East of the Don

This week’s federal election result shows that Canadians are ready for a progressive agenda. Unfortunately, the newly elected Liberal government will undoubtedly be a continuation of the neoliberal agenda of successive Conservative and Liberal parties. It is time for the NDP to abandon a failed strategy of ‘moving to the middle’. The rank and file of the NDP should take control of the party away from a leadership that has failed to provide what Canadians are seeking.

While I celebrate the end of the Harper government, on most key issues that matter to progressive the Trudeau agenda is either insubstantial or wrong headed.

Trudeau’s economic advisory panel is full of key players from Bay Street and the banks; absent is anyone with a serious interest in ending income inequality.

On the question of climate change Trudeau has promised sincerity but no action - which matches the record of past Liberal governments on climate change. While the climate crisis changes everything, Trudeau is more likely to change nothing.

The Liberal party's craven approach to C-51 and its history of support for a surveillance state speaks for itself. This party is fundamentally anti-privacy.

On questions of democratic reform, can we truly expect meaningful change from a historically corrupt party that has just gained another false majority? Trudeau is on the record as opposing proportional representation.

The signature ‘progressive’ economic element of the Trudeau campaign - running deficits for infrastructure investment - raises significant questions. First among those is: how will the infrastructure money be spent? Will ‘infrastructure spending’ be another public-private boondoggle to siphon billions of dollars of public money to private companies who will then be major corporate donors to the ruling party?                    

All progressives should cooperate during the period of this Liberal majority to identify and publicize Liberal failures to meet their promises to Canadians. We need a party that better represents the needs and aspirations of the millions. The latest campaign failed to convince them that the NDP is that party.

This result should end the delusion that ‘tacking to the center’ is a viable approach for the NDP. The federal campaign, and the 2014 Ontario NDP campaign demonstrate this. It seems that the campaign leadership was living in a bubble, disconnected from the wishes of the NDP membership and all of those Canadians who live paycheck to paycheck.

ONDP 2014 Convention

It has taken a week or so for my experience at the Ontario NDP convention to settle in. I’m taking this opportunity to formulate my impressions about the convention and my thoughts about implications for the next few years for activists engaged with the NDP. The following comments should be read as a series of impressions and thoughts coming from a personal point of view, and not as an attempt to report on the convention as a whole.

Impressions from the Convention Floor

Policy - The Minimal Policy policy convention

For a policy convention, too little time was spent on policy debates. One speaker at the microphones did the math and pointed out that out of 20 hours of convention time, 4 hours were devoted to actual policy debates. It’s almost as if the conference organizers were afraid what might happen in the headlines if too many policies, or policy debates, were exposed to the public. Instead, delegates were presented with a series of canned speeches, exhortations and poorly scripted & badly performed infomercials. Discontent with the dearth of participatory content, combined with a hangover from the last (overly controlled) convention and the perceived failure of the recent campaign explains the rancorous behaviour that many delegates engaged in at the microphones around procedural issues and agenda items. This was the only safe place where delegates could express displeasure at what some perceived as top down over-control. It is worth noting that when the convention did turn its attention to debating resolutions, those debates went reasonably smoothly because people were actually talking about policy and the future of the party.

Another reason that the policy debates went reasonably smoothly is that the majority of policy resolutions that were dealt with were either motherhood resolutions, or were focussed on specific issues for particular segments of the delegates. An example of the former was the resolution on prorogation, the first resolution to be considered in the “Education, Electoral Reform, Urban Affairs” plenary session. The resolution reads:

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Ontario NDP and the Federal NDP oppose the unilateral prorogation of Parliament or Legislatures in Canada for more than seven days with consent of the majority of elected members.

Such a resolution is hardly controversial, nor particularly social democratic. I’ll set aside how badly this was written. An example of a specific issue resolution was the first resolution to be dealt with in the “Health, Justice, Human Rights, Law Enforcement and Equality” plenary. That resolution reads as follows:

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the NDP ask the Southwest Local Health Integration Network (LHIN) to conduct a financial audit of Participation Lodge in Holland Centre to protect clients with physical and developmental disabilities who depend on these services to live independently and with dignity in the community.

Again, hardly controversial and not uniquely social democratic. That is not to say that both resolutions cited here are not worthwhile, because they are. But here’s the thing. There were 45 resolutions listed in the “Health, Justice, Human Rights, Law Enforcement and Equality” section of the convention book. Only those resolutions that make to the plenary AND are voted for by a majority of the delegates make it into the policy book. This effectively means that if a resolution is not in the top 5 to 10 on the list, it will not be considered.

The priority list was set by a committee appointed as part of the convention planning process. If, like me, a person wanted their riding association’s resolution to be moved up the priority list then that person would have to go to a resolutions appeal committee meeting to appeal to have the priority changed. To have your appeal considered you needed to submit a form with ten delegates’ signatures, from at least 5 different riding associations or affiliates. Once that hurdle was overcome, you are given three minutes to make a ‘pitch’ for why your resolution should be re-prioritized, and a representative of the prioritizing committee provides an explanation for why the resolution was prioritized the way it was. After the pitches are all made, the doors are closed, and everyone waits to hear the results of the committees deliberations just before the debate on the resolutions. I’m not sure if I could invent a more top-down and paternalistic system.

The policy process that I saw at convention is broken. One issue is the actual time allocated for debate. There was clearly an appetite for more policy debate amongst the delegates. There is an easy fix for this - schedule more time at the next convention. Another, and related, issue is the undemocratic prioritization process_. It is opaque and centralized, so that delegates feel at best mystified or at worst repressed or silenced by the process. This can be addressed, IF the leadership is willing to let the membership of the party determine the prioritization of resolutions. This could be done technically, using Internet based systems, or traditionally, perhaps by convening regional caucuses. At convention itself, it could be possible to hold sub-plenaries for the various policy areas and enabling delegates to focus on the areas that are of most concern to themselves. The way in which the antidemocratic prioritization process is addressed is less important than whether or not regular members recognize that this is a problem and communicate to the leadership that it needs to address the democratic deficit in policy formulation and prioritization at the next convention.

One final word on policy debates at convention. There are a number of reasons why individuals, riding associations and affiliates put forward policy resolutions. Policy wonks, for example, are interested in formulating the ‘correct’ policy and ensuring that it is on the books. For some that is sufficient. Others want to introduce statements relevant to a particular dispute, so that the policy statement can be taken back to their stakeholders, and so that the party can be seen to be supporting one side of an issue. Both of these are valid. But there is a third consideration - applicable to both policy wonks and those involved in disputes - affecting change in the real world, not just the policy book. To the extent that party policy and platform in elections have become disassociated with the policy book, and that both are disconnected from popular movements, that gap is another democratic deficit that needs to be addressed. Policy could be a tool for connecting with social movements and labour activists outside the confines of electoral politics, which can only work to the long term advantage of the NDP as a potentially progressive force.

Leadership - This is not the controversy you are looking for.

The question of the Leadership review occupied an unreasonably large amount of the media coverage, given that it was unlikely that it would result in a leadership convention. What should be read into the 77% vote that Andrea Horwath actually received? It is well known that significant elements of the party base were not happy with the campaign just completed. It’s also the case that from a straight numbers perspective that the Ontario NDP has done better in every successive election since Andrea became leader. In the lead up to this convention Andrea did a number of things to respond to the former issue. The two most significant were her tour of riding associations and her staff changes. In the first, she went to many ridings and heard what members had to say about the recent campaign. One suspects that the negative comments outweighed the positive comments by a wide margin. Time will tell if she was actively listening and has taken the comments on board. With respect to staff, she has fired some staff and has hired a well respected operator with a history of winning elections. That was the lead up to convention.

At convention delegates were faced with a simple question which boiled down to, “Should the party have a leadership convention?”. Based on my experience and conversations on the floor each delegate was asking themselves a number of questions, all implied by the actual question on the ballot. Simply put these questions were: * Given the debt from the campaign, can the party afford a leadership convention? * There will be Federal Election in 2015. Will a provincial leadership race take resources and energy away from the Federal NDP campaign? * Is there an obvious alternative to Andrea Horwath as leader? * Andrea has been going around the province, saying the things that the base need to here. In addition she has just hired a new chief of staff with a winning record. Do we want to give her another chance?

Given these questions, and the fact that there will be another convention in 2016, after the Federal campaign and before the next Provincial campaign, no one should be surprised at the results. At the end of the day my impression is that the delegates have given Andrea probationary approval. She has said the right things for the broader base of the party. Labour and left activists remain sceptical. What remains to be seen between now and the next convention is whether actual learning has taken place. This will be seen in policy pronouncements and in increased responsiveness to individual member, riding association and provincial council issues.

It’s 2014, or is it?

On Friday night delegates were treated to the spectacle of all the MPPs at the convention lined up on stage, being interviewed by Andrea about their experiences. The intent was, I think, to ‘connect’ to the delegates. But here’s the thing. All the MPP’s were on the convention floor. They were already connecting to the delegates. All that the Friday night show did was to convince people delegates that the MPPs are better politicians than entertainers. Worse, the lead in music for the event was Fleetwood Mac’s “Can’t stop thinking about tomorrow”. Why is that worse? Let’s put it this way. The song was released in 1976, 38 years ago. It was as if, at the 1976 convention, an event was staged using Bing Crosby’s “A Pocketful of Dreams” from 1938. The poor staging and the oldies sound track added up to an event designed to not attract young activists.

On Saturday morning, delegates listened to Andrea’s speech. The text of the speech hit all the right notes, but was greeted by lukewarm golf claps. At least the music for Andrea’s faux triumphant entrance was slightly more current. Delegates got to clap along with 1985’s “Sisters are doing if for themselves” by the Eurythmics and Aretha Franklin. Again, imagine the reaction of youth delegate in 1985 to hearing the leader coming in to the upbeat music of 1956’s “Let the good times roll”? Was there no one younger than 30 on the planning committee who could, or should, have said, “Hey folks, maybe we can find some upbeat pop tunes from THIS decade?”

Towards the end of the day on Saturday, delegates were presented with a session entitled “Engaging Youth locally, provincially and nationally.” The speakers were Ritallin, a young(ish) spoken word artist, and Kelsey Mech who is the National Director of the Canadian Youth Climate Coalition. Both were excellent and, given the level of noise in the hall, both were roundly ignored.

One would be forgiven, after seeing these three events, for thinking that this is a party of aging white baby boomers clinging to their tunes and their understanding of how progressive politics should work, hoping to beat the aging white baby boomers in the Liberal and Conservative parties. A cynic might say, “What’s the difference between yoghurt and the Ontario NDP? Yoghurt has live culture.” ba da boom. An optimist, on the other hand, will say, “We’ve learned from the 2014 campaign and we’re ready to move forward.” I prefer being an optimist.

What’s Next

The upcoming Federal election will allow an opportunity for the party to avoid the mistakes of the recent municipal and provincial campaigns. In both cases, the NDP candidate tried to convince voters that they would be a better liberal than the Liberals, and hated taxes more the Conservatives. In both cases the results were underwhelming. The next NDP campaign has to be both recognizably social democratic and appealing to the voters of “Ford Nation” - working people who rightly feel victimized and put upon. Fiscal responsibility is a social democratic value - especially when cast in terms of ensuring that there are sufficient government revenues to deliver needed services AND in ensuring that the tax burden is distributed progressively.

To build for the next election, and to counter the austerity rhetoric, a winning NDP campaign needs three elements:

The NDP should campaign in an open alliance with the trade unions who were, as Paul Moist pointed out at the convention, founding partners of the NDP. For their part, the unions need to work on educating their membership about the NDP and why that is a vote in their own interests.

The NDP should reclaim its social justice history and build open alliances with anti-poverty/austerity activists (inequality), democracy movements (anti-surveillance), social justice activists (anti-oppression) and climate activists. The best way to build these alliances is to have a clear program of what an NDP government would PROPOSE, to address those things that the activists OPPOSE. The recent $15/day day-care announcement is a case in point.

Critically the NDP must be seen as the most legitimate representation of the hopes of ‘regular working people’ or what old style lefties would call the working class. This will address both the canard that the Liberals are progressive and break up Ford nation. To do this, the NDP needs ‘messaging’ that addresses the real source of the pain felt by working people. It’s not government, it’s Bay Street and their bullies in the Liberal and Conservative Party.

Personal Information and Data Protection

Draft Resolution on Privacy for the 2014 Convention

I have drafted a resolution for consideration at the policy convention coming up in 2014. It has to do with the protection of privacy and personal information. There are a couple of reasons why this should be introduced and passed. The first is that the existing policy entries on privacy are hopelessly outdated. They were adopted at the 1970 convention and it shows. The actual text of my resolution is below.

In addition to the NDP policy book being outdated, there are some gaps in privacy protection in Ontario. Privacy in Ontario is covered by a number of pieces of legislation:

Legislation Scope Comments The Privacy Act Federal Intended to protect the privacy of citizens when federal government departments or agencies collect their personal information. It is seriously outdated The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act Federal Designed to protect privacy in the private sector. It includes protection for consumers and employees in the federal sector. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Ontario Designed to provide a right of access to provincial government information and to protect citizen privacy. Needs updating, especially because it specifically does not protect employee privacy theMunicipal Freedom of Information and Protection for Privacy Act Ontario The same as FIPPA, except for municipal governments The Personal Health Information Protection Act “PHIPA” Ontario Designed to protect the personal health information of all Ontarians, whether in the public or private sector. This also specifically excludes employees.

While this list of legislation looks comprehensive, consider the following:

Unless you work for a federally regulated institution (banks, insurance companies, telecommunications, rail, etc) your employee can collect whatever information they would like about you and have no obligation to protect your privacy. While some collective agreements have language that protects their members’ privacy this is hardly sufficient to protect individuals’ privacy in those places where they spend the greatest part of their day.

The Federal Privacy Commissioner does not have order making powers and if you want to hold a company accountable for violating your privacy, their isn’t much that the Federal Commissioner can do except to possibly get the company to change their policies so it won’t happen again.

Privacy By Design is a globally recognized standard for protecting privacy. It was adopted by the global Privacy Commissioners as a standard as a result of the work of Ann Cavoukian, the former Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. Ontario would be the perfect jurisdiction to be a global leader in building a privacy protective infrastructure for personal information. This will be critical for building in the trust that will be necessary for a robust information economy.

The decreasing cost of surveillance equipment, whether it is video surveillance on the street or digital surveillance of everything you do on the web, means that a wide range of actors are collecting unprecedented amounts of personal information for a wide variety of purposes. Every bit collected is a reduction in privacy and an increase in the likelihood that your personal information could be misappropriated or misused. The question isn’t “What have you got to hide?”. Rather, the question should be asked of the data grabbers, “What gives you the right to ask or take my information?”.

The misuse of personal information by both the Conservative and Liberal parties in the last few elections has done much to damage the trust that Canadians should have in their political processes and elected representatives. This trust needs to be earned back.

You should have the right to walk down the street, or surf the web, relatively free from intrusion. You shouldn’t have to give a prospective employer access to your social network passwords. You should be able to act as a free citizen at home, on the street, in the shopping centre, or on the web without feeling you need to censor yourself or guard from unknown watchers and listeners. There is a word for a state where you have those kind of worries. That is a police state and democracy can not thrive in a police state. That’s why it’s critical that this resolution be introduced and passed by as many ridings as possible.

Information and Privacy: the NDP commitment to protecting privacy

Whereas the original Information and Privacy section of the ONDP policy book was originally passed in 1970, before the personal computer and the Internet, and

Whereas section 9.5.3 (Data Banks) is out of date,

Whereas section 9.5.4 (Online Surveillance) is a reference to Federal Bill C–30 that has since been withdrawn,

Be It Therefore Resolved that section 9.5 of the current Ontario NDP policy book be deleted and replaced with the following text:

9.5 Personal Data Protection

Personal Data Protection: General Statement

New Democrats will

Recognize that all persons in Ontario have an inherent right to privacy in their personal and working lives.

Recognize that the ability to live and work free from surveillance is essential to individual freedom and democracy.

Guarantee that the Canadian Standards Association Model Code for Privacy (the 10 Privacy Principles in federal privacy legislation) will be applied in the public and private sectors in Ontario, including in the workplace and for political parties, including election campaigns.

9.5.1 Private Sector Privacy

Be It Resolved That the Ontario NDP will introduce made in Ontario private sector privacy legislation with the following goals:

To be substantially similar to the Federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA); and

To encourage all data processors to implement Privacy By Design; and

To establish the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario as the regulatory authority for private sector privacy in Ontario, including order making authority and the authority to levy fines; and

To enable individuals to sue organizations and other individuals for egregious invasions of their privacy; and

To protect consumers’ privacy; and

To enable individuals to protect their privacy when using the Internet; and

To ensure Privacy By Design for any service collecting childrens’ information; and

To ensure the protection of employee personal information.

9.5.2 Public and Health Sector Employee Privacy

Be It Resolved That the Ontario NDP will amend the current Ontario public and health sector privacy legislation to include privacy protection for employees and volunteers.

9.5.3 Video Surveillance

Be It Resolved That in order to minimize the intrusion of private and public video surveillance into the personal and working lives of Ontarians, the Ontario NDP will develop and implement legislation to ensure that the the use of video or digital surveillance on public and private property must be able to show that;

It is necessary to meet a specific and reasonable need; and

It is likely to be effective in meeting that need; and

The loss of privacy is proportional to the benefit gained; and

There is no other less privacy-invasive way to achieve the same end.

In addition,

Video surveillance will require posted notices, and

Any individual may complain to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario if they believe that a video surveillance fails to meet the test above; and

The Information and Privacy Commissioner may, after an investigation, issue orders to bring video surveillance installations into compliance and/or impose fines for failing to meet the standard above.

Any person may request access to their own images, and

In the Toronto Star, Thomas Mulcair wrote about the NDP approach to the conflict in the Palestine. I'd like to comment on a few of his remarks as an NDPer.

New Democrats have long been committed to a policy of supporting peaceful coexistence in viable, independent states with agreed-upon borders, an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, and an end to violence targeting civilians.

It seems to me that this policy needs to be revisited. The events of the last month have put paid to the notion that a 'two state' solution is a viable long-term solution. That is because the two states would have fundamentally antithetical reasons for existing. It's a recipe for unending conflict. Never mind that Israel's current definition of a Palestinian 'state' bears more resemblance to a 'First Nation' in Canada than it does to an actual independent state. It's also the case that the NDP should not support the notion of a religiously defined state, whether it is the Jewish state of Israel, the Buddhist state of Tibet, or the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq. The NDP should stand for secular democracies that protect the rights of all the religions in them. That's why the Oslo Accords should be abandoned, along with the infeasible 'two state' solution, in favour of a single secular state of Palestine/Israel.

Later in the piece, Thomas Mulcair talks about breaking the blockade, pledging aid for reconstruction, and to bringing injured Gazan children to Canada for treatment. These are all laudable and I'm proud to stand with the NDP leader on these issues. What is missing, however, is a clear and unequivocal denunciation of the crimes committed by the occupying power.

During the current conflict in Gaza, we have criticized the indiscriminate rocket fire and breaking of ceasefires by Hamas — and have been clear that Israel, like all countries, has the right to defend itself from attacks.

Just what are these so-called attacks? A recent article in Foreign Affairs captures my point perfectly and Foreign Affairs is not a friend of the left. The article is entitled "Gaza's Bottle Rockets: Why Hamas' Arsenal Wasn't Worth a War". Here's the key paragraph:

... Most of Hamas’ arsenal is comprised of homemade rockets that are decidedly incapable of inflicting mass civilian casualties, flattening apartment blocks, or causing conflagrations that consume entire cities. “Hamas’ rockets can kill people and they have,” a counter-intelligence veteran of the U.S. CIA who spent his career monitoring Israeli and Palestinian military capabilities told me recently, “but compared to what the Israelis are using, the Palestinians are firing bottle rockets.” Far from justifying the ground campaign in Gaza, the nature of Hamas’ arsenal makes Israel’s ongoing military operation entirely counterproductive." (emphasis added)

By failing to call out Israel as the occupying power using collective punishment against a people (not just 'Hamas') in what is effectively an open air prison, Thomas Mulcair has failed to live up to his own call for a balanced and principled approach. That is because a principled approach has to start from the basis of an clear appraisal of the situation as it currently exists.

If we were to have a principled and balanced approach to the day to day oppression of the Palestinians, and provide the hope for a real solution that is the real way to stop the bottle rockets, we might start by calling for the start of an integration of Palestinians into Israeli society, an end to the settlements and most particularly an end to the so-called separation barrier. Such an approach might best be summed by saying,

Mr. Netanyahu, Tear Down That Wall!

How to ignore the Supreme Court, push moderate Québecois away from federalism, and put partisan opportunism above the interests of the country.

Bob Rae recently distributed a flyer to some households in Toronto-Danforth personally attacking our MP, Craig Scott. I’d like to take this opportunity to respond to the demonstrably incorrect errors that Mr. Rae has made in this attack ad.

The flyer starts with a reference to the 1980 and the 1995 referendums. Of course if fails to mention that in both 1980 and 1995, Tom Mulcair fought in the trenches defending Canada and federalism. Both Tom, and Jack before him, are federalists to the core. In fact, the point of Craig Scott’s bill is to reduce the possibility of secession and fix the mess that the Liberals left behind.

Mr. Rae refers to the fact that the government of the day sought an opinion from the Supreme Courts. He fails to note that Craig Scott is an internationally respected constitutional lawyer, and that the NDP Unity Bill actually addresses the Supreme Court’s opinion - something the liberally misnamed Clarity Act signally failed to do. It’s also worth noting that while the English Canadian press are divided on the respose to Craig’s bill, legal opinions are not divided - Craig Scott has brought real clarity to the issue in support of federalism.

Craig Scott is focussed on replacing the problematic Clarity Act with a framework that is more faithful to the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgment in the Quebec Secession Reference – unifying and not dividing Canada. The bill also reflects the House of Commons’ recognition in 2006 that the Québécois constitute a nation within a united Canada. The NDP appears to be the only party that believes that the will of Parliament as expressed in that motion cannot be treated as empty words. In other words the NDP is putting the interests of the country first - including respecting the aspirations of the people of Québec.

The final point I want to make is about 50% +1. Mr. Rae acts as if this is somehow anti-democratic. Let’s be clear that what this initiates is a discussion based on a clear question. Given how long the Conservatives, and the Liberals before them, have used the first past the post electoral system to actually govern with 35 to 45 percent of the vote irrespective of the voter turnout, 50% + 1 to start discussions is more than fair. I would pose the other side of the question. If there is a 50% +1 vote to start discussions on a clear question, how can we NOT respect that desire for dialog. To do anything else would foster ill-will, increase support for hard line separatists, and be anti-democratic.

The Liberal Clarity Act is a artfully constructed political shell game that fails to address both the Supreme Court’s opinion and the need for real clarity.

Mr. Rae’s letter to consituents is even worse. It mispresents both the facts of the case and refuses to acknowledge the way that Craig Scott actually moves this issue forward. He concludes the letter with a postage paid response form, a privilege he has as a Member of Parliament. The response is a survey for the Liberal Caucus, and I have to wonder if this is the best use of taxpayers money. Surely this survey should be paid for by the Liberal Party?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but union membership is based on collective action to achieve collective benefits.

Ontario Tories say unions shouldn’t be allowed to bully teachers:

A Tory government would stop unions from “intimidating” teachers who want to provide extracurricular activities, leader Tim Hudak says.

M&A 2012:

We knew that the takeover of Nexen by CNOOC was big but I at least didn’t realize how big it was till I saw the Wall Street Journal’s list (Jan.2, 2013) of the 25 biggest M&A deals world-wide in 2012 where it ranked 5th and was the largest deal made by a Chinese company.

Canada made the list one more time with the takeover of Viterra by Glencore International of Switzerland (actually Anglo-Swiss) in the 25th spot. Viterra has its origins – as Canadian as they get – in the wheat pools and coops of western Caada. Prairie farmers were notoriously distrustful of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange and of commodity traders in general. So its ironic, and just a bit sad, that Glencore is a multinational commodity trading company – and mining company, which is pretty problematic these days – and is said to be the world’s largest commodity trader, no less. Also in 2012, in the 2nd largest M&A, Glencore acquired another Swiss multinational mining company, Xstrata, in what was called the biggest mining takeover ever.

While presumably of slight interest and consequence to Investment Canada, Glencore indeed has a chequered history. It was created in 1994 by billionaire commodity trader Marc Rich “who was charged with tax evasion and illegal dealings with Iran, but pardoned by Bill Clinton in 2001″ as he left office. Glencore is “now owned and runh by Marc Rich’s secretive inner circle of ‘lieutenants’.” (Wikopedia)

RepRisk, a business service that advises stakeholders on the environmental and social risks associated with individual companies, lists on is website “The Most Controversial Mining Companies of 2011.” In a race no-one should want to win, Glencore is ranked 3rd in the world, beating out Canada’s own Barrick Gold in 8th place.

So goes the relentless march of monopoly capital with all its baggage and collateral damage, cannibalizing Canada in the process.

This is what the Liberals are good at. Pledging action. Actually doing something? Not so much. Reducing child poverty by 6% from 2008 to 2010 seems more like the least that could have been done. A real poverty reduction strategy would be something more like a guaranteed minimum income for all Ontarians.

Leadership hopefuls pledge action against poverty:

For immediate release

Liberal Candidates pledge action against poverty, 25 in 5 Network survey shows

TORONTO, Jan 22, 2013 – Liberal candidates vying to become Ontario’s next premier are committing to step up the province’s fight against poverty. Results from a questionnaire released today by the 25 in 5 Network for Poverty Reduction reveal that most candidates, including both front-runners, are pledging action on income security, affordable housing and good jobs.

“We are encouraged that poverty reduction has been front and centre in this leadership contest,” said Sarah Blackstock of YWCA Toronto. “The specific commitments made by the majority of candidates are crucial if we are going to continue to build on Ontario’s Poverty Reduction Strategy, including reducing child poverty by 25% by the end of 2013.”

In 2008 the Liberal government introduced Ontario’s groundbreaking Poverty Reduction Strategy aimed at reducing child and family poverty by 25% by the end of 2013. The 25 in 5 Network’s recent annual progress report on Ontario’s five-year Poverty Reduction Strategy showed that between 2008 and 2010 Ontario made a number of important investments that helped reduce child poverty by more than 6%, lifting 29,000 children and their families out of poverty. However, the report also points out that the recent scaling back of investments, such as the slowed implementation of the Ontario Child Benefit, threatens to undermine progress and drive more Ontarians further into poverty.

As part of ongoing engagement with all parties, the 25 in 5 Network asked all Liberal leaderships candidates what they would each do to advance a poverty reduction strategy in Ontario, including meeting the 2013 commitment.

The candidates’ answers revealed that the majority see the development and implementation of Ontario’s next poverty reduction strategy as a priority.

The two front-runners – Kathleen Wynne and Sandra Pupatello – both made significant commitments in the areas of income security, welfare reform, and affordable housing. Eric Hoskins and Gerard Kennedy stood out as the candidates with the most comprehensive approaches to poverty reduction, vowing to increase minimum wage, reform social assistance and increase access to affordable housing. Charles Sousa also prioritized poverty reduction as part of his platform.

“We have seen how strong leadership and government action can and does reduce poverty,” said Kaylie Tiessen of the Mennonite Central Committee Ontario. “It is crucial that the next Premier makes the fight against poverty a priority, beginning with the next budget. The 25 in 5 Network will be meeting with all parties to provide our input to that budget.”

The candidate questionnaire results are available at: http://25in5.ca/?attachment_id=1022

  - 30 -

For more information, contact:

Sarah Blackstock, Director of Advocacy & Communications, YWCA Toronto

Phone: 416.961.8101 x 350 | Mobile 416.892.6845

  The 25 in 5 Network for Poverty Reduction is a non-partisan, multisectoral network comprised of more than 100 provincial and Toronto based organizations and individuals working on eliminating poverty in Ontario. For more information and to read the 25 in 5 Progress Report, visit www.25in5.ca.

GHG Cap & Trade:

This is a guest blog post written by Whitehorse-based economist, Luigi Zanasi.  Please feel free to comment.  Also, please note that this was written before Marc’s blog post of Jan. 14 re: BC’s carbon tax.

–

Towards a fair cap & trade system for GHG emissions

In the last two federal elections, the NDP quite rightly rejected the idea of a carbon tax for greenhouse gas emissions. The party did the same in the past BC election, a position that probably lost it the election because of the outraged Greens. Jack Layton and now Tom Mulcair argue for a cap-and-trade system, despite the dishonest attempts by Harper to portray it as a carbon tax.

What’s wrong with a carbon tax? There are two things wrong. First, like any other indirect tax (e.g. the GST or sales taxes), it is unfair to low and middle income people because they end up paying a much larger portion of their income than richer people – the technical term is that it is regressive tax. Second, we don’t know how much of a carbon tax we would need to reduce carbon emission to an acceptable level. Taxes, like price increases, work slowly, just look at how little of a reduction in gasoline and fuel oil consumption has occurred in Canada over the last couple of years despite the substantial increase in prices. And a carbon tax would be greatly and quite justifiably unpopular. Just ask Gordon Campbell or Christy Clark.

So what are the alternatives? When I was teaching economics at Yukon College, I explained that there were four different ways of dealing with pollution in addition to a pollution tax, which is what a carbon tax would be:

1. Regulation specifying maximum emissions, and let the polluters bear the costs.

2. Subsidies for pollution control equipment

3. Create property rights

4. Pollution permits

5. Tradable emission permits

The only one that would work for Greenhouse gas emissions is number 5: tradable emission permits. In other words, a cap-and-trade system. We cap the amount of GHGs that are emitted, someone gets the right to emit them and others who don’t have the rights have to buy them from those who do.

The question is how can we make such as system work. There are a whole slew of issues: who initially gets the credits? The companies who have been emitting GHGs and who have earned the right to do so? The government? Do companies get credits for sequestering gas? For planting trees?  Etc., etc. Attempts to make that kind of system work have not done very well in Europe. There has been considerable discussion especially in the UK on personal carbon trading, which is prima facie much more equitable than other allocations. But if we are going to give credits to individuals, how do we set up a scheme where they have to use their credits every time they buy fuel, electricity, beef and dairy from flatulent cattle, or methane-inducing beans? It can get really complicated.

I would like to propose to cut that Gordian knot with a new relatively simple scheme. Briefly, every citizen would get credits for the same number of tonnes of GHG which they could then sell. All producers of fossil fuels and importers of goods would be required to purchase credits before they could sell any of their stuff. That’s it. You get the GHG producers at the first point of sale.

On the selling side, initially, the government could auction off credits on a monthly basis and send everyone a cheque (or deposit directly in people’s accounts as is done with numerous social insurance schemes and for income tax refunds). Eventually, brokers would show up and people should be able to sell their credits through brokers. We could also require the banks to allow selling credits using ATMs and directly deposit the proceeds into bank accounts (with no fee of course), say with a chip-enabled social insurance card. Once the traders are in place, people could elect to sell their credits when they wanted. It probably would be best that people would get monthly credits which would expire in twelve months. So individuals who want to do more than their share could simply not sell their credits, reducing GHG emissions by even more than the cap implies.

On the purchasing side, any producer of fossil fuels (gas, oil, coal) would have to purchase credits to get a permit to sell it. Similarly, any importer of goods would have to purchase credits that reflect the carbon content of the goods they are selling, to avoid penalizing Canadian manufacturers. The calculation of the number of credits could be based on assigning a certain energy value for the production of each commodity in the Standard Commodity Classification (which is currently used to assess the amount of import duty). Then a carbon amount would be calculated based on the country of origin’s proportion of fossil fuels in its energy mix and the fossil fuel used for transportation. This is not a complicated exercise: I probably could do it in less than a month. I am sure the customs brokers would welcome the additional work.

We could also consider giving exporters of manufactured goods credits on the same basis as importers would have to buy so that they are not at a competitive disadvantage.

I think this is a fairly simple workable system. It avoids the complications of other trading schemes and is fundamentally equitable and egalitarian. Politically, getting a cheque is a lot more palatable than a new tax, or than increased prices without any offsetting compensation. Most importantly, it would make it relatively easy to meet emission targets.

Finally, it has not escaped my attention that this system could be extended to other countries, especially in the third world and could result in much more equality as credits are purchased by GHG emitting countries from citizens of poorer countries. Of course this would assume that every human has the right to the same number of credits.

The Power of Idle No More’s Resurgent Radicalism:

The remarkable Idle No More movement is the biggest and most important national outpouring of grassroots aboriginal anger ever seen in Canada. Not since the late 1960s when Indians (as they then referred to themselves) and Métis confronted governments with demands for justice has such a dramatic and passionate expression of resistance been seen. As the movement continues to grow we can only speculate on what its longer term outcome will be. Many movements begin with such spontaneous explosions of pent up anger and frustration. The successful ones find their feet quickly and are able, through collective leadership, to focus their energy and passion on a unifying vision and on some organizational form to press for its realization. Idle No More will be no different.

It is up against formidable odds: not just the normal difficulties of any new movement but a ruthless Harper government which responds only to power and an entrenched aboriginal leadership which is completely dependent on that same government. It is a leadership which long ago made a deal with the neo-colonial devil: you pay us and we will pretend to lead while you pretend to listen. It has been that way for over 30 years and those entrenched leaders in the national organizations — and many at the band level — will do everything in their power to sustain the status quo, notwithstanding all their radical rhetoric of the past 10 days.

In the late 1960s social movements of all kinds were at their peak — students, labour, anti-poverty, women, farmers, anti-war and “native” groups were organizing and demanding recognition from provincial and federal governments. A common message was that Canada did not have a genuine democracy because so many people had no voice in government. They also had in common a level of independence long forgotten — they raised their own money from their members and got virtually nothing from governments. But because of that they struggled to be effective voices for their causes (the exception being labour which did not lack for resources). The government of Pierre Trudeau responded to the accusations of a flawed democracy with the Ministry of Secretary of State. I once interviewed Gerard Pelletier, the department’s long time head, and he said, and I paraphrase: “The Marxists said liberal democracy was a sham so we provided funding for marginalized groups so their voices could be heard.”

I think Pelletier was genuine in his motivation. But there were other elements of the state not so sanguine about handing radicals a bunch of money to be more effective. And for aboriginal groups there was a special, racially-based fear, rooted in past conflicts on the prairies. Here the money was to be used to deflect aboriginal radicalism and channel the movements into relatively harmless activities.

That wasn’t so difficult to do. The funding was targeted. With limited core funding there was money for salaries for the elected board members of Métis and Indian organizations but, for example, no money for the political education of their members or money to mobilize them. Then governments began to hand over housing money to groups to administer — effectively making them part of the state structure and setting them up to take the flak when things went sideways. The radicalism disappeared (though the rhetoric did not) in a few short years.

There were voices counseling rejection of any government largesse. One of those voices was Malcolm Norris (the subject of a book I wrote in 1981: The One-and-a-Half Men: The Story of Jim Brady and Malcolm Norris, Métis Patriots of the Twentieth Century. Just days before he died in 1967, Norris was approached by an Alberta Métis leader seeking his advice on numerous issues. Norris told her: “I don’t want to talk about that. The only advice I have is to resist government funding. If you can do that all other issues will sort themselves out democratically.” It was prophetic advice from an exceptionally gifted and sophisticated leader. But the temptation was too great. The money began to flow in the early 1970s.

While all other social movement groups were under the purview of the Secretary of State, Treaty Indians were the responsibility of Indian Affairs. In the late 1970s their organizations were pressing the government on economic and social issues. They ran up against a Trudeau government which was preoccupied with constitutional questions. Increasingly, they were told to frame their demands in constitutional terms if they wanted to be heard. It was in taking this advice that First Peoples gradually became First Nations. That decision, taken over a period of years, had several effects. The first was to effectively eliminate the need for a real social movement with politically active members, taking their fight directly to the government. Once the struggle was constitutionalized it became exclusively a matter of government lawyers sitting down with First Nations lawyers (paid for, of course, by the government). That 30-year process produced just what successive federal governments hoped it would: a largely quiescent (idle?) aboriginal population still marginalized and impoverished. The cost of funding aboriginal political organizations was a pittance compared to that of actually delivering social and economic justice to hundreds of thousands of aboriginal Canadian citizens. The other effect was to separate the aboriginal struggle from that of other social movements. In the early days of the movements (at least in Saskatchewan) there was some co-operation and ongoing conversation between labour, youth and aboriginal leaders. But once Treaty Indians defined themselves as nations the potential for working with — and perhaps benefiting from — non-native groups gradually dried up. If you are your own nation, joining with people of a separate nation (especially one which you define as an oppressor) doesn’t make much sense.

Of course, in this case, the nations in First Nations were totally dependent on the nation they were negotiating with. While the government has constitutional obligations towards First Nations there is nothing in law that says they have to fund their organizations. That fact is never lost on AFN leaders and may well have been on Shawn Atleo’s mind when he decided to meet with Stephen Harper.

There are some fascinating similarities between the Idle No More phenomenon and the Occupy movement. Both reflect a political dualism: they are focused on the lack of democracy, justice and equality for ordinary people and they are implicitly (and with Idle No More explicitly) telling conventional movement organizations that are supposed to speak for them that they have failed.

And it should come as no surprise that most members of the leadership of Idle No More are women. By the late 1980s government funding had established a mutually beneficial relationship between governments and aboriginal leaders. Into this status-quo of continued poverty came native women’s organizations which were genuinely radical (they had no big salaries to lose) and often critical of the totally male dominated aboriginal groups. They were the voices of aboriginal communities — but lack of resources and bullying by the government-funded “official” organizations eventually prevailed. That they are back in leadership roles is one of the most important and positive aspects of the movement.

Idle No More is the most exciting development in aboriginal politics in two generations. It has rightfully scared the hell out of the entire First Nations leadership — from Shawn Atleo down to the hundreds of chiefs, too many of whom do in fact live high on the hog while their band members suffer. And it has got the attention of Stephen Harper, a man who has dedicated his political career to the interests of the oil and other resource industries threatened by Idle No More. Remember that he cancelled the Kelowna Accord soon after he became prime minister. The only reason Harper met with First Nations leaders is because his intelligence gathering told him this could be real trouble. Let’s hope it is.

The Ontario Minister of Education today confirmed what any long time observer should have known. The Liberal Party is a party of the 1% and, while it may have progressive members, it is in no way a progressive force. The austerity being cited to justify the abrogation of fundamental human rights is an artificial crisis imposed by this government as it busily used public money to bolster private enterprise.

If there is an election this spring, this lesson needs to be remembered. The Liberals are governing on behalf o the banks and large corporations - what another generation would have called the capitalist class. Working people and their families, whether or not they are in unions, are not a priority for this government.

Ontario education minister imposes new contracts on teachers - The Globe and Mail:

I know that everyone, especially in Toronto-Danforth,  is election weary. That being said, if we back into an election because of McGuinty's intransigence on getting those who have profited most out of the rising GDP to pay proportionately to their ability, there is space for the NDP to forge a winning campaign, based on principles and on the promise of bringing the agenda of working people and the poor to Queen's Park. Ensuring that all citizens have the ability to have food on the table, a dry roof, wellness, and opportunities for their children is not radical … it's basic human decency, and it's something the Liberals have forgotten even how to campaign on.

Why François Hollande won the first round against Nicolas Sarkozy:

The Socialist candidate offered a gutsy platform, ran at an opportune time and turned his populist/conservative opponent’s strengths into weaknesses

Is the task for this generation of rights activists to add a 'right to a healthy environment' to the charter?

Every Canadian's eco-rights need Charter protection:

In an era of global warming and mass industrial pollution, our rights - which are supposed to be guaranteed by the Charter - are increasingly threatened without recognition of our right to a healthy environment

Late on Saturday, March 24th, 2012 the New Democratic Party chose Thomas Mulcair, MP for Outremont, as its new Leader. He defeated Brian Topp by 57% to 43% on the fourth ballot. In the week that followed the press reaction and the reaction in the blogosphere ran the gamut from a practical choice for a party on the verge of power to a historical betrayal of the values of the NDP. In many ways the articles written said more about each writer, and the mythology that had grown up around Mulcair in the waning days of the campaign. I say let's put that behind us, and take a look at the next three years. After all, the real test of Mr. Mulcair will be in 2015. How will, or can, Mr. Mulcair build upon the strengths (and overcome the weaknesses) of the "Orange Crush" that propelled the NDP to official opposition status and has given Mr. Mulcair the keys to Stornoway. What is the route to an NDP government in 2015?

In broad strokes we know what needs to be done:

Consolidate the NDP position in Québec.

Build the NDP in Ontario.

Recover lost seats on the Prairies.

Grow the seat count in BC and the Atlantic provinces.

Others will play the seat count and horse race game of the various mathematical combinations that will allow the NDP to grow from 102 seats today to 170 seats or more in the next election (the House of Commons is growing to 338 seats). This post is about framing. The conservative budget, and in fact much of the neoliberal debate about public services - especially the attack on public service unions is based on an underlying emotional theme - envy. On almost every talking point in the austerity budgets we are facing these days you can hear the subtext, "They have something you don't have…" or "You work harder and get less than they do…" In other words these narratives are intended to focus the attention of working people on other working people - and not in a good way. It's part and parcel of the Conservative approach to retail attack politics, but it has the pernicious long term social impact of alienating people from one another and from the political process.

The NPD, and indeed the broader progressive left, can not and must not accept this kind of framing. It must be confronted, and an alternative narrative and framing must be put forward. Instead of "They have something you don't have…" the progressive framing should be, "Why doesn't everyone have that?" The success of the neoliberal agenda of the last 30 years has depended on a shell game of hiding how the game has been rigged to flow billions of dollars into the bank accounts (on shore and off shore) of the 1%. Mr. Mulcair can not, no matter what his personal politics are, avoid taking these questions on if he wishes to be Prime Minister in 2015. He will have the advantage of having the facts on his side. But if he plays the game of just saying that the NDP will be the better public administrators without also challenging the rules of the discourse, he will sound like a Liberal. And you can bet the farm that the mainstream media and the Liberal Party will be quick to point out that if you want to vote for Liberal policies, you should vote for the Liberal Party.

How can the NDP frame the debate over the next three years to its advantage? It can't, at least not by itself. It needs allies.

The Occupy Movement, or its successors and offshoots, need to be loud, consistent and present across the country raising the issue of inequality.

Unions need to reach out to the unorganized, especially in the white collar occupations that fill the urban office towers and the suburban subdivisions.

Social movements need to raise awareness on poverty, gender, and race issues

The NDP must consistently propose alternatives to the Conservative agenda based on building these communities and creating meaningful jobs.

There was a recent editorial in the pages of Canadian Dimension magazine, one of Canada's great left publications, about the NDP leadership contest. Full disclosure - I'm a former member of the editorial collective and an ardent supporter of Canadian Dimension. The editorial is called "Leading questions, Thoughts on the NDP leadership race". I recommend it for anyone who is interested in the leadership debate.

I understand the view that social democratic politics are, "...mounting at best a rearguard defense of an already weakened welfare state against ruling powers that grow more authoritarian, retrograde and militarist by the day." Authoritarian, retrograde and militarist certainly captures the essence of the the Harper government, and the Liberal regimes that it succeeded are objectively in the same ball park. Don't forget that the current 'lawful access' bill was originally introduced by the Liberals. I won't argue, either, with the statement that social democratic politics have grown more shallow and short-sighted and detached from social struggles. Partially that is because the technical side of electoral politics have changed, as witnessed by the Conservative micro-targeting campaigns. And partially it's the mutually abandonment by the NDP and the social movements of each other. The NDP can't change the fact that the new electoral techniques demonstrably work when big issues aren't on the table. So it can and must use those tools as well but must do so while still presenting long-term progressive goals to motivate people and increase voter turnout. I disagree with the bleak conclusion of the editorial, which suggest that the two-fold failure of the NDP to present a transformational leader and the lack of an organized mass opposition to Harper will enable Harper to complete his project to 'transform Canada beyond recognition'. Harper can and must be stopped.

On the question of the NDP leadership, it is a mistake to look to the NDP for a leader that will radically break with the NDP's past. After all, the NDP is coming off it's best electoral showing ever. The NDP is, at the end of the day, an electoral party and therefore tactically conservative and slow to embrace change.  Like much of organized labour, the NDP appears to have been slow to learn the lesson that this is a new millennium and that the 1% (or capital, or the bosses, or whatever buzzword you prefer) have taken the gloves off. Compromise is no longer an option. That being said, it is also critical to remember that for most Canadians, including the working class, politics means elections, not demonstrations. That in turn means that working class electoral politics ARE the NDP unless and until some other mass based political organization comes along, and maybe longer. Québec is an exception to this view for a number of reasons, but the possibility of building a federalist social democratic (in the NDP sense of that word) organization in Québec may alter the nature of that exception. I'll leave that discussion for  a later date. At the end of the day, none of the NDP leadership candidates are radical inspirational individuals that will initiate or lead fundamental transformative change in the way meant by the Canadian Dimension collective. But then that's not the job they are running for. They are running to be Leader of the Opposition in Parliament. To place radical transformative change on the agenda - where it belongs - we cannot depend on a single leader. We need mass leadership.

On the question of organized mass opposition to the neoliberal agenda, my perception is that this is exactly what is emerging. In the last few years I have had the pleasure participating in some very large mass demonstrations including an anti-prorogation rally, the G20 protest, and the initiation of  Occupy Toronto. None of these have been led by the 'old left'. That is is encouraging because of the participation of large numbers of people new to protests. But this also means there is room for organizational growth and learning. As spring approaches we will find out if the Occupy movement will continue to be able to mobilize significant numbers of people. New tactics will emerge. There is an Occupy Homes anti-foreclosure movement in the U.S. There is an Occupy Gardens Toronto collective of gardeners planting to share produce with all who are hungry - creating the elements of a new way of being. Both send powerful and inspirational messages - largely ignored by the mainstream media. Time will tell if 2011 was a flash in the pan, or the birth of a significant mass movement to address inequality. I chose to base my actions and hopes on the later.

So what does this mean for the NDP leadership? I expressed my initial thoughts on the leadership campaign elsewhere. What I'd like to suggest here is a way forward that might build on the mobilizations that I hope to see coming in opposition to Harper. Those mobilizations will need a voice on Parliament Hill - not to appropriate the movement but to amplify that voice and for the possibility of affecting large scale change. The NPD in opposition will need those mobilizations to maintain pressure on Harper and to have, as sad as this may be, 'sound bite' opportunities. Those of us that read the alternative media now that the Harper government is a fact-free zone, and that their assertions are completely ideological. The mainstream media, including the CBC, is failing all of us by not calling this out. Thousands of people mobilized will, however, get some coverage - however reluctantly. This means that the NDP needs a leader that will see mobilizations like Occupy as opportunities to forestall the Harper agenda, and to set up for an NDP campaign in 2015 that is 'attached' to social struggles. For electoral victory the NDP does not need a leader who sees civic society, or mass movements, as a threat or a 'distraction'. Electoral victory in 2015 can come to an NDP that maintains a reasonable electoral presence in Québec, an NDP that reconnects to federal voters in the West and Ontario, AND an NDP that is connected to the social movements growing and emerging in the current crisis. This last point is critical. The NDP needs the energy and support of the social movements and, I would argue, the social movements need an electoral voice.

Speaker to investigate report anonymous account publicizing minister’s divorce file originates from parliamentary IP address

(Via The Globe and Mail - Politics RSS feed)

Let's be clear of the opposing sleaziness here. On the one side we have a Minister of the Crown (Minister of Public Surveillance Vic Toews) using a hyperbolic and reprehensible reference to child abuse for partisan purposes. On the other side we have an anonymous person - possibly a person connected to the NDP - publishing publicly available material about said Minister.

The person responsible for the Twitter feed revealing data from Vic Toews divorce has, I suggest, operated independently of any party organization - whatever their personal affiliation. And what they have done might be a violation of their conditions of employment - by using a social network for non-work related purpose - but the worst that can be said about them is that they stooped to embarrass Vic  Toews. Personally I don't think he's capable of being embarrassed or he wouldn't have said half the bone-headed stuff he has.

Vic Toews, on the other hand, has gone so low as to equate a concern for civil liberties with a support for child abusers and pedophiles.