Letter - Living Room plans worry south end residents

The following is a letter I've written to the local papers about VIHAs plan to couple transitional housing with a failed addictions program. I have some experience working in this area.

- - -

VIHA's Living Room attempts appear disorganized and remind some south end residents of a salesperson trying to remarket the same old failed product. Unfortunately, we are the ones who have been paying for VIHA’s learning curve.

The past incarnations of the Living Room, as hard as they were to manage, were in commercial areas. Now they want to put it in the middle of a residential neighborhood, adjacent to transition housing for those trying to get away from the street. Is there some study showing this might actually work, or was this decision simply motivated by dollars and cents?

At the south end community meeting, a VIHA spokesperson said, “we see it as a good thing to have the Living Room coupled with the residence.” No study was offered to back that up. Does the VIHA operate on gut feeling and intuition alone? I thought these services were supposed to be spread throughout the city. In fact there are studies showing that over concentration of these services can have a negative effect.

Because we’re not getting any answers about how our safety will be ensured or protected, I’m uneasy about this planned project. The list of rules we were given by VIHA were both naive and directly solely to the inside of the building.

If I were asked to place money on this venture as a positive thing for our community and those on the street, I think I’d keep my wallet in my pocket. On the other hand, if I was asked to invest in this as a real estate venture, this might be profitable. Maybe that’s where VIHA's heart is at.

Cameron Wigmore
Nanaimo, BC

Outdated Nuclear Energy Technology Rest In Peace

Before the year ends I'd like to post a few links to some information and news on nuclear energy, the outdated technology that won't solve our energy needs, won't lead to sustainability, won't ever be safe, won't solve the climate crisis, and won't ever be fiscally responsible. May it continue its slow disappearing act and rest in peace for the duration of this century and beyond.

Oh, we can't just walk away from nuclear energy and be done with it? We still have spend a LOT of money to 'safely' store huge amounts of highly toxic nuclear waste for thousands of years? Hmm... maybe we should ignore that and just keep building more nuclear power plants to meet our rising energy demands.

Energy efficiency and consumption reduction measures be damned; forget about renewable energies and green technologies and reinvest heavily in nuclear energy because our energy consumption is going up, up, up, and we're going to need more nuclear energy! Hold on, I see a pattern emerging...

Seriously though, here are those items I mentioned.


Dec 10th, '07
Child Cancer Risk Higher Near Nuclear Plants - Study


"Chernobyl taught us that technical deficiencies, human failure, and at present also terrorist attacks, may lead to a
catastrophe of unforeseeable dimensions. But did we learn from the catastrophe? That’s one of the questions we try to explore in this brochure."
Women Active Against Nuclear Energy (PDF)


ATOMIC BALM: NUCLEAR REVIVAL IGNORES CASUALTIES
By Joseph J. Mangano


"It should be a sobering thought for Canadians to face the grim facts that Canadian uranium particularly from Saskatchewan, is being marketed to countries that use the "waste" from nuclear power reactors to be sold or given away to manufacturers of depleted uranium."
Full letter to editor by Oscar found here at this forum.


Nuclear Weapons and the Link to Nuclear Power


Nov '07 Opposition demands debate on joining nuclear club
"...Elizabeth May, the federal Green Party leader, said she was furious that the decision to join a pro-nuclear group occurred in silence without any public consultation..."


Dec '07 Ireland Greens: Ryan refuses uranium mining licences


Video - Helen Caldicott at Uof Regina speaking on the dangers of the nuclear industry, including nuclear power, mining, waste and weapons.


Canada’s role in depleted uranium weapons worldwide

DU weapons & war crimes
After 3 years of investigation by 60 expert witnesses and jurists at a cost of $1 million raised by Japanese citizens, the International Criminal Tribunal For Afghanistan at Tokyo on March 10, 2004 found President George W. Bush guilty of the war crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes for the use of depleted uranium (DU) weapons by US forces in the 2001 war against Afghanistan.

Experts agree that a substantial portion of the depleted uranium in the DU weapons used by the US in Afghanistan came from Canadian uranium. Had the Tokyo Tribunal been diligent, it could have found Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, who resigned as Prime Minister on December 12, 2003, guilty as an accessory to genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, for failing to enforce Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission regulations, and the Canada-US Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, both of which prohibit Canadian uranium from being used in DU weapons.

Dr. Gordon Edwards, president of the Montreal-based Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR) says, “Canada may have the policy, but it’s not enforced. The Canadian government is taking directions and orders from the nuclear industry… “The uranium industry has a vested interest in ensuring its depleted uranium waste makes a profit and is not just left in storage. That’s why some of Canada’s depleted uranium is ending up in weapons, Edwards says. “The Canadian government can’t even think for themselves.”

"We Are Living Through Another Hiroshima," Iraq Doctor Says


Nov '07 'Safe' uranium that left a town contaminated

NUCLEAR ENERGY - A DEAD END

UPDATE: (Feb 18th '08) Out Of Commission
Story from the UK telling us how nuclear power plants will never 'rest in peace'. At least not without rapidly increasing cost to decommission them, and not without massive cleanup efforts.

From the story:

...As costs for decommissioning appear to spiral out of control - rising sharply from £56bn to £73bn over just a few years - the burden on the taxpayer grows ever more. And it doesn't end there...

UPDATE #2 (July 2008)
UK's nuclear clean-up industry in turmoil, report reveals

Chaos at the heart of Britain's nuclear clean-up industry has been laid bare by an internal audit undertaken by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBERR), following embarrassing cost overruns that forced the department to find £400m worth of emergency funds from other budgets to balance the books.

The department admits that there are now "inherent risks" associated with the financial affairs of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) and reveals that budgetary problems were exacerbated by misunderstandings, unminuted meetings and lack of sufficiently trained staff.

Continued attention on homelessness, addiction and crime

...will help us solve the problems.

(this is a letter to the editor I sent to many local papers recently)

In nearly every issue of every paper I read something about our efforts to improve upon the issues of homelessness, addiction or crime. Obviously most of us take these issues very seriously. Helping those who’ve lost their way, or who’ve fallen on hard times, to become productive members of society seems to be the goal. This is a year round challenge for everyone.

Thank you for your continued demonstration of compassion and willingness to tackle and resolve these issues. I have faith that with our attention and collective efforts we will become a part of the solution, and we will find lasting solutions to these problems.

Green Party of Canada releases 'Vision Green'

PDF version

About the Green Party of Canada and Vision Green

From the GPC website:
Vision Green presents leading-edge thinking and rational, realistic solutions for all the issues facing Canadians. It was developed by a 31-member Green Shadow Cabinet and was informed by experts, activists and citizens who participated in policy workshops held across Canada. All the proposals are based on policies approved by the membership of the Green Party.

Green Party solutions are rational because the Green Party, unlike other parties, understands the scientifically verified limits to growth set by the carrying capacity of our planet. We must work within these limits. Otherwise, we will exhaust resources, degrade our environment and put our economy, health and children’s future at risk.

Our solutions are realistic because they follow “best practices” already in place in parts of Canada or other countries. These practices are cost-effective, deliver results and benefit people, the economy and the environment.

The Green Party’s down-to-earth solutions will work in Canada because they have worked around the world. Many have been successfully applied in Europe, where Greens are elected at all political levels, including the European Union and national parliaments. Countries where Greens have served in government are the countries creating new high-paying jobs while simultaneously meeting targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They are the countries where the gap between rich and poor is small and the standard of living is high. These countries don’t trade off the environment for the economy. Their economies and environmental laws are both strong.

Many people find it hard to position the Green Party on the old political spectrum. We believe in sound fiscal management and strengthening our economy while ensuring that it is sustainable. Does that mean we are “right wing”? We believe that government must provide needed social services while protecting our environment and the rights of women, minorities and disadvantaged people. Does that make us “left wing”? We don’t think so. More and more people are simply thinking of the Green Party as the party of the future.

The Green Party is different from other parties in another important way. We will never place the pursuit of power above principle. We will not allow partisan politics to get in the way of good ideas and needed action. We agree with Canadians who say it’s time for parties in parliament to stop bickering and get on with the job of combating climate change and taking better care of our environment, our health and our economy.

The Green Party of Canada, founded in 1983, is now a major force in Canadians politics. Over 660,000 Canadians voted Green in the 2006 federal election. More than one in ten Canadians are now saying they plan to vote Green.

There is only one true Green Party. We are not like the old line parties who talk green when seeking your vote but sideline green action once elected. You can trust us to stay true to our promises and champion the issues you care about. If you share our vision and agree with our solutions, VOTE GREEN.

Change the climate in Parliament.

The Green Economy

Averting Climate Catastrophe

Preserving And Restoring The Environment

People

The Planet Needs Canada (and Vice Versa)

Good Government

Harper’s “war on drugs” regressive and irresponsible: Green Party

Harper’s “war on drugs” regressive and irresponsible: Green Party

OTTAWA – The Green Party today denounced Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s proposed drug strategy as an ideologically-driven step in the wrong direction and ignorant of evidence-based research. Last week, Mr. Harper announced his intent to spend $64 million in a war on drugs, focusing on punishment and enforcement – not prevention.

“Mr. Harper is far too eager to sign Canada on to a Bush-style war on drugs that has spent billions and achieved nothing,” said Green Party leader Elizabeth May. “An overwhelming body of evidence supports the notion that an effective drug strategy would focus on prevention, treatment facilities and harm reduction programs.

“Mr. Harper preaches prevention, yet spends many times the funds allocated to prevention on enforcing antiquated drug laws and punishing drug users. This approach is akin to simply burning tax dollars and is severely damaging to society. Instead of listening to the facts, Mr. Harper is trying to appear tough on crime in a desperate attempt to grab votes.”

Jared Giesbrecht, Justice Critic for the Green Party, added that the 2002 Senate Special Committee on Drugs and examples from European countries have led the Green Party to the conclusion that it is time to legalize the adult use of marijuana, developing a taxation rate for the substance similar to that of tobacco.

“Mr. Harper’s plan to impose tougher penalties on users of marijuana and other drugs is a misguided approach. Substance abuse is a medical issue, not a criminal issue. Simply spending more tax dollars on drug law enforcement is not the answer. Canadians want to see a comprehensive anti-drug strategy that gets to the root of the problem, not Harper’s patch-work agenda that seeks the quick fix.”

Mr. Giesbrecht added that the Green Party would fund and expand safe injection sites, like the Insite clinic in Vancouver, that are proven to save lives.

Harpers Drug Policy For Getting Votes

Harpers Drug Policy For Getting Votes - Not Saving Lives Or Making Canada Safer

A friend pointed out this article in Le Devoir by Gil Courtemanche commenting on Harpers doomed War on Drugs. The original publication is in French, and this link will take you to the English translation of the article. Here are a few paragraphs.

...We also learned Thursday that Stephen Harper will keep his old Beatles records even if his children wonder about certain lyrics that sing the praises of forbidden substances. Here's a wonderful example of the Prime Minister's openness of mind, a tolerance that extends only as far as the words to songs. For the poor teens who might be tempted to follow the smoking trails of the Fab Four, it will be zero tolerance. We're far from the time when the Chrétien and Martin governments pondered decriminalizing the simple possession of marijuana. The times have changed and the police have clearly felt it. In 2006, in Canada's principal cities, including Montréal, arrests for simple possession of cannabis have increased 20 to 50%, depending on the city. At the same time, a UNICEF study discovered that Québec is the champion of cannabis consumption among industrialized countries. According to that study, 40% of youth aged 11 to 15 consume some cannabis from time to time. These are not addicts, but occasional consumers. Nonetheless, under Mr. Harper's ferule, they will be considered veritable criminals. That's almost half our adolescents who run the risk of finding themselves with a criminal record. Mr. Harper also announced that we will establish minimum sentences for dealers. The teen who buys five joints and sells three to his pals will become a dealer just like some Hell's Angel.

In its fight against drugs, in its fight against juvenile crime, in its approach to border security, the Conservative government has resolutely adopted the American approach of repression and ever-longer prison sentences. In the United States, this policy has not changed the crime rate and has had the effect of growing the prison population at a vertiginous rate. The United States is the country with the highest rate of incarceration among all industrialized countries. And, of course, the majority of that population is constituted of minority citizens and poor people who can't pay for competent lawyers. That's the road down which the Conservative minority government wants to take Canada. And meanwhile, in Ottawa, the opposition is desperately looking for a gimmick so that elections can be avoided and Stephen Harper allowed to pursue his Americanization of Canada.

Here is a first draft of a letter to the editor I'll be sending off to the Nanaimo News Bulletin:

Letter to Editor Re: War On Drugs Doomed Again (Nanaimo News Bulletin Oct 6th)

I’d like to give thanks to the Harper government for a new ‘war’.

Like in the USA where the ‘war on drugs’ has been ongoing for decades, this Canadian effort will likely create many jobs in the areas of law enforcement. We will, over the long term, likely need to build more jails (as they have needed to do in the USA) in order to house non-violent offenders, and our recently announced federal tax surplus will surely help to pay for this ongoing cost. Never mind that incarceration will cost more than rehabilitation; Mr. Harper clearly believes that the jobs created are more important than the negative costs to our society. These fellow Canadians – these neighbours, coworkers, family and friends of ours – they’re only addicts after all, right? Mr. Harper says lock ‘em up!

Treatment and rehabilitation sounds too ‘nice’ for Harper government’s ‘every man for himself’ ideology. Although treatment and rehabilitation are proven to be effective, long term incarceration sounds braver & more prideful. Thank you Mr Harper for choosing to create a job for our country which the USA has already proven we will never be able to complete.

I am a recovered addict with seven years clean & sober. I’ve just brought my family to Nanaimo, and soon we’ll be purchasing a house. After using drugs for nearly a decade, I managed to make it out of active addiction disease free and with no criminal record, and this is largely due to the community support and addiction recovery services that were available to me prior to getting clean. I’m not shy about this fact; I’m proud of the man I am, and I’m grateful to be living in this country with a history of giving and sharing that shows we take care of ours.

Thank you Mr Harper for trying to take these opportunities away from other Canadians.

Cameron Wigmore
Nanaimo, B.C.

From the 2006 Green Party of Canada Platform:
Green MPs will work to:
- Support a public health framework to reduce the use of psychoactive drugs through rehabilitation and prevention especially for children.
- Assist provinces to increase the number of detox and treatment beds for drug and alcohol rehabilitation, create safe injection clinics, needle exchange programs and access for certified addicts to prescriptions for safe doses.

More background on me and the GPC policy on addiction & drugs here.

A few more links on this...

U.S.-style war on drugs will fail

What's Harper Smoking? (<---this is a great article!)

PM's Anti-drug Drive 'Uninformed'

Minimum sentences for pushers called repugnant READ THIS STORY!

Harper drug strategy `depressing,' Insite head says

GPC Media Release: Labour Rights Are Human Rights

The following media release is a reminder that the Greens are a Federal Political Party that exists to promote policies regarding social justice, in addition to the obvious focus on the environment and sustainability. The credibility of the GPC in this area has been steadily increasing, with extensive policy on issues related to social justice, the distinction of being the only federal party with a set of key values - one of which is Social Justice - and the recent appointment of John Fryer, an internationally respected former union leader and authority on labour relations and human resource issues, as labour critic on the party's Shadow Cabinet.

- - -

Labour Rights Are Human Rights

09.02.2007

The Green Party today called on the federal government to take immediate action to guarantee that all workers in Canada have the right to organize and participate in the free collective-bargaining process.

"On Labour Day and throughout the year, the Green Party supports workers," said federal party leader Elizabeth May. "We believe in pay equity and in every worker's right to fair wages, healthy and safe working conditions as well as working hours compatible with a good quality of life.

"Labour rights are human rights," said Ms. May, "and we strongly endorse the Supreme Court's June 8 decision that the right to collective bargaining is a constitutional right guaranteed and protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

Green Party labour critic John Fryer said that the federal government must now take action in three areas to guarantee these rights for Canada's workers. "Firstly, all federal labour statutes should be updated to expressly guarantee the right to collective bargaining for all covered employees," he said.

"The Harper government also must find a way to ensure compliance with International Labour Standards, not only by the federal government but also by all provincial and territorial governments. Canada's disgraceful International Labour Organization record of violating these standards must end. The shocking fact is that our country has no formal mechanism for ratifying international treaties and obligations and this needs immediate remedy.

"Finally, we call upon the Prime Minister to demonstrate his support for Canadian workers by signing the Worker's Bill of Rights that has already been endorsed by all other party leaders."

Said Elizabeth May, "This Labour Day, the Green Party of Canada calls upon our government to give labour rights issues much greater priority in both its policy and its action agendas. After all, our own Supreme Court has made it clear that labour rights are guaranteed under Canada's Constitution."

Contact:

John Chenery － 613-562-4916 ext. 227

jchenery(AT)greenparty(DOT)ca

- - -

Green Party proposes Super Six fix for municipal infrastructure

Green Party proposes Super Six fix for municipal infrastructure

Cochrane, AB (9 March 2007) – The Green Party today unveiled a $3 billion-a-year plan to create six municipal superfunds that will fund the reconstruction of crumbling municipal infrastructure and transform Canada’s cities and towns into green and vibrant communities.

Delivering the first policy announcement from the party’s new platform at the contaminated Domtar brownfields in Cochrane, Alberta, Green Party leader Elizabeth May said that the Super Six superfund initiative is a simple, clear and decisive plan to develop green solutions to urgent and long-standing municipal infrastructure needs.

“It’s time to reinvest in communities,” said Ms. May. “We need to rectify the fiscal and infrastructure deficit facing municipalities by bringing all levels of government together around the key concerns of health, safety and a clean environment.”

The Green Party proposes replacing the obsolete and generic Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund with separate funds to target six specific areas of municipal concern: brownfield remediation, water and wastewater treatment facilities, sports and recreation facilities, mass transit, cycling and pedestrian promotion, and affordable housing.

“It’s a larger strategy for ensuring that all Canadian communities get the opportunity to have clean water, better transit and affordable housing,” said Sean Maw, candidate for Wild Rose and the Green Party’s Community Development Advocate.

“Every municipality in the country has its own problems, not just those cities that need an extended subway line. In Alberta alone, communities need federal commitments to cleaning up brownfields like the one here in Cochrane, Calgary’s mass transit is overcrowded and Fort McMurray desperately needs housing and other services.”

The Green Party’s Green Municipal Infrastructure plan is based on the belief that local government has the potential to be the driving force for improving the environment and the quality of life of Canadians. Creating opportunities for municipalities to clean up the local environment, promote more physically active lifestyles among residents and focus on energy efficient buildings and other infrastructure translates into reduced health care costs and energy consumption. These savings will then be passed on to Canadians through reduced personal taxes and better services in their communities.

“Both the previous Liberal and current Conservative governments have squandered a wonderful opportunity to partner with municipalities in a broad-based commitment to building strong and healthy communities,” said May. “The Green Party will rebuild that partnership – and our local communities – to the benefit of all Canadians.”

Click here for more Green Party media releases.

Click here for Green Party news.

Harper government taxing childcare benefits

The Harper government is taxing your childcare benefits.

I sent the following letter as an op/ed to all of my local papers. So far I have not encountered one single person who was aware that their benefits are being clawed back. Feel free to copy and send to your local papers.

- - -

I wonder how many people are aware that their childcare benefit payments count as income and are being taxed back by the Harper government.

Recently my wife and I, along with all other parents with a child under six years old, received a letter from the Canada Revenue Agency which included a universal child care benefit statement (RC62). Our new government is now taxing back a large portion of that benefit. Instead of $1200 per year per child under six, you will only get to keep $460 of this if your combined family income is between $30,000 & $40,000 per year. The rest is taxed back.

So not only was the $100 per month too little to pay for early childhood development services (and not nearly enough for one parent to stay at home) now it may even put my family income over a certain tax bracket, and it could cause me to lose a significant portion of my tax return.

Tricky.

REFERENCES
The following links spell out the situation very well.
http://www.childcareadvocacy.ca (Harper Plan PDF)
-

Harper Plan tax info
-

Reality Check: Sustainable Development

I recently had a great conversation with someone who was turned right off of the term 'sustainable development'. Their definition was the same as the old line parties using this catch phrase to sound good; increasing consumption, or 'development', while giving a lot of lip service with regard to the environment, saying the word 'sustainable' repeatedly. I agreed with my friend that it's frustratingly silly and that the two words appeared to contradict each other. Fortunately there is one political party that is reality based and does a good job of bringing politics 'down to Earth' (pun intended). The Green Party has a firm grasp of what sustainable development really is.

There are different definitions of the words sustainable and development. These words combined have been thrown around haphazardly by politicians so a clarification seems appropriate. I agree with the current Green Party definition of sustainability from their policies. It states that, “Activities are sustainable when they use materials in continuing cycles, use continuously reliable sources of energy, and come mainly from the potentials of being human (i.e., communication, creativity, coordination, appreciation, and spiritual and intellectual development).”

On the flipside, activities are non-sustainable when they require continual input of non-renewable resources, use renewable resources faster than their rate of renewal, cause cumulative degradation of the environment, require resources in quantities that could never be available for all people, and lead to the extinction of other life forms.

Now hold on a minute! That last part sounds more like what the current politicians want us to believe is sustainable, yet it's exactly the opposite. I'll go with the definition of sustainability that the Green Party uses, thank you very much.

To 'develop' according to my definition (not grow or consume more, but develop as in mature or change) seems like something that all types of green-minded individuals can agree to be a good thing. Promoting Fair Trade instead of Free Trade, viewing the economy as a subset of ecology (aka eco-economics), promoting green industries & 'green-collar jobs' as well as a move away from dependence on non-green technologies, and realizing that our level of consumption does not equate to well-being or quality of life (and subsequently supporting a reduction in our levels of consumption) all fall under my own definition of sustainable development.

See A Question Of Direction for more on this subject.

Green Party Supports Safe Injection Site

The poster to the left is a mockup I did for the Badlands Drug Coalition, a local addiction awareness group on which I sit as a member. I had fun making this poster. We didn't go with it though because the photo is not free for public use.

There is a media release regarding the insite program that I helped write just before the convention. I'm bringing it up now because there have been a bunch of new stories on this program in the news lately. Click on the title of this post for the media release and see links below for recent news stories.

Here are a few links:
Mom of drug addict calls on Prime Minister to keep safe-injection site open
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/health/060830/x083035.html
Ottawa ethically obligated to treat addicts at safe-injection site: ethicist

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/health/060828/x082816.html
RCMP responds to media reports concerning safe-injection site reviews

http://tinyurl.com/ruyhx
RCMP oppose expanded injection sites

http://tinyurl.com/ql3cd

If you feel so inclined, you can send a letter asking to continue the program to Tony Clement, Minister of Health. His contact information is:
Clement.T@parl.gc.ca
1 866 375 8669
Tony Clement MP
202 Main Street West
Huntsville, Ontario
P1H 1X9

Also, the website, http://www.communityinsite.ca/ has a letter to Stephen
Harper that you can send from their webpage. It's at:
http://www.communityinsite.ca/support.html

The following link is to a site that has some great ideas on how to make
your voice heard on this subject and more:
http://www.mapinc.org/alert/0334.html

"We can't incarcerate the problem of addiction away."

Health Care - The Real Third Choice

The Real Third Choice

By Cameron Wigmore

Public or private health care, or... what else? While Ralph Klein is promoting his 'Third Way' health care plan, many of us are asking if the government can't do better.

The Alberta provincial government recently released details on the "third way" for our health care system. The ten policy directions described at the provincial government's website are heavy on the political rhetoric, but a few caught my eye. One of the ten policy directions is, "establishing parameters for publicly funded health services". This would allow us to open up the discussion of reassessing what health services are covered by the public system, and that means it will then be possible to remove current health services from coverage. Another is, "creating long-term sustainability and flexible funding options". I have to ask myself if the government that's proposing a more privatized health care system is just trying to avoid paying the bill. This policy proposal is coming from a government that according to a recent article in the Globe & Mail is talking about a $10 billion surplus.

It's important for us to note that within this “system that's as healthy as the people it's designed to serve”, preventative measures are mentioned nowhere. How healthy does the government want Canadians to be? It seems to me that the government's idea of 'sustainable' is to contribute less and less for our health care, in short to gradually chip away at our health care system, so that they can pass this growing financial burden on to families and individuals. I see another definition of sustainable, one that includes a not-so-revolutionary concept: prevention.

We've all heard our parents tell us that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I say we can make our country's health care system sustainable by promoting and supporting preventative health as a way to reduce the cost for all of us. For the most part, our health care system treats the symptoms and not the causes of our illnesses. It's said by some that the health care crisis is mainly a crisis in hospital funding and rising drug costs, but there is a bigger picture to be seen. The real answer is to go beyond a health care system to develop a fully-integrated health system, one that focuses on solving the underlying problems affecting our well-being, not just treating the symptoms. We can shift our way of life and build a sustainable public health system by fostering illness prevention through healthy and active living.

But healthy living is only a part of what will keep Canadians healthy. The other part is a healthy home. We need to start making the connection between a healthy environment and a healthy life. Canadians can no longer afford to be complacent in the face of mounting evidence that degradations in their environment are causing degradations of their health. It is widely accepted that asthma rates are linked to air pollution, meaning that the health system could save money if the government took real steps to curb things like vehicle and industrial emissions. Governments estimate that air pollution is responsible for thousands of premature deaths every year as well as causing higher asthma rates in children. In the last decade skin cancer has increased by 30 per cent. Pesticides that release powerful carcinogens and cause reproductive problems are still widely used and unregulated. Protection of the environment will translate into a greater balance in our health and will reduce pressure on our public health system.

According to the Romanow report our current system is sustainable, as we've seen in various European countries. We already have a degree of privatization; I have to pay the dentist for the candy I ate when I was younger straight out of my own pocket, and optometry is another health service that's not publicly funded. I'm not complaining about that, but I'd hate to have to make the choice between a hip-replacement operation next week costing thousands of dollars, and one in a few years that's paid for by the government. Our government insists that “if current spending trends continue, health care will consume Alberta's entire budget in 25 years.” If that's true, it will be because we've created more cancer, more childhood asthma, more autism, more unhealthy Canadians. It will mean that the private system won't work for us either. Either way, it certainly doesn't help Alberta's case. The fact that health care costs are increasing is an indicator that we're not only just an aging population, but that we're getting sicker and need more prevention and real health, not more privatization.

A sustainable health care system needs more than just increased tax dollars, or in the case of Klein's plan increased privatization. It needs support through health-conscious environmental policies, relief through practical promotion of healthy lifestyles (especially for children), nourishment through health-conscious regulation of the food industry, and coordination through a broader focus on health in all our social programs.

What I'm describing isn't costly, and it isn't even revolutionary. This is a real third choice; one that costs less, is sustainable, and allows for continued access to publicly funded health care services.

Cameron Wigmore

Green Party of Canada