Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s days as an academic, and with reference to Ignatieff’s recent musings on the possible future need to raise taxes to address the current governmental spending orgy systemic deficits, former Conservative strategist Tom Flanagan provided some very revealing remarks. Not revealing about Ignatieff or even government spending, but revealing about what, in his opinion, it takes to be a winner in politics. Contrasting Michael Ignatieff’s former life as an academic to his current incarnation as Leader of the Official Opposition, Flanagan, tells the Globe, "Then once you get into politics, your task is mostly to conceal the truth. The truth becomes a gaffe." This is a revealing statement because of what it says about truth and politics, and the ways in which our political leaders treat the truth.

And we see that play itself out time and time again with the Conservatives and the Liberals. The truth really does become something to hide, conceal, to keep behind closed doors, not to be uttered to anyone on the telephone or especially where a microphone or tape recorder can pick it up.

Our current politicians operate largely in a strange and surreal shadow world, filled with spin and derision, where the truth is known, but not talked about or discussed. How important issues for Canadians actually get addressed in this climate is in anything but a straight-forward way. Rather than speaking the truth, the object of the game is to whack down those who dare to rise up and confront important issues head on.

Is it any wonder, then, in this climate, that important issues are left largely unaddressed? Take climate change, for example. That’s an easy one. That’s probably why most of us are here, as we’ve recognized that the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP are more interested in playing politics than achieving results.

Ignatifeff’s recent musings about a cap and trade system, while supporting the Alberta tar sands, shows that he’s no different from the Conservatives, who have recently been talking up the same thing. What we’ll end up with is an ineffective cap and trade system, riddled with industry exemptions, costing billions in support, raising the prices on consumer goods, but doing little or nothing to address greenhouse gas emissions. But the Libs and Cons would be seen to be doing something for the environment. And in their dark world of spin, to be seen to be doing something is so much better than to actually be doing something. Especially if it can put some more money into the pockets of the Board of Directors of Sun Cor and others of their ilk.

At least the NDP want to close down the tar sands. But even the NDP play the spin game on worthy alternatives not of their party’s devising. Witness Layton’s slamming Dion’s carbon tax proposal in the last election. Layton knows that a carbon tax will reduce greenhouse gases, but instead focussed on how it might impact low-income consumers, ignoring completely the financial off-sets in Dion’s platform to address this very concern.

For the Green Party’s own carbon tax shifting proposal, since there was no gain at all for Layton to even deign to admit that the Green Party exists, he left us largely alone. Don’t be too sure that the NDP spin doctors will implement the same approach during the next election, as NDP support sputters out.

Say what you want about Michael Ignatieff (and I’ve got a lot to say!). The only decent thing he’s done so far was to candidly and responsibly suggest that taxes might have to be raised in the future in order to pay for all of the money currently being thrown about. I mean, come on, of course that’s the reality, the truth. But he was almost strung-up by the other parties and the media for daring to utter what is obvious to us all. But that’s what our current system appears to be all about, as Tom Flanagan well knows.

Well, the Green Party is doing things differently. We dare to tell Canadians the truth, even when the truth is going to be a hard-sell. Some would suggest this has been a contributing factor to our inability to get elected. But the fact is, to address issues of importance, we can only do so with all of our cards on the table. Climate change can’t be successfully fought without an adult conversation about how the fight is going to impact us all, altering our lifestyles and changing our lives. Change is often something to be feared, and that’s why so many are against it. It’s easier for us all to keep doing things the way we’ve always done them.

But change is also progress. A challenge, yes, but an opportunity as well, to do things better, to build something more than we have today, something grander.The other parties don’t want to have this discussion, because they are complacent with the way things are done now, it’s what they know. I don’t think Ignatieff and Harper and especially Layton would even know how to have an adult conversation amongst just the three of them if the cameras are rolling.

Change, though, is also inevitable. And Canadians are starting to understand this double-edged nature of change a little bit better. If our society doesn’t decide to make the changes we need to make, change in other forms will be thrust upon us. There is growing recognition that the road we’re on right now leads to higher temperatures, more severe weather events, more expensive heating fuels and gasoline, higher food prices, inflation, lower wages, fewer jobs, higher unemployment, more homelessness, more protests and civil unrest, less food available to consume, mass movements of environmental refugees, more armed conflict between nations over dwindling resources such as oil and clean water, more bombing, torture, military occupation, war, disease, devastation, death and destruction, and a loss of all we’ve held dear, fewer chances for our children and grandchildren to live their lives in ways we would wish for them.

There’s a growing understanding that those changes are going to be the ones we face in the future if we don’t start making our own decisions to change now.

And we, as a society, can’t make informed decisions for our world when our so-called political leaders are happy to inhabit their dark nether-world of spin, deception of lies.

For us Greens, and for the benefit of our society, speaking the truth to power, in this case Canadian voters, must always be paramount.

Steve May, CEO Sudbury Federal Green Party Association

Three Little Birds singing "Every Little Thing is Gonna Be All Right"

2009-03-19T18:12:00.000-04:00

It’s hard not to dwell on the pessimism prevalent in the national press coverage of the global financial crisis. It seems that almost every day, one expert or another contradicts previous estimates for the length of time that it will be before a recovery sets in. Earlier in the year, the public was being told that recovery would begin in the third quarter of this year, and that the Canadian economy could be expected to grow by upwards of 3%. Now, the latest "experts" are predicting a longer recessionary period with recovery only starting in early 2010, and it’s likely going to be hampered by a period of very slow growth.

Meanwhile, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives continue to sing the same old tune, which sounds a lot like Bob Marley’s "Three Little Birds" ("Don’t Worry About A Thing"; ok, I confess, I had to look up the title on Wikipedia). Media commentators have been quick to justify Harper’s positivity in the face of this massive economic upheaval by claiming that Canadians need to be told that things are going to be all right, lest there be panic in the streets leading to a larger financial crisis. I guess Harper telling us that every little thing is gonna be all right might actually be the strongest plank in the Conservative’s economic stimulus plan.

But I’ve always believed that Canadians have done much better when we’re told the truth by those whom we’ve elected to power, rather than being led astray by wishful thinking. With this in mind, I started to think whether or not I’m right, or Stephen Harper is right: do Canadians want our government to tell us the truth?

In the last election, the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP didn’t see the need to have a discussion with Canadians regarding a number of the looming crises which our nation will be confronting in the coming decades. There wasn’t even much of a peep about the economic crisis which began to emerge a few weeks before the vote took place, even though it came as no surprise to many in the financial sector. Discussions about global warming were high-jacked by partisan rhetoric about how a tax on carbon would or would not destroy Canadian households. And even that certainly wasn’t high on the list of important issues amongst the three major national parties, particularly after Stephane Dion went silent.

Only the Green Party stood up and talked about the coming crises of climate change and global warming; peak oil and increased energy costs; and, the crisis in public service delivery we’ll experience brought on by shifting demographics as a result of baby boomers retiring.

Based on the results of the last election, one could conclude that perhaps Stephen Harper has it right, and I’ve got it wrong: Canadians aren’t really interested in hearing about the challenges we’re all going to be facing in the very near future. Form triumphs over substance. After all, the Green Party didn’t elect a single MP. It’s easy to think that maybe Canadians aren’t keen on thinking ahead, or planning for a future which is going to be vastly different from our present.

Look beneath the surface, though, and there are some hopeful signs that the opposite is actually true. Support for our Party increased. Our Leader, Elizabeth May, was part of the nationally televised debates after a grass-roots outcry changed the minds of decision-makers. Our party had more organized campaigns than ever before, and although we did not elect any MP’s, certainly many voters, even those who did not vote for us, were sympathetic to our Party.

One of the things that we will have to focus on next time is to convince those sympathetic voters to throw in their lot with us. And I think one of the best ways to do so would be to stand up and tell Canadians the truth about the situation we’re all in, about the future that we’re going to be facing. Whether they want to hear it or not. And I believe Canadians, once they hear about a future told to them by the Green Party, will want to understand more about this future, about both the challenges and the opportunities.

The fact is, the other parties are too focussed on partisan games to have this discussion with Canadians. As a result, we can own this ground. One of the challenges for us, though, as a small party, will be to begin to shift the media around to providing coverage about issues that matter (substance), rather than spending the majority of its time on Stephen Harper’s sweaters or pooping puffins (that’d be "form").

In these difficult economic times, even the media might be more interested in discussing issues. Certainly I believe Canadians are ready to become involved in such a discussion. And together we can begin to turn things around, offering vision, leadership and hope about real issues. Indeed, to become the only choice for Canadian voters concerned about what’s just around the corner. We know it’s there. We can hear it breathing. Why do the "Three Little Birds", the Conservatives/Liberals/NDP, want to pretend it’s not there? Is it maybe because if they tell us about it, we’ll expect them to do something about it, and when we realize they have no plan, we’ll look for someone better to lead us?

No. It couldn’t be that. Maybe it’s just because it’s easier to get votes if no one ever worried about much of anything.

Is it any wonder that it’s so difficult not to be pessimistic?

Steve May, CEO Sudbury Federal Green Party Association

"Bloc Newfoundland & Labrador" Party?

2009-03-07T18:41:00.000-05:00

Well. Looks like it takes an article in the Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/596487) quoting highly-placed (and colourful!) persons to generate any further discussion about this old blogpost of mine: http://www.greenparty.ca/en/blogs/2022/2009-01-30/could-liberal-mps-rejection-budget-lead-rise-newfoundland-and-labrador-party

But, with Liberal Senator George Baker chatting with the press today about the potential inevitability (and that's a legit concept in Newfoundland) of the formation of a Newfoundland and Labrador separtist party, I felt the need to re-visit this old post.Now, you've got to take Mr. Baker with a few grains of salt, it's true. But it's really not that far-fetched to think that he's likely onto something here. The time is particularly opportune for the formation of such a beast, for all of the reasons I've identified previously (and for some of the ones George identifies in his roaring rant to the media).

Ultimately, I continue to feel that this would spell bad news to our Party. But perhaps there is an opportunity sitting here for us to seize on? I don't think that the Green message has really resonated that well with Newfoundlanders, but if the winds of change are truly starting to blow in off of the mainland, perhaps we can steal some of the gail and turn our own ship around.Rather than a "Bloc Newfoundland", how about a Green Party committed to fight the good fight for Newfoundland and Labrador? To honour agreements with the Province made by previous governments. To agree to, once and for all, resolve the boundary disputes with Quebec (which are starting to cause tensions now that Quebec has decided to dam some of the rivers flowing out of Labrador for hydro-electric projects).

We need to explain to Newfoundlanders that a tax on carbon will not kill off shore oil development, but will instead position the economy for a more sustainable, and ultimately more green, form of energy development. Investments in alternative energy, such as tidal, could also be made in Newfoundland.

And then there are all of the rest of our good policies which make sense throughout Canada.

I'm just not sure what we would tell Newfoundlanders about the seal hunt that they would want to hear. But we might be able to think of something. I've heard it said that the seal hunt is to Newfoundland like arts funding is to Quebec.

Unless we begin to make a concerted effort to woo the voters of Newfoundland and Labrador into our camp, offering them a chance for real change within a national framework, I really do believe that Mr. Baker's prediction might come true. And while I would hate to see a "national" political party waving the pink-white-and-green flag of separatism, I also can't blame Newfoundlanders for feeling that their voice isn't being heard in Ottawa.

Kind of like the 7% of Canadians who voted for the Green Party in the last election!

Steve May, CEO Sudbury Federal Green Party Association

You Want Action? It's Time For You To Get Political.

2009-02-19T13:04:00.000-05:00

These are tough times all around. Here in Sudbury, last week one of our mining giants, Xstrata (the Swiss-based owner of the former Falconbridge), announced the layoff of about 700 people, many of them with good paying mining jobs. For a community of 155,000 people, this was a devastating blow. But it was not a surprise. All told, about 1000 mining jobs have already disappeared from our community in the past...what? 4 months? Yikes!

Tough times all around. I read in the paper last week that scientists are now saying that the Nobel Prize-winning International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which provided estimates of the pace of global warming, actually predicted a much slower pace for global warming than science is now expecting. What that means is that for those nations who are basing carbon policies on the IPCC science, those policies will likely not have the desired impact on global warming, and will need to be reassessed. And for those countries which have dithered and done nothing, like Canada, well....Yikes!

Yes. Times are tough all around. Given the challenges on all fronts which we find ourselves in the midst of, Canadians are looking around for real leadership on these very important issues of the day.

And we’re not finding any.

Oh, some are suggesting that Barack Obama will prove to be the man of vision who leads us out of these desperate times. Well, I hope so, because I hope that someone does...but I sincerely don’t expect that it will be the U.S. President. He’s got his own issues with a crippled economy, and a nation beholden to special interests trying to play catch-up on the environment. But, Obama has appointed a bevy of Bill Clinton-era administrators (from the same administration that contributed to the current messes we are in), and offered bail-outs to major corporations, many of whom have done their fair share to get us all into this mess in the first place. His double-edged econmic “stimulus” of throwing money to infrastructure projects while providing massive tax cuts has raised the U.S. deficit into the trillion-dollar a year range. I don’t even want to know that this will do to the U.S. debt; I’m afraid to find out.

But at least Obama appears to be leading. Oh, and at least he’s not George Bush.

But whither Canada?

Last week, Environment Minister Jim Prentice announced that Canada was prepared to do nothing on the “environmental file” which might damage the economy, and that we’ll wait for Obama to move forward first. And that’s the kind of leadership we have been getting from the Harper Conservatives.

Now, look. I understand. Times are tough. And they are. But...

But we can’t bloody well sit around and do nothing and hope that things will get better. And we can’t keep doing the same old things which have led us to these crises either. Yet....that’s what we’re getting here in Canada.There’s a good chance that if you’re reading this blog, you are either already in the Green Party, or you recognize that we really do need to start taking action on the climate change, because our days for action are, quite frankly, numbered, before that tipping point is reached. That’s wonderful. I’m glad you’re here. Sincerely.

You, like me, though, have probably been wondering just what it takes to motivate others to start paying attention to these issues. You’ve probably done a double-take or two when you’ve brought up Peak Oil in a conversation, only to be greeted by blank stares. We all want others to understand the issues. And to be as horrified as we ourselves are.

Because that understanding of the mess we’re in might actually lead others to start taking action. And by action, I’m not just talking about replacing old light-bulbs with the energy efficient kind, or biking to work a few times a week (although those things are really great, and we should all do more of that sort of stuff).

No. The Action we need to take is fundamentally a political action. If you are serious about the environment/economy/energy/social justice what-have-you, and you believe the time has come for leadership with vision, leading to action, you must become engaged politically. There really isn’t any other option. And that’s the message that we need to start delivering to our friends, family and blank-faced colleagues. You and I know that action occurs as a result of a political process, and that’s why we ourselves have become political. Now, it’s time for us to convince others to do the same, to “get political” as well.

And that’s not the same as “playing politics”. “Politics” is a dirty word, but it’s fundamentally about horse-trading...usually for the explicit purpose of getting oneself re-elected, and sometimes about doing what’s good for local constituents (those who one has to face to get onself re-elected). Politics won’t get us out of this mess. It was playing politics which helped get us here in the first place. If we didn’t play politics, maybe we would have implemented Kyoto and at least have been partly on the way to doing something.

Getting political is a lot different than playing politics. At least for the Green Party. Yes, sure, like other political parties, we have an agenda, and we want to be able to influence decision-making at the highest level. But fundamentally our aspirations are different from those of the other main-stream parties. All parties say that they want to do what is good and right. Yet, so far, we haven’t been seeing a lot of that. The Green Party too, wants to do what is good and right. And to actually begin to address the issues which are important to Canadians, and which will become increasingly important over the next decade.

A politician once told me that if he stood up in front of a room and told the people there the truth about what needed to be done, they would never vote for him. I used to think that was just a funny story which had a large dollop of truth in it. No more. I can’t afford to keep thinking that way, and neither can you.

What separates the Green Party from the other parties is that we’re not afraid to tell Canadians the truth about the predicament we’re in, and what we need to start to do to get ourselves out of it. And that’s not just because we’re uniquely positioned to do so (having no one in parliament facing re-election), but because it’s fundamentally the right thing for us to be doing. Canadians aren’t idiots, regardless of what the other parties might want us to think.

And you and I go around every day and tell the truth to people. And some of them have even started listening to us. And a few of those have started to ask us “What can we do?”.

And we need to tell them that the answer lies in getting political. That the way to Action is through a political process. That at the next election there isn’t any other choice for them but to do what they can to get Greens elected. And I’m very serious about this. No other party is going to do a damn thing now. And we can’t afford to do nothing any longer. If you care (and you do), you want action.

If you want action, you need to get political. If you get political, you’ll see that action can only occur through one of the Canadian political parties out there, and that’s the Green Party, because all of the other parties fundamentally do not want to take action on these issues. Not even the NDP, led by Jack “Carbon Taxes Will Be The Death Of the Little Guy” Layton. Why is the Green Party the only political party which can be trusted? Because we have always told you the truth, and will continue to tell you the truth. You may not like to hear it, but we’re still going to tell it to you.

And the truth is we’re in the midst of some pretty tough times. Times which demand leadership in our government. And the truth is...we don’t have any. And the truth is we can’t afford to waste any more time. Because the truth is, we’re going to be in quite the pickle in the very near future if we don’t start taking action.

This is not the time to play politics. It’s time to get political.

Steve May, CEO Sudbury Federal Green Party Association

No Leadership in Ottawa. We Need Action, Not Abdication!

2009-02-13T10:17:00.000-05:00

Just lovely. It is even more abundantly clear today that Harper's Conservatives just do not understand the most important issues facing the future of Canada. In an announcement today from Jim Prentice, Federal Minister responsible for the Environment, the Conservatives have decided that doing anything right now to help fix the environment is off the table, saying that it would negatively impact the economy. The old "jobs before environment" argument is trotted out yet again.

I'm getting sick and tired of this. The Conservatives don't understand, or don't want to understand, which amounts to the same thing. Climate change, rising energy prices, and a switch from a brown to green economy is fundamentally not about a trade-off between jobs and the envrionment. It is not about having to make a choice of one over the other. Yet here is Jim Prentice, arguably one of the more socially-progressive of Harper's dinosaurs, saying just that (see today's Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/586526).

Not only are Harper and Prentice claiming that action on the environment needs to be placed on hold as a result of the economic slow-down, they are saying that they will not take any action until the United States comes up with its own plan. Not only does this tactic delay the government from having to do anything, it completely abdicates any leadership on this matter. This kind of the "follow-the-leader" mentality is not what we have elected our government to do. These people were voted in to make decisions, take actions, not abdicate their responsibilities in favour of putting off decision making until such a time when someone else has done the hard thinking.

And rest assured, when Obama does put his mind to looking at a cap and trade system, which is apparently what he's eyeing, when he writes the rules, guaranteed that the needs of Canada and Canadian industries are not going to be at the top of the list. Why in heavens name has our Conservative government abandoned any position on creating the rules in which our Canadian-based industries will have to operate in the future?!?! If anything, Harper should be showing leadership on this one issue, less Canadian industries get shafted.

Yes, I'm sure that Obama will be talking about an integrated cap and trade system, given the way our two economies are entwined. That's all well and fine, but if the Americans are dictating the terms, how can that possibly be good for Canada?

And say what you want about Obama and all of the good things that he's done already and the good things he's said he intends to do, at the end of the day much of what he is proposing to do for the environment is not the approach Canada will need to take. Instead of abdicating decision making on the environment until such a time as the U.S. comes to the table, Canada should be persuading and prodding, planting ideas, working with our U.S. partners on a cap and trade system to spur industry to make real reductions to green house gas emissions.

But a cap and trade system can only ever be a part of the solution. What about stimulating alternative energy development? There's no need to have to even pretend to wait for Obama to take action on that. Yet Harper and the Conservatives are abandoning alternative energy, taking away matching federal tax dollars for funding new alternative energy projects.

The crisis facing the world today isn't going to be solved by "either/or" thinking, which places jobs over the environment (as if the environment is somehow an issue which neatly fits into a single box), and it's certainly not going to be solved by more waiting and doing nothing. Yet that's the approach now being proposed by this government. We can no longer afford to let our leaders abdicate decision-making and action-taking. The cost to us and our children is going to be unbearably high. We have to act. We just have to act.

I know this is cliche, but write to your local media outlets, copy your MP's, post your letter to your blogs and email them to your friends. If there is enough of an outcry about the Conservative's abandoning doing anything for the environment until a "better time", maybe they can be forced to take action in the face of public opinion. If we make this an issue, they will listen. Harper is nothing if not motivated by public opinion, as we have seen recently.

Steve May, CEO Sudbury Federal Green Party Association

Harper About to Miss Green Opportunity

2009-01-28T17:17:00.000-05:00

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government is about to unveil its much awaited budget to address the stated goal of providing stimulation to our economy in these increasingly troubled times.

If what we have been hearing about the budget over these past few days through leaks to the media holds true, the budget will miss a historic opportunity to start addressing the many challenges we Canadians face. Most importantly, today's budget needs to begin the process of creating a truly sustainable Canadian economy. Unfortunately, it seems Harper and the Conservatives are lacking in vision.

In these difficult times, international organizations such as the IMF and APEC have recommended an increase to public spending roughly equal to two per cent of a nation's Gross Domestic Product. Such spending, however, needs to be strategically targeted to ensure that the results we achieve prove to be beneficial to the costs incurred. Investment in green municipal infrastructure through sharing GST revenues directly with municipalities will permit shovel-ready green projects to move forward. Projects that promote healthy lifestyles and physical fitness will create jobs in our communities, as well as benefit our families in the long term.

Investments in manufacturing and the auto sector that capitalize on a shift to a low-carbon economy will also produce results good for Canada. Investing in energy production from renewable energy sources will begin the process of shifting from our old brown economy towards a more sustainable model.

Cutting revenue sources such as taxes, if not offset by new revenue sources, will decrease opportunities for public investment and hamper our ability to begin paying off the deficits we will be accumulating. If income taxes are to be cut, new revenue sources need to be explored. Since it makes economic sense to derive revenue from activities which are ultimately harmful to ourselves and our communities, such as taxing cigarettes, it seems sensible that we look first for these opportunities. A good way of freeing up needed revenue would be to end corporate welfare by eliminating the massive subsidies our government makes to the fossil fuel sector, which total approximately $1.4 billion a year. Putting charges on carbon emissions would also assist with shifting revenues away from income taxes.

I sincerely hope the Conservative government will attempt to face these challenges head on by offering targeted investment in green infrastructure and cutting taxes for the least well off in our communities, along with the caveat that new green revenue sources are put in place to make up the difference. While I hope for these outcomes, I don't believe that Harper will have the vision necessary to begin moving Canada in this direction. We will all find out soon.

If we see tax cuts in the budget without new revenues from green sources, and calls for investment in brown infrastructure, we'll know that Harper and Conservatives truly don't understand the needs of Canadians.

-Published as the Letter of the Day in the Sudbury Star (a division of Sun Media), January 27 2009.

Steve May, CEO Sudbury Federal Green Party Association

India's 9/11" and the Need for Vigilance

2008-12-01T20:18:00.000-05:00

After taking some time off from blogging to focus on the recent election and my own wedding planning, I am motivated today to return to my blog by events from world headlines, as I am deeply troubled by what has been going on in India. The loss of life in Mumbai, at the hands of terrorists, is appalling and disturbing, and my sympathies are of course with the citizens of Mumbai and those throughout the world who have been personally affected by these recent, terrible events.

Commentators in the media have already started referring to these events as "India’s 9/11", and indeed, it seems that these terrorist attacks are different from past terrorist actions in Mumbai and throughout India, of which there have tragically been too many already. The number of civilians killed in India by terrorists has been exceeded only by those in Iraq, which is quite troubling, as India is the world’s largest democratic state.

How the Attacks Differ from Terrorist Activities in India

These recent attacks, though, are different, and may well prove to be a defining event for India and others in the region, just as the attacks in New York and Washington proved to be a catalyst for action for the U.S. and its allies in wake of 9/11.

First, these attacks were co-ordinated to a degree which emphasizes long-term planning on the part of the terrorists, yet security agencies apparently had little fore-knowledge. Indeed, the head of India’s anti-terrorist squad, Hemant Karkare, was killed in the action. The killing of this high-profile Indian official alone would have made the attack a success, from the point of view of the terrorists.

Second, in the past, most terrorist actions have been the result of dissatisfied groups, operating largely from within India, although speculation has been that many of these groups are financed and supported by external organizations. Pakistan has been identified by Indian officials as the primary country from where terrorists organizations are financed and equipped, and there has been criticism that Pakistan has not done enough to clamp down on these organizations. Nevertheless, long-time rivals India and Pakistan (which have fought several wars in the past 50 years) appeared to have been headed in a more friendly direction, with talks between the two nuclear-armed nations continuing.

Reports from this latest action in Mumbai, however, have identified a previously unknown terrorist organization, the Deccan Mujahadeen, as the only organization which has come forward at this time to take credit. Further, the media has reported that the Indian Navy has seized a terrorist "mother ship" in the Arabian Sea, the MV Alpha, which allegedly came to Mumbai from Karachi, Pakistan, and likely disgorged the terrorists in speedboats. The speedboats, left in the open by the terrorists where they landed on an Indian beachhead, were traced back to the Alpha. It seems that these terrorists, unlike the primarily home-grown terrorists of previous attacks, may have originated directly from a foreign country immediately prior to the terrorist action.

A third difference has been those who the terrorists have targeted with this action. Other terrorist actions within India have largely been indiscriminate, albeit many have been directed against people of particular religious backgrounds. Although people who profess many religious creeds have been killed in Mumbai, reports are coming in that Americans, Britons and Israelis in particular were targeted by the terrorists. Indeed, the headquarters of a jewish outreach group, the Chabad-Lubavitch, were specifically attacked by the terrorists.

Some media commentators have suggested that the targeted attacks on foreigners has been an attempt by the terrorists to hit India where it hurts, in the economy. Attacks on foreigners may lead to less foreign travel and investment in India, if India is perceived as a dangerous country with which to do business. While I do not doubt that such an outcome could be seen as a victory for terrorism, I have my own doubts that the international community will be persuaded by this latest action to ramp down investment in India’s booming economy.

The reports about the targeting of citizens of particular nationalities (Israeli, British and American) are also troubling. Undoubtedly, citizens from these nations have been identified by terrorists who profess to be Muslims as being more higher-valued targets, given the terrorists particular issues with the actions of the governments of these three nations. That is not surprising. What is surprising is that these particular terrorists, who would have just recently come out of Pakistan, chose to specifically target citizens of these three countries in the attacks in Mumbai. While I understand that citizens of many nations have been killed in the terrorist actions, I can’t ignore that the terrorists chose to target the headquarters of what appears to be a benign jewish organization, nor the reports which have suggested that the terrorists themselves, in speaking with hostages, indicated that they were pre-occupied with the nationalities of their hostages, and had expressed a specific interest in Americans and Britons, while while a citizen of Italy was deemed to be "ok". This is all very unusual for a terrorist action within India.

Potential Political Fall-out

For these reasons, this latest attack in Mumbai may yet prove to have more than the average in terms of its political fall out, particularly if Pakistan continues to be implicated in the plot. Even if the Pakistani government escapes direct blame, it may not escape the harsh international condemnation of allowing terrorists to organize within its borders. Back in 2001, a similar condemnation of the Taliban government led to the invasion of Afghanistan.While I do not expect such an over-reaction to take place in this circumstance, I am concerned that powers within the region may try to seize on this recent terrorist action as a casus belli which justifies their desire to resolve long-standing issues. Currently, the government of Pakistan is weak, wracked by internal political divisions after this year’s election. Also, it has been cast adrift by its major ally, the United States, and has been forced to look elsewhere for economic assistance, and specifically to China. Growing ties between China and Pakistan can only be of concern to India.

India, the U.S.: An Emerging Alignment of Strategic Interests

India and U.S. have been on the road to resolving a number of longstanding issues, and there appears now to be a happy alignment of their own national issues. The signing of an agreement between the U.S. and India earlier this year has welcomed India into the nuclear community, and has now allowed the U.S. to export nuclear technology to India. The Indian navy has stepped up its presence in the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea in the past decade, as India has emerged as a regional power to be reckoned with. And the recent U.S. abandonment of Pakistan has made India feel more secure that the U.S. would remain on-side in disputes between the India and Pakistan, particularly over divided Kashmir.

President-elect Obama has been talking for many months now about the need to focus the "War on Terror" in Afghanistan (which he was dubbed "the good war"), and has proposed a troop surge to fight Taliban and Al Qaeda forces there. Obama has also mused openly about the need to pursue terrorists and Taliban fighters across the Afghan border and into Pakistan. Indeed, there have already been a number of incursions by U.S. forces into Pakistan, including a firefight this past fall between U.S. helicopter-born forces and elements of the Pakistani military, in which a number of Pakistani security forces were killed, along with civilians.

In Kashmir, there has been an increase in violent protests this past year, and India has vowed to crack down on militants in the region. India, too, has been active in Afghanistan.International Vigilance Required if Attacks Prove to be "India’s 9/11"If the recent terrorist action in Mumbai proves to be India’s 9/11 as the media is already suggesting, the outcomes of this action could easily lead to a broader conflict in the region, between India, the U.S. and NATO on one side, and an increasingly isolated Pakistan on the other. The attacks may be viewed as the impetus to resolve the Kashmiri question in favour of India once and for all, and may be used as part of a U.S. rationale for bringing the Afghan war into Pakistan’s lawless frontier provinces. A weak and divided Pakistani government may find that their choices for action have been limited by these events, and may have to accept an armed U.S. presence on Pakistani soil, if only in a temporary way. It is harder, however, to see how Pakistan would accept any Indian incursion into beyond the line of control into Pakistani Kashmir.

And it is here where my concerns for the well-being of the region, and for the rest of us, have started to incubate in my mind. If this situation plays itself out in a similar fashion to what happened 7 years ago on 9/11, we should all be very concerned for the health and well-being of our world. In this blog, I’ve not mentioned the resource-driven strategic issues which may in part motivate both India and the U.S. to act more in concert in the region (and what sort of reaction such moves might generate from China and Russia), but suffice it to say that a compliant Pakistan would serve those U.S./Indian interests well.

Canada has quite rightly condemned this latest terrorist action. Canadians should now be vigilant, and assist the international community in getting to the bottom of how this terrorist action came about. The international community needs to investigate all leads, and follow-up on those leads. Should those leads point to Pakistan and/or Al Qaeda, Canada should be pragmatic in its approach, and caution India and the U.S. not to act unilaterally, but instead in concert with the world community.

Steve May, CEO Sudbury Federal Green Party Association

Respect for Diversity over the Holidays

2008-11-26T09:56:00.000-05:00

Our Green Values states quite clearly “Respect for Diversity”. This topic is a very sensitive one here in Canada as some feel new Canadians from different countries are trying to push their cultural & religious views on other Canadians. “These immigrants seem to have no problem coming to our country but refuse to meld into our Canadian culture.” This is an issue I hear time and time again from family and friends. My question has always been and will always be, what is “Canadian Culture” exactly? The answer to this question is not universal as most of us can agree in certain areas but cannot agree on other issues especially when it comes to Holidays.

Currently two of the major holidays celebrated in Canada and considered stat holidays, Christmas and Easter, are Christian holidays. If someone from another faith wants their religious/sacred day off from work, they have to book it as vacation time and remember to do it every year, as it is not automatic. It is also up to the discretion of the Employer/Company one works for as to whether they give their employee this requested time off. Is this really fair? Maybe it is fair to someone who celebrates Christmas and thinks this is the norm but to someone who is not a Christian it may mean not celebrating a special time with family and friends and instead working, while others of a different faith get their holy days off from work.

So where is the middle ground? This is so easy, in my opinion, but to others it creates such debates and accusation of one being too politically correct (probably some of the same debates and accusations made when women demanded equal rights). Canada is a Multicultural Society; this is something all Canadians agree upon and most are proud of this. That being said, we cannot celebrate everyone’s cultural or religious holidays and have them off from work, as there would just be too many holidays! Instead, we should put more focus on holidays such as Earth Day, which is currently not a stat holiday but it should be, so that everyone can celebrate this wonderful planet that we all live on and have in common. Canada Day is currently a stat holiday, and is neutral and brings together Canadians to celebrate our beautiful multicultural nation, again something we all have in common. Family Day is a new stat holiday and its about time, a perfect day for families to get together and catch up; we all have families and friends, yet something else we all have in common. Thanksgiving Day is another stat holiday that we already have that is neutral and a wonderful time to get together with family & friends. We should have an official Multicultural Stat holiday so that we can all celebrate our own distinct cultures and or religions and be proud, but at the same time educate ourselves about other cultures so we can be more tolerant. Everyone should have these days off (except those who are needed in essential services) so everyone can enjoy them with friends and family. These are the holidays that we as a society should be making a big deal about as they are inclusive of everyone here in Canada and not exclusive, like Christmas and Easter, which leaves those of non-Christians faiths out of the picture thus separating us. I am not saying in any way one does not have right to celebrate their cultural holidays or religious holidays; I just think it should be done on one’s own time with people of like mind in their place of worship or at home. I know this may be too much to ask in this day and age but its something that we should maybe begin working towards.

In the meantime, we can start working our way to having a truly inclusive Canada and embracing our multicultural and diverse Canadian culture by making personal changes at home. Instead of being offended or accusing people of different cultural or religious beliefs of making a big deal about being politically correct, try seeing it from their eyes. Take the steps not to assume people have the same religious beliefs as you do or cultural practices. During “Christmas” time refer to it as “the holidays” as there are plenty of cultural and religious holidays happening at this time, not just one. (To see a list of some of the holidays being celebrated this season click here) If you are certain of someone’s cultural/religious beliefs then by all means acknowledge this and wish them a happy (insert holiday here). If you are unsure, don’t assume; just greet the person regularly or if suitable, like in December wish them “Happy Holidays” and make this phrase a part of your vocabulary. If you belong to a diverse family, as more and more Canadians do, then respect the fact that not all of them are coming over to celebrate your holiday because they believe in it, some are just attending out of respect to your beliefs and to see family. Do the same and at least send them a card or call them and or acknowledge their cultural/religious beliefs or rotate what cultural/religious celebration the family gathers at; or better yet, get together on Family Day instead.

I think if we all started taking these small steps we would become a much more inclusive society and a lot of hate crimes would slowly go away if we would all just suck it up and embrace our Canadian Culture as one that embraces the diversity of its people. We need to stop letting culture, religion and ideology from separating us. Instead, we should find what we have in common and celebrate that. After all, Respect for Diversity is part of our Green Values.

Dana Clark,

Organizing Chair, Sudbury Federal Green Party Association

Secretary, Sudbury Green Party of Ontario Constituency Association.

Election lawn signs bad for the Environment.

2008-10-24T20:52:00.000-04:00

After participating in my second election (provincial Green & federal Green), I am quite disappointed in the fact that we are using signs that take energy to create, are made up of fossil fuels, need fossil fuels to be put up and require more energy to recycle. I personally feel that the Green Party of all Parties should make a public stance and not have signs in the first place. The Green Party needs to practice what it preaches.

I constantly get the argument that people have a herd mentality: that if they don’t see Green Party signs up in the city they will be less likely to vote Green. I however feel that people have grown up and evolved from this High School popularity contest mentality and feel that those who do vote Green do so not because they have seen Green Party signs up throughout the city but because they believe in the Green Party’s policies “some of which want us to cut back on fossil fuel use, you know the stuff the signs are made out of” or because they have actually done their research. I also understand some people vote for us out of protest and that is fine also, but if that is the case they would vote for us whether we have signs up or not.

How do we let people know we are running then? Easy: hand out information (yes I know it takes energy to do this also, but the Green Party in Sudbury uses 100% post consumer paper and there is more information that you can put on a pamphlet than on a sign). You drop a group off in a subdivision and they walk “not drive” to each door and either knock on the door and talk to people or they put the information into their mailbox. We can also talk to the media and let people know we are here and running and that do to the energy used to make, put up and recycle signs we are not using them this year. I am sure this statement alone will win us some votes.

Even though a lot of people called for signs there is still a group out there that understands the environmental cost of lawns signs and I think maybe the Green Party should have a vote on this issue. It seems that we are split on this issue; maybe not at the national level, but at least in this riding. Or we should look into an alternative “something” that can be used year after year. Yes we could technically use the signs from this year but if we have a different candidate we would have to have special stickers made up covering the old candidate’s name and find a sticker that matches the green on the signs to cover up their website address. Not to mention the Green Party of Canada may go and change our color scheme and modify our symbol again (as happened this year) making it hard to use our older signs from a past election.

Dana Clark
Organization Chair, Sudbury Federal Green Party Association
Secretary, Sudbury Green Party of Ontario Constituency Association.

The Sudbury Star Endorses Green Party Candidate Fred Twilley in Nickel Belt!

2008-10-10T21:23:00.000-04:00

The Sudbury Star (a daily newspaper belonging to the Osprey media group, serving the City of Greater Sudbury and many of its outlying communities in the Nickel Belt electoral District) today offered an endorsement of Fred Twilley as one of two candidates of choice for Nickel Belt. The Star endorsement pragmatically assesses the performance of the two front-runners, NDP candidate Claude Gravelle and Liberal candidate Louise Portelance, and essentially concludes that Gravelle would be the better of two bad choices. For anyone seriously looking for change, and for a credible candidate, Fred Twilley of the Green Party is the place to park your vote.

Although the Star acknowledges that Fred has little chance of winning in Nickel Belt, the editorial provides a list of reasons why voters should nevertheless feel good about casting a ballot for Fred and the Greens.

Nickel Belt has traditionally bounced between the NDP and Liberals, with outgoing Liberal MP Ray Bonin retiring this time around in favour of former municipal councillor Louise Portelance, who by all accounts has done a woeful job in this campaign. Gravelle has also under-performed, as alluded to in this article. Only Fred Twilley of the Greens has shone. It’s clear that his star is rising.

While it might not yet be the time for Nickel Belt to go Green, one can’t help but wonder what the near future might hold for this electoral district.

Oh, by the way, keep in mind that there is currently no Green Electoral District Association in Nickel Belt, and that Fred is campaigning with a team you can count on one hand, and with the finances only a little bigger than what you’re carrying in your own wallet right now!

We here in Sudbury are very proud of what Fred has accomplished, largely from just knocking on doors and talking to people. Way to go, Fred!

Here is a link to the Sudbury Star’s editorial:

Steve May, CEO Sudbury Federal Green Party Association

Registered Lobbyist for SNC Lavalin Nuclear Key Planner for Harper's Debate Team

2008-09-10T23:09:00.000-04:00

A very quick note to other bloggers out there. Could this be one of the reasons behind Stephen Harper’s position not to appear at a debate with Elizabeth May? The Globe and Mail is reporting today that Michael Coates, who has been working on behalf of Harper as his representative in planning the debates, is actually a lobbyist registered to lobby the PMO on behalf of a number of large corporations, including SNC Lavalin Nuclear, and the B.C. Lumber Trade Council.

Could it be that Ms. May and the Green Party’s message might actually run counter to the goals and objectives of a company like SNC Lavalin Nuclear, and that one of the main men on Harper’s team who represents a company like that, who was also instrumental in planning the debates, might have perhaps exerted some influence to keep the Greens out?

Of course, the NDP also wouldn’t be a friend of all of these companies either, but there has never been any question of excluding them from a televised debate. Elizabeth May, on the other hand, was a much easier target to keep silenced.

The Broadcast Consortium's decision to exclude Elizabeth May really does boggle the mind, when you realize that taxpayer money is shifted from the Federal Government to the Green Party (and the other major parties) based on the number of votes received in the last election. Essentially, we now have a situation where taxpayers are in part funding a message which they can not hear. Think there might be some vested interests out there outside of the Conservatives and NDP who don't want others to hear the publicly-funded Green Message?

Right now, I think it's too early to conclude anything on this, but I do believe there should be follow-up. Someone else in the party might want to do some more digging on Coate’s role in planning the debates, and his role with Bell, SNC Lavalin, etc. Here’s a link to the Globe and Mail’s article:

Steve May, CEO Sudbury Federal Green Party Association

A holistic approach to health in Sudbury. (Part 2)

2008-09-04T17:48:00.000-04:00

In Sudbury and throughout Canada we need a more holistic approach to health care, one which examines and assesses the whole person (something that cannot be done in a short 15 min visit to your doctor’s office because they have a patient overload). Part of this holistic approach would be to create a system that includes both Allopathic and Alternative/Natural medicine. Both forms of medicine work together, not against each other. The combination of these two valid and well-researched medical systems is known as Integrative Medicine. “It’s becoming increasingly evident that complementary and alternative medicine can play a role in better health.” (Mayo Clinic, Book of Alternative Medicine, 2007) This system would work together by providing a holistic approach to medical care by taking into consideration the whole person (body, mind, and soul). Not seeing the patient as a person with a symptom that needs to be treated but looking at the person as a whole and finding out why the person is ill and going back to the source of the imbalance. It is up to the Health care practitioner to find out the reason behind this discrepancy and not just to use a "band-aid" solution by prescribing pills to mask the symptoms. In other words: cure the disease instead of the symptoms. This should be the focus of our publicly funded healthcare system.

In an Integrative Medical System, Health Care Practitioners would use natural and gentler approaches to illness instead of using harsher and invasive approaches with side effects as the first step. For example, when one uses herbs there are usually less side effects due to the fact that the plant constituents are used synergistically and are in a natural form that the body is able to manage and absorb as apposed to pharmaceuticals which use only one active ingredient from a plant source or a variety of active ingredients from different plants that have been reproduced in a synthetic form thus making it harsher and unnatural in the body and harder on the body’s organs. Each herb will contain other constituents (active ingredients) that will reverse the side effects or severity of the main active ingredients; this is how they work together. The other constituents will also make the main active ingredients more effective (some herbs can contain up to a 1000 constituents in one single plant). This also explains why some studies done on herbs detect side effects while other studies do not. Most scientists will test the herb for its side effects and effectiveness in the same manner they would with a pharmaceutical by studying the one component or active ingredient (constituent), when this is done they are more likely to detect it as being ineffective in treatment or having severe side effects. Since the active ingredients (constituents) in an herbs work together as described above the herb therefore should be studied and tested in its natural form with all active ingredients being taken into effect, when studies like this are done the results are more accurate and show the real effects of the herb. Only when a patient's condition becomes worse or there is no improvement then the use of pharmaceuticals or surgery should be used. Should a person require immediate intervention then allopathic medicine would be used instead of Alternative medicine, as immediate results are needed to stabilize the patient i.e. when a person is having an analphaletic shock due to an allergy, Allopathic care is needed, as holistic care would not work fast enough in this emergency situation.

This system of medicine would also primarily focus on preventative medicine to prevent the above situations and save on health care dollars and long lines in the waiting rooms of Sudbury. By teaching their patients how to eat well, exercise and manage stress they would be saving billions of health care dollars on more expensive and invasive treatments such as surgery and chemotherapy as publicly-funded holistic approach to healthcare will decrease the need for these treatments.

Dana Clark

Organization Chair, Sudbury Federal Green Party Association

Secretary, Sudbury Green Party of Ontario Constituency Association.

A holistic approach to health in Sudbury. (Part 1)

2008-08-27T19:53:00.000-04:00

Our publicly funded health care system is a wonderful system, unfortunately it has a few flaws that need to be addressed. Currently our health care system focuses on treating symptoms as opposed to preventions and cures. For more than a decade there has been a doctor shortage in Sudbury and other parts of Canada. Currently we only have Allopathic Primary Practitioners (Medical Doctors) covered under OHIP; we do not have the option under OHIP to seek medical care from a Holistic Primary Practitioner (Naturopathic Doctor). We only have the choice of what Medical Practitioners are available (taking patients) and covered by OHIP, unless you are willing to pay a second time (remember you already paid your taxes for this service) to see an Alternative Practitioner! We also have no choice but to receive medical procedures that are covered by OHIP when other proven holistic methods are available but again not covered by OHIP. This is where some of our habits of treating instead of preventing & curing come from. Our current Government fails to find true solutions to these problems.

There is a solution that will address both of these major problems. There are approximately 118 Family Physicians in Sudbury (primary health care practitioners). What our government forgets and many people don’t realize is that we could add to these numbers and relieve Doctor’s patient loads and give people more choices. Naturopathic Doctors are trained just as well as Family Physicians: they are trained to be primary health care practitioners; and, they need 3 years of pre-med sciences at University, followed by an additional 4 years at an accredited school of Naturopathic Medicine and must continue their education in “Continuing Medical Education (CME)” on an ongoing basis or loose their license (Family Physicians don’t require continuing education to practice medicine).

As of 2007 Naturopathic Medicine is now transitioning from the Drugless Practitioners Act to be regulated under the Health Professionals Act. Although their methods may be different they still rely on modern science and have much of the same education as a family doctor. Yet they are still not covered by OHIP. Naturopathic doctors could take on patients who would prefer a more natural and gentler approach to their health care. Canadians who pay taxes to cover their health care shouldn’t be denied a choice. Currently in Sudbury there are 6 Naturopathic Doctors, in Ontario there are 753, in Canada there are 1353.

Naturopathic Doctors are not the only solution to our doctor shortage in the North. There are many other practitioners that are currently not covered by OHIP that could relieve the number of the patients in line at a clinic, doctor’s office or hospital. Chiropractors, Nutritionist/Dieticians, Optometrists, Dentists, Massage therapists, Acupuncturists and more. Although many of the above specialize in certain areas and are not primary practitioners they can still benefit Sudburians if they were covered by OHIP. A perfect example is a patient who has a sciatic nerve and has to have invasive surgery to correct the problem. Many surgeries for this same problem can be avoided by receiving Chiropractic treatment instead. Unfortunately, many people cannot afford to see a Chiropractor on an ongoing basis nor does their insurance cover the whole cost of treatment so their condition worsens and they have to go for surgery instead. Many people line up in clinics, and doctors offices to receive pain medication, much of which is addictive and hard on the liver for back pain and headaches. “Studies also suggest spinal manipulation may be effective for headache and other spine-related conditions, such as neck pain”(Mayo Clinic, Book of Alternative Medicine, 2007). By covering Chiropractic care under OHIP we can minimize the need for surgery, diminish the line-ups for pain meds and give patients, who have already paid for healthcare through their taxes, a choice.

Type II Diabetes can be managed and even cured with lifestyle changes especially dietary; although Doctors have some education in nutrition they are not experts. Diabetic patients should be seeing experts in this field but unfortunately the experts “Nutritionist/Dieticians” are not covered under OHIP therefore the Diabetic patient cannot seek the proper treatment and has to rely on the basic information their doctor may or may not have and may eventually become insulin dependent (something that could have been avoided by dietary changes and lifestyle changes). These are just a few examples.

To be Continued...

Dana Clark

Organzation Chair, Sudbury Federal Green Party Association

Secretary, Sudbury Green Part of Ontario Constituency Association.

Russia v. Georgia: The Case for Pursuing Conservation and Alternative Energy Resources

2008-08-13T20:43:00.001-04:00

I will leave to the reader the question of whether the recent hostilities in Georgia amounted to Russian "gross over-reaction" or signified a "measured response" on the part of Russia. At this time, almost a week after the hostilities in Georgia began, it does not matter much who was provoked and who fired the first shots. Reports are coming in of hundreds, maybe thousands, of innocent civilian lives lost in the break-away province of South Ossetia and in the rest of Georgia: civilians caught in the cross-fire of two nations which may have turned too quickly to their respective militaries to alter the fragile status quo.Today, there are reports that both Russia and Georgia are seeking an end to hostilities. For us here in Canada, we are left wondering just what was accomplished, and why this short, sharp conflict between a former super power and current US ally occurred in the first place.

Since the shooting started, many Canadians have been surprised to discover some interesting facts about Georgia, formerly a part of the USSR. Many did not know that Georgia, along with the former Soviet Republic of Ukraine, had petitioned to join NATO, and that Geogia has contributed forces to the US-led war in Iraq. Many others did not realize that within Georgia itself there exist two break-away areas, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which have largely been acting autonomously since Georgia itself broke away from the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.

And many Canadians also now realize that the only major energy pipelines to Europe from the oil and gas reach Caspian Sea area of Central Asia which does not traverse through Russia runs, in part, through Georgia. All other pipelines to Europe are controlled by Gazprom, the Russian state gas monopoly, up until recently headed by Russian President Dmitri Mendvedev.

And just as Canadians questioned the real reasons behind the U.S. led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, many are now wondering whether the recent Russian action against Georgia is being driven by its desire to control oil and gas resources and their distribution systems. Certainly, in the recent past, Russia has used control of the oil and gas tap as a way of making political points with nations for which it has been contracted to supply energy to. It does not matter whether Russia’s primary objective is outright control of the Georgian pipelines, or simply the destabilization of the economic climate needed for investors to continue backing the pipelines, this conflict will bring grief to Georgia and solidify Russia’s position in Europe as an energy resource powerhouse.

We continue to permit these illegal wars over energy resources because our trusted international bodies are proving incapable of mounting anything in the way of opposition to them, given the very structure of the bodies themselves. As a vivid example, the United Nations Security Council could do little to prevent the invasion of Iraq, or the recent invasion of Georgia, because the United States and Russia hold vetos on the Council. The ineffectiveness of this international body, charged with keeping peace in the world, is remarkable.

Our continued and increasing dependence on oil and natural gas to fuel our economies with the knowledge that we are running out of these non-renewable resources is also remarkable, given that we have been aware for several decades that these resources would one day run dry, or start to become so expensive to extract, it might not be worth the effort. Yet we have largely continued to move forward with our dependence on oil and gas for our electricity and heating needs. The recent conflict in Georgia points quite clearly to the need for effective energy conservation programs and alternative energy generation. And to the need that we ourselves acknowledge that the society we have built has to change its wasteful ways. Without change, we can expect to endure ever more death and destruction throughout the world, along with the continued weakening of our international system.

Steve May CEO, Sudbury Federal Green Party Association

Welcome

2008-08-05T15:20:00.000-04:00

As President of the Sudbury Green Party of Ontario Constituency Association I would like to welcome you to the Green Party, Sudbury blog. Hopefully some of the insight and views you will be reading here will create incentive to get involved with the Green Party.

Currently there may be an upcoming Federal election and not only are the local federal greens preparing but so are the provincial greens. Part of being “green” is helping other greens out. Whether this includes the Green Party or local green movements. I am proud to say the Sudbury Green Party of Ontario Constituency Association since it has become an official association has participated in the Sudbury Earth Day celebration along with the Sudbury Federal Green Party Association. We handed out information not only about our party but about greenwashing & how eating healthy is not only good for your body but also for the environment. We participated in the Roxbourough Winter Walkathon & recently in the Northern Lights Festival. We plan on participating in other “green” events along with other events that need our support, as you will soon find out we are not a one policy party. In order to do this we need more “green” people helping out. So get involved by either donating your time, donating to the federal green Candidate’s campaign funds, showing your support by wearing a Green Party T-shirt or button, or contacting us for a lawn sign during the next election.

To find out when the Sudbury Green Party of Ontario Constituency Association or the Sudbury Federal Green Party Association are having meeting please check out http://www.greenpartysudbury.ca/ .

Leo Anger, President of the Sudbury Green Party of Ontario Constituency Association

Welcome

2008-08-05T13:32:00.000-04:00

On behalf of the Sudbury Federal Green Party Association and the Green Party of Canada, I'd like to welcome you to the Sudbury Green Party's website, and to this, the Executive Blog. It's an exciting time to be involved in the Green Party federally, with three by-elections having just been called, and with talk of a general federal election taking place this fall. Locally, our Party continues to build upon our successes in the community, as we reach out to like-minded Sudburians.

There's a lot that you can do to help us, of course. With regards to the by-elections, Sudbury Green Party members are currently undertaking phone canvassing, calling into the Guelph and Ville Marie ridings on behalf of the Green candidates there. When the general election is called, of course, we'll be in need of finding volunteers who can give some time to assist with electing a Green candidate here in Sudbury. And if you can't volunteer, there are still ways of helping out: perhaps you can take a lawn sign, or make a contribution to our candidate's campaign.

Or perhaps you'd like to become involved with ogranizational aspects of the Party locally. We're always looking for people who are able to devote time and energy to planning and participating in local events. Or maybe you'd like to chat about policy with others who share your views! There's a lot of ways of getting involved.And since you're reading this online, I'm going to suggest that the best way to start becoming involved is to send us an email. Tell us a little bit about yourself, and what it is that you'd like to become involved in. One of our friendly Executive members will be in touch with you right away!

In the meantime, do check back here every now and then, or join the Green Party - Sudbury group on Facebook to receive notices about upcoming events.If you're not ready to make a committment of any sort at this time, that's fine as well. Just remember to get out and vote on election day, for whatever candidate you wish to support!

Steve May CEO, Sudbury Federal Green Party Association