M. Coderre is not really the problem

I believe that there is a deeper cause for the unrest in the federal Liberal party leading up to Denis Coderre's unfortunate resignation as Quebec Lieutenant and ill-considered words. The deeper cause is an insufficient focus on vision, principles and policies, and too much focus on people, political tactics, and the shortcomings of other parties.

Why do for-profit corporations invest resources to craft mission and vision statements? Couldn't they save some money by skipping that exercise? Couldn't "Let's maximize profits" be good enough?

It's not good enough. The corporation that does not have a mission and vision is more likely to fail, even at making a profit. There are always difficult decisions to be made when running a business. For example, there are compromises between quality and price. Or, managers must decide between investing in the research division or investing in sales and advertising. In such cases different stakeholders have competing interests and you need unifying ideas and a road map to help get everybody to pull in the same direction and build a winning team.

Back to the federal Liberal party. I believe that it's all too easy to focus on personalities and power structures inside the organization and external threats from other parties (and the press is happy to help with these) when we're not sufficiently focused on our vision for Canada, the principles our party stands for, and our policy proposals to serve the people of Canada. We have all of these. Let's work on presenting them to the people of Canada.

Parliament High?

Jane Taber writes that

Senior Liberal strategists are now referring to the Ignatieff OLO (Opposition Leader's Office) as “Parliament High” because of the legions of inexperienced young people who populate it.

Is this really a fair assessment? I hope not because the OLO is a Prime Minister's Office (PMO) in waiting and more and more in the last few decades the PMO functions like the Canadian federal government's executive branch (as opposed to the full cabinet).

Ms. Taber's article is worth responding to, I would think.

Don't underestimate young people!

Liberals shouldn't have followed Conservatives on partisan ten percenters

The Globe and Mail carried a story on July 30, Liberals slapping back against Tories' partisan flyer tactics, about how Liberal MPs have now also started to send out partisan "ten percenters" after complaining about the Conservatives' ten percenters to no avail.

Other Liberal bloggers have applauded this move, but I disagree.

The partisan ten percenters had been energizing and motivating Liberal party supporters and other voters. A lot of people were angry at these mailings, told us so, and I think we could have capitalized (were capitalizing!) on them to build up our own organization.

Instead, this is looking like out-of-control, pre-writ, partisan mud-slinging funded, unwillingly I am certain, by the tax-payer. It's not going to help us solve some of the structural problems with Canadian democracy like voters getting turned off by politics and disengaging from the political process. (problems that Conservatives are less concerned about, since it serves their interests)

My feeling is that Liberals are not going to realize a net profit by choosing this route. I can't see, for example, that it's going to help the Liberal party pick up members and supporters.

Kingston Liberals/NDP/Greens continue to meet

Following up on a rapidly organized and successful town hall (literally) meeting last weekend in Kingston, Ontario, members of the Kingston and the Islands Liberal Party, New Democratic Party and Green Party met again tonight to discuss how to work together over the next seven weeks (and beyond) to promote the proposed coalition government.

What is most amazing is how well we get along and how smoothly we have worked together (I'll admit I was ready to throttle the NDP over a couple of issues during the recent federal election campaign). Hats off to Mr. Harper and the Conservatives.

Stay tuned for more developments...

Progressive Coalition Event at City Hall, Kingston, Ontario

Progressive Coalition to Host Meet and Greet in Kingston

This Sunday, December 7 at 2:00PM, Kingston's Memorial Hall will play host to a 'Meet and Greet' in support of the proposed Progressive Coalition Government.

The event has been coordinated by representatives from Kingston's Liberals, Greens and New Democrats, and is supported by the Kingston District Labour Council. It is aimed at helping concerned Kingston and area residents to better understand what is behind the current political crisis and how we can best work together to resolve it. Speakers will include prominent local political figures and an expert on Canadian constitutional practice.

According to Kim McFarlane, President of the local federal Liberal Association, “Only a week ago, all parties signalled their willingness to work with the current Government by accepting its Speech from the Throne. Rather than building on that, Mr. Harper responded with destructive partisanship that irretrievably cost him the confidence of the House. Under our parliamentary system, that requires his resignation. The Coalition Accord represents a sincere effort on the part of the majority of the members of the House of Commons to make this Parliament work for Canadians to deal with the real problem, which is the state of the economy. We fail to understand how Mr. Harper’s move to shut down Parliament for almost two months will help those Canadians facing job losses.”

Eric Walton, the Green candidate in the last election added that “by proroguing Parliament primarily for reasons of self-preservation, Stephen Harper has deeply damaged Canada's democratic system and for that reason alone should be voted out at the first opportunity.”

The local gathering has been designed with a focus on socialization, education, and community spirit. The event is open to the public and refreshments will be provided.

“We all agreed that rather than holding another rally, the wide-range of political support in Kingston might be best-served by a more social event where we can get to know one another and commit to working together on a local level.“ said Daniel Beals, President of the local New Democrats.

It should be noted that Kingston has a history as a site of unification and cooperation, having hosted the first meeting of the Parliament of the united Upper and Lower Canadas on June 13, 1841.

"Now is not the time for political posturing. In the face of an economic crisis it is crucial that we work together for the good of all Canadians. Nobody can question the sincerity that underlines the Coalition Accord." said Debi Wells, President of the Kingston District Labour Council.

- 30 -

Inquiries: Ron Hartling

Policy Director - Kingston & the Islands Federal Liberal Association

613-384-5710

Daniel Beals

President - Kingston & the Islands New Democrats

613-549-8399 (h)

Eric Walton

International Affairs Critic - Green Party Shadow Cabinet

613-542-9365

Debi Wells

President - Kingston District Labour Council

613-548-4952

Who should lead the coalition?

I don't pretend to know what's going on. I just read the news, cautiously. So when I read these lines from the CBC from a report by Keith Boag on the details of the coalition agreement:

"The real obstacle to this deal going through is still within the Liberal party," Boag said, adding the deal is being negotiated by Dion, who believes he has the right to be prime minister.

But it's unclear whether the party wants him to continue, and the leadership candidates were meeting Sunday evening to discuss the matter, Boag said.

I tend to assume that the reporter is just smelling around for some conflict to report on, as they are wont to do.

But, just in case, I wish to declare that I, as one individual among the many who make up the Liberal party, support Stéphane Dion as our interim leader and the leader of a possible coalition government. The Liberal party's membership should be the ones who choose their next leader.

Fighting the Conservatives Together

There is talk today about opposition parties perhaps being willing to form a coalition government. This is in response to the Conservatives' lack of definite policies to address the global economic crisis and use of the crisis as a screen to seek political advantage. They want to save $30 million by cutting public funding for political parties - a move that would, in the short term, greatly favour the Conservative party, but do nothing to address the economy. The government may fall on a confidence vote in the next few days and the possibility of a coalition amongst the current opposition parties would be a very strong bargaining chip.

Today I received an email from Steven MacKinnon, Michael Ignatieff's national campaign director. The email draws attention to the Conservatives' move to cut public funding and then asks for donations to Mr. Ignatieff's leadership campaign because, "Michael Ignatieff can only succeed with your support."

That rubs me the wrong way. It rubs me the wrong way because it's taking a direct and imminent threat to the Liberal Party and the Canadian political system, and using it to appeal for funds to a particular leadership candidate's campaign. Even though we have a Liberal Party leadership race under way, in the House of Commons we, the Liberal Party, should still be fighting the Conservatives together. If we do not fight them as one team, we won't win. If the NDP, Bloc Quebcois and the Liberal Party can get together to form a coalition, surely the Liberal caucus could work tous ensemble.

Fight the Conservatives as a united party. Support Stéphane Dion in the House. Fight the leadership race elsewhere.

Why Dion's election campaign carbon offset makes Canada richer, fairer, and greener

There has been some criticism coming from Conservatives about the Liberal Party's purchasing of credits to offset the greenhouse gas emissions of Stephane Dion's election travel. Basically the criticism is that the purpose of this purchase is simply to appear environmentally friendly, while the jet that the Liberal Party procured for this election is older and less efficient than the jets obtained by the NDP and the Conservatives (it's the only jet the Liberals could get).

The criticism is invalid and here are the reasons:

First of all, Dion committed the cash-strapped Liberal Party to offsetting his campaign travel as far back as February-March 2007. The point is that this commitment was made before decisions were made about campaign travel. Therefore, it gave an extra incentive for the cost-conscious Liberal Party to make his campaign travel as efficient as possible.

Second, the projects that generate voluntary offsets should satisfy a property called "additionality". This means that the money from the sale of offsets (or the anticipated sale of offsets during project planning) should make a difference in whether the project goes ahead or not. The offset vendor used by the Liberal Party, Carbonzero, says that all of its projects are additional. (By the way if you are interested in their voluntary offset methodology document, which contains a very good definition of additionality, look here.)

So the money from the Liberal Party's offsets really made greenhouse gas emissions go down somewhere else. That is how voluntary offsets are supposed to work. According to a Carbon Zero news release, "The offsets purchased by the Liberal Party of Canada will be directed by Carbonzero to a Quebec project which replaces inefficient gas boilers in heating systems with new units employing heating controls and new energy efficient piping systems...the project includes new solar heating collectors and retrofits the buildings to allow heat recovery from domestic wastewater, and switches heat generation systems from natural gas to electricity."
I'm also told that the offset project involves retrofitting non-profit housing - these are people who would have a hard time putting money upfront to make energy retrofits. Money spent on retrofits would otherwise be taken out of money spent on providing non-profit housing. So we can see why this project satisfies "additionality".

Look at what is happening with the money from Stephane Dion's campaign travel offsets:

• Stephane Dion is reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel consumption. Good for the environment, making Canada greener.
  
• Stephane Dion is making it cheaper for low-income people to live in non-profit housing. Good for social justice, making Canada fairer.
• Stephane Dion is supporting businesses and workers that do energy retrofits, and supporting Canadian manufacturers that build green technology (e.g. see Enerworks, Renewability Energy, ECO GFX, Quantum Renewable, Ecoalternative Energy) Good for the economy, making Canada richer.

Making Canada greener, fairer, and richer: these are the promises that Stephane Dion has been making for a long time, and I think that he has kept his promise in deciding to purchase voluntary greenhouse gas offsets for his campaign travel.

Picking a fight between cap and trade and carbon taxes is not going to help Canada move forward

Here is my letter to the editor that was published in the Kingston Whig-Standard on June 12, 2008. It is in response to a letter that can be found here

Reponse to Letter to the Editor of the Whig-Standard, "NDP has best policy to cut greenhouse gases", June 7, 2008.

In criticizing the Liberal or Green Party's green/carbon tax shifts, Jamie Masse and the NDP are picking a fight that is not going to help move Canada and the Canadian economy forward to meet the challenges of the 21st century. A carbon tax shift (rebates and lower income taxes financed by increased taxes on pollution and greenhouse gas emissions) can co-exist with a cap and trade system (which is used for managing greenhouse gas emissions from large emitters). For example, British Columbia has a carbon tax that starts on July 1, and has also joined the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative, a group that aims to establish an international carbon trading mechanism. Quebec, which just announced its intention to work with Ontario to set up a
cap-and-trade market, brought in a carbon tax on motor fuel.

Mr. Masse and the NDP seem to imply that businesses that pay a carbon tax could pass on the cost to the consumer, whereas that could not happen if they had pay for the credits that are auctioned off in a cap and trade scheme. That's clearly false. Either way a business will have a cost and some of that cost may be passed on to their customers. The "shift" part of
the green tax shift recognizes this and cuts or rebates income tax for both businesses and individuals, particularly low income individuals.

Vilifying "big, corporate polluters" and trying to put the cost of cutting greenhouse gases entirely on them, does not help to support a culture of energy conservation and efficiency. Any solution to the problem of our dependence on fossil fuels must involve efforts by every business and every individual to use energy in a sustainable manner. The participants in cap and trade schemes are so-called "Large Final Emitters" that account for only 50% of Canada's emissions. What about the other 50% of emissions that come from small emitters? As for making the 'big bad corporate polluters' pay, I would simply note that the biggest single greenhouse gas emitter in Canada
is the Nanticoke generating station, owned by us, the good people of Ontario.

Why should a carbon tax shift be considered in addition to a cap and trade scheme, or before a cap and trade scheme? One reason is that cap and trade schemes take time to set up. The 1990 U.S. Clean Air Act authorized emissions trading to control sulphur dioxide, but trading did not commence until five years later, in 1995. In 2002 the European parliament voted to endorse a cap and trade scheme for greenhouse gases but not until 2005 was the E.U. carbon market launched. A carbon tax shift, on the other hand, can be implemented much more quickly using the existing revenue infrastructure. The clock is ticking on climate change and that is why we should start moving now, beginning with a carbon tax shift. We can also start the preparatory work needed for a cap and trade scheme that would begin operating some time in the future.

Finally, the way Mr. Masse and the NDP look at things is that we need an environmental policy that respects "the needs of a fragile economy". The truth is probably closer to our needing to restructure our economy, with the environment foremost in mind, in preparation for the challenges of the 21st century. We must "energy-proof" our economy so that can withstand volatile fossil fuel prices. We must change how we live today, in order to preserve our natural environment and create a sustainable economy for future generations. A good step would be to remove the perverse incentives that we have now (pollution for free), to put a price on pollution, waste, and greenhouse gas emissions, to rebate taxes to low income Canadians, and to reduce taxes on income, investment, and innovation. A cap and trade scheme for greenhouse gas emissions also has its place, and I'm sure the NDP would be very welcome to work together with the Liberal and Green parties in this endeavour.

Letter to the Editor concerning Stephane Dion

Re: “Dion’s the leader, but who’s in charge?”, by Jane Taber, The Globe and Mail, Monday April 23, 2007

I’d like to offer a view of Stéphane Dion’s management skills from a different vantage point. I once had the privilege of being welcomed into a policy session with Mr. Dion and his advisors. The meeting reminded me very much of a senior professor in charge of his research group, or a business executive running a boardroom meeting. Setting the agenda, assigning tasks, reminding people of past experiences, pushing people to make improvements and maintain high standards, reconciling disagreements, and fixing deadlines: these are what I saw Mr. Dion do. I believe that Stéphane Dion is in charge when it comes to the most important thing for Canadians: what a Dion government would do for Canada.