This is great…poor Howard….I wish I could have been there….
From Ben Polley:
Check out today’s National Post. A 17 year old who is working on our
local Guelph campaign took on Howard Hampton head-to-head yesterday in
TO and got some good licks in. The Post must have loved it! This kid
is a star and a future Premier in the waiting. You have to meet him
to know…or just read this article.
Howard Hampton schooled on energy policy by teenager
– James Cowan, National Post
A Sunday afternoon discussion with teenage environmentalists turned into a testy debate for Howard Hampton after the NDP leader was derided over his energy plan.
Billed as a “roundtable discussion,” the carefully coordinated event took place on the roof of a downtown co-op, with the building’s rooftop garden and Lake Ontario as a backdrop.
Mr. Hampton opened the event by reiterating his party’s promise not to build new nuclear plants if elected, a point he had emphasized during an earlier rally in Ottawa.
But the NDP leader was forced to drop his message of the day by Nick Annejohn, a 17-year-old high school student. The Guelph resident said it was “a terrible contradiction” that the NDP want to both cut electricity rates and promote energy conservation.
“It’s absurd to propose to further subsidize electricity, which will encourage increased consumption, which means your promise to close the coal plants will be impossible and just as empty as [Dalton] McGuinty’s promise in 2003,” Mr. Annejohn said.
Mr. McGuinty, the Liberal leader, promised during the last election to close the province’s coal-fired plants by 2007, but now contends it will take until 2014.
The NDP want to shutter the Nanticoke Generating Station, Ontario’s largest coal plant, by 2011. However, they have also proposed giving businesses a discount on electricity if the companies promise to stay in the province and meet other restrictions.
Mr. Hampton argued yesterday that lower electricity costs will allow companies to invest more money in energy saving technology. “If industries, businesses and even household consumers are paying these gargantuan bills, they have no money to invest in energy efficiency,” he said. “Simply driving up hydro rates will mean you have seniors on a pension who can’t pay their bill, people on a fixed income who can’t pay their bills and you’ll have hundreds of thousands of people out of work.”
But Mr. Annejohn said the NDP leader’s position defied “simple economics.”
“If electricity is cheaper, companies will use more electricity, they will automate more and they will not need to hire as many people,” he said. “If companies pay they real cost for electricity, then there will be more employment and less energy consumption.”
Mr. Annejohn later told reporters he is active supporter of the Green Party, which has proposed increasing energy rates over three years until they reflect market values.
Power rates are currently adjusted every six months to roughly reflect the cost of electricity while smoothing out any sharp hikes or drops in pricing.
After the meeting, Mr. Hampton said he welcomed the debate with Mr. Annejohn.
“Any time you get into a discussion with young people about climate change and the environment and issues like energy consumption, you’re going to get a lot of ideas,” the NDP leader said, adding, “And that’s good.”
A must read on what’s really going on with Ontario power generation
This is the article that Josie was writing about in the previous posts.
http://www.thestar.com/article/260940
Parties unplug debate on privatized power system
September 27, 2007
Paul Kahnert
There has been no debate about public ownership and control of Ontario’s electricity system during the current election campaign. There should be. The 20-year, $60-billion Liberal power plan announced Aug. 30 costs more than all the new spending on health care and education combined.
The Ontario Electricity Coalition, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union and CUPE National stopped the sale of Hydro One in court in 2002. Then opposition leader Dalton McGuinty went on the record on Sept. 5, 2003, promising public power and an end to deregulation. Most Ontarians thought the issue of electricity privatization had gone away.
Far from it.
Throughout most of Ontario’s history, the electricity system has been almost entirely publicly owned, controlled and regulated. But cost overruns at Ontario Hydro’s nuclear power stations – actually no worse than on privately-owned nuclear power elsewhere – opened the door for the Harris Conservatives to ram through a plan to deregulate and privatize Ontario’s power system.
When the Conservatives introduced legislation for a “competitive electricity market” in November 1998, there was a huge public relations campaign promising lower rates. At the time, the Ontario Electricity Coalition asked: “How can private, deregulated electricity be cheaper when you add in profits to generators, profits to distributors, profits to retailers, dividends to investors and commissions to commodities brokers?” The answer, of course, is that it’s impossible.
The promise of lower rates in a deregulated electricity market proved to be a fraud all around the world. Electricity markets tripled rates in Alberta; in Montana they went up five times; in California, 10 times, and here in Ontario the retail market had to be closed by Ernie Eves in just six months because of outrage over skyrocketing rates.
After the 2003 election, the Liberals created the Ontario Power Authority and put Jan Carr in as CEO, a well-known proponent of electricity deregulation. Carr is on record as saying, “The OPA is only a transitional entity until a mature, competitive, electricity market can be installed.”
In a speech to the Empire Club on Aug. 9, 2004, Energy Minister Dwight Duncan declared, “All new generation will be private.”
Duncan’s declaration is significant because most of the public generating system has to be replaced over the next 20 years. That means creeping privatization as public generation is replaced with private. Legislation also forbids publicly owned Ontario Power Generation Corp. from generating green power such as wind and solar, which means that private green power will end up helping to dismantle the public power system.
Tucked inside the 4,000-page Integrated Power System Plan unveiled Aug. 30 are proposals that will increase private electricity generation and continue Ontario’s experiment with electricity deregulation.
The plan calls for the “evolution of Ontario’s electricity sector towards a workably competitive market …” that “will lead to increased competition among suppliers and lower costs.”
This is exactly the same promise made by the Harris Conservatives, that a competitive electricity market will lead to lower prices.
The Ontario Electricity Coalition has good reason to call the Liberal power plan privatization and deregulation by “stealth.”
Private producers are building new natural gas plants. So-called “smart meters” have been installed but not yet turned on. Small and medium businesses are going to get creamed when they are activated: Power will go from 5.5 cents a kw/h to 9.3 cents a kw/h, a 70 per cent increase during the 10 hours a day when they need it most.
How many people know that, after the election, electricity market rate protection for cash-strapped universities, schools, hospitals and municipalities will be eliminated?
How many people know that the Liberals have failed to protect our municipal electrical utilities from the impact of Conservative legislation to force them into debt and eventual privatization?
Ontario with its industrial base has much to fear from electricity deregulation. A volatile, deregulated electricity market is the last thing industry needs.
The debate on deregulated electricity markets in the U.S. is over. Twenty-five states are in the process of closing electricity markets and re-regulating rates.
Most of the pressure to close U.S. electricity markets came from the business community after rates skyrocketed. Manitoba and Quebec don’t have deregulated electricity markets, why do we?
Given the worldwide failures of electricity deregulation and privatization, it’s amazing that the Liberals and Conservatives haven’t changed their electricity policy one bit. Their policies commit us to a deregulated electricity market and a very expensive private power future. Public ownership, control and regulation of electricity are very important both to the economy and now more than ever to the environment. We can’t leave these critical decisions to a profit driven market.
The public needs real debate on this issue during the election.
Priorities for Ontario – Greens out front at 81%
http://www.prioritiesforontario.ca/
“In April 2007, the Priorities for Ontario Coalition released a detailed set
of policy recommendations aimed at addressing critical environmental issues
like water and air quality, clean energy, climate stability, forest
protection, toxic and waste reduction and curbing urban sprawl. We are now
releasing a summary of the positions of the four main parties on these
priorities to help voters make an informed decision on Oct. 10th.”
The Green Party got a “yes” on 81% of the analysis, next is NDP at 62%, Liberal 35% PCs
12%.
A fantastic evaluation from the Association of Ontario Health Centers
I don’t know what I love more; their conclusion, or their critical evaluation of party responses and ability to cut through the spin. I wish everyone could read and hear politicians’ responses like this.
http://www.aohc.org/aohc/index.aspx?ArticleID=249&lang=en-CA
ONTARIO ELECTION 2007 – What Ontario’s political parties are saying about the Second Stage of Medicare
In August 2007, AOHC issued a 20-point “call to action” to Ontario’s political parties. Building the Second Stage of Medicare: A Call to Action for Ontario’s Political Parties contains 20 priority action steps that the AOHC believes must be taken to improve health and health care in Ontario.
Here are the parties’ detailed responses. Below, a brief comparative analysis is provided.
Ontario Liberal Party — Ontario PC Party — Ontario NDP — Ontario Green Party
AOHC BRIEF ANALYSIS OF PARTY RESPONSES
Green Party fully commits to Second Stage of Medicare action plan; Clearer answers needed from other major parties
The good news: The Ontario Green Party has committed to all 20 action steps that AOHC identified in the action plan to speed up completion of the Second Stage of Medicare.
The bad news: In general, the answers received from other major parties were much less clear. So during the next few weeks of the election campaign we need Ontarians who believe in the benefits of our action plan to question politicians from these parties much more closely.
When candidates come to your door, appear on election call-in shows, or attend all-candidates meetings, ask them for clearer answers.
Liberals and NDP to improve dental care
Except for the Green Party (which said “yes” to all 20 action steps), only one action step – concerning dental care -secured significant commitments from other major parties. AOHC called for publicly-funded dental coverage for all Ontarians not covered by private dental insurance, and publicly-funded oral health care to be provided at all of the province’s CHCs and AHACs. Liberals and NDP both stopped short of publicly funded coverage for all Ontarians. But both parties did commit to funding dental care, with NDP committing to dental care in CHCs.
Who said what on four key issues?
To our other questions AOHC received very general replies from the Liberal, NDP and Progressive Conservative Parties – or no answer at all. Here’s a list of who said what on four of AOHC’s key calls to action.
1. To ensure that every Ontarian who needs access to CHCs and AHACs can secure it, complete a network throughout the province.
*
The Green Party said “yes” and committed to completing a provincial network, beginning with the establishment of 20 new CHCs and AHACs per year for the next four years;
*
The New Democratic Party did use the word “increase” with respect to the number of Community Health Centres and AHACs, but offered no further details. Their reply said: “Community Health Centres and Aboriginal Health Access Centres have a proven track record of providing excellent health care, health promotion and community development in a very cost-effective manner. That’s why our party supports increasing the number of CHCs and AHACS to provide better health care access across the province.”
*
The Liberal Party said that when the recent expansion of CHCs they initiated in their first mandate is complete they will, “in partnerships with the LHINs review to see if there are areas of additional need across the province.”
*
Despite our specific question about CHCs and AHACs, the letter we received from the Progressive Conservative Party made no mention of either kind of Centre. We also looked in PC party platform and found no mention there either.
2. Improve health care for Aboriginal populations, and eliminate the second class status of Aboriginal Health Access Centres (AHACs) by providing $14.6 million in new annualized funding to Ontario’s ten AHACs.
* The Green Party answered with a simple “yes”.
* As noted above, AHACs received no mention in the letter we received from the Progressive Conservative Party.
* The Liberal Party noted that in their first term they allocated $1 million to ensure that AHAC physicians and nurse practitioners are treated equitably. To make further progress, they said “we will review the funding of AHACs.”
* The NDP said “any approach to population health should address these disparities” but offered no specific detail.
3. Improve health care for newly-arrived immigrants by eliminating the 3-month wait period for OHIP that is currently imposed:
* The Green Party answered with another simple “yes”.
* The Liberal Party said: “Since coming to office, we have taken some steps to rethink this policy as seen in our commitment to waive the waiting period for military families. We will review this policy during our second term.”
* The NDP offered no answer to our question.
* The Progressive Conservative Party also offered no answer to our question.
4. To improve Ontarians’ access to health care, remove barriers that prevent Nurse Practitioners from practicing what they are trained and licensed to do.
*
Again, the Green Party answered by saying “yes” and agreed to implement the recommendations of the Nurse Practitioner Taskforce.
*
The Liberal Party said they are waiting for recommendations from the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Committee.
*
In their party platform, the Progressive Conservative Party say they will allow health practitioners to practice to full scope of practice but in their letter to us the party made no mention of how this would be applied to Nurse Practitioners.
*
NDP say they “support expanded roles and fair compensation for health professionals like Nurse Practitioners” but offered no further detail.
Likeable Leaders – but where’s Frank?
http://www.thestar.com/article/258364
Voices: Likeable leader
September 19, 2007
We asked you which provincial leader do you think is the most likeable: Dalton McGuinty, Howard Hampton or John Tory. Here’s what you had to say.
I don’t find any of them likeable. Most politicians are pathologically lying grand-standers with delusions of statesmanhood. However, I’m not voting for who I like – liking a politician is not/should not be a requirement to agreeing with a party’s platform.
Matt Keefer, Peterborough, Ont.
Dalton McGuinty and likeable in the same sentence make an oxymoron. The man is unbalanced and unpleasantly smug. Both Tory and Hampton are likeable and decent men.
John Chuckman, Toronto
I’d definitely go with Howard Hampton, because the other two parties consistently screw things up anyway. The NDP cares about the environment and the people and advocate way more than the other two parties.
Janice Ashby, Toronto
John Tory is by far the most likeable leader. He stands for his principles and does not have the history of broken promises and doublespeak that are the legacy of the current premier. Howard Hampton is a close second. Although I do not agree with his policies, he is a very respectable and honest man.
Jerrold Landau, Toronto
I’m offended you have not included Frank de Jong. I like Frank de Jong and what the Greens stand for.
Jacquie Fraser, Etobicoke
I am absolutely appalled that the survey did not include the leader of the green party. I cannot believe that at a critical time such as now with continuous scientific evidence about global warming that the one party that stands up for the little guy that has no voice (animals, trees, planet earth), you have somehow seemed to have forgotten to include his name.
Ali Nazifi, Toronto
While many may feel that John Tory is an aloof man of privilege, I have met him and found him to be anything but. He is friendly, personable and most importantly, believable. Howard Hampton is probably the last man I’d vote for, but I give high marks for his honesty, passion and determination – he is what he appears to be. As for Dalton McGuinty – from the first moment I ever heard him speak, I found him evasive and hard to believe.
Jon Fraser, Toronto
I happen to like Frank DeJong of the Green Party best. From what little I’ve seen and heard from him, he seems to walk his talk, and isn’t full of it. Why is his name not on the list?
Linda Sepp, Toronto
Wrong question. Asking who the most likeable leader is reduces our democracy to a popularity contest between personality cults. We should be asking each other what kind of Ontario we want and which team of politicians (if any) can best actualize our collective vision.
Simon A. Dougherty, Scarborough
I was disappointed by your question as it does not give us the choice of the leaders of, say, the Green party or a better choice of ‘none.’ To be honest, McGuinty and Tory gave themselves a pay raise last holiday season while Hampton has no concept of economics in light of his party stance on raising the minimum wage, just to name a fault of each of them.
Jason Bayda, Vaughan
I don’t find any of them likeable. I’m having a hard time deciding which one will get my vote.
Carolyn Hood, Toronto
Actually I prefer Frank DeJong on the likeable leader scale. Therefore, I decline to participate in your “likeable” poll.
John Dewar, Keswick, Ont.
I think an old adage applies here, better the devil you know. Let’s face it, Howard Hampton is a nice guy but his party hasn’t learned form the Rae regime and they will never govern this province. Mr. Tory continues to associate with the dregs of the Harris government of renown (those who weren’t drafted to work for Harper) and he has nothing positive to say about anything. All-in-all, McGuinty’s term has not been that bad. There was a lot to fix and I think we should stay the course.
Will Reid, Scarborough
Dalton McGuinty seems like the most normal of the bunch. Howard Hampton is always yelling and carping and not suggesting anything. John Tory seems aloof and self-aggrandizing and pompous. McGuinty strikes me as the kind of guy who would mow your lawn when he’s out doing his own.
Angus Steele, Toronto
I don’t find any of them likeable; what’s that got to do with whether one of them will make an able and effective leader?
Chris Cosby, Scarborough
It’s sad that likeability is evidently being considered as a factor in whether or not someone can run a province. I’d rather someone who can make the tough — and necessary — decisions, than someone who can smile brightly and provide a glib sound bite for the camera. Voters should look past this sort of thing and vote on platform, policy, reliability, and perhaps character. But likeability? No.
Carla Antonelli, Toronto
Dalton McGuinty – he is an honest man. While there are claims of broken promises, Dalton strives to make Ontario a very competitive province in the global economy. Especially in education for our young people.
Krishna Singh, Scarborough
Howard Hampton is the most likeable leader in the current election. He speaks out for working families who have to spend a lot of their hard-earned minimum wages in order for their children to attend our “free” education system. All Canadian children should be able to attend school without their parents having to find money for school supplies. They should have easier access to post-secondary education too. They are our future.
Howard Raper, Brechin, Ont.
Howard Hampton is the most likeable because he is standing up for working families.
Emily Shelton, Toronto
Personally I find none of the leaders to be the most likeable. Lack of personality coupled with a distinct lack of credibility makes for a less than exciting choice. And why not include the leader of the Green Party as one of your choices?
Rob Jewitt, Cobourg
Politicians can simply groom themselves to appear “likeable” to further their own personal agenda. To rate politicians on their likeability merely measures their potential to pull the wool over the eyes of the public. Recent history as shown that likeability is not necessarily indicative of the best candidate. Were we really using our common sense when we elected Mike Harris?
David Boyle, Toronto
Dalton McGuinty is the most likeable; he truly comes across as an average professional you might meet at a little league game or in line at the movies. That said, he still looks uncomfortable in his own skin, and doesn’t project a strong innate sense that he’s a leader.
Dennis Jordan, Milton, Ont.
I would answer Frank de Jong, but he’s not on the list. Why is the media consistently omitting the Green Party leaders from debates and polls?
Jason Paquette, Toronto
I’m not sure what The Star’s criteria is for “likeable”, but if I were picking the party with the best policies and grasp of Ontario’s problems, I would hands down choose Howard Hampton. John Tory’s idea of funding private religious schools is preposterous. Dalton’s hypercritical stance on supporting the Catholic board is unethical.
Tor Sandberg, Toronto
Howard Hampton is most likeable because he’s a real person. John Tory is too smooth by half, and Dalton McGuinty comes across as a robot.
Gary Carper, Toronto
Are those three my only options? Then I will politely pass.
Alexa van Hoof, Scarborough
Would it really be that hard for you to include Frank de Jong in the poll? For shame Toronto Star.
Paul Richardson, North York
Why isn’t Frank de Jong of the Green Party included on this list? Again, we see media bias in political reporting, even in the guise of a poll.
Mary-Margaret Jones, Toronto
Why does The Star insist on not including Frank de Jong as a leader when the Greens are only a hair behind the NDP in the polls? If Frank got coverage that could also change.
Cameron Topp, Hamilton
Great article frrom the Star on the GPO
http://www.thestar.com/article/258091
The televised leaders’ debate – the pivotal point in any election – takes place tomorrow night, but Frank de Jong won’t be there.
De Jong is the leader of the provincial Greens, who are nudging double digits in the polls. While organizationally challenged and underfinanced, the Greens have moved from being a joke party to “a player on the political landscape,” in de Jong’s own words.
But de Jong did not get an invitation from the networks to participate in the leaders’ debate because, among other things, his party does not have a seat in the Legislature.
That’s a pity, because de Jong and the Greens actually have some interesting things to say.
The Green platform was released last week, and the media focus was on the relatively trivial promise to add six new statutory holidays to the calendar. But the platform includes many more substantive planks, including:
A major “tax shift” away from income (personal or corporate) and toward consumption, including a carbon tax. The health tax would be repealed and a carbon tax of 2 per cent would be levied on oil, natural gas and coal.
An overhaul of property assessment to tax buildings at a lower rate than the land on which they sit.
A sharp hike in electricity rates to reflect the “true, unsubsidized cost” of generation.
Abolition of funding for all faith-based schools, including Catholic.
Restoration of school boards’ power to levy taxes, up to 5 per cent of their budgets.
Abolition of standardized testing and the College of Teachers (the disciplinary body for the profession).
A lowering of the voting age from 18 to 16.
A ceiling on “excessive overtime” to spread the workload.
This is a decidedly eclectic mix of policies. Some planks could be called left-wing, while others are far-right, including the tax shift, which is an idea espoused by the libertarian Cato Institute in the United States. And some are just plain self-serving, including the education planks, which seem tailored to de Jong’s day job as a public school teacher.
The major environmental groups have given the Greens the cold shoulder because they see their platform as eschewing government regulations for more “market-oriented” policies – an accusation that de Jong does not deny.
“We endorse the invisible green hand,” he says. “We know regulations won’t work. The market always trumps regulations one way or the other.”
But it is the “mainstream” parties that are most incensed by the Greens’ rise in the polls – which is arguably coming at the expense of all three of them. They think that voters are moving toward the Greens because they are attracted by the label without really knowing what’s in the party platform.
De Jong rejects the implication that Green voters are ignorant of what his party stands for. “We say it as loud and clear as we possibly can,” he says.
I’ll close with an anecdote that validates de Jong’s view: In a recent election, an NDP candidate I know made a point of knocking on all the doors in the riding with Green signs and telling the residents what was in the platform of the party they were supporting. The answer was invariably: “Yes, we know, and we like it.”
In other words, the Greens, with their unique combination of environmentalism and libertarianism, may have tapped into a vein of the voting population that is being served by no other party.
Ian Urquhart’s provincial affairs column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Email: iurquha@thestar.ca
Uranium Mining…notice the Green Party is the only one talking about this issue?
Green Party calls for halt to uranium mining
Sep 18, 2007 02:49 PM
Canadian press
OTTAWA – Uranium mining and refining pose a threat to health and the environment and Canada should impose a moratorium on the industry, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May said Tuesday.
May says she supports efforts by Community Coalition Against Mining Uranium, which opposes a potential uranium mine in eastern Ontario.
She said a mining firm, Frontenac Ventures, is prospecting for uranium on Algonquin First Nations territory near Sharbot Lake, west of Ottawa.
“Canada must stop mining and refining uranium,” said May. “The uranium extraction process is extremely hazardous to the environment and to the health of mine workers and the public. “
The hazard goes well beyond the mines and refining plants, she said.
“Radioactive particles carried downwind and downstream have the potential to poison thousands of eastern Ontarians through the air they breathe and the water they drink.”
The industry also fuels the nuclear arms race, she said.
“Uranium mining and nuclear power are the greatest obstacles to the goal of global nuclear disarmament. Mined uranium inevitably ends up as plutonium, radioactive waste, or worse – nuclear weapons. “
May chastised the Ontario Liberal government of Premier Dalton McGuinty – now embroiled in an election campaign – for its plan to build more nuclear power generating stations.
She called that a foolish decision, taken by a government acting like “bunnies in the headlights.”
“The McGuinty government has completely and utterly failed to grasp the potential of energy efficiency and conservation.”
Ontario’s plan to build more nukes has raised the demand for uranium, she said.
“This pressure for uranium mining in Ontario . . . is part of this whole new nonsense that we’re going to have more nuclear power.”
Is it just me or is the press being a bit nicer to us this time around…
…well except for the Leaders’ debate, of course
http://www.thestar.com/OntarioElection/article/257103
Greens in a good spot after first week of race
Sep 16, 2007 04:30 AM
Thomas Walkom
With just one week of the formal Ontario election campaign out of the way, most sensible people aren’t yet paying attention to the claims of rival political parties. But if I had to pick a winner for the week, it would be Frank de Jong’s Greens.
This is not because the Greens will sweep the province on Oct.10. They will not. They may not see a single candidate elected. But media and public are beginning to take them more seriously. For a party on the margin, this is great step forward.
True, de Jong has been barred again from the televised leaders debate. That privilege is still reserved for the big three – Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty, Conservative chieftain John Tory and New Democratic Party Leader Howard Hampton.
But not all are taking their cues from the networks. Last week, CBC Radio’s Metro Morning interviewed what it called the four main party leaders – Hampton, McGuinty, Tory and de Jong.
Meanwhile, major newspapers are according the Greens real coverage, something that big media does not do for other minor parties like the Communists or Family Coalition.
On Thursday, for example, Hampton and Tory both released important parts of their platforms. The Conservative leader spoke of spending $1.3 billion to clean up emissions from the Nanticoke coal plant on Lake Erie. The NDP reiterated its promise to boost the minimum wage immediately to $10 an hour. Yet neither story merited a mention on the Star’s front page. By contrast, de Jong’s promise to legislate six new statutory holidays did.
The Star is not alone. Factiva, the Dow Jones media database that includes all stories published in major and mid-size Ontario newspapers, recorded 58 hits for de Jong and the Greens last week. During the first week of the 2003 Ontario election, the equivalent number was eight.
By comparison, the NDP’s Hampton scored 154 Factiva hits this past week, compared to 229 during week one of the 2003 campaign.
All of this may be ephemeral. The Greens were running at about 6 per cent in public opinion polls before the 2003 election. But when the day of decision came, they garnered a mere 2.8 per cent of the actual vote.
Still, de Jong does possess an advantage that he did not have four years ago. This time, the province isn’t gripped – at least not yet – by a throw-out-the-bums mood. Faced with a choice between a Liberal leader who seems conservative and a Conservative leader who seems liberal, it is more laid-back.
Normally, the NDP would benefit from this what-me-worry attitude. Ontarians tend to swing to third parties when they think the stakes are not too high.
But many voters still remember the Bob Rae NDP government of the early `90s with distaste (that became evident last year when Rae failed in his bid to win the federal Liberal leadership). For such voters, the danger of supporting the New Democrats is that they might win.
The Greens, on the other hand, appear to present a no-risk option, particularly for those who aren’t too concerned by de Jong’s market-oriented and somewhat draconian platform (he wants to boost electricity rates dramatically in order to conserve energy).
While new, the Greens are now familiar enough to be respectable. And since they are so unlikely to win power, they appear to offer voters a costless way to thumb their noses at the political establishment.
Which, for a fourth party, is not a bad place to be.
A nice article regarding our platform release
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/OntarioVotes2007/News/2007/09/13/4494701-cp.html
Greens pledge to put tax burden on resources, add six new holidays
By MARIA BABBAGE
2007-09-13 TORONTO (CP) – Six new statutory holidays, a phase-out of the controversial health tax and a much bigger hydro bill are among the many changes Ontario voters could expect if the Green party is elected Oct. 10.
The party would also scrap the Catholic public school system, increase electricity rates to help slash energy consumption, and ease personal and corporate taxes by shifting the burden to resources and environmentally damaging activities, party leader Frank de Jong said Thursday.
They’re among many promises aimed at garnering broader appeal for a party long identified solely by its strong environmental mandate, even though recent polls suggest the Greens are trailing the third-place NDP by only a small margin.
It’s also the clearest signal yet that the Greens are stepping up efforts to reach out to voters of traditional parties, coupling such promises as their tax-shifting plan and investments in northern and rural development with the more predictable pledges to ban construction of nuclear reactors, phase out coal-fired plants and meet Canada’s Kyoto obligations.
“I think we see ourselves as neither left nor right,” de Jong said after riding his bicycle to the provincial legislature to unveil the party’s platform.
“I suppose the antagonism between left and right is sort of obsolete when we’re addressing climate change and issues that are much bigger than the left-right, old-fashioned government.”
NDP Leader Howard Hampton says he’s not scared of losing support to the Greens.
“People who want to see a responsible environmental alternative are voting for the NDP,” he said in Toronto.
De Jong also dismissed Premier Dalton McGuinty’s repeated warning that a vote for any other party than the Liberals will usher in a Progressive Conservative government, saying his party has managed to attract some Tory votes as well as Liberal ones.
“We are a fiscally conservative party,” he said. “We would never run deficit budgets. We want to reduce income taxes, reduce business taxes because we know that’s the best way to keep the economy going.”
While the Green party is making headway in changing the perception that it’s a left-wing party, that doesn’t necessarily mean it will win seats in this election, said Chris Gore, a politics professor at Ryerson University.
However, they seem to be succeeding in attracting voters from both ends of the political spectrum, he added.
“I think that they’re certainly gunning for anyone and everyone,” he said.
One of the party’s more attention-grabbing promises involves eliminating Ontario’s health-care tax – which can cost workers up to $900 per year – over four years.
In addition, the Green party says it would reduce personal taxes by $2.3 billion and corporate income taxes by $1 billion over four years. Workers would also get six new statutory holidays, including Earth Day and Remembrance Day, which the Greens say would boost productivity.
But that doesn’t mean the Greens are tax-cutters, de Jong noted.
“I’m sorry, there’s no free lunch in Ontario,” he said.
“You’ll be paying the same tax, only you’ll be paying it on resources and pollution and sprawl instead of on our incomes, which has a multiple benefit.”
A Green government would find other ways to make up the cash, including imposing an immediate two per cent carbon tax on oil, natural gas and coal used in the province that would grow to eight per cent over four years. Companies taking water from the province would also face a tax of $100 per million litres, increased to $400 over four years.
De Jong said the tax shift would create a “win-win” situation, making workers cheaper to employ while making pollution, resources and sprawl more expensive. That, in turn, would encourage both businesses and individuals to make better decisions for the environment.
In essence, Ontario residents would “pay for what you burn, and not for what you earn,” he added.
Changing prices does alter consumer behaviour, said Mark Stabile, director of the University of Toronto’s school of public policy and governance.
“You can reduce taxes on individuals and then have them pay more in prices,” he said.
“We’re not saying you can’t use oil or you can’t use other things that may harm the environment, but that if you’re going to use them, you’re going to have to pay a certain amount to help offset that harm.”
How far would your jaw drop if you heard of the other leaders doing this?
Do I have to say again that I am proud to represent the Green Party?
http://www.thestar.com/OntarioElection/article/255171
Taking his own route to power
De Jong vows to spread eco-gospel to Ontarians by bike, public transit and fuel-efficient vehicles
Sep 11, 2007 04:30 AM
Michele Henry
Staff Reporter
No planes, trains or automobiles for Frank de Jong – well, not the usual kinds.
Ontario’s Green party leader has sworn off conventional means of traversing this province for his election campaign. Instead, he’s choosing to practise what the Green party preaches.
In the name of reducing his carbon footprint to toe-prints in the sand, he’ll be spreading the Green gospel to residents across Ontario by bike, public transit and three vehicles: a fuel-efficient Yaris, a Volkswagen Golf modified to run on vegetable oil already used in restaurants, and a Toyota Prius, the hybrid car popularized by Hollywood.
To kick off his leadership campaign yesterday, de Jong rode to Queen’s Park from his home near Lansdowne Ave. and Bloor St. on his 15-year-old touring bike.
“This is my campaign bus,” he said, as he pulled up. He made good use of it yesterday, biking to St. George subway station from Queen’s Park, where he boarded a train to Kipling station. From there he cycled 90 kilometres to Guelph.
He was to spend the day riding public transit with local candidate Ben Polley, who owns an organic farm, and a small refinery that converts vegetable oil to auto fuel.
Before de Jong sped off in downtown Toronto, first circling an NDP campaign bus idling in front of Queen’s Park, he dismounted from his vehicle, equipped with three reusable bottles of water, a tire repair kit and a lunch of cream cheese and blueberries, both produced locally. He responded to comments that he’s taking eco-responsibility to an extreme, frightening degree.
“It’s not scary. It’s normal,” he said. “It will be normal, once we start being serious about climate change. And Green party people are serious about climate change. We’re not just hot air.”
While de Jong’s political passion extends to resolving not to fund faith-based schools, including Catholic ones, and to ending dependence on coal-fired plants by 2009, he said climate change is the most important issue.
“We have roughly eight years to … take some steps towards remediating climate change and averting it. If not, we don’t know what the future will hold,” he said.
His plan is to shift the tax burden off people and on to “resources, pollution and sprawl,” he said, explaining it will force businesses to pollute less, without an increased cost to the public.
Second on his list of issues is bringing in the mixed-member proportional system of electing MPPs. For a party that hopes to win one riding this election and is trying to convince the electorate Green is a “credible” alternative, MMP would be a big help, Green officials said. A referendum to determine how the public feels about electing provincial members of parliament will also be held on election day.
With MMP, no votes would be “wasted” on the Green party and casting a ballot in its favour would allow it to have a voice at Queen’s Park, said de Jong, a schoolteacher.
“If we had MMP and we got 10 per cent of the vote, we’d have 12 or 13 MPPs,” he said. “If we had MPPs in legislature, then we’d be able to properly articulate and address these issues in the legislature.”
While he’s heated up, and not just from the biking, de Jong doesn’t want to shove these messages down anyone’s throat. The pamphlets and business cards distributed in his campaign were made from recycled paper, using vegetable dyes and green power sources. And de Jong will be buying carbon credits to offset any activity that burns fossil fuels, such as the one return flight he’ll take to and from Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay. Instead of sleeping in hotels that may not be environmentally friendly, he’ll be billeting with party members.
But it’s not about being “greener than thou,” de Jong said. Fossil fuels were burned in the making of his bike and he has no choice but to ride in cars. “We’re all eco-sinners.”
