Why I Decided to Run as a Green Party Candidate

Since the beginning of the campaign, it has been my intention to bring the issue of long-term sustainability to the forefront of the debate. As the new century has unfolded it has become clear to increasing numbers of us that we are at a very critical time in the evolution of humanity on our precious planet. We see the strains of the earth reaching and surpassing its ecological limits all around us. Whether it is our collapsed cod fishery, pine beetle infestation, disappearing polar ice sheets, rising carbon emissions or reduction in biodiversity, the evidence of our impact is overwhelming.

We know that if every person on the planet consumed resources at the rate that the average Ontarian does, we would need at least four planets to support them. This is unsustainable and must be corrected if we are to continue to exist as a species.

I challenge my political opponents to recognize that the long-term consequences of our policy decisions must be accounted for. In the 1950’s the prevailing view was that energy resources were limitless, and that there was no down side to harnessing the power of carbon. My, how times have changed. We are now being confronted with the consequences of such short-term thinking. We now know that if we design our cities for cars, and invest more in highways to move those cars instead of transit to move people, what we get is, no surprise, more cars, congestion, sprawl, fouled air and climate change.

In spite of this, our present political leaders suggest that we need only change a few light bulbs, and perhaps drive a different car. Otherwise, we can continue to expand and consume as before.

The Green Party of Ontario sees things very differently. We believe that we are approaching a tipping point over which we must not fall. We believe that we must begin now to discuss, develop and implement ways of living on this planet that truly is sustainable.

We recognize that any growth must be balanced with the imperative of finite resources. We believe that social, economic and environmental policy should:

1. create a green and sustainable living for the people of Ontario

2. contribute to the planet’s greater good

3. establish the foundation for a green and sustainable future.

Our platform seeks to do so not by spending more money, but by shifting priorities to achieve sustainable results.

It is my sincerest desire that my colleagues of all political stripes will accept the challenge to debate how their proposals move us to sustainability. The decisions we make today will have an impact for generations to come. Politicians must be challenged to explain not only what they will do for us today and for the next four years. They must also explain how their proposals will benefit our children and grand children.

We must remember that ultimately, we do not own this precious planet. We borrow it from future generations.

Faith Based School Funding - A Choice for Ontario

John Tory, with his early summer announcement that he would extend funding to faith based schools across Ontario, has changed the face of this election. He has clearly drawn a line in the sand on this issue, proclaiming that it is a matter of principle, and the right thing to do.

On the point of it being a principled position, there can be no argument. Dalton McGuinty may believe otherwise, but, the status quo, whereby Ontario funds one religious group to the exclusion of others, is indefensible. Does this mean, though, that we must fund all faith based schools? The Green Party believes that full consideration must be given to the alternative of moving toward a unified public system.

Our current system has its roots in pre-confederation Ontario when a Methodist Minister, Egerton Ryerson, was laying the foundation. There was no consideration at that time of any faith other than Christianity. The only issue was your denomination within that faith. The schism of the day was between Protestant and Catholic.

This is the 21st Century, however, and times clearly have changed. Unfortunately our method of funding education has not.

John Tory, as noted above, would have us solve this by extending funding to all faith based institutions that follow Ministry of Education guidelines and its curriculum. I believe this to be a short sighted path that moves us away from long term sustainability for our education system. Not only financially costly, the ultimate effect is that it moves us toward focusing on what separates us rather than what bring us together.

There are many financial and environmental arguments that can be made against such a proposal. John Tory has already thrown out the figure of investing an extra half a billion dollars to bring this about. This is from someone who professes to be a firm believer in economic efficiency. Environmentally, the profusion of various separate schools would lead to ever more demand for transportation as children go from one side of a city to another to get to their unique school.

However, these immediate costs pale in comparison to the long term social consequences. Ontario’s immigration patterns have changed in the past thirty years. People of a multitude of faiths and ethnic backgrounds have been welcomed. We have had difficulties, but we, and our children, have ultimately learned so much from each other. We are now recognized around the world as an example of how diversity can be celebrated, while simultaneously developing vibrant cohesive communities.

One of my most memorable experiences in this regard was from three summers ago. I had the opportunity to volunteer as a teacher’s assistant in a summer ESL class for teenagers. About twenty students in each class, from at least a dozen different backgrounds. New friendships were being formed amongst the students. I noted in particular two young students who were virtually inseparable in their friendship. One Muslim, the other Jewish, both newly arrived in Canada. And then there was the shy Christian from Jordan helped with his homework by the equally shy Vietnamese Buddhist. It was a memorable summer for all of us. How could this have happened if each newcomer had been directed toward a faith-based education?

In our schools today our children have the opportunity to discover what brings them together while simultaneously appreciating their diversity. I do believe that so many of these opportunities would be lost if we chose the path of further fragmentation of our educational system.

I make the argument then, for a unified school system, not on the basis of the economic and environmental arguments, (although such arguments are valid), but because it simply is the right thing to do to ensure that we continue to develop strong, cohesive, respectful communities.

Responding to Questions from the Manor Park Chronicle

Manor Park Chronicle

September, 2007 Edition

Questions for Ottawa-Vanier, October 10, 2007 Provincial Election

Q1: The NCC and the governments of Ontario and Quebec are jointly funding an Environmental Assessment of proposed locations for one or more new interprovincial crossings. There has been considerable public comment on this issue from politicians at all three levels and from the general public.

Do you favour any of the options under study? Do you believe that Kettle Island would be a viable location for a new crossing?

Word Limit: 275

I currently do not favour any of the options under study. There is a fundamental flaw in the Terms of Reference of the Environmental Assessment. They are based on the assumption that we should continue to encourage and expect growth in demand for automobile and trucking transportation infrastructure. As we are all well aware, Canada, like every other nation, needs to develop and implement action plans that respond to the twin threats of climate change and dwindling carbon based energy supplies. Such action plans therefore, need to point us in the direction of reducing, not increasing our dependence on the personal automobile and reliance on truck transport. Any future transportation infrastructure investments need to recognize this reality.

The need to remove truck transport from downtown Ottawa provides us with the opportunity to make wise long-term investments in our infrastructure. Our first goal should be to reduce demand for automobile infrastructure by ensuring that a seamless inter-provincial mass transit system is developed. Second, recognizing that rail is a far more efficient use of energy, we must begin to plan now for greater reliance on it as opposed to trucks for the transportation of goods. Third, any new infrastructure should be tolled to appropriate cost to users.

I am not in favour of the Kettle Island crossing. According to studies already completed by the NCC and the former Region it has been shown to be the most costly, not only financially, but also environmentally and socially. We need a solution that removes truck traffic from our communities. As your MPP I would work for a transportation infrastructure that brings us to together, instead of splitting us apart.

Q2: Zoning decisions made at the municipal level may be challenged at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). Since the OMB is a quasi-judicial body, a successful case usually depends on legal counsel and expert witnesses.

What are your views on the role and structure of the OMB?

Word Limit: 200

Ontario is unique within Canada in having this type of oversight of municipal decision-making. Like our antiquated municipal tax system, it has its origins in late 19^th Century patriarchal Ontario. It was developed at a time when the only way to legally deal with many municipal matters was through private bills in the Provincial Legislature. Obviously, times have changed and our municipalities have matured. Unfortunately, the OMB has not; as it continues to intervene in the same manner it did over 100 years ago.

Being quasi-judicial it is by definition undemocratic and arbitrary. Far too often a local community will, through democratic process, choose a particular development path, only to be threatened with appeal to the OMB. Local communities are often at a distinct disadvantage as they seldom can match the resources of a deep-pocketed developer.

As your MPP I would propose a thorough review of the mandate and purpose of the OMB. We must start by looking at best practices in other jurisdictions in Canada. How has the rest of the country been served without such an oversight body? Maybe they know something we don’t.

Q3: Municipalities across Ontario are struggling to meet their commitments within their current taxation capabilities. The basis for calculating property assessment for taxation purposes has also been controversial.

What services should be funded by property taxes?

What is the best method to finance municipalities?

Should there be changes to the structure and responsibilities of MPAC (the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation)?

Word Limit: 350

The municipal tax system in Ontario, like the OMB, is a quaint relic of the 19^th Century that has not kept up with the times. The Green Party of Ontario believes that part of the solution lies in moving toward a system that assesses land value, but not the value of buildings and improvements made to such buildings, to determine municipal tax rates. This would vastly simplify the responsibilities of MPAC, as the relative value of building improvements would not be considered in their calculations.

Our plan would encourage development more along the lines of a municipality’s official plan. Land value is proportional not only to its quantity, but also to the scale and type of development permitted. Our proposal would create a disincentive to land speculation, as the property would be taxed according to its full potential for use, as reflected in its assessment and class.

This removes the disincentive of higher taxes on home improvement. A property owner is more likely to invest in best building practices, and erect a carbon neutral facility with the threat of higher taxes removed. This enhances not only the value of the building, but the community at large with cleaner air.

Another part of the solution lies in apportioning taxes according to the cost of specific services provided. Dense communities are generally less costly to serve than sprawling communities. We need a method to recognize this fact when tax bills are calculated.

Changes also are needed to the Provincial Development Charges Act. It is much too restrictive in its definition of what costs municipalities can recoup from Greenfield development. This needs to be changed to ensure that the full cost of urban sprawl is assessed to those who create it.

The cost of services that involve income redistribution and equity-related goals should not be borne by the municipal taxpayer. Therefore the provincial government should take back responsibility for 100% of the funding of all provincially mandated social service programs. The Liberals have had four years to fix the problem created by the Harris Conservatives, yet they have failed to act.

Q4: The provision of a secure electricity supply, while minimizing environmental impacts, is an important issue in Ontario. Ontario has a growing population, yet an aging electricity generation and transmission infrastructure.

What do you propose should be done on both the electricity supply and demand sides?

Word Limit: 175

As Ontario and the world confronts dwindling non-renewable energy reserves we must refocus our strategy on developing local renewable resources.

Unfortunately the province seems determined to make a critical investment error as it considers betting the farm on a $45-billion investment in nuclear energy. It takes at least 12 years to bring a nuclear plant on stream. Historically they have been drastically over-budget and never as reliable as predicted.

Instead, we must invest now in local communities. We need to remove electric element space and water heating from hundreds of thousands of Ontario homes. We must provide real-time feedback to consumers on consumption. We need to aggressively push the installation of solar hot water and geo-thermal earth energy systems.

We need changes to our building and electrical codes and the Planning Act that will mandate the highest energy efficiency of all future construction and development. It is much cheaper, more secure, and more environmentally friendly to conserve a megawatt than produce one. Our future energy security depends on a strong localized energy infrastructure.

Liberals Continue to Expand Highways

I read in the Ottawa Sun this morning that Dalton McGuinty wants us to spend $104 million on expanding highway 174 to four lanes from two from Orleans to Rockland.

…the premier said the widening would go a long way to improving access to the road and will make the Queensway safer and less congested. McGuinty is also investing almost $50 million to widen Hwy. 417 from two to four lanes from the Queensway to west of Jinkinson Rd. and widening the Queensway from four to eight lanes from Hwy. 416 to Eagleson Rd.

Yesterday’s announcement comes four days after Conservative Leader John Tory was in town and criticized McGuinty for not doing enough to relieve traffic congestion in Ottawa.

I find it so curious that the Liberals and Conservatives like to proclaim how green they are yet they continue to promote 1950’s style thinking that encourages an ever expanding road network.

It is clear that you cannot build your way out of congestion. This has been documented time and time again. No where is the adage more true that “if you build it, they will come” than with highway expansion.

We know that we must begin to plan for the post carbon era as we are confronted with dwindling oil and gas reserves. We know that individual automobile transportation is the least efficient way to move people. Yet, in the face of this reality, all of the other political parties continue to promote highway expansion.

If we want a world class efficient transportation infrastructure, we need to stop investing in highway expansion that is designed to move automobiles, and refocus our efforts on mass transit that is designed to move people where they want to go, when they want to go there.

Talking to Ottawa City Council About Their "Transformation" Agenda

Good afternoon. My name is Leonard Poole. I speak to you today as the Green Party candidate for the riding of Ottawa-Vanier in the upcoming provincial election of October 10.

It was with considerable fanfare and sense of excitement in the air that the 20/20 visioning exercise was launched as the new City of Ottawa was formed.

I was just beginning my volunteer work with the Overbrook-Forbes Community Resource Centre and the Community Council of Overbrook.

I was impressed with the thrust of the proposals. After widespread consultation the clear consensus was that we needed to incorporate long term sustainable practices into the very fabric of our decision making process.

Today I shall first explain the fundamental roadblock I see to our efforts to effectively implement our 20/20 vision. Secondly I shall speak to how these few pages in this Strategic Directions document work against promotion of sustainable practices. Finally, I shall urge you to lobby for a complete overhaul of our method of municipal taxation to move us toward true sustainable thinking in our municipalities.

The flaw in the 20/20 exercise was that although we agreed to lofty goals; we did not incorporate a process to take us there. We did not recognize that to move toward sustainability we must have a mechanism that captures all costs. It is accepted by numerous municipalities worldwide that every decision made must account for not only the immediate financial impacts, but also the long-term environmental and social costs, or the triple bottom line.

Most of us remember the horrendous 2004 budget process. Everyone was focused on ???fiscal responsibility???. Many, including a number of you around this table, insisted on a zero percent tax increase. Representing the Community Council of Overbrook, I brought the following definition of ???fiscal responsibility???.

For some it means spending the least amount of money, every year, and do whatever it takes to avoid a tax increase. In our view, it means spending the correct amount of money today to ensure that in the long term we spend the least amount of money.

Our point was that when you only focus on minimizing immediate financial costs you inevitably incur larger costs in the long term. In essence, we download our social and environmental expenses on to future generations. Time and again we have been guilty of this as we seek the lowest possible tax rate and view only the immediate financial implications.

Time restrictions permit me to only highlight what I view as the most egregious aspects of this document.

1. Page 6, point C3. Close the gap, in an environmentally responsible manner if possible, in general facilities and park renewal by 10% per year. This is outrageous. Why should we be leaving ourselves an opening to behave in anything other than an environmentally responsible manner? A clear example of passing our problems onto future generations.
2. Page 6, point D4. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 20% by 2012. Is it necessary to point out how meaningless this is? Rather than setting an aggressive minimum goal of reduction, it tells us to limit our efforts to no more than 20% improvement. I thought we wanted to be a city with swagger that could boast of its achievements? Instead we can boast that we did nothing and still met our stated goals!
3. Page 8, point b4. Deliver agreed-to level of service at the lowest possible cost. Although sounding like a laudable goal, this statement speaks only to immediate financial costs. We assure ourselves of higher long-term costs when we fail to capture the full environmental and social implications of our decisions. Once again, we burden future generations with the responsibility of dealing with our short-term thinking. Reference to a move to a method of triple bottom line accounting procedures is a glaring omission from this document.
4. Page 9, Sustainable Finances. Once again, it is what is missing that stands out. The fundamental problem for city financing is the method of taxation. It is an antiquated, 19th Century system that is completely ill suited for the 21st Century. The amount that a taxpayer is assessed has absolutely no relationship either to their ability to pay or to the cost of the service provided to them. It is calculated on the basis of their possession of an unrealized capital gain. Is it any wonder that taxpayers are outraged at any tax increase? This puts intense pressure on all of you around this table to think short term to eliminate tax increases. I urge you to include in this document a commitment to join with other municipalities to lobby the Provincial Government very strongly to develop a more progressive, transparent, and fair municipal taxation system. This is a key issue that I shall speak to during my election campaign and what I shall do once elected to the Ontario Legislature.

I conclude with the words of Zen master Lin Chi who told us over 1,000 years ago,

"The miracle is to walk on earth."

Our responsibility is to ensure that future generations may continue to do so. Finally, I ask that you consider my personal vision of a Greening, Sustainable world that is part of my written submission to you.

Activist Teacher: Global Warming: Truth or Dare?

Activist Teacher: Global Warming: Truth or Dare?

I found the article above by Professor Denis Rancourt to be quite provocative and sent him the following response:

Professor Raincourt,

I just read your blog post http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2007/02/global-warming-truth-or-dare.htm l found it an interesting read.

It is clear that you are much more than a "layperson" as you discuss this topic. You have done considerable research and know how to write a readable article.

I am of the opinion that some aspects of climate change are attributable to an anthropocentric source. However, I accept that, as a "layperson" I am out of my depth in discussing this with you on a scientific basis. My rather "simplistic" notion is that I find it very difficult to believe that the massive increase of human population and the subsequent large scale increase in emissions would not have some form of impact on the earth's climate systems. Maybe I am naive, but I note that it took over a million years to sequester carbon in oil and coal. It was, in the human time scale of things, a fairly lengthy process. We, as humans, have managed to release into the atmosphere roughly half of it in, essentially, the blink of an eye of time. Call me crazy, but it seems to me it would have an effect.

However, I believe that all of this debate about whether or not humans are influencing climate change could be all so much navel gazing. A much greater problem we need to confront is disengaging ourselves from our over consumptive ways. Since the first oil was commercially produced in 1859, we have become addicted to ever cheaper energy sources. This has been finessed and exploited by the corporate elite into the vision and promise of infinitely increasing consumption, culminating most recently in globalisation.

So, yes, you and I are in agreement regarding the concentration of wealth and power in the corporate elite, etc., etc. Where I take issue is what I regard as your dismissive attitude of personal action. You mock those who work on reducing their consumption, and suggest that it would be much better if they became more activist in taking on corporatism and the status quo. I don't disagree with becoming more directly active in one's community, and part of that can involve challenging>corporate practices. However, I do believe that making conscious consumption choices is also very much a part of direct action.

I firmly believe that we need to do both. People vote every day with the dollars they spend. Wal-Mart thrives because people shop there. Yes, we need to challenge corporate practices. However, we also need to constructively and creatively challenge those who support their practices by doing business with them.

The root cause of the over consumptive globalisation mess we are in is the fact that the vast majority of people are buying what the corporations are selling. Corporations have convinced so many of us that what we need is quantity of life instead of quality. While challenging the corporate mentality, we also need to challenge the citizenry to accept their role in changing the world. From blockbuster entertainment, closets full of clothes that we don't wear, constant vacationing, to foods from all over the world, we are constantly being sold a bill of goods. The best form of direct action is to recognize the extent to which we are perpetuating the consumer oriented economy. If we don't buy it, they don't produce it.

All of this is going to come crashing down on us soon. Once again, I only have the "layperson's" perspective, but I believe there is considerable evidence pointing to the crunch of "peak oil" hitting us very soon. I find www.energybulletin.net to be very useful. You might want to confirm your source that suggests we have coal supplies to last for a thousand years. There is considerable evidence to the contrary. However, that is another discussion.

In summary, I disagree with your climate change assertions. However, I believe such a point is likely moot, in that the larger problem is societal over-consumption of material resources fanned by a $450 billion annual marketing budget. The best form of direct action is to cut off the food source for corporatism, namely work to reduce over-consumption of material resources by convincing more people to understand that we have been hoodwinked to pursue quantity of living rather than quality of living.

Finally, I believe that a curtailment in the availability of energy resources that will happen within the next few years, (if it already hasn't started), will lead very soon to the most difficult challenge humankind has ever faced. Mainstream society hasn't even begun to recognize the immensity of this issue. It will, however, have a dramatic impact on most people's lives.

Thank you for providing your perspective. You have challenged me to respond.

Activist Teacher: Activism and Risk - Life beyond altruism

Activist Teacher: Activism and Risk - Life beyond altruism

Interesting Read.

More later...