Category Archives: conservative party

Trade Shows Are Bad For The Economy

climate crisis, conservative party, green party

This past weekend was Toronto’s first Green Living Show at the Exhibition. I was there with the Green Parties of Canada and Ontario, which remarkably were the only political parties with a booth at the show. (Our booth was surrounded by car companies. Very funny, GLS. Very funny.)

There’s some great video on YouTube of Friday’s main events, namely Al Gore correctly identifying the new Harper/Baird plan as a fraud, and David Suzuki calling John Baird out on it.

On Saturday, Elizabeth May spoke to the show in what was the most passionate and well-received address I’ve ever seen her deliver. Joel Parkes gives an excellent account:

Wow! I just got back from the Green Living Show in Toronto where I saw Al Gore and many others speak but I have to say the speech that will stay with me the longest was Elizabeth May’s speech during the politician’s presentation part of the evening. She shared the stage with Jack layton who did his typical ‘happy Jack’ routine. Elizabeth then came out and spoke with such emotion and sincerity and passion that she got two standing ovations … Her voice breaking and rising to a shout, she demonstrated true passion like I have never seen in a political speech before. It was the ‘gloves off’ Elizabeth that I had wanted to see for awhile. She even apologised for getting so emotional but she said that Harper had brought out the maternal instincts in her and that she felt like a Mama grizzly protecting her cubs. Someone from the audience said ‘Don’t apologise”, and another person stood up and said ‘What you showed us is what we need’ … When the Stephane Dion video came on screen my friend and I just went home, we had seen the best that a politician could ever deliver. We, as a political party, are being guided by a truly motivating and passionate person.

Coming away from the show, however, there’s one important observation I haven’t heard anyone make. This event was a three-day trade show, an almost purely capitalist exercise. Exhibitors paid thousands of dollars to be in attendance, and were all there because they had something to sell. And yet, John Baird had the nerve to stand on the floor of the show itself and say again that action on the environment is bad for the economy.

How he’s not deafened by the constant cognitive dissonance ringing in his head, I’ll never understand. It’s almost impressive.

One Small Joke From Harper, One Giant Leap For Democracy

conservative party, democracy and good government

I want to expand a bit on the press release I posted yesterday. There are, specifically, two things I’d like to cover.

First, what’s going on in Ontario? Some of you likely know this, but over the past several months a group of randomly selected Ontarians (known as the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform) have been meeting to learn about and discuss different kinds of voting systems. They have now decided, by an overwhelming majority (more than 90%) and after much debate and deliberation, to recommend that Ontario change its voting system to one currently being used in Germany and New Zealand called Mixed Member Proportional (MMP). All of Ontario gets to vote “yes” or “no” to that proposal on October 10th, 2007, the same day as the next provincial election. I’ll expand on how MMP works, why it’s important, and what’s wrong with the arguments against it in separate posts to follow. Stay tuned.

Second, what’s all this talk of a $900,000 “private” public consultation underway by the Harper government? Well, the federal Conservative government decided they wanted to pretend to know how Canadians feel about the need for electoral reform. However, instead of asking a randomly selected group of Canadians in a transparent and non-biased process (as the government of Ontario did in creating the Citizens’ Assembly), they hired a think tank known for opposing electoral reform. From John Ibbitson:

To placate the NDP in this minority Parliament, the Conservatives promised in their Throne Speech to consider the question of electoral reform.

We now know how they plan to proceed. Those plans are hilarious.

Claiming they don’t want the process to be captured by special interests, the Conservatives have decided to employ what could be the very first closed-door public consultation.

They have hired pollster Conrad Winn to conduct a poll, and a think tank to convene a series of focus groups across the country. Citizens will be probed for their thoughts on the role of political parties in policy development, the decorum (read lack of it) in the House of Commons, Senate reform, civic engagement and, oh yes, electoral reform…

…The contract to conduct the focus groups went to the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a conservative think tank based in Winnipeg.

Three times in recent years, the Frontier Centre has published articles from contributors that argued strongly against [proportional representation] and in favour of retaining the status quo…

…Jack Layton [opposes the process]. “It’s a sham, and a stacked deck,” the NDP Leader said yesterday. “It really indicates that Stephen Harper is not serious about electoral reform.”

In this instance, Mr. Layton hits the mark. Mr. Harper has not the slightest interest in considering the question of electoral reform…

…This charade is an act of political subterfuge calculated to disguise inaction. It may furnish the government with some fabricated evidence that Canadians don’t want electoral reform (but, no doubt, do want Senate reform and more decorum in the House). But the conclusions will be as worthless as the evidence on which they’re based.

The government established an upper spending limit of $900,000 for this exercise. That’s not much, in the great scheme of things, but every single penny of it is wasted.

So, that’s what the heck Elizabeth and I were talking about in the release, in case you wanted that background.

I love Ibbitson’s use of the word “hilarious.” Sometimes, he seems to be saying, you just have to laugh.

No Wonder The Old Guard Is Mad

conservative party, democracy and good government, green party, ndp

I’ve rarely (well, actually, never) used this blog to post someone else’s column in its entirety or without much comment, but Susan Riley in The Ottawa Citizen summed up this whole “Red Green Show” business so well that it should be required reading for anyone concerned. (For my thoughts on the matter, see last Friday’s post.) Please take a moment to read Susan’s take below (presented without block-quotes for easier reading).

Hilarious Update (April 20, 2007): The NDP just quoted from this column in their e-newsletter as if it was meant as an endorsement.

Grit-Green pact rattles
Susan Riley, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Monday, April 16, 2007

‘Flaky” was the verdict of one nameless senior Liberal, commenting on the agreement between Elizabeth May and Stephane Dion not to run candidates against one another in their own ridings.

“Bizarre,” “preposterous”, said some pundits. Others smelled a plot: the real end game here is not saving the planet, as May and Dion insist, but squeezing out the New Democrats to the electoral advantage of the Greens and Liberals.

Jack Layton, with trademark piety, expressed disappointment that May has climbed into “the muck” with the Liberals. “If she wants to be a Liberal, why doesn’t she just run for the Liberals?” sniffed his former aide, Jamey Heath. For the Conservatives, the deal is further evidence — along with the Ottawa Senators’ second-game loss and this month’s miserable weather, presumably — that Dion is a “weak leader.”

Pay them no mind, Ms. May. These are the delusional mutterings of a dying cult. These are the custodians of politics as it always has been: stupidly partisan, pathologically afraid of innovation, mean-spirited and self-interested. Faced with a bold gesture — particularly a gesture motivated by idealism — they are, naturally, frightened and confused. But only for a moment. Too soon they fall back into the cynicism that sustains their tired, increasingly-exclusive little club.

It would never occur to their world-weary critics that May and Dion might be telling the simple truth: They both believe climate change is not just one issue among many, but the most serious facing humanity. In the face of so dire a threat, the old rivalries, even political labels, become secondary.

In that context, it makes perfect sense for Dion to want May — one of Canada’s most experienced and articulate environmentalists — in the Commons, particularly if the alternative is the likable, but definitely not carbon-neutral, Peter MacKay. It is also reasonable that May would prefer Dion’s green vision — the new, tougher one he unveiled some weeks ago — to Stephen Harper’s. Full details of the Tory plan won’t be disclosed for a few days, but nothing suggests it will be close to adequate.

Yes, Paul Martin did little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions when he had the chance (now there was a weak leader), and Dion was his environment minister. But Dion is the boss now, voters have tuned in, and, despite his shortcomings as a performer, Dion has endorsed a plan that even Layton concedes is serious.

In fact, New Democrats, Liberals and the Bloc teamed up to pass a revamped clean air bill that incorporates Dion’s new plan, bolstered by measures promoted by the NDP and Bloc. It was a rare example of the co-operation a minority Parliament is supposed to foster and much credit belongs to the NDP’s inspired environment critic, MP Nathan Cullen.

So why didn’t May pursue an alliance with Layton, whose green credentials go back farther than Dion’s, whose environmental policy has long been more progressive?

Well, she tried. She says she phoned Layton a number of times, but got no response. So she called an old friend, Stephen Lewis, to see if he would intervene. Layton has characterized this as “backroom wheeling and dealing,” and accuses May of betraying her own high standards. As for his private meetings with Harper last fall (a relationship that has since cooled?) that was a noble attempt at co-operating in the public interest, of course — a distinction that may escape outsiders.

“What the hell is wrong with Jack Layton that he can’t answer a phone call?” May retorts, when asked. “I don’t understand this. He talks to Harper all the time. Surely, the shared values are much closer between the NDP and Greens.”

Layton, however, has a history, a venerable institution and a fragile footing in the polls to defend — not just a climate change plan. The Greens are competitors as much as allies. As for May, if her goal is electing a green government (and it is), cold calculation comes into play: Dion is more likely to become prime minister than Layton.

Not that this is very likely, say the experts. Dion is said to be the biggest loser this week — for admitting he needs May to bolster his green reputation, for forfeiting his party’s claim to national status. This is nonsense — except for May and Dion’s ridings, both parties will run candidates across the country — but it is widely- accepted nonsense.

May will have trouble beating MacKay, no matter what. But she really is doing politics differently, not just claiming to. She is fearless and Dion isn’t weak. No wonder the old guard is closing ranks against them.

A Made In Canada Shame

aboriginal peoples, conservative party, social justice

There has been, of course, a lot of noise and criticism of the Harper government’s shameful betrayal of Canada’s commitment to the Kyoto accord, citing preference for a “made in Canada” solution. Less attention has been given, however, to another “K” accord that represents a possibly even more shameful made-in-Canada betrayal. From the day Stephen Harper’s government was elected with a mere 36.3% of the vote, despite some feeble public relations exercises to the contrary, the Kelowna Accord never had a chance.

Signed by Paul Martin in what he didn’t realize was the twilight of his government’s life, the Kelowna Accord represented a historic agreement between the Government of Canada and Aboriginal peoples that sought to “improve the education, employment, and living conditions” for Canada’s natives. Two Conservative budgets and a private member’s bill vote later, the agreement is effectively dead. Harper apparently didn’t consider it a priority, and we know how he feels about priorities.

Adding to the disgrace (regular readers will note that “disgrace” and “shameful” are not words I use often or take lightly) this week was Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice, who is refusing to apologize for native residential schools, again despite a written commitment from the previous government.

Some quick background. Starting in 1874, native children were forcibly removed from their homes by the RCMP and taken to these schools. They were not allowed to speak their own language, even amongst each other. They didn’t see their parents for months. Many were physically and sexually abused. A 1909 report found that the mortality rate at residential schools in Western Canada was 35%-60% within five years. The explicitly stated goal of these schools was the assimilation of native society into European culture. And the last school did not close until 1996.

I happened to visit the site of a former residential school this past weekend. Keeping the above in mind as we drove down the tree-lined driveway towards a grandly intimidating building at its termination was, shall we say, chilling. Keeping the above in mind while listening to Jim Prentice explain that Canada has nothing to apologize for because “the underlying objective [of residential schools] had been to try and provide an education to aboriginal children,” was, quite literally, infuriating.

Let’s not mince words. Either Prentice is shockingly ignorant of history or he is defending what were racist policies designed to eradicate Canada’s first nations through forced assimilation. Unfortunately, there’s no evidence pointing towards ignorance.

An apology would be only a modest first step in the right direction, and this government is walking the other way.