GPC Convention 2006

The Green Party of Canada 2006 National Convention will be taking place August 24 to 27, 2006 at the Ottawa Congress Centre in Ottawa, Ontario. This is the event for Party members, combining a policy convention and biennial general meeting. At the convention we will:

• Debate and vote on policy resolutions for ratification by the membership

• Elect the Leader of the Party

• Elect the governing Council of the Party

• Hold a general meeting of the membership (selection of shadow advocates, Ombuds committee, various resolutions, etc.)

I'll be working with the financial agent of the Crowfoot Federal Green Party Association to raise funds so that I will be able to attend the convention. An EDA (Electoral District Association) can pay part or all of a member’s costs of attending the convention. This can include part or all of registration, travel, and accommodation. EDAs can fundraise and take donations to be used to sponsor members to attend.

I am running for the position of Alberta Provincial Representative for federal council. The election will take place during the convention. The provincial representative responsibilities include representing the views of all Green political organizations in the province and participating in the decision making required to conduct the business of the party.

To ensure that our platform truly represents the party I will promote policy development through tools such as the living platform, and I will ensure that channels are open for all members to voice their thoughts.

The Greens will be the first choice of enough Canadians to make our platform a reality.

By improving media relations and increasing coverage through staying active with newsworthy endeavors in our communities and through the use of television spots we will ensure that every Canadian understands who we are, what we stand for and what we can do for our country.

More to come soon!

Conservatives short-change Future Generations

The following media release is in response to the new Conservative government’s budget.
- - -

Why cut GST, increase the burden on the working poor and subsidize air pollution?

(Ottawa – Tuesday, 2 May 2006) – "Why cut GST, increase the burden on the working poor and subsidize air pollution?" asked Green Party leader Jim Harris following Harper’s budget speech.

The Green Party is appalled at the Conservative government’s fiscal assault on Canadians’ quality of life and the failure of any party in Parliament to offer a vision of Canada that is fiscally, socially and environmentally sustainable.

"Cutting one or two percent off the GST proportionally increases the cost of collecting it," said Green Party finance critic, Ariel Lade, an economist based in Victoria, BC. "Instead of cutting the GST, why don’t we eliminate it from hybrid vehicles, bicycles, alternative medicine, and books?" At the same time the Green Party would levy against products and services that harm our way of life such as gas-guzzling vehicles, chemical fertilizers and unsustainable resource extraction.

A Green budget would include:

• Introducing fiscal incentives to meet Canada’s greenhouse emission targets. The Green Party would eliminate subsidies to the fossil fuel industry freeing billions to pay down the debt and improve healthcare;

• Eliminating the GST on things that improve society and reduce our ecological footprint such as hybrid vehicles, bicycles, alternative medicine, and books;

• Raising the basic personal exemption amount to relieve the additional tax burden on people living below the poverty line;

• Funding a citizen’s committee on democratic reform. We need an
electoral system that values every vote and encourages collaboration among different political parties in Parliament.

• Acknowledge that the government’s objective is to increase Canadians’ well-being and not simply create more economic activity for its own sake.

- 30 -

- - -

As a musician I've been wondering what will happen to arts funding. I suppose It's not all bad as funding for the arts wasn't taken away altogether, but it wasn't improved upon by any great degree, and it's obvious that this government is not a strong supporter of the arts.

Bob McPhee, a spokesman for the Canadian Arts Coalition says "At least it's an indication there is a level of support for the arts".

The Writers' Union of Canada expressed disappointment that the previous government's funding pledge to the council wasn't honoured.

"The government should go back to school and learn economics 101," Brian Brett, chair of the Writers' Union, said in a statement. "Funding to the arts is returned more than eight-fold to Canada's economy and to its tax revenue."

For more on this story see the following links.

$50 million for Canada Council but little for arts (Canadian Press)

http://tinyurl.com/l243c

Grateful for a few crumbs (Toronto Star)

http://tinyurl.com/kjkzt

Greens Around The World

When I first found out that there are Green Parties worldwide I was surprised, and a little concerned. Someone once mentioned to me that they thought any kind of worldwide organization needs to be watched carefully. I agreed, although I wondered; was it reasonable to think that being part of a worldwide movement, the Green Party - working for environmental concerns and social justice – could actually be a dangerous force? I wondered if there was a sound reason for this concern, so I decided to look into it further. What I found was that the Greens are actually standing up to the truly concerning international organizations such as the WTO (World Trade Organization), the IMF (International Monetary Fund), and the World Bank. More than that, the Green Party is increasing it's impact through international cooperation, while at the same time focusing on specific issues locally at the grassroots level.

Read on to learn about Green Party history and efforts worldwide.

Green parties and their achievements worldwide

Europe

Over the last 23 years, Green parties have participated in governing 15 European countries, including Finland, Italy, France, Germany and Belgium. There have been 44 cabinet-level Green government ministers across Europe during this time.

• In 1995, Finland became the first Western European country to have the Green party serve in government. With seven years in government, the party remains the longest serving Green party in government.

• Starting in 1996, Italy's Green Party participated in government for six years. Currently, the Green Party has nine senators.

• In 2002, the German Greens took 55 parliamentary seats, taking office in a coalition government with the Social Democrats. Hans-Christian Ströbele was elected to the Bundestag as a district representative for the Kreuzberg-Friedrichshain constituency in Berlin – the first-ever Green to achieve this in Germany.

• This coalition government ruled for three years, and the Green Party was instrumental in pushing to shut down nuclear energy reactors. The German Green Party's Jürgen Trittin, who was the country's environment minister, oversaw Germany's huge investments in renewable energy sources, primarily wind power. As Foreign minister, Joschka Fisher pushed for and insisted on Germany's disapproval of the war against Iraq.

• German Green legislation enshrined the protection of gay and lesbian couples. Greens have also given continued support to a bill for an Anti-Discrimination Law in the Bundestag and to Agenda 2010, a major reform of the German social security systems that was planned by former chancellor Schröder.

• Belgian Greens began governing in a three-way coalition with Socialists and Liberals in 1999 for five years. Currently, five ministers, four deputies and two senators are Green Party members, including the Vice Prime Minister, Minister of Transport and Mobility Isabelle Durant, and State Secretary for Energy and Sustainable Development Olivier Deleuze. As in Germany, the party has played a key role in the phase-out of nuclear energy.

• In 2004, Latvian Green Party co-chair Indulis Emsis served as Prime Minister of the country. The current Minister of Environment, Raimonds Vejonis, is a member of the Latvian Green Party.

• In Austria, the Green Party has elected representatives in almost all regional parliaments as well as in the European Parliament, and in national and city councils.

• In Spain, the Green Party on Barcelona's municipal council enacted the Barcelona Solar Thermal Ordinance, a far-reaching solar-thermal policy that has increased the city's use of renewable energy. By 2010, Barcelona aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent from 1999 levels. The policy has since been adopted by Madrid, Valencia, Seville, Burgos, and Pamplona.

• In the United Kingdom, the Green Party has 63 Principal Authority Councillors and two members of the Greater London Assembly. The Greens represent the fourth largest political group in the European Parliament.

• As well, Greens are in power-sharing governments in Castle Morpeth, Kirklees, Leeds and Lancaster. Furthermore, there are Green MPs in Scotland, and the Republic of Ireland, on the House of Lords, London Assembly Members, and Green councillors in towns, parishes, counties, and boroughs across Britain, including Brighton and Hackney in London and Green councillors in Oxford.

• Switzerland has 15 Green Party members in parliament.

European Union

• The Green-European Free Alliance has 42 seats in the European Parliament. Green MEPs called for and achieved a resolution calling for the ban of radioactive warheads and cluster bombs.

• The International Criminal Court was founded on a model developed by the Green-European Free Alliance.

• Green Party MEP Dr. Caroline Lucas is an outspoken critic of the Common Agricultural Policy, and has campaigned for an organic, local and safe agricultural system. She has proposed ways of reducing the impact and buying power of large supermarket chains, and has lobbied the UK government to use EU money to help farmers promote local food initiatives.

• Green MEPs have campaigned for a binding legal framework for corporate social responsibility; Green MEP Jean Lambert has pushed for EU legislation extending full-time employment rights to temporary staff.

• Thanks in large part to the efforts of Green MEPs, there is a substantial push for cuts in aircraft noise and for the airlines to pay for damaging the environment.

• Green MEPs have also pushed for bans on the use of carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic substances in the production of cosmetics.

• EU Greens have lobbied for proper and precise food and consumer products' labeling, and are behind numerous air quality, water and nutrition initiatives. They introduced the "polluter pays" principle and succeeded in improving laws on issues such as animal welfare and GMOs.

• German Green minister Renate Künast lobbied the WTO for the right to sufficient and safe food and the access to global markets for a fair global economy.

New Zealand

• There are currently six Green Party members in the New Zealand Parliament, who effectively hold the balance of power in a weak Labour Party government. Thanks to the Greens, the country New Zealand is officially a nuclear free country, and is free of genetic engineering.

• The Green Party developed and helped pass the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Bill, New Zealand's first-ever piece of legislation designed specifically to address climate change.

• The New Zealand Green Party has led the way on issues of peak oil production and of contingency plans to cope with eventual oil shortages, higher prices and international turmoil.

• The party has been instrumental in the establishment of an Independent Prison Inspectorate, as well as launching a jointly developed first national walking and cycling strategy.

• It has called for complementary health practitioners to be integrated into the health system, and in the 2002-03 budget negotiated $3.2 million towards cleaning up and recording highly contaminated sites.

Australia

• The Australian Green Party started in 1992. Today, it has five senators, 15 state legislators, and 80 members of local government.

• In Melbourne, Green city councilors have enacted Nuclear-Free Melbourne, making the city nuclear-free. They've adopted and promoted The Earth Charter, and pushed for equal justice for refugees. They further developed a 20 Year Water Management Plan, as well as a blueprint for a 30 percent increase in green power.

Mexico

• The Mexican Green Party has four federal deputies and five senators.

United States

• 213 Greens in 27 states and the District of Columbia hold elected office as of November 2005. This includes city councillors, mayors, boards of supervisors, school boards, constables, commissioners and others. Some of their achievements include the pioneering Living Wage ordinance in Santa Monica, California.

Canada

• 15 members of the Green Party of BC were elected in B.C. in 2005, on November 19, 2005 including Sonya Chandler of Victoria, Lisa Barrett of Bowen Island, Garmen Gustafson of Golden, Janice Harris of North Vancouver District, Jane Sterk of Esquimalt, Peter Waterman of Summerland City, and Lee Ann Johnson of Gibsons.

Other countries

• Today, the Mongolian Greens have 3,000 members nationwide, and has six seats on the municipal and provincial level.

• Brazilian Greens now have 54 mayors and seven MPs.

• In Japan there are 19 Green city councilors.

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

Faith & Politics

I am a Christian. That said, I have no need for others to adopt my personal beliefs or values. I say this because it should be clear that I am working to serve my constituency and my party. I'm not here to tell people how they should or shouldn't live their lives. There is a clear line between my political duties and my spiritual duties. However, I choose to live by example using principles such as tolerance, patience & compassion, and therefore my spirituality is always a part of my political life. I've chosen to be a part of the Green Party which best represents my beliefs, and I'm open about where I stand on all issues. Since there can never be a political party that represents all of any one person's beliefs or values, I see it as wise for us to vote based on political issues, and live our daily lives according to our own personal values and beliefs.

I made the decision to become a Christian in 2005. I had been married for almost two years, and over that time I came to know my wife's family very well. My wife Jennifer and her family are Christians. Her parents worked as missionaries in Laos for many years. My father-in-law is currently a semi-retired chaplain at the Drumheller penitentiary, and my mother-in-law is retired, having also worked at the penitentiary as a psychologist. While I was raised with Christian values, never in my life have I known Christians as devoted and down to Earth as my wife's family. These are normal people, complete with the same set of trials and tests as anyone else. The way they deal with their struggles is an example of living by faith. I have known many Christians. Some are active in living by their faith in God, while others are not.

Some Christians use single issues to guide their vote. It's my belief that a lot of us experience this temptation, but I think single issues should not determine our choice. We can become so involved in a single issue that it affects all of our political involvement including voting. Your vote helps to elect one political party as our governing power for many years. They will determine the use of our taxes, resources and write laws. We can ask ourselves, “do I want to vote someone into power just because of one moral issue?” Looking at all issues and policies - what benefits everyone - is a good idea. We all have different priorities, but our voting choice needs to be based on a bigger view than just one issue.

Politicians from all walks of life need to work in harmony with their personal principles. A Christian could always vote for the sole reason that a politician is openly Christian, but is this the best way to vote for a political candidate? Look at how politicians explain the impact of their faith for the policies they propose. Explore the reasons behind a politician's support (or lack of support) for governmental involvement in the issues that concern you.

Jesuit priest and theologian John Courtney Murray said, "it is not the function of civil law to prescribe everything that is morally right and to forbid everything that is morally wrong." I find this argument interesting because in Canada the line between what is the responsibility of the government and what's not is often blurred. At the same time one might say that it's not the place of the church to dictate what we should or shouldn't do; what we as Canadians have a right to do under civil law. A former Canadian prime minister said, “the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.” In the end, common sense should allow our government to make the right call on issues related to morality and values, but can we assume they possess the necessary common sense to make these decisions? And where do we as a country draw the line regarding government involvement in our own personal lives? These are some of the tough questions that need to be answered.

Preston Manning wrote "moral leadership in our society must of necessity involve bridging the current 'disconnect' between political leadership and people of faith." However, he has argued, not by treating the faith community as an interest group to be targeted and mobilized for political purposes. "Appealing for votes on the basis of religious faith is ultimately bad politics and bad public policy, conducive to creating permanent and divisive cleavages in society," says Manning. "More important, mobilizing votes on the basis of religious commitment can be particularly destructive to the religious community itself and its testimony to the rest of the public."

Janet Epp Buckingham, director of the Centre for Faith and Public Life of The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, concurs. "While believers should be involved in politics, the separation of Church and state is necessary, and even beneficial, to allow for perspective and criticism of public policies," she says.

Prior to the recent US election, Buckingham wrote "we have lately witnessed not only a lack of separation but positive co-operation of Church and politics. The alignment of the so-called 'Christian right' with the Republican Party in the U.S. was very negative for both. It focused attention on one brand of Christian ideology while at the same time moving the Republicans from the mainstream: when the Republicans lost, the Christian right demonized the Democrats." Today the damage is going the other way. With Republicans having done well, many now demonize America's religious right.

"In Canada, there is a long tradition of people of faith being involved in politics," says Buckingham. "But this is a very different thing from churches themselves being involved in politics … .The Church must be able to keep distance and perspective on public policy. It must be able to be critical of policies. Its job is to offer a better way. Of course, there are Christians in politics. This is as it should be, as there are many Christians in society. The Church should be supportive of these Christians, no matter which political party they represent … .Canadian Christians have voted in very similar proportions as the general population. There are Christian MPs in every political party. No one party can claim that it represents the interests or concerns of Christians in Canada. There is great danger in the Church or any part of it aligning with any one party."

Manning tells audiences the story of "the day the scribes and Pharisees tried to get Jesus into political trouble over the issue of taxes. 'Is it lawful to pay tribute to Caesar?' They think they have Him. If He says Yes, He will lose the support of the ordinary people who despised Roman taxes. But if He says No, He will be guilty of treason. What does He do? First, He takes His time. He asks for a coin. Whose inscription is this? Caesar's. 'Then render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's but unto God the things that are God's.'"