-Chris Tindal

Use the links on the left to find out who’s endorsing Chris, watch some videos, request a sign, and more. The links and search box on the right let you browse Chris’ over 300 blog posts from the last two years to get to know him better and find out where he stands on various issues. (The most recent blog posts are below.) If at any point you get lost or have a question, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Last June our Member of Parliament, the Hon. Bill Graham, stood in the House of Commons to announce his resignation. As a result, a by-election has been called for March 17th, St. Patrick’s Day, in Toronto Centre. In his final address to Parliament, Mr. Graham said, “[the] people of my riding, I hope, will understand why I believe it is important that they be represented by a future voice rather than someone from the past.” I couldn’t agree more.

We are at an exciting time of opportunity for our city, our country, and our planet. It’s up to us, as citizens, to seize that opportunity. I’m running to be your Member of Parliament because I believe it’s time for government to do better, to aspire towards greater goals, and to achieve them with pragmatic and innovative ideas. I’m running as the Green Party of Canada’s candidate because I know Greens have the best plan for our country’s economy, for our environment, and for Toronto.

I’ve heard from many of you who have voted Liberal in the past that you aren’t comfortable doing so this time around. You know that even though someone has “experience,” it doesn’t always mean they have the right kind of experience. If that sounds like you, you’re not alone. Many current and former Liberals are supporting the Green Party and my campaign, including Pierre Trudeau’s former Director of Communications Jim McDonald.

I’ve heard from many of you who have voted Conservative, but feel like your party has left you. You know that the firing of your duly nominated local Conservative candidate because he was too focused on social and urban issues sends a strong message that this Reform/Alliance/Conservative party has not only turned its back on cities, but has turned its back on all Progressive Conservatives. If that sounds like you, you’re not alone. Many current and former Progressive Conservatives are supporting my campaign, including former provincial Cabinet Minister Phil Gillies.

I’ve heard from many of you who have voted NDP, but are discouraged by their overly-partisan and negative tone, and by their tendency to be long on grievances and short on vision. If that sounds like you, you’re not alone. Many current and former New Democrats are supporting my campaign, including Cameron Miller, who worked directly with Jack Layton during his leadership campaign and is the past president of the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association.

These individuals and many others are able to come together for this cause for two reasons. One, because the Green Party’s vision for Canada transcends old-line politics, and presents a new proposition for voters tired by the left/right battles of the past. And two, because this by-election represents a unique opportunity.

We, the citizens of Toronto Centre, have the opportunity to send a strong message for change in politics. We have the opportunity to demand that our politicians offer real
vision and realistic solutions. And we have the opportunity to make history. I’m asking for your support in this by-election so that we can create that change together. I’m asking you to vote for a future voice, rather than for somebody—or some party—from the past.

Please contact me to let me know your thoughts on the important issues in this campaign, and browse this website to learn more about myself, my party, and the exciting path ahead.

Chris Tindal

ps. Successful election campaigns are not possible without your support. If you believe in what we’re doing, please request a sign, volunteer, or donate. Generous tax credits are available so the cost to you is minimal.

And yet, you’d think that with environmentalists, the banks, economists, and others on board, there would be at least one opposition party that was able to creditably take the government to task for so quickly throwing out this report, right? Unfortunately, for reasons I’m not quite able to grasp, not a single party in the House of Commons had the (wisdom? courage? political foresight?) to call for what is increasingly acknowledged as necessary and urgent.

Only the Green Party supports a carbon tax, which we would use to reduce taxes on income and investment. It’s incorporated in our detailed climate plan released last summer, and has been a core policy position for longer than I’ve been involved. Like so much of our vision for Canada, it is an idea whose time has come.

It’s reasons like this (not to mention this) that not only must Elizabeth May be in the leaders’ debate during the next general election, but we need Green MPs in Parliament as soon as possible. According to a poll released two days ago, most Canadians agree, and would like to see a Parliament with 25 Green MPs. (Not surprising, since under a fair voting system that’s around what our current level of support would produce.)

The Toronto Centre by-election represents an opportunity to realize that desire. A strong finish will (hopefully) scare the other parties into smartening up. A win would be historic, and break the old-line monopoly in Ottawa. It would mean ideas whose time has come would finally be taken seriously and begin to be implemented. And it wouldn’t be a moment too soon.

So I was a little surprised to see that Bob Rae posted the exact same video to his site one day after I did, with the directive to “[reflect] on what it means for Canada.” It’s surprising because I’m not sure why he’d want to draw attention to the fact that new ideas beat out experience, that future thinking beat a politician from the past, that the candidate who everyone was sure was going to win is now, well…

Then again, maybe, like me, he just got inspired and didn’t give it much thought.

It’s also a good day to remember that there are still tens of thousands of people in Toronto, including thousands of children, who are either homeless or too close for comfort. In a city and country as wealthy as ours, there’s no excuse for that.

Canadians rightly pride ourselves on our universal health care, and in recent years have considered introducing additional “universals,” including universal child care. It’s time to add universal housing to the list of things that make us proud as a nation.

And we can achieve universal housing throughout Canada. Not only can we afford it, but when full-cost accounting is applied it would cost government even less than the status quo. (As one simple example, one of my campaign volunteers works in a hospital emergency room where homeless people routinely come in complaining of some ailment. After a few hours the hospital staff realize that all the individual wanted was food. That’s a very expensive sandwich.)

There are a number of specific actions that Green MPs would take. In short, the federal government needs to provide more funding for affordable housing, and that funding needs to be used in a more creative and effective way. We don’t need to look far for positive examples. Here in Toronto Centre we have the St. Lawrence area, which Wikipedia calls “the model for the design and planning of new urban communities across North America.” Its successful mixture of market and subsidized housing has been duplicated around the world, yet we haven’t duplicated it in our own city.

Obviously, homelessness is also tightly linked to poverty, and the connections run both ways. Providing housing helps to eliminate poverty by giving individuals a stable base from which to seek employment and build confidence. We must simultaneously use new and realistic solutions to tackle poverty directly with a view to its elimination.

We can’t allow the lack of affordable housing in Toronto and other Canadian cities to continue. It’s time to move forward.

There is, however, an ongoing debate about individual versus collective action. In other words, how much of a difference can we as individuals really make, and how much change must come from government and business.

Obviously action at all levels is critical, and the individual changes we make to our lives do make a difference. That being said, I believe there is an increasing need for strong leadership at the government level. During the last campaign I was asked by a young boy why we need “politics.” I answered that government, at its best, allows us to do things together that we would otherwise be unable to do. Big things. Things that are larger than you or me, but not larger than the two or more of us combined. The challenges we face are large, and require this level of cooperation.

This year, since we’re in a by-election campaign, I suggest you use your vote on March 17th to help achieve your grander New Year’s resolutions. Here are some ideas for resolutions for Canada:

1. Exercise more of a positive influence on the international stage. Rebuild our reputation as a global leader, instead of a global saboteur.
2. Enjoy life more by making sure we measure genuine progress.
3. Quit drinking 4 barrels of water for ever 1 barrel of oil extracted from the tar sands.
4. Quit smoking whatever it is the Conservatives are smoking that makes them believe the obviously false idea that action on the environment can’t also be positive for the economy.
5. Lose weight at the federal level, and transfer more resources and authority to cities and communities.

Any other good ones I missed?

Interestingly, it wasn’t until we switched to Radio Canada (en français) approaching Ottawa that we heard the first reports of inevitable conspiracy theories involving various aspects of the government and/or military. Feeding that distrust is the ever-changing explanation of how, exactly, Bhutto was killed. First there was a shooter and a bomber. Then just one person, who was both the shooter and the bomber, and shot her in the neck and head. Then a report from the hospital said that she hadn’t been shot, but instead had been hit with a piece of shrapnel from the explosion. Now, the government is saying that she wasn’t shot or hit with shrapnel, but instead hit her head on her car’s sunroof. (Eye witnesses who were in the car have called this latest explanation a “pack of lies.”)

After a failed assassination attempt in October of this year, Bhutto gave an interview calling for an independent international investigation to uncover the truth surrounding the attack. Today, that request resonates as a request from the grave. Canada should do everything it can to advocate for and assist with such an investigation. Only the truth can lead to the conditions needed for peace, stability, and democracy.

Around the same time, Bhutto was asked by a CBC reporter what she thought of Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan, given the close relationship between the Afghan Taliban, the Pakistani “neo-Taliban” and al-Qaeda. She was diplomatic in her answer, saying that while she understood it was hard for Canada to suffer the casualties and sacrifices of serving in Afghanistan, it was necessary to ensure that the country didn’t fall back into the hands of those who would oppress human rights and oppose moves towards democracy. It helps to illustrate why this obsession that the parties of the past have with our withdrawal date from Afghanistan misses the point. The NDP would have us withdraw our troops right away, likely leaving a civil war in our wake. The Liberals propose the same thing, but would wait a year to do it. The Conservatives refuse to propose anything of substance and instead resort to shameful partisanship and perverse patriotism.

What’s needed, instead, is a rebalancing of the mission. A recognition that there is no military solution to George Bush’s “war on terror,” and that the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan cannot succeed since it is viewed as a “clash of civilizations,” along with a realization that the people of Afghanistan do need and will continue to need our help rebuilding critical infrastructure, promoting regional diplomacy, development assistance and the training of the Afghan national army and police force. I’m proud to be associated with the Green Party’s sensible, balanced, and realistic approach towards building peace in Afghanistan.

Whether or not hardcore partisans of the elected parties can imagine it – and I’ve been with the New Democrats most of my thirty years of voting – I like the Greens’ self-styling as “fiscally responsible, socially progressive”. That’s not inconsistent with the evolution of the federal New Democrats and yet I’m feeling like I want to be part of something new.

I’ll be voting Green in Toronto Centre, for Chris Tindal, the party’s Democratic Reform Advocate…My decision to align myself with The Green Party of Canada is one which has grown on me and I have gone from being a card-carrying New Democrat of those thirty-odd years to an electronic card-carrying member of the Greens. (With most Canadians not bothering to even join a party, I admit to being an all-or-nothing sort of guy.)

Kenn joins a growing number of endorsers from across the old political spectrum, including a former Tory (meaning Progressive Conservative) provincial cabinet minister and a former director of communications for Pierre Trudeau. Plus, according to a poll done this week the Green Party is at 14% in Toronto, just one point behind the NDP. Given what’s been going on with the Conservatives in this riding, I wouldn’t be shocked if we’re actually ahead of them here, which would put us one point behind second place. And hey, we’re just getting started. It’s going to be an exciting campaign.

Isolated Canada grudgingly accepts Bali deal

GEOFFREY YORK
December 15, 2007 at 11:45 AM EST

NUSA DUA, Indonesia — After a failed attempt to block an agreement, Canada found itself isolated at the Bali conference Saturday and grudgingly accepted a new accord to set a target of 25 to 40 per cent for cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions by wealthy countries by the end of the next decade.

Environment Minister John Baird spoke against the ambitious target, but found himself virtually alone. Only Russia supported him – so he withdrew his objection, sparking a lengthy burst of applause from other countries.

A CP story has an amusing description of how, after attempting to sabotage the whole conference, John Baird then had the audacity to complain that the agreement didn’t go far enough. From the article: “Canada helped gut some of the substance from Saturday’s deal and then expressed regret when the final agreement was ultimately watered down even more than it had hoped.”

How positive this all is, and where we should go from here, depends on your perspective. Here are three different takes, the first from Elizabeth May:

The world community has launched the negotiations originally set out in Montreal in 2005 against a specific deadline. Agreement must be reached by the COP in Copenhagen in 2009. The so-called Bali roadmap covers agreements reached within the two binding legal mechanisms: The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (signed and ratified by Canada in 1992) and the Kyoto Protocol, which was negotiated within the UNFCCC.

Until the 11th Hour (or actually the 11th Hour into over-time), the U.S. blocked progress on the UN FCCC side, while Canada blocked progress on the Kyoto Protocol side. (Since the US has not ratified Kyoto, with the change in Canadian government we are now able to do the U.S.’s dirty work for them.)

…We have a long way to go to get a solid, legally binding treaty ready by 2009 to avoid going past the point of no return in climate impacts. We now have a hope of getting there. By 2009 Bush will be gone. We must all re-double efforts to ensure that Mr. Harper joins his anti-Kyoto buddies, Australia’s John Howard and U.S. President George Bush in happy retirement well before Copenhagen!

George Monbiot is concerned that we’re actually moving backwards:

The destructive power of the US delegation is not the only thing that hasn’t changed. After the Kyoto Protocol was agreed, the British environment secretary, John Prescott, announced that “this is a truly historic deal which will help curb the problems of climate change. For the first time it commits developed countries to make legally binding cuts in their emissions.”(4) Ten years later the current environment secretary, Hilary Benn, told us that “this is an historic breakthrough and a huge step forward. For the first time ever all the world’s nations have agreed to negotiate on a deal to tackle dangerous climate change.”(5) Do these people have a chip inserted?

And David Reevely is ready to throw up his hands:

I say screw it. We should stop going. Stop sending words to do the work of deeds. Instead, let’s recognize that reducing greenhouse-gas emissions makes sense not only on its own account, but because it means economic improvements (in the name of efficiency) and more tangible environmental improvements at the same time. Less spewing means less wasting means more money in our pockets. We can even find ways to support investments in efficiencies abroad without having to necessarily play by the Kyoto Accord’s Clean Development Mechanism.

Do not take this as an endorsement of the Harper government’s foolishness, by the way. Canada’s Environment Minister John Baird obviously went to Bali to be a spoiler and he mostly failed and was embarrassed and that’s good. I do believe he didn’t even want to send words, let alone deeds; in the case of Canada’s current government, having to cough up some words was progress.

But for serious people, attending meetings is not a substitute for getting on with the job. That’s all.

I disagree with David that we can afford to give up on working within an international framework, since climate change is an international problem. However, I think he’s completely right in his sense of urgency and his desire for Canada to start taking a leadership role in the world. And that we need fewer words, and more deeds.

Of course, Elizabeth’s also right about the importance of getting rid of the Harper government as quickly as possible, and that Bali can and should be used as a springboard to move forward with positive action. The Conservatives are now in the ridiculous position of having agreed to emissions reduction targets that they claim are impossible to achieve, which means they have no credibility from any angle. We need MPs with a solid plan to reduce emissions while strengthening the economy and safeguarding our quality of life. And soon.