Chris Tindal

Blog Has Moved -- Update Your Feeds

2007-01-05T00:08:00.000-05:00

I'm moving my blog to WordPress. Blogger's been buggy recently, and WordPress has some additional features. The new blog is located at http://www.christindal.ca/.

If you follow my blog via RSS/Atom feed, please visit the new site and resubscribe, as the feed location has changed. Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience.

Ministering to the Environment

2007-01-04T13:12:00.000-05:00

The Toronto Star reports that John Baird is your new federal minister of the environment. You might think this decision would be of huge importance to me, but I'm finding it hard to react. I want to be optimistic, but I don't see how this will change anything. I hope I'm proven wrong.

For one, Rona Ambrose never had a chance. Initially, she wasn't even supposed to be good at her job. The PMO didn't consider it a priority to maintain our life support systems. Then, when it became clear to him that environment = votes, Harper took over the file and stopped letting Ambrose speak. My first hope for Baird is that he'll be allowed to do his job.

Defining the nature of his job is the next big challenge. The Conservative government is yet to acknowledge the obvious fact that addressing the climate crisis is priority number one, but they'll probably have to. Then, they, like the rest of us, will have graduated from if to how. That's the tricky bit, because as the UN's Millennium Ecosystem Assessment explained, the climate crisis did not develop in isolation from other problems, nor can it be solved in isolation.

For government, that means two things. First, it means that climate change cannot be addressed unless we also address other environmental problems, including toxicity, over-fishing, air pollution, access to water, etc. Second, it means that much of what has to be done falls under the jurisdiction of other departments, including the ministries of...well, I was about to list them, but I would have had to list almost every single one. (Not to mention the over-arching challenges of addressing cancerous economic growth and destructive cultural assumptions.)

So that's why I don't think this shuffle will matter much one way or the other. There's a joke that the Green Party wouldn't even have a minister of the environment if we were in government, since we'd take our species' survival -- as opposed to our political survival -- into account when making all decisions. (I know, we're radicals.) And besides, to quote Roy MacGregor, this isn't about the minister of the environment. "This is about Canada, and the rest of the world, ministering to the environment."

Poisoning Children and Politicians

2007-01-03T16:13:00.000-05:00

While scrutinizing for Elizabeth May in London North Centre two months ago, I had an interesting conversation with a Conservative volunteer. She complained to me how outrageous it is for governments to be outlawing pesticides, citing that mainstay of schoolyard arguments that "it's a free country."

The problem is, of course, that when you define freedom that liberally (hehe) and approach it in such an ideological way, you back yourself into impossible corners. (Witness Donald Rumsfeld's famous observation that "Free people are free to...commit crimes and do bad things.") I asked the Conservative volunteer if she would agree that, even though it's a free country (whatever that means), the government would be within their rights to, say, prevent people from putting poison in children's food. (She did.) I then explained to her the process by which toxins like pesticides work their way up the food chain, bioaccumulating and becoming more potent at each level, until ultimately they show up in mothers' breast milk.

At this point, she uncomfortably changed the subject. I don't remember what to, but I'm pretty sure it had something to do with "liberal corruption."

I was reminded of that by two main news stories today, which report that some children's necklaces have been recalled due to lead poising risk, and that politicians are even more toxic than humans. Er, I mean, more than other humans. (Apparently, Jack Layton is particularly fire retardant.)

The Globe and Mail reports that the testing, done on Jack Layton, Environment Minister Rona Ambrose, and Liberal environment critic John Godfrey, "found a bewildering cocktail of contaminants...[that] have been found to cause cancer, disrupt normal hormone function, and lead to birth defects," including DDT, which has been banned for decades but will continue to circulate in the environment for decades to come.

The politicians had between 49 and 55 pollutants in their bodies, slightly more than what most Canadians are carrying around. Most upsetting for me is that, according to Rick Smith, the executive director of Environmental Defence who did the study, the politicians "were surprised as heck by the results." They shouldn't be. This is neither news nor new. I wonder if Rick had to resist an urge to slap them.

Regardless, I just wanted to take this opportunity to say, on record, that I don't think we should be poisoning children, or, heck, even politicians. I know, I know, it's a controversial position, but I think it's important to take a principled stand on this one, public opinion be damned. In fact, a well-known Green Party member once suggested to me that we use the following campaign slogan: "The Green Party: We don't want to poison your kids." Catchy, ain't it?

New Year's Resolutions

2006-12-29T10:45:00.000-05:00

Today's Metro Morning asked people to call in with their new year's resolutions for the city of Toronto, which were then commented on by guest Glen Murray. They only had time for three callers (unless I missed the beginning), and their resolutions were:

Close Bay Street to private vehicles.
Increase the number of recycling options.
More affordable housing.

Based on these calls, I will now conclude that if an election were held tomorrow, I'd get 66.6% of the vote and Michael Shapcott would get the other 33.3%. (Note: not a scientific poll.)

The question got me thinking though, and I decided to create my own top ten environmental new year's resolutions for anyone wondering what they can do. The catch is that these kinds of lists are already everywhere, and I didn't want to be boring. So, things like "drive less, replace your light bulbs, and recycle" didn't make the cut. I'm assuming you already know that. These resolutions also ask a little bit more of you. Sorry about that.

Here, off the top of my head, are ten other things you may or may not have thought of or already be doing.

Eat less meat. We already eat too much for our health anyway, and meat is a very inefficient (albeit admittedly delicious) way of producing food energy. It takes more resources (food, land, water, etc) to produce meat than it does to eat lower on the food chain.
Eat more locally. The average meal travels further than it needs to, which contributes to climate change, damages local economies, and generally makes your food less yummy.
Eat more organically. (Yes, I did skip breakfast.) Did you know that agribusiness uses petroleum and natural gas-based fertilizers and pesticides? And that it's only because of this infusion of oil that we're able to grow as much food as we do? And that oil production will likely peak sometime between last year and ten or twenty years from now? Because I didn't know that until a few years ago, and it's a pretty big deal that we should all be aware of. We are, in effect, "eating oil," in that much of the food we grow wouldn't have been possible otherwise. Buy foods that avoid the use of artificial fertilizers.
Take transit less. I actually got this tip from the now defunct One Tonne Challenge (this link is pretty funny and demonstrative), which advised me that since I don't drive very much, and since even public transit uses energy, biking and walking would further reduce my carbon emissions. Also, biking is awesome.
Start a garden. This relates to #2. If you've got a back yard, this should be fairly simple. If you live in an apartment building or condo, you've got a little more work to do, but it's still possible.
Buy less. My brother is returning from a trip to Kenya today, and he's assured me that the impoverished Kenyans he met are, on average, happier and more life-loving than us wealthy Canadians. Almost everything we buy ends up in the garbage eventually anyway. The first and most forgotten R (of the three R's) is the most important.
Produce some of your own power. If wind or solar (either passive or active) work where you live, consider getting them installed. If not, maybe you have a geothermal option. If you live in a condo this isn't impossible, but obviously you'll have to either talk your board into it or get elected to the board yourself.
Buy power from Bullfrog. Easier than #7, as they've already done the legwork.
Reduce your overall footprint. Using this ecological footprint calculator may give you some insight into what sorts of actions have the greatest effect.
Add your own tip by commenting on this page. (Note: Blogger comments have been buggy recently, but they're still being saved. Even if it says "0 Comments" below, clicking on that link may reveal that there actually are comments.)

Hope that's been helpful and/or interesting, and, of course, not too preachy. If not, that's what tip number ten is for.

Bush Melting Faster Than Harper, Slower Than Arctic

2006-12-28T15:06:00.000-05:00

I'm back in Toronto after a Christmas-family-tour. One stop was to visit my Gomma and Pappa (the names us grandkids call my dad's parents for reasons that have never been clear to me), who gave me some new clippings. One was all about polar bears, and highlighted the fact that over the past few decades the thickness of the ice in the arctic circle has thinned by 40%.

I read a lot of statistics and, recently, I've just been letting them wash over me like noise. Otherwise, they become overwhelming and even debilitating. My Pappa's disbelief, however, caused this one to stand out. Actually, you might describe his reaction as outraged. I was somewhat surprised to hear this man in his 80s demand to know why SUVs aren't illegal. He kept asking me to write a letter to the Globe and Mail, "telling Canadians to wake up."

I tried to comfort him with the good news that, in fact, we now see daily stories and op-ed pieces about the climate crisis. Exactly one year ago, I told him, I was in an election campaign where I felt like I still needed to convince people that climate change was real. If we had another election campaign today (or, say, in March), I'd be able to assume that most people recognize the threat and move on to advocating for specific solutions. That's a huge step forward, I argued. Pappa remained unsatisfied that we're moving quickly enough.

Today's announcement by U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne that he agrees with my Pappa and believes polar bears are "threatened," and that this threat is a specific result of climate change, is a good sign. It's also an embarrassing one, since it means that the Bush administration has now done more to acknowledge the science of climate change than Stephen Harper.

It's not Canadians that need to wake up, it's our government.

The good news in all of this is that in our next federal election you'll see all four national parties making the environment an issue (something that none of the three status quo parties did effectively in the last campaign). The environment has (finally!) become an issue like health care and education, in that everyone can agree it's important (critical, in fact). It won't be enough for a party to say they "care about" and "want to protect" the environment. Politicians will have to demonstrate they have solutions that work. That's where I believe the Green Party has credibility the other parties lack.

We'll have to move quickly though. Not just because we're running out of time, but because my Pappa deserves some good news.

Writing for the Torontoist

2006-12-20T12:25:00.000-05:00

I've been hired as a contributor to Torontoist, a Toronto community/info/news/blog site that gets around 100,000 unique visitors a month and is the largest website of its kind in the country. (Although they're also in the largest city in the country, so that's kinda cheating.)

My first post was today, regarding the end of BikeShare. All future posts by me should appear here. My contributions to Torontoist will be fundamentally municipal or local in nature, while I'll continue to use this blog for topics that are more federal and/or partisan. (I won't post here less than I have been, I'm just adding Torontoist to the pile.)

By the way, this seems like a good time to solicit feedback from y'all on what you want to get out of this blog. What sorts of posts have you liked? What haven't you liked? And, come to think of it, who are you? Where are you? How did you find me? I've been getting over a thousand visits a month (increasing each month since I started), but I don't have a good sense of who you all are. It'd be great to hear from you via comments to this post.

For the Record...

2006-12-17T14:18:00.000-05:00

Today I took the recycling out in a t-shirt and was pretty comfortable. According to Environment Canada, the temperature in Toronto is currently 13 degrees Celsius, dangerously close to breaking the 1984 record, and 12 degrees above the "normal maximum."

I just thought someone should mention that. I couldn't find any news reports about it except for this one, and most conversation regarding the weather around Toronto is about "how nice it is." Reminds me a bit of the frog in the pot.

My First Press Release

2006-12-14T09:31:00.000-05:00

Well, actually, this was my first press release, but this morning's release (on the wire here) is my first as Democratic Reform Advocate. See below.

--

Harper Can't Dictate Democracy, Green Party Says
Senate reform must be decided by people, not politicians

OTTAWA, Dec. 14 /CNW Telbec/ - The Conservative government is overstepping its bounds by attempting to unilaterally change this country's democratic systems, Green Party of Canada democratic reform advocate Chris Tindal said today.

"Democracy isn't just another political issue," said Tindal. "Our democratic systems need, by definition, to be determined by citizens, not just politicians. They especially shouldn't be dictated by a Prime Minister whose party received just a little more than a third of the vote in the last general election."

The Canadian Senate, while in need of reform, has traditionally played an important role in Canadian politics as a place of sober second thought and long-term planning. Any good ideas that the government's proposal may include, such as a move towards proportional representation, lack legitimacy unless they come directly from citizens.

"The Senate is just one piece of the very complicated web that makes up our democracy," added Green Party leader Elizabeth May. "To tinker with it in isolation from other democratic systems, and without an appreciation for the many functions and long history of the Senate, is dangerous to say the least."

The Green Party of Canada recognizes the need for democratic reform, including Senate reform. Greens support the creation of a Citizens' Assembly to determine what Senate reform is necessary, similar to the Citizens' Assembly dealing with proportional representation that is currently under way in Ontario.

-30-

What's Behind Stockwell's Skepticism?

2006-12-13T12:54:00.000-05:00

By now you've probably heard about Stockwell Day's embarrassing column that got him negative media attention for mocking Al Gore and climate change. Aside from drawing attention to Stockwell's poor spelling, grammar, and sense of narrative flow, this highlighted an inconvenient truth that the Conservative government has been trying their best to downplay: namely, they don't believe the science of climate change.

What's interesting about that is that scientific consensus on the issue of the climate crisis (that it's real, being influenced by human action, and threatens life on Earth) is about as tight as scientific consensus can get. Those of you who have watched Al Gore's film or read the book know that in recent years there have been absolutely no peer-reviewed studies in recognized scientific journals that question the science of climate change, while at the same time 53% of media stories have done so (demonstrating the effectiveness of the tobacco-turned-oil lobby).

We have to conclude, therefore, that the debate that Stockwell and the Conservative government insist on having has nothing to do with science. So, then, what's this all about?

I'm currently reading Alanna Mitchell's Dancing at the Dead Sea, and I think she has some answers. Alanna compares the science of climate change with Darwin's theory of evolution, in that it fundamentally challenges what we thought we knew about the world and our place in it -- the "legends" and myths that give us meaning.

As evidence, she presents this quotation from the Roman Catholic Dublin Review, printed shortly after (and in response to) the publishing of The Origin of Species.

The salvation of man is a far higher object than the progress of science: and we have no hesitation in maintaining that if in the judgement of the Church the promulgation of any scientific truth was more likely to hinder man's salvation than to promote it, she would not only be justified in her efforts to suppress it, but it would be her bounden duty to do her utmost to suppress it.

Even if the science is right about evolution, the Church said, preserving the religious status quo was more important.

There may be a direct correlation with Stockwell's thinking here. It's well known that, unlike most Christians I know, he subscribes to the belief that the world was literally created in seven days. He may also believe, therefore, in the "immutability" of creation. Perhaps he's concluded that climate change can't be real, or, at least, that we can't be responsible, because only God could alter creation in such a profound way.

Or maybe that's a bit of a leap; I can't be sure. What I do know, however, and what Alanna points out, is that if you replace "evolution" with "climate change," and "the salvation of man" with "the strength of the economy," you get the reaction of today's conservatives to the climate crisis. Witness this March 28, 2001 statement by Ari Fleischer, then press secretary for President Bush:

The president has been unequivocal. He does not support the Kyoto treaty. It...is not in the United States' economic best interest.

Now, see what Bush himself said the next day:

I will explain as clearly as I can, today and every other chance I get, that we will not do anything that harms our economy. Because first things first are the people who live in America. That's my priority. I'm worried about the economy...And the idea of placing caps on CO₂ does not make economic sense for America.

The parallel is striking. "Never mind the science or the threat," they say, "the economic status quo is more important than all of that." As if there could be an economy without life. As if there could be salvation without knowledge.

This makes a lot of sense. In many ways, as former United Church moderator Bill Phipps is fond of pointing out, the market economy is a new god. We worship economic indicators as if they're profits (pun only slightly intended), never questioning if they're actually making our lives better, or if maybe there's another way.

Meeting the challenge of the climate crisis requires that we discard the myth that our economy can grow forever as it has for only the past millisecond of our species' existence; the myth that we can continue to take what's good from the Earth and return only what's bad without consequence.

That's a tall order, and should humble anyone who thinks that we can turn this ship around simply by changing a few light-bulbs and installing a few solar panels. Those things help, but a more fundamental shift must take place. Ironically, fundamentalists like Stockwell aren't up for it.

Some Advice

2006-12-03T10:41:00.000-05:00

The two campaigns in the London North Centre by election that went negative were the Conservative campaign (which went negative on the Liberals) and the NDP campaign (which went negative on the Greens). It's no coincidence that those campaigns finished third and fourth, behind the positive campaigns of the Liberals and the Green Party.

I bring this up because late last night the NDP sent out an email to their supporters (and moles like me). The first paragraph read:

There's a new Liberal leader but it's the same old Liberal party. After 13 years of broken promises and corruption, the Liberals have picked themselves a new front man. Their choice - an out of touch academic who spent 10 years in a scandal ridden cabinet and who's record as Environment Minister was condemned by environmentalists and the Environment Commissioner. Liberal arrogance - some things never change.

The second paragraph -- ready for this? -- was as follows:

Today Jack Layton offered his congratulations to Stéphane Dion, saying that he looked forward to debating the new leader in Parliament to get things done for today's families.

The second paragraph loses some of its sincerity coming after the first, doesn't it? Listen folks, we're not going to accomplish anything by being close-minded, mean, and partisan beyond reason. And if that isn't enough, Canadians increasingly won't vote for these kinds of politicians and parties. The London North Centre result showed that.

If I were in charge of the NDP's messaging, I'd turn the venom down a shade, or risk being poisoned by it.

I'd Be Grumpy Too

2006-12-07T14:12:00.000-05:00

I think I know why the NDP have been so grumpy lately. They must have had some advance knowledge of this poll:

It suggested the Liberals had the support of 35 per cent of respondents while the Tories were at 31 per cent, the NDP was at 12 per cent and the Green party was at 10 per cent.

Yikes! Only a two-point gap stands between the NDP and being knocked out of their perpetual third place. I wonder what the margin of error was for that poll...

The Decima poll of 1,025 respondents was conducted from Nov. 30 to Dec. 3, and is considered accurate within 3.1 percentage points 19 times in 20.

Uh-oh. The NDP/Green gap is within the margin of error. This is what they call a "statistical tie." Plus, the NDP -- and the Conservatives for that matter -- are probably still hurting from losing to the Green Party in the London North Centre by election. How embarrassing is that. ;-)

Keep watching those grey political skies. They may clear up soon.

Who Kidnapped My Crosswalk?

2006-12-11T10:26:00.000-05:00

Last week I started a new job in Liberty Village, Toronto -- a series of converted office lofts (my office used to be the Toronto Carpet Factory), new condos, cafes, and restaurants. When I don't bike to work (read: when it's cold or raining) I take the King Streetcar west from downtown, get off at the intersection of Fraser and King West, and cross south at the crosswalk.

That is, until this morning, when, instead of a crosswalk, I found a yellow sign that read "Caution: Crosswalk Removed," and had arrows pointing left and right, towards the closest intersections, a few hundred meters away each.

Google searches of words like "fraser, king, crosswalk" fail to turn up any evidence of warning or consultation regarding this apparent crosswalk kidnapping. In fact, most of the search results were Due South fan pages. (Fraser. Benton Fraser.)

This sort of thing is allowed to happen because pedestrians have not had an advocate at city hall, which collectively seems to believe that cars have more rights than people. (I'm talking about the crosswalk here, not the proliferation of Due South fan pages. That's allowed to happen because Due South is awesome.) It's the same reason why bike lanes and even whole sidewalks can disappear during road construction, as was the case last month on the busy south-east corner of University and Queen.

Pedestrian deaths and injuries in this city are already too high; the last thing we should be doing is killing crosswalks. I'm going to write Gord Perks, the councillor of this ward. I'll let you know how that turns out.

This morning some cars were still stopping where the crosswalk used to be -- in part out of habit, but also because there's still a steady stream of people who cross the street there. Let's hope that as memories of the crosswalk fade no one gets hurt.

UPDATE (December 12th, 6pm): Got a reply from Perks' office. Turns out the crosswalk was removed because a new intersection was installed about 100m east to accommodate a new development, and there are rules that say you can't have a crosswalk that close to an intersection. (How surprised are we that that rule didn't work backwards, "you can't put that intersection there, it's too close to the crosswalk!")

As of this morning people were still crossing at the phantom crosswalk in large numbers, while confused drivers slowed to a halt and tried to figure out why we were in their way. Perks' office has asked the TTC to move the stop back to the new intersection, further from where those of us who use(d) the crosswalk are trying to get to. Not the world's biggest deal in the grand scheme of things, but still an unfortunate example of the systemic bias that favours cars against transit users and pedestrians. (Just so we're clear, I'm not blaming Perks for this. Not only is he new, but apparently the last councillor, Sylvia Watson, didn't give them any files at all.)

On the Radio Tonight

2006-12-12T09:28:00.000-05:00

I will be a guest on tonight's episode of "Catch Da Flava," a project of Regent Park Focus aired on Ryerson University's CKLN in Toronto. Listen live (from 7:30-8pm) in Toronto at 88.1 FM, or online (hi-bandwidth lo-bandwidth).

The topic is that nebulous thing we call "the environment," what it has to do with Regent Park (hint: Regent park is in the environment), and what people, particularly youth, in Regent Park and Toronto can be doing about this mess we seem to have gotten ourselves into. Should be good times.

Toronto Centre Speculation

2006-12-09T17:19:00.000-05:00

Those of you who follow this blog because you live in Toronto Centre or had something to do with my campaign there might find this story interesting. It speculates on who the Liberals will run in the next election (assuming Bill Graham won't run again).

My favourite part is this comment posted to the story on theglobeandmail.com:

James O'Grady from Windsor, Canada writes: It won't matter who runs for the Liberals in Toronto Centre, Chris Tindal of the Green Party will carry the day.

I'm sure the fact that James O'Grady just happens to be the name of my former campaign manager, who recently moved to Windsor, is pure coincidence.

(This comment about the Green Party is also interesting. Somebody get it to Martha!)

By the way, I will be seeking the nomination again in Toronto Centre for the Green Party, and I'm looking forward to the campaign. Hold January 24th 2007 if you want to be at the nomination meeting. Details here.

The Same Sex Marriage Debate

2006-12-06T16:12:00.000-05:00

If you take for granted that reopening the same-sex marriage debate is a bad idea from a human rights and social justice standpoint, you've only just begun to scratch the surface of the multitude of reasons this vote shouldn't be taking place.

First, it's a politically cynical move. Harper's not just doing this because he said he would. (He's already demonstrated his sense of humour by breaking a key promise that had the word "trust" in it.) Rather, he's orchestrating this vote because a number of his socially conservative MPs and supporters want him to prove that he's still at least open to the idea of discriminating based on sexual orientation. (Call it, neo-openmindedness.) Since the vote is almost certain to fail, that's the only thing he could possibly accomplish.

Second, it's a moot move. Not only is the vote likely to fail, but even if it succeeded, Harper would need to invoke the Charter's notwithstanding clause in order to actually outlaw same-sex marriage, and he already said he wouldn't do that. So, again, what are we doing here?

Finally, it's a waste of time. The House can only accomplish so much, and there's lots to do. They shouldn't spend any more energy on something that was already decided (and decided correctly) just to appeal to the small number of Canadians who want to believe they're still voting for the Reform party. And Canada should not be subjected to more divisiveness because a minority government wants to boost its ratings.

Félicitations, Stéphane

2006-12-02T18:08:00.000-05:00

I've spent the day watching the Liberal leadership convention, and Stéphane Dion was just announced the winner of the final ballot. Those of you who have been watching as well will remember Stéphane as the "green" candidate, literally. He was the only leadership contender whose supporters weren't using red as their primary colour.

And, of course, I want to also congratulate my former Liberal opponent Bill Graham on the completion of a very successful leadership term. I like Bill a lot, and he's been a good MP for Toronto Centre.

Watching the leadership race of a rival political party from some other parties can be a conflicted event. On the one hand, you want the best candidate to win for the sake of the country. On the other, you can't help but speculate on which leadership candidate might be the greater benefit to your own party.

Thankfully, we don't have that problem (or at least not nearly as much) in the Green party. At the end of the day, what's good for our party is good for the country, because unlike other parties, we've explicitly said that the implementation of our policies and the health of our democracy come first. (It's sometimes said that we're the only party that hopes to work itself out of existence.)

Dion, therefore, was the best choice by both measures. Not only does he have the best values and priorities of any of the Liberal leadership contenders, he'll also be the most willing to cooperate with Green MPs. His biggest challenge, of course, is that he's still the leader of a party that is systematically invested in the status quo. It will therefore be harder for him to change our country's disastrous course, which is just one of the reasons why we still need new voices in parliament.

The next few months will be interesting.

London Debrief

2006-11-28T14:38:00.000-05:00

So many others, including Elizabeth, Adriana, Camile, Jim, the other Jim, and more, have already said it. I'm not sure what to add.

Today, the Greens are the story. It was true that we had a shot, and the numbers don't even tell the full story of how close we came. Due to the overlapping municipal election, the federal campaign only started to build real momentum in the last week, and wasn't going full-tilt until this past weekend. I'm certain that with one or two more weeks, we would have taken the riding.

Sobara says this result should worry the Conservatives. He's 1/3 right. It should worry the Liberals and NDP too. Compared to the last election, we took six and nine percent from them, respectively, and another six percent from the Conservatives. As Elizabeth says, we're not vote splitters, we vote unifiers.

We beat the governing party, and the NDP, who started the campaign by saying "the Greens won't be a factor," came a distant fourth. Everyone who voted NDP because they thought that candidate had a better chance, or Liberal because they were afraid of the admittedly frightening Conservative should, in the words of the NDP attack piece, "think carefully." Same for everyone who didn't bother because they didn't think their vote would change anything. We'll always get distorted election results, and have a less healthy democracy than we should, until people feel like they can vote for the candidate they want.

Congratulations to everyone involved, this is great stuff to build on and we've definitely shaken things up. As usual, I can't wait for the next campaign.

ps. Anyone who wants to debrief in person, I'll be at the Toronto Centre Greens pub night tomorrow (Wednesday) at The Ben Wicks, from about 7:30pm on.

NDP Attacks Greens!

2006-11-26T22:04:00.000-05:00

Oh boy is this an exciting day. The NDP, whose candidate said at the start of this campaign that the Green Party wouldn't be a factor, has been distributing a specifically anti-Green flyer. Clearly, we've now convinced them that we are a factor. There's much celebration here in the May campaign office.

I heard about the flyer today from a disgruntled NDP volunteer I bumped into while canvassing. She'd been shocked to see it and had refused to hand it out. She mentioned that her young daughter, who'd been canvassing with her, had been particularly upset by the whole thing.

For the text of the flyer, Elizabeth May's take on the attack, and some pretty funny context to a quote of Elizabeth's that had its context unduly removed, check out Elizabeth May's blog post.

Tomorrow. Monday. This is it.

Two Days To Go

2006-11-26T00:41:00.000-05:00

I'm blogging from inside "the green house," a rented London home filled with 30+ volunteers from across the country. And yet, that's nothing compared to the approximately 75 people who were in the Elizabeth May campaign office for this morning's briefing, or the others who showed up later.

We're very optimistic here. And we have reason. For example, check out the final results of this poll from am980.ca:

Ok, I know, that's not a scientific poll, but boy is that a good margin. Regardless, maybe you should also check out this leaked NDP poll which puts us neck and neck with the Liberals (and the NDP and Conservative candidates "out of the race").

Also, check out this news story on tonight's Saturday Report on CBC. (Update: that link now goes directly to the right video clip.) I did three showings of it on my laptop here in the house to make sure everyone had a chance to see it.

Finally, today's letters to the editor in the London Free Press could not have been more positive for Elizabeth, or given more compelling reasons why now is the time to vote Green.

Today's message? Elizabeth has a real shot here, and she is the strategic choice. You, or someone you know in London North Centre, could be her winning vote. If you're here or know someone who is, please make that appeal. The house of commons doesn't need another back-bencher; it needs Elizabeth. (The green house, on the other hand, needs to settle down so I can get to sleep!)

Back In London

2006-11-20T22:41:00.000-05:00

Apologies for sporadic posts. Regular blogging is easiest in times of stability, and this is anything but.

I'm back in London at the moment (working on the campaign to elect Elizabeth May). Part of the non-blogging is from the sense that I need to spend every moment I can trying to get to as many London voters as possible. And, even though Google Analytics tells me that hundreds of you read this blog every week (thanks, by the way), it also tells me that you live all over North America and the world, which doesn't help the London situation very much.

Last night at dinner with a good chunk of the campaign team, Elizabeth decided on a whim to call Raffi. Yes, the Raffi. Then, on an even more random whim, she passed the phone to me. There's not really any point beyond that, I just wanted to let you all know that I talked to Raffi last night, and I'm pretty happy about it.

Tonight there was an all-candidates debate. Well, almost all candidates. The conservative candidate didn't show because of a scheduling conflict. We're all trying to brainstorm what could have been more important. Anyway, the uplifting news is that Elizabeth was the first candidate to get applause (no one applauded until a few minutes in), received the most applause over the course of the evening, and was the only candidate to receive applause for her closing statement. It was clear to everyone in the room that she won the debate, which is consistent with previous results.

Keep helping however you can. This one's gonna be tight.

Reporting Back: Green Party of Canada Policy Conference, London

2006-11-21T15:57:00.000-05:00

The other main event of my most recent trip to London (besides my conversation with Raffi) was the second Green Party of Canada Policy Conference in the ongoing "Green Plus" series, this one on post secondary education, held at the University of Western Ontario. I won't go into as much detail about this policy conference as I did about the first one. That is to say, this post will be not quite as long as a novella.

Instead of segmenting my summary by speaker, I've decided to do it more by topic. This is largely because of the degree to which the speakers agreed with each other, or at least spoke to the same themes. (I should again reiterate that the meeting was not intended to create policy, as that can only be done by a vote of the membership in a general meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to learn more about the issue and have a critical discussion, which will help inform the creation of policy in the future.)

Our Cast Of Characters

Dr. Karin Cope, Acting Director of Writing Resources at the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design (NSCAD)
Trevor Hanna, Vice-Président aux affaires internationales et fédérales, Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec (FEUQ)
Sean Junor, Manager of Knowledge Mobilization, Educational Policy Institute (EPI) Toronto
Dr. Andrew Potter, Public Affairs columnist for Maclean’s, visiting scholar with the Educational Policy Institute, Toronto

First, The Good News

All speakers began by emphasizing the positive. Namely, Cope pointed out the fact that Canada leads OECD countries in the number of people with tertiary degrees, and that having a post-secondary degree generally means higher income, better sex (I'm going to refrain from theorizing on why that might be), and generally happier people. That being said, there are some looming areas of concern. Two of the most obvious examples are the increasingly critical amount of student debt and deferred infrastructure costs, as is the case in Nova Scotia, where the deferred maintenance bill is around half a billion dollars.

The real trick, explained Cope, will be to figure out the true cost of education, as well as the true value to society. Those things aren't easy to measure, but of course that's just the kind of challenge that Greens like to embrace.

Undergrad is the New High School

Potter spent the most time on this, but it was echoed by Junor and Cope as well. They argued that undergraduate programs, from both the perspective of the student and the professor, have become a lot like high school used to be.

There are two main arguments behind this observation. First, more people are pursuing post-secondary education than in the past, which means that a BA, for example, is becoming almost as common in the job market as a high school diploma was several decades ago. Second, university professors are spending increasing amounts of time teaching basic spelling, grammar, and writing skills to university students -- skills they should have learned in high school.

Commodification and Massification

All of this contributes to the commodification of the undergraduate degree, and the massification (you can rarely escape a university lecture hall without hearing at least one made-up word) of the graduate degree.

Commodification of undergrad programs referrers to the sense that students are now buying a brand name credential, as opposed to participating in a community or increasing their ability to think critically. That was my own experience, in fact. Whenever I had a complaint or question about why my undergrad was being pursued in a certain way, the reaction from my peers was always something to the effect of, "Chris, it doesn't matter. Everyone knows we're just buying a $40,000 piece of paper."

This situation is further aggravated by the increasingly prominent belief by some students, and particularly business students, that cheating, plagiarizing, and buying your way through university is fair game.

Massification of graduate programs referrers to the fact that, according to Potter, we're giving out the same number of masters degrees today as we were undergraduate degrees forty years ago.

The result is what he calls an "educational arms race," where people seek out greater and greater credential (either a masters degree, or a prestige undergrad) in order to distinguish themselves in the job market. The problem with that, Potter argues, is that the extra time and resources being spent on this arms race don't actually raise the population's level of education or contribute to the economy. He cautions against any federal policy that would feed into this system.

Teaching and Research Don't Mix

The original intention of our university system (still Potter talking) was to have small schools like Trent focusing on undergraduate programs (ie. teaching) and large schools like University of Toronto focusing on graduate programs (ie. research). However, the Canadian preference for universalism has meant that all schools have tried to be everything to everyone.

The problem with that is that the skill set that's required to be a good teacher and the skill set that's required for research are very different. While it's commonly assumed by professors that there's some kind of symbiotic relationship between teaching and research, that's not true. Studies show that for most faculty members, there's a reverse relationship between the two (high research hours mean low student contact and vice versa).

The solution is to somehow create a more clear distinction between the two functions of teaching and research. In reality, that's happening anyway, though in a less than desirable way. Cope pointed out that undergraduate teaching duties are increasingly carried out by temporary, contract employees with little to no job security or benefits, which leads to little to no loyalty to the employing institution or their students. Likewise, tenured professors spend most of their time on graduate work.

How to actually accomplish this distinction is a more difficult question. Potter and Junor both advocate for a "grand bargain" whereby the federal government would take control of graduate studies (since research is largely a federal responsibility) while leaving undergraduate studies with the provinces, but neither one of them thinks that could be achieved politically. A more practical solution may be to separate the two distinctions in an intramural fashion, assigning teaching and research responsibilities to different faculties. In addition, faculty members should be allowed to decide at the time of their hiring weather they want to be evaluated and promoted based on their teaching skills or their research abilities.

Free Education

A great deal of the question and answer time was spent discussing whether or not free education is a desirable goal. I was surprised to hear some interesting arguments that it isn't.

The conversation was initiated by a Green Party member in the audience who referenced Canada's international commitment to the goal of free post-secondary education by way of our signing of a 1970s United Nations agreement. Potter countered by saying that the federal government had no business making such a commitment in the first place, since education is clearly a constitutional responsibility of the provinces. There was a general consensus from the panel that, if free education is going to happen, it should happen at a provincial level.

And yet, Cope and Junor questioned the desirability of free education from a social point of view. Junor began by identifying that the two barriers to participation in a post-secondary education are accessibility (determined largely through high school grades) and affordability (determined by ability to pay). Even if you made education free, it would still only be accessible to those with the highest academic credentials, who, for the most part, also happen to be those who can afford university anyway. The problem of access, therefore, is larger and more systemic than can be addressed through universally free education.

Cope also pointed out that when tuition fees are reduced, that disproportionately benefits higher-income students because they make up a larger percentage of the university population. The money it takes to lower tuition would be better spent on needs-based grants to ensure that it gets to those who need it most.

Junor summarized his argument by saying something to the effect of, "If you asked me if the cost of tuition for lower-income Canadians should be close to zero, I'd say that's about right. And if you asked me if the amount of government assistance going to the wealthiest Canadians should be close to zero, I'd say that's about right."

In other words, it's cheaper, more feasible, and more socially just to make education free (or close to free) only for those who can't afford it through needs-based grants than to try to do so for the entire population through the lowering or elimination of tuition. Also, if the ultimate goal is accessibility, we need to address larger systemic inequalities in addition to dealing with affordability.

Meanwhile, in the Real World

Of course I didn't agree with everything the speakers said, but I came away feeling like I had a better understanding of the challenges facing post-secondary education in Canada, and what some of the solutions should be. Then four of us walked around the campus trying to convince students to vote in the advance polls. The mixture of confusion and amusement that I received from many regarding this "voting" idea was not as encouraging. It's no big mystery why politicians find it so easy to ignore university students.

The Impossible Dream

2006-11-12T21:36:00.000-05:00

Sometimes a song pops into your head unannounced and gets stuck for hours. You almost never know how it got there. (Were you just singing that? Is there a radio on somewhere?) Currently, my song is "The Impossible Dream" from Man of La Mancha.

I'm writing from the train, traveling back to Toronto after a weekend of canvassing for Elizabeth May in London North Centre. I'm not sure where Don Quixote came from or exactly when he showed up, but I'm in the mood to hypothesize.

This morning I went with Elizabeth and my new friend Steve Edwards (Communications Chair for London North Centre) to St. Paul's Anglican Church. The homily, by Archdeacon D. Ian Grant, was about the need for justice, using the acceptance of same sex marriage as the primary example. That would have seemed impossible just a few decades ago.

Last night, at the dinner to benefit Olivia's Dream, a veteran told an unjust story about a sick girl in an unnamed country where citizens have to pay for all medical treatments above a certain limit, regardless of ability to pay or how necessary those treatments are. Tommy Douglas' dream of universal healthcare must have seemed impossible to most just a century ago (and, in many countries, still would).

One week ago, if I'm being honest, despite all public optimism, I believed on some deep level that electing Canada's first Green MP on November 27 was likely impossible. I know now that that's not true; Elizabeth has a real chance.

Today, I was on sign duty. My new friend Larry and I (there are lots of new friends in London) drove around the whole riding looking for a piece of public property where an opponent had a sign and we didn't. It was a challenging task. Over the course of a few hours we found one or two vacant spots and promptly rectified the situation. Currently, we have more signs up than any other candidate.

In addition, Elizabeth seems to have somehow befriended more people in London than most Londoners. Everywhere we go she is recognized and greeted warmly. And this campaign is just getting started. Mark my words: you ain't seen nothing yet. (Randy Bachman just showed up and pushed Don Quixote out of the way. I wonder who else will make a surprise appearance.)

In a way, we can't really lose. We're generating huge amounts of attention and setting the agenda for the campaign (just one of many "firsts"). At the very least we're giving the other parties a run for their money and forcing them to consider issues that experience tells us they'd otherwise ignore. And, not unimportantly, we're having a lot of fun. I'm very jealous of those people – from BC Ben to PEI Sharon -- who have been able to move to London for the month to campaign full time. I can guarantee that no other party is having a better time.

See you again next weekend, new-London-friends. Stay true to that glorious quest.

My Pappa's Clippings

2006-11-12T00:46:00.000-05:00

My Pappa (George Tindal, my dad's dad) has taken to sending me newspaper clippings in the mail. It's somewhat of a right of passage in my family -- my dad and his brother have been getting clippings for years. My clippings, however, are much more targeted. Every story Pappa sends me has something to do with the converging environmental crises. On the top of the articles he writes little notes to me, like "it's time for Canadians to wake up," and "good luck." This week I got a fresh batch (the Stern report, the all-the-fish-are-going-to-die report, etc) with the note, "Congratulations on your appointment to Shadow Cabinet." (Oh yeah, did I mention? I was appointed to Shadow Cabinet!)

I've been thinking about Pappa this remembrance day. He's a veteran of the second world war, but we never really talk about it. I get the sense that he doesn't want to. Him and two brothers went over; only one of his brothers came back.

This morning, Elizabeth, myself, and other campaign volunteers attended the London 11:11 ceremonies before going out door knocking. This evening, we attended a dinner at the Dutch Canadian Society Hall, which was a joint benefit for Mark Wilson and a girl named Olivia. The former was killed in Afganistan, the latter is a two-year-old who was born with cancer. Both of their families sat at the head table. So yes, it was a an emotional dinner.

And yet, the evening ended with organizer Michelle Iurman singing war-era songs from her album "Lest We Forget." Embarrassingly, I didn't know any of them, while Elizabeth knew every word. (I'm embarrassed for myself, not Elizabeth.) I wish you could have all been there to see her making jazz hands while singing "praise the lord and pass the ammunition" at the top of her lungs, in between bantering with our waitress in Dutch. The woman is a wonder.

Now, I'm sitting around with volunteers who have come from all across the country to get her elected. We have a cause and a sense of urgency. I'm reminded of that by my Pappa's clippings, and I'm motivated by his support. He gave and endured so much; by comparison, what we're doing should be a walk in the park.

London Calling

2006-11-11T17:40:00.000-05:00

This morning at 6:30am I met David Scrymgeour (Green Party of Canada Director of Organizing) and Elizabeth May outside of the home where she stays while in Toronto and hitched a ride to London. I'm writing this from the converted internet cafe that is the Elizabeth May Campaign Office. Somehow, all of the computers are still here from the internet cafe days, modified glowing cases and all. Volunteers are sitting at every screen calling voters using Skype.

Well, except for this screen. I'm selfishly bogarting it for blogging purposes. I'm feeling justified right now though, since I canvassed a whole poll by myself earlier today and (from what I can tell) hold today's record for most lawn signs secured, including two lawns that already had NDP signs on them. (Remind me to be modest about something later to compensate for this paragraph.)

This is a real, live campaign out here. The office is buzzing with volunteers, there are stacks of signs (with Elizabeth's name and photo), several different flyers/postcards have been printed, and clips of media coverage are pasted all over the walls.

That being said, they still need your help. If you can't make it down here for a day or two, you can still donate or phone people from your house. It makes a big difference. We've got an uphill battle here, but Elizabeth has already been endorsed by a number of very high-profile community leaders, including an influential newspaper columnist who was at our morning briefing.

Ok, that's a long enough break. Got to get back to work...

Paul Lansbergen - Forest Products Association of Canada

2006-11-05T23:27:00.000-05:00

The following is one post in a series: "Reporting Back: Green Party of Canada Policy Conference, Halifax"

I'm proud that the Green Party invited someone from the forestry industry to speak at our conference. That'd be sort of like the Conservatives inviting a guest speaker from EGALE or OCAP, or the NDP inviting the Fraser Institute. Lansbergen was funny about it, too. "Hello," he began his presentation, "my name is Paul and I represent a large final emitter."

The point was to understand how these policy changes were going to affect different industries, using forest products as an example. Lansbergen told us that his industry is currently taxed more than the oil or mining industries, even though they're arguably less-damaging. He also gave statistics on how much of the Canadian forest products industry meets various certifications (including FSC), and how far ahead we are of some other countries. Without giving specifics, he claimed that his industry has already met Kyoto "five-times over."

Overall, Lansbergen's argument was that good behaviour needs to be recognized and rewarded by government, and that the effect of any policies on the economy and jobs must be seriously considered.