Monthly Archives: September 2007

Green Party A Hit, Green Candidate Hit By Car

green party,

I was away for the weekend without much access to the internet, and it’s taken me until now to clear out the 1000+ emails and unread blog posts I accumulated. Now I feel like there’s so much backlogged information to talk about I don’t even know where to start, so I’m going to just get it all out of my system in one go. But read on, it’s good stuff.

1. Toronto Centre Green Party of Ontario candidate Mike McLean was hit by a car. He’s OK, but I had to fill in for him at a debate. No word yet on whether it was a targeted assassination attempt or not. My guess? The car itself recognized Mike as a Green candidate and was asserting its instinct of self preservation.

2. After one week of campaigning, Thomas Walkom writes in The Toronto Star that “if I had to pick a winner for the week, it would be Frank de Jong’s Greens.”

3. Also in The Star, Ian Urquhart says that The Greens have hit a nerve, and provides a good outline of what we stand for and why voters are finding our platform so attractive (we’re currently the only party with any momentum in the polls).

4. Yesterday, Metro Morning had a good debate regarding the three options for dealing with faith-based school funding: a. keep the status quo (fund only the Catholics), b. fund all religions (Tory’s plan), or c. fund no religions, creating one public school system. Unfortunately, they failed to mention that there is a political party (the Greens) who support that third option, so the majority of Ontarians who agree with us are on their own to figure out there’s a party they can vote for.

5. Which, by the way, is a really important reason Frank de Jong should have been included in tomorrow night’s leaders’ debate. Without him there, important issues will not be raised.

6. So, since we weren’t invited to the leaders’ debate, we’re throwing our own. And, unlike the official leaders’ debates, everyone’s invited. It takes place tomorrow (Thursday) evening starting at 6pm at the Pantages Hotel. We’re going to reenact the debate live, with Frank adding his own responses. I’ll be playing the part of Dalton McGuinty. (Yes, seriously.) You can watch it live on gpo.ca.

7. In strange and slightly hilarious news, Eye Weekly has used my photo in a story that doesn’t actually mention me. WHAT?

TVO Battle Blog: MMP Winners

ontario referendum on mmp,

Crossposted to tvo.org. Today’s question: “Who has the most to gain if Mixed-Member Proportional representation goes forward?” (400 word limit)

For me, the most important thing to remember about the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) recommendation is that it was designed by people, not just politicians. 103 randomly-selected Ontarians worked for eight months on our behalf studying, consulting, and deliberating on which voting system is best for Ontario. They were not beholden to any political party or special interest—they were just everyday Ontarians trying to make the best decision they could. And in the end, by an overwhelming vote of 94-8, they decided that it’s time for change.

It’s also interesting to note that MMP is supported across the political spectrum, by Conservatives like Hugh Segal, Liberals like Carolyn Bennett, and New Democrats like Ed Broadbent. Therefore, we must conclude that the people most likely to benefit from this new system are voters themselves.

Here’s what I mean by that. Under MMP, we would each get two votes: one for a local candidate, and one for a party. So, we could decide to vote for a good candidate but not her party, or vice versa. In this way, MMP gives voters more choice. Then, the percentage of the vote each party wins determines how many seats they get, so that 10% of the vote would mean approximately 10% of the seats (unlike our current system). In this way, MMP produces fairer results. Finally, voters would be able to hold every party accountable or go to any party’s “list MPPs” with a request, since the fact that every vote counts forces parties to work hard for every vote in every region of the province. In this way, MMP provides for stronger representation.

Of course, no system is perfect. Opponents of MMP are quick to point out its flaws, conveniently ignoring all of the flaws with our current system (most notably that a party can, with less than 40% of the vote, get 60% of the seats and 100% of the power). They also ignore the fact that no group of people is more familiar with the advantages and flaws of both our current system and MMP than the Citizens’ Assembly that recommended the change.

What’s worse, some opponents of MMP resort to fear tactics and distortions, making claims about MMP that are not substantiated by any examples from countries that use the system (New Zealand, Germany, Scotland, and Wales). They do this because they know, as we learned from the Citizens’ Assembly process, that when Ontarians learn all of the facts about MMP, they overwhelmingly favour it to the status quo. October 10 is an exciting opportunity to make democracy better.

TVO Battle Blog: Religious School Funding

education

Crossposted to tvo.org. Today’s question: “An Ipsos-Reid survey released on September 10 reported that 62% of Ontarians are against religious school funding. Did John Tory make a mistake politically by promising to fund faith-based schools?” (400 word limit)

Currently, Ontario uses public money to fund the schools of one denomination of one religion (Catholicism) to the exclusion of all others. On two separate occasions the United Nations has censured Ontario for this clear discrimination on the basis of religion. There are historical reasons why this may have made sense back at the time of confederation, but surely we can agree today that the status quo is unfair and unacceptable.

Given that, I personally concluded several years ago that there were only two options: we must either fund all religious schools or none. And there, in a nutshell, we have the positions of the Conservatives and the Greens, respectively. The fact that the Liberal party and the NDP argue that our government should continue to discriminate on the basis of religion is beyond my comprehension (particularly the cynical Liberal position, which is to pretend to oppose the funding of religious schools, when what they’re actually opposing is the equal funding of all religions).

On this specific issue, therefore, I don’t have much of a desire to criticize the Tory position too strongly, since at least it advocates for fairness. I do not believe, however, that their solution is workable or acceptable to most Ontarians. The Liberals are at least right when they say that the money to fund religious schools would inevitably have to be diverted from public schools, and I’m not sure I want my government getting into the business of deciding which religions are “legitimate” enough to deserve school funding. Did John Tory “make a mistake politically?” Maybe. More importantly, I think he’s mistaken in thinking that his solution is the best for Ontario.

The Green Party position [pdf], on the other hand, is to create one publicly funded school system, where children of all religions and creeds can learn together, and from each other. It is the most realistic and sensible position, and enjoys the support of most Ontarians. We can do it without opening up the constitution, just as other provinces have already done. In addition to resolving the current inequality, this will also eliminate duplications in administration, facilities and transportation between the Catholic and public school boards, getting more out of every education dollar. For me, it’s the obvious choice.

Good News, Shameful News

aboriginal peoples

This just in: The United Nations has adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which “sets out the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples, as well as their rights to culture, identity, language, employment, health, education and other issues.” It also “prohibits discrimination against indigenous peoples and promotes their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them, and their right to remain distinct and to pursue their own visions of economic and social development.”

Canada joined Australia, New Zealand, and the United States as the only four countries to vote against the declaration, which was supported by another 143 nation states. Meanwhile, our Aboriginal peoples still have lower life expectancy, less access to education, a much lower average income, and a much higher suicide rate than the rest of the country. Heck, many Aboriginal communities still don’t even have potable water. Try and imagine our government allowing any village of white children to go without clean water for more than a few hours. Try and imagine them voting against the “rights to culture, language, employment, health, and education” of any other group and getting away with it.

Gah.