Mb Speaks
Well another month has flown by. Seems like only yesterday I was sitting here jamming deadline and wondering whether my printer is waiting for me...again! I guess I've had an excuse, as I've been very busy in the last weeks out pounding the campaign trail for the Green Party. Maybe you know, maybe you don't, but I'm the Green candidate for Haliburton Kawartha Lakes Brock; a riding that covers some 10,500 square kilometers from Apsley to Beaverton, Bethany to Lindsay and everything in between. I've been busy cramming my head full of clever and informed retorts to questions cast at me from media outlets and concerned voters at All Candidate Meetings throughout the riding, shaking hands and telling people about the Greens. People want to know about their future and what we plan on doing to help it along. You can't blame them really. Not to take potshots at the other parties, but we sure have had a long run at hearing one thing and getting another. I guess that's why I ended up getting involved. When I was in Australia the Howard government was thrown from office for attaching himself to the Bush family and ignoring climate change. The young Kevin Rudd came to power on a platform of environmental protection and hardwiring the country for highspeed. It became obvious to me then that change was possible and the more I read about the Greens, the more I identified with them. To my surprise, I found that I wasn't alone as hundreds of thousands of Canadians support them and their initiatives to clean up the environment and work towards a more just society. (Ironic as I write this I get yet another phone call from someone who'd like a sign for their lawn). So what makes them different from the other guys? We're all politicians aren't we? Well in the words of Elizabeth May, we Greens don't care who comes to power as long as they fix the problem. I couldn't agree more! This political stuff is a lot of work! I certainly have a new found respect for the "lifers" that have been on the trail for years at a time. When do they sleep? I told someone it reminded me of being on the road as a musician except there was no booze in my dressing room, no screaming groupies and no cheap promoters! Alas, on the road listening nonstop to CBC radio, memorizing sound bites and competitor blunders I have but days to inspire people to vote with their heart and conscience. So what ever you do this Oct 14, just vote for something.
Keep the Faith
Mb
Market Meltdown by Randy Wright
We're all aware of the meltdown financial institutions south of the border are going through, the bail out package, the bankruptcy of some of the America's oldest banks, but what is happening here in Canada? The conservative government has suggested our economy is strong and because of regulations within our banking system we have little to be worried about. Is that true?
In an extraordinary measure this month, the Bank of Canada more than doubled to $20-billion the short-term money it is making available to Canadian financial institutions struggling to deal with near-frozen conditions in money markets around the world. There are signs that Canadian banks are afraid to lend money to each other anymore (a common practice) and if that arrangement stops the price of lending will increase, cut into their profits and ultimately make it harder for businesses and consumers to borrow. So, the Central bank has ramped up its efforts to get money flowing again, so banks will continue to lend and we'll stop hording our cash, borrow some and continue to spend. But with money markets falling (usually they rise) and interest rates on the rise, Canadian banks are now relying on the central bank as their primary source of cash rather than each other. But just who is the Central Bank of Canada?
Initially a private institution it was made a crown corporation in 1938, under Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King with a mission statement that: "The Bank of Canada's responsibilities focus on the goals of low and stable inflation, a safe and secure currency, financial stability, and the efficient management of government funds and public debt." In a nutshell, the Bank of Canada is funded by taxpayers, taxpayers who are lending the money to banks who mark it up and lend it back to us in order to make a profit. Sounds a bit incestuous doesn't it?
But what if the banks borrow the money and decide to horde it for themselves, to plug up the holes in their own balance sheet and maintain stock values rather than putting it back into circulation? Well, if that happens, interest rates will go up and consumers will cut back and jobs will be lost as factories and businesses are closed. Sound familiar?
Some History….
In early 1930, credit was ample and available at low rates, but people were reluctant to add new debt by borrowing. By May 1930, American auto sales had declined to below the levels of 1928. Prices in general began to decline, but wages held steady in 1930, then began to drop in 1931. Conditions were worst in farming areas, where commodity prices plunged, and in mining and logging areas, where unemployment was high and there were few other jobs. Previously in the 1920s, consumers and businesses relied on cheap credit to purchase consumer goods such as automobiles and furniture, and businesses needed it for capital investment to increase production. This fueled strong short-term growth but created consumer and commercial debt. People and businesses, deeply in debt when price deflation occurred or demand for their product decreased, often risked default. Many drastically cut current spending to keep up time payments, thus lowering demand for new products. Businesses began to fail as construction work and factory orders plunged; welcome, The Great Depression.
This time around the crisis seems to have been triggered by sub-prime lending on mortgages in America, mortgages which were ultimately defaulted on. So, banks lent money to people that had no real way of paying it back, and when the consumer defaulted, banks were left holding a bag full of bad debts and empty promises. This doesn't sound like good business... does it? What were they thinking? Since the value of a bank is based on the number of contracts it has with people to pay a specific interest rate over a specific time frame, you'd think that banks would want to make sure these deals were solid... wouldn't you?
Well let's go back a few decades when President Jimmy Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which pushed banks to aggressively lend to minority communities, an act that President Bill Clinton was to give real teeth during his time in office. Clinton saw homeownership as a way to open the door for blacks and other minorities to enter the middle class. Though well-intended, the problem was that Congress was about to change hands from the Democrats to the Republicans. Clinton ordered the Treasury Department to rewrite the rules in 1995, a rewrite, that made getting a satisfactory CRA rating harder. Banks were given strict new quotas and measures for the level of "diversity" in their loan portfolios. But why would banks lend money to people who couldn't pay it back? Getting a good CRA rating was key for a bank that wanted to expand or merge with another. In a climate of amalgamation, this was critical. With incentives in place, banks poured billions of dollars of loans into poor communities, often "no doc" and "no income" loans that required no money down and no verification of income. What's more, other rule changes gave banking giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks. And just who were Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac?
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Fannie Mae was founded as a government agency in 1938 as part of Franklin Roosevelt's “New Deal” to provide liquidity to the mortgage market after the Great Depression. For the next thirty years, Fannie Mae held a virtual monopoly on the secondary mortgage market in the United States. Then in 1968, to remove the activity of Fannie Mae from the annual balance sheet of the federal budget and it was converted into a private corporation. By 1995, Fannie Mae began receiving affordable housing credit for buying sub-prime securities. In 1999, the Clinton administration and Fannie Mae shareholders encouraged the lender to increase the number of mortgage loans offered to those of low and moderate income, both to improve rates of home ownership among those groups and to increase profits. In 2000, due to a re-assessment of the housing market by HUD, anti-predatory lending rules were put into place that disallowed risky, high-cost loans from being credited toward affordable housing goals. And finally in 2004, during the Bush administration, these rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals. So ultimately, the riskier the loan the more credit and profit the company made!
But if people can't pay, how do they make money? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy loans from mortgage originators, such as banks and non-bank mortgage firms. It repackages the loans, as mortgage backed securities, and sells them on the secondary mortgage market, with a guarantee that the interest and principal will be paid, whether or not the original borrower pays. Too good to be true? One part of Fannie Mae's income is generated through the positive interest rate spread between the rate paid to fund the purchase of mortgage investments and the return it earns on those retained mortgage investments.... buy it for 5% and sell it for 7%.... Fannie Mae's mortgage portfolio was in excess of $700 billion as of August 2008. (700$ billion? Where have we seen that figure before?) As a side note, some of Fannie Mae's top individual shareholders include Daniel Mudd who was CEO up until this month and received 7 million for his "good work", Fannie Mae announced that former CEO Daniel Mudd will resign from the board of directors immediately. Fannie did not provide a reason for Mudd's departure. Robert Levin who was Fannie Mae's CFO from 2004-2006, is another major shareholder. Prior to that position, Mr. Levin was the Executive Vice President of Housing and Community Development (HUD) from June 1998 to December 2004. Are we starting to see a trend here? One of the major institutional stockholders, MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. is also the same MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. that has been recently gobbled up by Bank of America. And who is the Bank of America? Well for one thing, they've made it their strategy to be the number one bank in America. It has achieved this through key acquisitions of other banks. Getting dizzy yet?
Funds and banks around the world have taken hits because they purchased bonds, or risk related to bonds, backed by bad home loans, often bundled into financial instruments called collateralized debt obligations, or C.D.O.'s. The losses have often surprised the investors, and in some cases the funds and the executives of the banks, who were unaware of the extent of their risks. The confusion about these products lies in part in their complexity. Structured products are pooled assets that have been sliced and diced into ever more smaller, more specialized pieces. Banks and other financial institutions pooled those asset-backed securities into new units, dividing them up again and issuing securities against them, creating collateralized debt obligations.
And how did this shell game take root? In 1999, Republican Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) wanted to deregulate the banking industry and return the banking and stock markets to where they were before the Great Depression. The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 separated the banking industry from the investing business. Up until that time banks were prohibited from owning or operating other financial companies. During the Great Depression, banks got into trouble because of their investments. This prompted President Roosevelt to take action to prevent that from happening again.
of 1933 separated the banking industry from the investing business. Up until that time banks were prohibited from owning or operating other financial companies. During the Great Depression, banks got into trouble because of their investments. This prompted President Roosevelt to take action to prevent that from happening again.
In 1999 Gramm proposed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which essentially repealed the Glass Steagall Act. Republicans supported the act and Democrats opposed it. The bill passed the Congress and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999. The banks were now allowed to get into the securities business. The act allowed banks to securitize their mortgages, and sell them. Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and other large banks began to offer mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDO) to investors all around the world.
So who bought them? CDO's have been one of the fastest growing segments of the fixed income market, reflecting a growing investor search for higher relative returns in a low interest rate environment. The investor base is global and with diverse interest across the rating spectrum. At the senior note level, buyers include over-collateralized special purpose vehicles, banks and insurance companies. The equity buyers include insurance companies, pension funds, foundations and endowments, Hedge Funds, high net-worth individuals and specialty funds. At the basest levels its individual investors looking for a better return on their money. A return they've seen evaporate in the last months.
So where does that leave us? What are Canadians in for? Well firstly, there were a few Canadian banks that attached themselves heavily to the market and the fallout has already begun. Class action suits have been filed against CIBC for example alleging that CIBC misled investors by falsely representing their exposure to subprime CDOs suggesting they were not a major risk issue and failing to accurately describe CIBC's total exposure to the U.S. subprime mortgage market. If you own their shares or mutuals you might want to check your ledger. But CIBC isn't alone, as banks and financial brokers around the world exposed themselves and ultimately their investors to these risky investments. So as the market drops, so does the value of your portfolio. To confuse things further, some investors sell their more stable holdings to pick up discounted financial stocks only adding to the already volatile environment. But what if you don't have any investments?
As our biggest trading partner continues to fall deeper into recession, our exports continue to dry up, and with it our manufacturing and resource sector, and the jobs they create and maintain. This is what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket; counting on a continued growth of the American economy.
But ultimately it plays to consumer confidence; a confidence that drives our economy. When people are uneasy about their economic future they stop purchasing big ticket items and the flow of money dry ups only compounding the problem.
What's the answer? Time will only tell. There's no doubt that with the upcoming elections on the horizon both at home and south of the border it will be a question on everyone's mind. Yet, one thing to consider is, Canada has a strong resource and technology based economy, commodities that will always be desired around the world. And though the world economies may slow initially, they will always rebound. As long as our next government doesn't sell us down the river for cheap, Canada may find itself in one of the best economic positions of any country on this planet.
Major Media Attack on Canadian Drug Laws by Rob Wipond
It’s arguably the year’s most important health care story. We’ve heard little about it, though, because media are deeply implicated in it themselves.
Direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceutical drugs (DTCA) is unfettered in only the U.S. and New Zealand. Canada, as the world’s eighth largest drug market, makes a juicy target to be next.
But ironically, Big Pharma isn’t the one fighting to legalize pushing amphetamines during Degrassi reruns; it’s CanWest Global. CanWest has launched a lawsuit under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, trying to tear down Canada’s limits on pharmaceutical advertising.
Currently, prescription drugs can be advertised to the general public in two ways: the ad names a drug without describing what it treats, or the ad discusses an illness without mentioning a drug name.
While these laws may seem strange, Health Canada’s legislative history shows how they developed. Early 20th century laws controlling medications and advertising came into force under pressure from physicians concerned about dubious health claims and drug dangers. Blanket bans gradually became more flexible: less dangerous drugs that alleviated common conditions like sniffles could be advertised; makers of cheaper, generic drugs could announce their existence. Later, lifestyle chemicals like diet pills, contraceptives and vitamins challenged definitions of what “medications” were, and leeway was granted for promoting health education. Then came borderless media, permissive U.S. advertising, and underfunded regulatory enforcement, and the resulting mess certainly now needs straightening. But how?
Most medical professionals, independent non-profits, academics and the knowledgeable public support toughening and enforcing our laws. CanWest claims the laws restrict freedom of expression and should be thrown out.
In fact, nobody questions CanWest Global’s right to say whatever it wants about drugs, so this case has nothing to do with freedom of expression. It’s about getting advertising money from pharmaceutical companies eager to run U.S.-style ads here, a pot estimated to be worth a half-billion dollars annually. Through their industry associations, major Canadian media have been lobbying regulators for years to gut the ad restrictions. Therefore, it’s noticeably fishy that the story is getting little coverage.
An alliance including the Canadian Health Coalition, Federation of Nurses Unions, and Women and Health Protection has intervenor status, and the latter has posted affidavits from all sides on its website. These highlight key concerns.
Does DTCA increase objective consumer knowledge, or effectively decrease it through clever manipulation? Does DTCA increase diagnoses of ineffable “diseases” like “depression”, “hyperactivity” and “anxiety disorder”? With drug costs already gobbling nearly 20% of health care budgets, double 1985’s percentage, can we risk letting lifestyle drugs become the next iPods?
CanWest’s position is well summarized in one (and seemingly the only) commentary that’s appeared in their media outlets. Long-time National Post columnist Peter Foster dismisses concerns DTCA will do anything but improve public access to accurate information.
“[W]hy in the name of heavens would anybody but a snake-oil salesman… go around making deliberately false claims if he wanted to stay in business…?” asks Foster rhetorically.
In fact, the U.S. FDA continually issues innumerable reprimands to major drug firms for false and misleading advertising. But ad laws are flimsy, and the toothless letters are essentially ignored. Our government’s own DTCA-case affidavit describes several ongoing examples where Health Canada has issued repeated reprimands to companies who have continued illegally marketing potentially-lethal drugs to teenagers for years, often for unapproved, trivial uses like treating mild acne.
Worse, as Dr. John Abramson’s affidavit details, DTCA is but one part of a massive public manipulation offensive. There’s a pharmaceutical rep for every 4.5 office-based doctors. Many health care “non-profits” are corporate fronts. Drug lobbyists become government regulators. Two-thirds of academic institutions accept drug research contracts that don’t allow their own researchers to change the study design; half sign contracts that relegate the researchers to being mere advisors to company PR ghostwriters. When Abramson provides a summary quote describing our scientists as bozos “seduced” by cash and “frightened” to defy “gag orders” in a “race to the ethical bottom”, it sounds like a rant from a drunk Focus columnist–it’s actually an American Medical Association Journal editor. (Our physician organizations, the Canadian Medical Association and BCMA, both have publicly available policies against DTCA, but have been noticeably quiet about this case.)
Which highlights my own biggest concern: DTCA’s effect on media.
Illustratively, Foster mocks Canada’s laws by observing that Viagra’s Canadian ads would be inscrutable “if you did not know what Viagra was”. Which raises the question: Why DO we all know? We know because journalists have long been eager patsies replaying the latest magic-pill propaganda, and the social impacts have been dramatic. For example, PR News reported that media references to “social anxiety disorder” increased from 50 in 1998 to one billion in 1999, following PR efforts by Paxil’s manufacturer. SAD promptly changed from what medical texts called an “extremely rare” disorder into a multi-billion dollar industry.
How much more insidious will all this become when pharmaceutical giants are major advertising clients, and when there’s hefty ad money to be lost if journalists question drug claims?
DTCA would deeply undermine public access to accurate health information. It’s criminal that CanWest Global is acting so irresponsibly.
Based in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, Rob Wipond is a freelance writer. Visit his website www.robwipond.com
Two More Ways To Create Energy by Anita Kuno
One of the things that I like best when the hydro goes out is the quiet. I don't mind the dark, actually I kind of enjoy it, and I really appreciate the quiet. The refrigerator is silent. The water pump stops. The circulating fan stops humming. Just me and the pets and the quiet. It's moments like that when I evaluate certain activities based upon their power requirements. I have some water left in the holding tank. The water in the hot water tank will be hot for a while as well. In the winter, I ask myself about heat and whether or not I have to spark up the indoor woodstove. It's usually as I sit in the dark or shuffle toward the drawer with the candles, that I consider different household activities and appliances based on their energy consumption. I'm always interested in self-sufficient alternatives. The flashlight in my car's glove compartment has a wind-up power generator. I never have to worry about replacing the battery. The light is not as strong as a flashlight using a battery but I always have light when I need it.
My curiosity has recently revealed two sources of power that are new to me. Both are plants that produce large quantities of lipid (fat) that can be used in some engines that run on diesel fuel. The technology for both is still in the development stages and require further research and development but if the fat can be grown, extracted and processed in a viable way there is a strong possibility that either or both can contribute to the create of energy and power for our households.
Jatropha
Jatropha is a plant that grows beans and it is these beans that produce the oil. Jatropha is also call physic nut and can produce up to 40% oil in the beans. To humans, the beans are toxic, so the using Jatropha for a fuel source will not decrease food supplies as is the concern with corn and soy. The plant is resistant to drought and pests and can grow in conditions which can be too dry or otherwise inhospitable to other crops. A native of Central America, the Jatropha plants were transported by the Portuguese in the 1600's and now can be found in Africa, India, Australia and throughout South-East Asia. Some communities in India and South-East Asia have embraced the cultivation of the Jatropha plant, where it has been regarded as a weed and a pest plant, as a means of economic prosperity and self-sufficiency for their community. When the Jatropha seeds are crushed and processed, the resulting oil can be used in a standard diesel engine. Diesel engines are different from gasoline engines and can burn vegetable oil as a fuel after a conversion process. A local fellow converted his diesel car to run on vegetable oil from a fish and chip restaurant. He obtained the oil from the restaurant for free, since it saved them finding a way to dispose of the oil, and set up a system of filters in his garage. After he completed the conversion on his car, he poured the oil into the fuel tank and turned the key. He has an inexpensive fuel source and got rid of some hard to dispose of oil. His exhaust did smell of french fries but even when he passed me when I was cycling on the highway, the smell wasn't so bad. I have had a lot worse. The point is that it is possible. It is possible to burn vegetable oil in diesel engines with a minimum of conversion. And if Jatropha can contribute, I'm interested in seeing it happen.
Algae
That's right, algae. Pond scum. The stuff that grows on the fish tank and along some shorelines. There are some strains of algae that can produce up to 50% lipid. That is a lot of lipid. It needs a source of water, sunlight, and warmth as well as nutrients. Fortunately it can accept many sources of nutrients, sewage for example. After the algae is grown and collected it is processed and the oil is extracted. And it is similar to the oil from jatropha in that it can be used in diesel engines.A development company in New Zealand has been developing this technology and has already had a trial run of the fuel, literally. In December 2006, the Minister for Energy and Climate Change Issues (I love that they have a portfolio entrusted with that priority), a man named David Parker drove Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons around the forecourt of the Parliament Buildings in Central Wellington in a diesel Land Rover filled with Aquaflow B5 blend bio-diesel. A tiny plant that grows in waste water producing oil that can contribute to a blended fuel that powers a Land Rover, I really hope that this technology continues to receive attention and development.Bio-fuel to power diesel engines can power our cars and trucks but also could possibly power heavy equipment and transport vehicles both of which are large consumers of fossil-fuel diesel presently. The New Zealand government is also working hard to test bio-fuel in the aeronautics industry which again is a huge consumer of fuel. At home, bio-diesel could be used in diesel generators for home use; at the cottage or merely as back-up for when the power goes out. Anita Kuno is a freelance journalist and activist from Haliburton
Interview: Federal Green Party Leader; Elizabeth May by Michael Bell
From the Bio: Elizabeth May is an environmentalist, writer, activist and lawyer. She has been active in the environmental movement since 1970. She first became known in the Canadian media in the mid-1970s through her leadership as a volunteer in the grassroots movement against aerial insecticide spraying proposed for forests near her home on Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia. The effort prevented aerial insecticide spraying from ever occurring in Nova Scotia. Years later, she and a local group of residents went to court to prevent herbicide spraying. Winning a temporary injunction in 1982 held off the spray programme, but after two years, the case was eventually lost. In the course of the litigation, her family sacrificed their home and seventy acres of land in an adverse court ruling to Scott Paper. However, by the time the judge ruled the chemicals were safe, 2,4,5-T’s export from the U.S, had been banned. The forests of Nova Scotia were spared being the last areas in Canada to be sprayed with Agent Orange.
Her volunteer work also included successful campaigns to prevent approval of uranium mining in Nova Scotia, and extensive work on energy policy issues, primarily opposing nuclear energy.
Elizabeth is a graduate of Dalhousie Law School and was admitted to the Bar in both Nova Scotia and Ontario. She has held the position of Associate General Counsel for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, representing consumer, poverty and environment groups in her work.
In 1986, Elizabeth became Senior Policy Advisor to then federal Environment Minister, Tom McMillan. She was instrumental in the creation of several national parks, including South Moresby. She was involved in negotiating the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer and new legislation and pollution control measures. In 1988, she resigned on principle when the Minister granted permits for the Rafferty-Alameda Dams in Saskatchewan as part of a political trade-off, with no environmental assessment. The permits were later quashed by a Federal Court decision that the permits were granted illegally.
Elizabeth is the author of five books, Budworm Battles (1982), Paradise Won: The Struggle to Save South Moresby (1990), At the Cutting Edge: The Crisis in Canada’s Forests (Key Porter Books, 1998, as well as a major new edition in 2004), co-authored with Maude Barlow, Frederick Street: Life and Death on Canada’s Love Canal (Harper Collins, 2000), and most recently, How to Save the World in Your Spare Time (Key Porter Books, 2006). Frederick Street focused on the Sydney Tar Ponds, and the health threats to children in the community – the issue that led her to protest in front of Parliament Hill over a seventeen-day hunger strike in May 2001.
She has served on numerous boards of environmental groups and advisory bodies to universities and governments in Canada, including the International Institute for Sustainable Development and the National Round Table on Environment and Economy and is currently a member of the Earth Charter International Council, co-chaired by Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev. Elizabeth is the recipient of many awards including the Outstanding Achievement Award from the Sierra Club in 1989, the International Conservation Award from the Friends of Nature, and the United Nations Global 500 Award in 1990. In 1996, she was presented with the award for Outstanding Leadership in Environmental Education by the Ontario Society for Environmental Education. In 1998, the “Elizabeth May Chair in Women’s Health and Environment” was created in her honour at Dalhousie University. She holds honourary doctorates from Mount Saint Vincent University, the University of New Brunswick and Mount Allison University. She is also the recipient of the 2002 Harkin Award from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS). In 2006, Elizabeth was presented with the prestigious Couchiching award for excellence in public policy. Most importantly, she is the mother of fifteen year-old Victoria Cate.
In March 2006, Elizabeth stepped down as Executive Director of the Sierra Club of Canada, a post she had held since 1989, to run for the leadership of the Green Party of Canada. She was successful in her bid, was elected the Green Party’s ninth leader at their national convention in August 2006 with a clear majority of the votes.
Elizabeth is an Officer of the Order of Canada since 2005.
There’s a new face on the political scene in Ottawa and it’s Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada. Often described by media as a no-nonsense candidate with a “shoot from the hip” approach to politics, Elizabeth has been turning heads and attracting voters right across the country. The initial decision to exclude her from the Leader’s Debate, was perhaps one of the greatest windfalls for the Greens as voters across the political spectrum stood up to shoot “foul”. Once included, Ms. May made it clear why the NDP and Conservatives might not have wanted her at the table. Bright, sincere, energetic and confident Elizabeth May has shown Canadians she’s a leader with a futurist approach and realistic vision on more than just environmental policy. I spoke with her moments after she stepped down from the train and rallied the “troops” in Toronto’s Hockey Hall of Fame...
Mb: So why did you decide to take a train on your campaign rather than a plane like the others?
EM: For a number of reasons. First of all, because far less carbon is emitted in my travel by taking the train. And secondly, it is a more efficient and a pleasant working environment for the entire trip. I also get to see the scenery and it's gorgeous.
Mb: So what’s the main goal of this election?
EM: Change. My main goal is to make sure Stephen Harper is not the prime minister at the end of the next election.
Mb: So given you’re not the next Prime Minister are you suggesting people vote strategically?
EM: Strategic voting just doesn't work. I won't say, ‘You've got to vote Green if you believe in our policies.' I'll say, ‘Here's our policies, figure out what you need to do.” I'd rather have no Green seats and Stephen Harper lose, than a full caucus that stares across the floor at Stephen Harper as Prime Minister, because his policies are too dangerous.
Mb: So who would you vote for?
EM: Well I’m of course my first choice. Mr. Dion would be my second. We have to have the kind of leadership that recognizes climate change and will do something about it. I'm more committed to climate action than I am to being a successful leader of the Green Party or being Prime Minister. The Green values around the world have always been towards a shift in values towards co-operation over competition, to sharing over greed. We don’t want everyone voting Liberal, we want to elect a lot of Greens but when I ask myself what’s the best end result of this election, I can’t help but think it's a Liberal minority government with enough Greens and other party members to keep them honest.
Mb: What about the war in Afghanistan? What should our role be?
EM: We need to restore Canada’s role in the world as peace keepers and not an adjunct of George Bush’s war on terrorism. We must also redirect our resources to another critical area, rapidly building up logistics capacity within the Afghan National Army. When our combat tour of duty in Khandahar province ends in 2009, this critical non-combat role will be an invaluable continuing contribution from Canada. Mr. Harper must give up his empty rhetoric and focus on rebalancing the mission. We’d also have a continuing role in Afghanistan but within a transformed U.N. mission, legalizing and regulating the poppy trade for medicinal use, and bringing in more Islamic nations into the peace-keeping, security efforts in Southern Afghanistan through the U.N.
Mb: What else is important to you?
EM: Poverty and hunger are priorities for Greens, but the Green Party will not simply strive to reduce the poverty rates in Canada, we want to wipe poverty out for good. Most Canadians find it unacceptable that in a wealthy country like Canada, 15 percent of Canadian children still endure the hardships associated with inadequate income. No child should be faced with inadequate nutrition or go to bed hungry.
Mb: In one quick sound bite, what do you want Canadians do know or do?
EM: On Oct 14th, no matter what you else you’re going to do get out and vote.
|
