It took me five hours to read the motions, read the discussions, and cast my votes. If you’d like to shorten the process for yourself, and if you trust me, then I am happy to provide you with how I voted, and where I think it is important, my reasons for doing so.

This has been an eye-opening process, I think it is the first time I have ever taken the time to really look at the motions being put forward and by whom. The Green Party is a continually evolving organization, and as with any such process, there are always groups that envision the evolution proceeding in different directions.

I still believe the the GPC is the only place to be, and the only place to put my vote, and I further believe that our exhaustive policy formation process, from the grassroots, gives ordinary members an extraordinary ability to participate in the Party evolution.

I’m sure that I’ve offended just about everyone with at least one of my choices, but in the interests of transparency and accountability I remain willing to be called out on them, and to defend them, or to have my mind changed. I look forward to seeing you at the Convention, on the floor and in the workshops.

If you are not currently a GPC member, and are wondering what on earth I am talking about, you have until July 22nd to become a member, research, and vote on these issues yourself.

Here is the list, starting with Policy Motions:
p02 – Green
p24 – Red
p26 – Green
p27 – Green
p29 – Green
p12 – Red
p13 – Green
p14 – Yellow
p20 – Green
p28 – Green
p15 – Green
p16 – Green
p17 – Yellow
p18 – Yellow
p34 – Yellow
p04 – Green
p08 – Green
p10 – Yellow
p11 – Yellow
p19 – Yellow
p21 – Green
p25 – Red
p31 – Green
p32 – Green
p33 – Yellow
p07 – Green
p09 – Yellow
p22 – Yellow
p23 – Yellow
p30 – Green

Constitution Motions
c01 – Black
c09 – Green
c10 – Black
c11 – Red
c13 – Yellow
c25 – Red
c02 – Green
c03 – Green
c05 – Green
c24 – Yellow
c26 – Yellow
c27 – Yellow
c28 – Green
c12 – Green
c29 – Yellow
c30 – Green

c14 – Green
c15 – Yellow
c16 – Red
c17 – Yellow
c18 – Yellow
c19 – Yellow
c20 – Yellow
c21 – Red
c22 – Red
c23 – Red

To be clear, I have serious issues with this group of Resolutions pertaining to EDAs (c14-c23). Beyond the rather pathetic flaw wherein they refer to EDAs as Riding Associations, and head office as ‘the Party’ (an issue I’ve already taken up with them in the context of their pithy preambles…), these seemingly reasonable motions have the cumulative effect of removing all independence from the EDAs and placing it in the hands of the central office, which, in my experience to date, has been incapable of organizing themselves effectively and should certainly not be put in charge of the entire EDA function as well. As an example, c15 mandates that the selection of candidates will be entirely prescribed by head office, and c16 that every EDA must adopt the Constitution provided by the central Party and that any proposed amendments must be approved by central Party through an undefined process. C14 through c21 would be damaging enough on their own but when combined with c22 and c23, two resolutions which allow central Party to negate the RSA or to completely deregister an EDA for noncompliance, they are unacceptable and need to be defeated. I get that we need to have a reasonable standard of compliance across our EDAs, but these heavy-handed, poorly thought out, and incredibly arrogant motions are not the way to do it. As an example, our EDA could be deregistered if we do not have an ‘acceptable’ Constitution on file with Head Office – with no redress. What if Head Office lost our Constitution? What if we disagreed? What if we simply wanted to keep the Constitution we already have? We would have no choice, and would lose our right to exist, simply because someone (and this is not defined either, by the way) said so. This is incredibly distressing to me.

c04 – Yellow
c07 – Red
c08 – Yellow

Directives
d02 – Black
d11 – Red
d10 – Yellow
d13 – Yellow
d01 – Green
d05 – Red
d09 – Green
d12 – Red
d14 – Red
d03 – Green
d04 – Yellow
d06 – Red
d07 – Green
d08 – Red

I was up in Barrie this morning having a leaky pipe replaced and my plumber (who is fabulous!) and we got to talking about politics – specifically the HST and the effect it will have on Ontario’s economy (he didn’t think it would be good). I let slip that I was the nominated GPC candidate in Newmarket-Aurora and that got him all excited, apparently he always votes Green.

Not only does he vote Green, he has a pretty good working knowledge of the local Barrie chapter, and the Canadian political landscape in general, and some very firm opinions about certain politicians, and, sadly, politicians as a group.

But it was when he welcomed me to the military-industrial complex while we were discussing the BP oil spill, that I knew I had met someone out of the ordinary. He mentioned Halliburton’s role in the crisis, their purchase of the company that manufactures the dispersant, and the divestiture of stock by a BP exec just before the explosion.

I confess, I find these coincidences to be rather intriguing:

“7. Curiously, CEO of BP, Tony Hayward dumped 1/3 of his BP stock holdings($2.1 million dollars) weeks before the oil rig explosion

8. Coincidentally, Goldman Sachs dumped 44% – 4,680,822 shares – of its stock in BP Oil weeks before the spill – no other oil company, just BP. This also represented an unusual transaction, being two times the size of any normal stock trade for an institution its size.

9. Weeks before the oil spill, Haliburton acquired Boots & Coots, a Houston-based oil well intervention/oil safety/oil spill cleanup company, an investment criticized by many as an “unwise” investment at the time”

I know it isn’t worthwhile to keep breaking pipes just so we can continue our conversation but I think it might very well be worthwhile to meet at the pub for a pint.

I confess, I did a bit of pleading to get Dave to agree to run for the Green Party Federal Council. Looking forward to retirement, after decades as a high school teacher, Dave wondered why he would want to add being a member of Federal Council to his list of advocacy and artistic projects.

Hmm… good question.

In Dave, I saw the opportunity for Ontario EDAs to have a real voice on Council – to be represented by someone who has a ferocious belief in grassroots democracy and the power of a Constitution to either hinder or help an organization in both the short- and long-term.

I knew that Dave loves Constitutions and By-laws, not because of his years of service on the OSSTF Provincial Council, but because he kept asking me questions about our EDA and Federal Constitutions. ‘What do we do in this situation?’ ‘What does this mean?’ ‘Who is responsible for this?’

All great questions. Questions that it had never occurred to me to ask. And definitely questions I did not know how to answer. While I take pride in my ability to balance a love of details with a passion for the big picture, Dave’s focus on Constitutional details blew me away, as did his positive attitude and great ideas for local EDA work.

There are a lot of gaps in our Constitution, gaps that Dave noticed right away, and made proposals to help close.

There also seem to be a lot of people at the Federal level willing to ignore the Constitution and the grassroots nature of the Party while they concentrate power at the centre and present us as a Party of One. Several of the Constitutional amendments proposed cause me a great deal of concern about where the Party is headed and how committed Federal Council is to an impartial, grassroots approach. I do not believe that we have had a truly effective Provincial Councilor in the past. In my years of CEO I can attest that I was never consulted by our Provincial Rep, and received the most minimal support from Provincial Organizers. I would love to see this change, would love to see more focus on supporting local EDAs.

We are more than one candidate, more than Head Office, and waaaay more than a climate change advocacy group and I firmly believe that Dave shares these views and will work hard as Provincial rep to ensure that the Party is guided by a vision rooted locally.

I totally support Dave Kempton in his campaign to become the new Provincial Councilor for Ontario. We desperately need new voices and ideas on Federal Council, and we desperately need the voices of those who have experience outside of the environmental lobby.

It is time for the GPC to grow up and become the federal Party that I know we can be and having Dave on Federal Council would be a great start. You can find out more about him here.

I’ve been captivated by happiness lately. I’m currently reading Marci Shimoff’s book, “Happy for No Reason” and have taken the last year to figure out what makes me happy. Interestingly, it was not a question I was raised to ask. In my family, we were concerned with financial security… and that was pretty much it. It was certainly better to be miserable and financially secure than to be taking a risk but ridiculously happy. And fulfilled? Authentic? It never even came up.

I came across this op-ed in the New York Times by David Brooks in March. Based on decades of research into happiness and fulfillment, Brooks makes the argument that “once the basic necessities have been achieved, future income is lightly connected to well-being… the United States is much richer than it was 50 years ago, but this has produced no measurable increase in overall happiness.” And yet, for most of us, money is where we focus almost all of our efforts.

It leads me to question our government’s focus on the economy. What is the point of focusing on increasing economic prosperity if it is only loosely related to the happiness and fulfillment of the populace? Or is being happy irrelevant to our society?

The current paradigm, based on consumerism and materialism, tells us that more money will buy us more stuff, give us more prestige, and make us happier. Stuff = Happiness.

So we tuck our heads down and work harder, harder, harder. We earn more money, we buy more stuff, we increase our standard of living again and again…

Why?

Why do we work so hard? Are we afraid? We are certainly told by media, religion and our government that there is much to be afraid of and that to be secure we have to have more money. More money = more security. Also, more money = more power. But why do we want power and security? I would argue that it is to feel fulfilled. Because we want to feel happy.

I think (and feel free to disagree) that we have allowed ourselves to be convinced that economic success at a national level = security = happiness. We, as a society, have developed tunnel vision that excludes all other possibilities for how to live. We glue ourselves to the daily stock reports, regardless of our investment portfolio, with mood swings tied to the vagaries of the Dow, NASDAQ, and TSE. What have we been thinking?

Our PM recently said that all other issues are a sideshow compared to the economy, especially at the G8, even as he proposes a global maternal health initiative (maybe they are looking to sell Canadian technology and pharma overseas…) and this is somehow acceptable. I think not.

The Green Party of Canada proposes a fundamental shift in this thinking. Money is important, there is no doubt. Maslow’s hierarchy makes it very clear that until we can provide ourselves and our loved ones with the basics of food, clothing and shelter, we cannot aspire towards greater things and greater happiness. Trust me, I totally understand that when one is worrying about money and what they will feed their kids tomorrow, it is hard to be lofty and spiritual.

But once we satisfy those basic needs, where do we aim our attention? Let’s say that I make lots of money and I have it invested well and I am feeling pretty secure. What then? Is that all there is to life? Security?

Brooks argues that the relationship between happiness and personal relationship (both intimate relationships and the social network) is very closely correlated. In study after study, “the daily activities most associated with happiness are sex, socializing after work, and having dinner with others. The daily activity most injurious to happiness is commuting… countries with high social trust have happier people, better health, more efficient government, more economic growth, and less fear of crime.”

Brooks concludes, “modern societies have developed vast institutions oriented around the things that are easy to count, not around the things that matter most. They have an affinity for material concerns and a primordial fear of moral and social ones.”

I don’t want to live a life solely focused on the ‘economy’ or the markets. Happily, the Green Party agrees with me. We propose the development and implementation of a Canadian Well-Being Index that would be used in conjunction with the GDP and other indices to present a more accurate measure of how Canadians are doing.

How we are really doing. Do we feel safe? Do we feel trust? Do we know our neighbours? Heck, do we know our kids and spouse? How strong are our connections to the community? How large are our social networks? Do we enjoy time in nature? Do we have access to beauty?

Because, ultimately, we all want to be happy. And our current system isn’t getting us there.

A friend of mine sent me this interesting, and kind of disturbing article about Detroit’s proposed solution to its urban sprawl and diminishing populations: tearing down the neighbourhoods and creating new agricultural land.

It has taken me a while to write about it, because, honestly, I wasn’t sure what I could say – it is heartbreaking to see a city that was built on the promises of a modern world in decay and decline. But it is also unsurprising – thanks to Michael Moore’s early films like Roger and Me (which focused on Flint, MI), it is widely known that Detroit was made promises by the auto industry that were not kept.

Promises that could not be kept given the current legislation that deals with corporations (and, yes, I realize that legislation in the States is different than here). Corporate Charter legislation that demands they provide ever-increasing profit to their shareholders, regardless of consequences. ‘Free’-Trade Legislation that makes it more affordable to build cars 1,000 or 5,000 kilometres away from the market where they will be sold than to pay union wages. Accounting and Income Tax legislation that allows companies to externalize environmental and social justice repercussions of the decisions they make. And, finally, a legislative bundle that has created an entire generation of corporate CEOs and profiteers with a twisted set of values where a dollar is more important that a human life and lying is justified when it will make more profit.

I don’t really have a problem with delivering value and profit, that is what companies are for, after all. The problem I have is with the current definition of ‘value’. As a Green, if a company wants to deliver value to me, then it had better be thinking, not just about the jingle of money in my piggy bank, but also the long-term health and well-being of me, my children and my community. I care about the sustainability of my investments, I want to know that it is a good idea not just for me, but for my kids and their grand-kids.

And I have to say that the current corporate culture does not seem to be taking us in that direction. Our current system of fines is largely meaningless and has almost no power to change the behaviour of a corporation – especially for the largest ones, the current fines are considered part of doing business, certainly not a deterrent. Yet, in case after case, companies that take better care of their employees, community, and the environment are more profitable than those who insist on sticking to the ’status quo’.

So here’s what I would like to see: a Corporate Charter granted in Canada would be dependent upon the company agreeing to both domestic and foreign Corporate Social Responsibility Charters and that, if a corporation was in violation of that Charter on a regular basis, that the Charter would be revoked, the Corporation would be dissolved, and the proceeds of asset sales would be used to compensate employees and shareholders. I would like to see the onus of proof on the corporations themselves, and I would like to see this legislation enforced.

Oh, and one other tidbit I would love to see thrown in to deal with exorbitant executive salaries: let’s cap their compensation at 1000x that of the lowest paid worker. That’s right, if you operate in a free trade zone and the worker there makes $0.50 or $1.00 per day, your total compensation (no sneaking around with stock transfers) is going to work out to around $52,000 per year. Too low, you protest. How about 10,000 times? $520,000 doesn’t sound too bad. Does it? Right now, there are many executives being paid 100,000 to 1 million times more than their lowest paid worker. Does that seem right? Do you think that companies would behave differently if their compensation were tied to that of their lowliest employee (contract or part-time)? I do.

As for Detroit, a relic of the modern-age experiment in automobiles, perhaps they will figure out a way to revitalize their economy and transition to sustainable growth through green industry… or maybe it will just become a great place to own a farm.

Today marked the conclusion of a Summit to discuss issues surrounding the opening Arctic waters. It didn’t end as well as our Foreign Affairs Minister, Mr. Cannon, would have liked, according to the Montreal Gazette. U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton chastised Mr. Cannon, and by extension, the Canadian government, “for excluding aboriginal leaders and three northern nations — Iceland, Finland and Sweden — from the gathering.”

Mr. Cannon defended his exclusionary tactics by commenting that “Arctic Ocean coastal states have an important stewardship role in the region.” Ah yes, and our Conservative government is doing such a good job with their ocean stewardship – if stewardship means voting against attempts at the recent CITES conference to protect polar bears or rapidly diminishing fish stocks like Salmon and Bluefin Tuna or against banning bottom-trawling fishing vessels, which ravage the ocean’s bottom, not only removing all current life but making regeneration almost impossible.

Yup, Canada is surely a beacon of ocean stewardship, what with Victoria and Halifax still dumping raw sewage into their respective harbours and our careful management of the Atlantic cod fishery. Even our refusal to sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples a few years ago shines as an example of stewardship of fragile ecosystems and populations.

We should totally be allowed to take a leadership role on the incredibly fragile Arctic while the EU and aboriginal peoples are excluded from the talks because, well, they actually give a darn about the Arctic as more than another area to exploit as thoroughly as possible, arming it and using it for commercial traffic.

Yup, we are very special indeed.

BTW, here’s a quick link to the GPC policy on the Arctic. Yes, we have one. And while it is called the Green Arctic strategy, we certainly would prefer to avoid that – an outcome the governing parties don’t really seem to mind.

Why not? They’re doing it for health care as well.

Thanks to William Munsey over at the Berry Patch for highlighting this threat in his latest post. He focuses on the ever-increasing plight of family farms, threatened by agri-business and indifferent government. The Green Party is certainly on the side of the small- to medium-sized farms and has an extensive policy to support them and make farming rewarding, financially as well as spiritually.

What concerns me here, what becomes an issue for the whole country, is the threat of NAFTA. As soon as we allow one jurisdiction to commoditize water we open the door to MNCs under NAFTA and our various free trade agreements.

Once we do that, we can kiss our right to water good-bye. Personally, I don’t want to live in a country where we have the most abundant freshwater resources in the world but we can’t access them, where they are no longer part of the Commons.

Let’s hope that the Council of Canadians and the Green Party hop on this bandwagon and rallies support to stop this move by a short-sighted, oil sands-obsessed government.

The recent Manning Centre 2010 Barometer found that 89% of Canadians (based on 1000 interviews) strongly believed that “nothing is more important than family,” a value the Manning Centre claimed for conservative ideology. This contention caused a bit of a stir – do conservatives have moral ownership of the ‘family’ issue?

One comment was that this focus on family (sounds conservative doesn’t it? It’s amazing how well their spin machines work) as the ‘most important thing’ flew in the face of Canadian values and the idea of ‘love thy neighbour’ and taking care of those less fortunate.

And it got me thinking, “Is family the most important thing?” and, as a politician, is it perhaps where I should be focusing. How about we claim family as a Green value – as THE Green value.

My family is the most important thing in the world to me. And I will do what it takes to protect them and ensure that they have a happy and healthy and safe future. That is why I am running for the Green Party. And that is why I think everyone who has kids, and wants to protect them, should vote Green.

This happened to coincide (I just love synchronicity, don’t you?) with an email I received from the most excellent Mr. Kempton, who runs the Albedo blog, and who was informing me that he had had a ‘minor revelation’ which I happen to think is actually pretty major – at least as it pertains to GPC policy.

“It occurred to me last week that we don’t have to get people to believe that climate change is real, or a great danger, etc. We just have to get them to act as if they believe it. Maybe that’s the basic concept behind pushing the positive economic, health, lifestyle effects of changing our ways of being on the planet… Passion and hope are more powerful, really.”

I have a confession to make: [deep breath] I couldn’t agree more. I can’t stand talking about climate change. I know that it is a GPC mainstay but I think it is nothing but detrimental to our cause. Because I think the truth is that climate change paralyzes most people – it is too big, too nebulous, and too easy to argue. Let’s talk about how we will help your family, your kids, your life.

And, as a political issue, climate change is useless. The people who get it have already gotten it, we need to reach the people who won’t get it. I know that fear is a great motivator when it comes to marketing but I don’t think it works as well when it is packaged as existential angst. It works when it is something much more concrete, like, ‘if you don’t use this pill, you’ll never have another erection.’ Now that gets some attention.

Telling people that there are massive planetary changes underway that will slightly increase the earth’s temperature and have catastrophic consequences leads to, ‘Woah! My brain shut down halfway through what you said and I’m now thinking about my shiny new car.”

Moreover, we don’t need it. The Green platform is amazing. We’re promoting healthy, vibrant, abundant communities where people know each other, care for each other, and have the resources they need, locally, to feel happy. We are offering an awakening, a re-vitalization of people’s lives, their homes, and, yes, their families. We actually care that people get to see their kids, that they aren’t spending two hours commuting every day, that they aren’t on the hamster wheel of ’success’ but empty inside. Our Vision provides all of that.

We have the best plan for job creation.

We have the best plan for energy sustainability.

We have the best plan for food security.

We have the best plan for health.

We are offering passion, hope, and happiness. So let’s drop the focus on… what was it again?

I am so impressed by Liz McLellan’s efforts to build a community of yard-sharers and her website Hyperlocavore. The general idea is that if a locavore focuses on food grown within 100 miles than a hyperlocavore focuses on food grown with 100 yards. I just had to make sure I preserved this link where I could find it.

It is a great initiative and I totally think we should get something like this going in Newmarket and Aurora. Maybe through the York Region Food Network (YRFN) who already takes care of the food bank and community gardens. Or we could, y’know, just do it up grassroots-style.

I’ll be having my groundbreaking garden-planting party sometime in May. Join my Facebook page if you’d like an invite. Until then, stay warm and dream of fresh, local produce with these yummy titles:
The Edible Garden
Food Inc.
The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals
Gaia’s Garden: A Guide To Home-Scale Permaculture
Locavore
Just Food: Where Locavores Get It Wrong and How We Can Truly Eat Responsibly
The Locavore Way: Discover and Enjoy the Pleasures of Locally Grown Food

March 22nd is World Water Day and it seems like an excellent time to muse over the current state of our water resources. Canada is so truly blessed with abundant fresh water and some of the healthiest tap water in the world and perhaps that is why we have been able to keep our per capita consumption rates down (though it has been steadily increasing).

This article from the Huffington Post is an excellent introduction to a few of the issues surrounding bottled water – peak oil, leaching chemicals, and corporatisation. “According to the UN, by the year 2020, two-thirds of the world will lack access to clean drinking water,” and there are many political observers who believe that the wars of the 21st century will be about water. Actually, these wars are already happening – the Golan Heights has been a constant issue between Israel and Syria and its main benefit is significant fresh water resources, providing over half of Israel’s fresh water.

The Council of Canadians has been fighting the privatization of Canada’s water resources for years, with fairly good success. It is also a solid Green Party of Canada platform plank that we support a public trust for water and enshrining the right to water in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. By contrast, our current governments (and by that I mean the NDP, Liberals, and Conservatives) have done little to promote public, safe water and with each free trade agreement we make we move a little closer to losing our ability to maintain our common right to safe water.

Check out the new documentary, Tapped. Maybe we’ll have to have a GPC movie night…

This issue has recently gained the spotlight in Ontario with Bill-237 which would create corporations and implement full cost recovery and metering of municipal water supplies. This Bill was killed when McGuinty prorogued the Ontario Legislature but these seemingly innocuous steps have often been precursors to water privatization. While the Green Party supports full cost accounting it must be done in the context of preserving public access and management of this vital resource.

My family recently had the conversation about whether or not to continue using plastic water bottles. I confess that as a Personal Trainer I used my fair share of water bottles when I worked at the gym. Generally I would buy a bottle and then refill it from the water fountain for a few weeks and then replace it with a new one, but, still, that was a lot of plastic. I even remember buying a case one summer and carrying it around in my trunk – by the end of that case the water had taken on a distinctly funky taste, who knows how many pseudo-estrogens I ingested that summer from the heated plastic. My plastic water bottle usage is almost nothing now, thankfully.

Anyway, my partner’s three kids get a packed lunch every day, and as part of that they each receive a water bottle. Every school day. Finally, I couldn’t take it and after serious debate about practicality, health, taste (only one likes the taste of Brita water, the other two prefer tap water), and political image (after all it looks pretty bad to have the GPC candidate using that much plastic) – my partner went out and bought metal water bottles for all of us. Now the kids have ample water and our plastic recycling rate has dropped immensely. And everyone seems happy.

It makes me wonder what it would be like if Newmarket and Aurora went plastic water bottle-free?