Open letter from Fair Vote Canada to strategic voters and vote-swappers
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.”
- Albert Einstein
Another federal election and another disaster for democracy.
On October 14, millions of Canadians – possibly eight million – will become orphan voters, casting ballots that send no one to Ottawa. As usual, the election results will be wildly distorted.
Some parties will get a portion of seats far exceeding their portion of the popular vote, while others will get too little or none at all.
We may even see a party opposed by six voters in every ten take majority control in the House of Commons.
Why we call this exercise “democracy” is a continuing mystery.
During every election in recent memory the frustration created by an undemocratic electoral system leads some to conclude that voters should try to “game” the system. Instead of marking the ballot for a party you support, they say, be “smart” and vote for a party you do not support in order to block another party that you despise.
A recent poll by the Toronto Star indicated that about half of those supporting the Liberals, NDP and Green Party would consider casting a negative or “strategic” vote, abandoning the party they actually prefer, to vote for another party in the hope of stopping a candidate from the front-running Conservatives.
In addition to 40% of the eligible voters who choose not to vote we could now have another large group of people who have given up on sincere voting and genuine democratic representation.
This is no way to nourish pride of citizenship or public respect for the laws that emanate from an unrepresentative Parliament.
Citizens in most major democracies take for granted their right to cast a vote that elects the representation they want. In the upcoming election, the majority of Canadian voters will all but certainly be denied that right.
Fair Vote Canada cannot advise voters whether to cast negative votes or to participate in vote-swapping schemes on October 14. It’s rarely a clear or easy choice.
What we can advise is that all Canadians should be coming together to demand reform of our country’s undemocratic election process.
If you have not already done so, join and support Fair Vote Canada. Sign the Fair Vote Canada petition calling for a national referendum on electoral reform. Urge other organizations to make active citizenship, equal votes and proportional representation for all Canadians a part of their basic mission.
Together we can win.
British Columbians showed the way in 2005 when 58% voted by referendum for proportional representation, only to be frustrated – in the short-term – by an undemocratic government-imposed threshold of 60%. On May 12, 2009, British Columbians will vote again in an electoral reform referendum. With our encouragement and help, they can lead Canada on the path of democratic renewal.
The electoral system has orphaned many of us. We must refuse to be silenced. Democracy has been long delayed, but if democrats are steadfast, democracy will not be forever denied.
Fair Vote Canada
FairVote.ca
OrphanVoters.ca
While Fair Vote Canada does not endorse strategic voting or vote-swapping, those wishing to learn more may wish to visit these non-partisan sites:
democraticSPACE.com – strategic voting guide and Votepair.ca
Let’s Get Serious About the Environment: It All Starts With Putting a Price on Climate Change Pollution
This election seems to have many Canadians scratching their heads: What’s it about? Who should I vote for? Why should I vote at all? The answers to these questions depend on whether you think the environment — and more particularly taking action on climate change right now — really matters.
Let’s put this election in its real context: we are currently facing the greatest threat to the livability of our planet in the history of human civilization. Scientists like NASA’s James Hansen tell us that our carbon emissions are already well into the red zone. Other scientists warn us about the relentless build-up of toxins in our environment and the snowballing extinction of species.
So it’s time to discuss something more substantive than which party has the best TV ads. It’s time to talk about how we are going to remake Canada’s approach to living sustainably. It’s time to talk about how we are going to keep the natural world, which is the foundation of our prosperity, healthy and functioning. It’s a big subject, but it’s also one that we should expect any party that wants to form a government to have some big ideas about.
As the people who think, eat and breathe environmental issues on a daily basis, we have plenty to say about what Canada could be doing better and what it needs to be doing right now. We’ve put these ideas down in a document called Tomorrow Today: How Canada Can Make a World of Difference (available at tomorrowtodaycanada.ca). It’s a call to action and an agenda for how to transform our country from an environmental laggard — ranked 28th out of 29 developed countries by the OECD on a survey of key environmental indicators — to a world leader.
Let’s be clear: there are big changes coming, whether we are ready or not. Unchecked climate change will devastate our environment and dramatically reshape our world. The continued loss of biodiversity will leave us more and more vulnerable to sudden and radical shifts in natural systems. And continuing to dump toxins and pollutants into our atmosphere and waterways will leave us scrambling to cope with the massive health and economic impacts of dirty air and water.
So, as the politicians like to say, we need to get ahead of the curve. We need to make the transition to a more sustainable economy by recognizing as false (in fact, insane) the practice of allowing companies to freely pollute. We need to protect far more of our forests, waters and wetlands because they are immensely valuable assets — assets most countries can only dream of — instead of treating them as an endless source of cheap resources. And we need to recognize that we have the worldleading wealth, resources and know-how to be global leaders in sustainability — all we need is the will.
The place to start is with addressing climate change. Climate change essentially takes all of our other environmental problems and puts them in overdrive. It’s time for Canada to demonstrate some seriousness on this issue by putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions: a minimum of $30 a tonne (CO2 or equivalent) by 2009, rising to $75 a tonne by 2020. This would be a powerful signal sent across our society about the need to act now on getting our wasteful and polluting energy practices under control, to increase our productivity and efficiency, and to be innovators in developing new, low-carbon technologies.
A number of provinces are already moving forward along these lines. British Columbia has introduced a modest carbon tax, Quebec has some carbon pricing and Ontario is gearing up for carbon cap and trade through the Western Climate Initiative. But these efforts will be much more effective when they are coupled with strong federal laws and policies that make it clear that we will act on our international commitments to reduce our emissions and that we understand the immense benefits of moving to a green economy in a planned and controlled manner, instead of in panicked response to a growing wave of environmental disasters.
Canadian voters get this. They have told pollsters again and again that they believe action on the environment and the economy is not incompatible. In fact, more and more Canadians recognize that economic and environmental issues are really two sides of the same coin.
So don’t flip a coin when it comes time to vote. Ask your candidates if they have a roadmap for a prosperous, sustainable future for this country. Show them Tomorrow Today and challenge them to respond. Let’s make this an election about an issue that matters: Who can provide the leadership to take this country through some of the biggest challenges we have ever faced to a greener future?
Bruce Cox, Greenpeace Canada
Julie Gelfand, Nature Canada
Stephen Hazel, Sierra Club Canada
Anne Levesque, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
Bob Oliver, Pollution Probe
Devon Page, Ecojustice
Julie Gelfand, Nature Canada
Marlo Raynolds, Pembina Institute
Sidney Ribaux, Equiterre
Peter Robinson, David Suzuki Foundation
Rick Smith, Environmental Defence
Text source
Why gender equity trumps religious rights
Janet Keeping
Freedom of religion is an important principle in a free society, but it should not override the rights of women.
From rapes that go unreported because the victim is a female Muslim to the legal enforcement of arbitrations based on religions which seriously disadvantage women in matters such as divorce and child custody, we have seen increased tension between accommodation of religious difference and women's right to equality in our laws, public institutions and society more broadly.
This increased tension is due, in part, to greater religious diversity in Canada. Many of the religious groups which have grown in recent years -- for example, some Muslim and Evangelical Christian sects -- don't hold as progressive views on women's rights as some of those that have historically been dominant in Canada, such as the United Church.
But the increased tension is also due to the "global resurgence of religious orthodoxy."
Janice Stein, political scientist at University of Toronto, says this should not surprise us. "When rights in a liberal democratic state bump up against deeply embedded religious-cultural traditions, the hot spot of contention is the rights of women."
This is not a slam against Islam. As Stein also points out: "The three great monotheistic religions -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- all have foundational texts which are profoundly patriarchal . . . which profoundly discriminate against women."
The question is not, why do some religious groups oppress women? That's easy -- their religion tells them to: women can't be priests or bishops or conduct prayer. Women can't enter the temple during menstruation. Women must defer to their male relatives. Women must "dress modestly." We are all aware of the gender discrimination that passes for religion, but as Stein observes, "We rarely speak in public about the coincidence that it is women who are covered, not men, irrespective of religious tradition. Nor do we talk about the belief, common to all religions, that it is women who are responsible for inciting lust or violence in men."
Nor is this a slam against religion per se. Our social institutions might have evolved differently, as in some cultures they did. But facts are facts -- historically most religions have greatly disadvantaged women.
Nor does freedom of religion help out here. Freedom of religion and conscience has usually been seen as a way of keeping government from meddling in religion, not as an excuse for religion to dictate to our public institutions.
Besides, in a multicultural society, how could laws and public policy be subject to religion? Which religion, when there is such a variety of them and many people who are not at all religious?
The real question is, what kind of thinking leads a person to conclude that gender equality in our public institutions could ever yield to religious belief?
The answer is "bad" thinking, which -- sadly enough -- comes in many forms. For example, it is bad thinking to shy away from the truth that some religious traditions are more humane than others. Some Christian, Jewish and Muslim groups are leaders in the advancement of women's rights. They don't try to bend laws to oppress women -- quite the contrary. But it is just a fact that others treat women as the property of their male relatives. Some practices -- such as "honour" killings of women who have "strayed" -- must never be allowed to influence Canadian laws so as to accommodate these murders.
It is also bad thinking to claim that, generally speaking, women have "made it" in Canada and so compromise with religious fundamentalists on the rights of "their" women is no big deal. (Think of recently arrived burka-clad immigrants or refugees who may be subject to genital mutilation.) Whether in terms of incomes earned, adequacy of child-care facilities or representation in government or on the boards of major corporations, Canadian women are a long, long way from equality. Any loss of ground is a major deal, and "their" rights are just as important as mine.
Not many of our laws state a simple, unassailable moral truth. But Section 28 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does just that. It says that all rights protected by the charter are, "notwithstanding anything else in this charter," "guaranteed equally to male and female persons." When it comes to our laws and public institutions, gender equity must always trump religious doctrine that discriminates against women. In ethics and law, women are entitled to an equal shot at a life worth living.
Text source:Calgary Herald. Janet Keeping is president of the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership, which is hosting a symposium on diversity issues, Identity and Polarization: Implications for our Ability to Live Well
MORE THAN 120 TOP SCIENTISTS URGE CANADIANS TO VOTE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
VANCOUVER - More than 120 of Canada's top climate scientists are urging Canadians to vote strategically for the environment in the upcoming federal election.
"Global warming is the defining issue of our time," says Dr. Andrew Weaver, a Lead Author with the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). "Our current federal government has yet to get engaged in the innovative and urgent policies that we need to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada."
"This is shaping up to be the rare election in which the environment is the issue," added Dr. John Stone, past Vice Chair of Working Group II of the IPCC. "And never has the attention been more necessary, with both our environment and economy at risk. Sadly, the opportunity for an informed national debate on Canada's response to global warming is slipping away. We cannot let this happen. Dealing with the economy has to mean addressing the environment in a sustainable way."
The scientists who signed the letter are a who's who of top climate experts in the country, including many who were lead authors or major contributors to the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
They are, on one hand, the backbone of the Canadian climate science community. But signing such a letter in the middle of an election is both risky and courageous in the current circumstances, says Simon Fraser University ethicist Dr. Mark Wexler.
"It's always risky to be pro-climate change when the government in power is pro-fossil fuel," Dr. Wexler said. And given that many of the signatories are research scientists who depend on the federal granting agencies for the bulk of their funding, these whistleblowers could face serious cutbacks if the Conservative party were to get back into power, Dr. Wexler said.
Dr. David Schindler, winner of the 2001 Gerhard Herzberg Canada Gold Medal for Science and Engineering, Canada's top prize in science, said that he and his colleagues are confident that the Canadian granting agencies would continue to support good science on its merits - on the basis of professional peer-review rather than politics. "And regardless, this is not a moment for any Canadian to be timid. This is an urgent issue and I am proud to side with so many scientists who are willing to stand up for what they believe in," Dr. Schindler said.
A full Opinion Page submission setting out the scientists' position has been sent to Canada's major newspapers, and signatories in most of Canada's major centres have agreed to make themselves available for further comment. For more information or to arrange interviews with one of these spokespeople, contact. The entire letter and the list of scientists can be found at www.site.climateletter.org
It's time to vote for the environment
The ABCs of strategic voting. But will it work?
When moderator Steve Paikin brought the second of the two leaders' debates to a close on Thursday evening, Canada's pundits began sorting through the verbal jabs, and the instant polls to determine the winners and losers, and what it will mean for election day.
Polls and pundits seemed to agree that Gilles Duceppe and Stephane Dion won the French language debate the previous evening and that Elizabeth May of the Green party had a strong night in the English debate — with Andrew Coyne on The National 's At Issue panel going as far as declaring her the winner.
But what does it all mean?
Regardless of how strong May performed in the debates, she won't form the government on October 14.
The reality is that a strong showing by May and a clouded result between Dion and Layton as to who bested whom means that none of the so-called progressive parties came away as the consensus alternative to Stephen Harper's Conservatives.
As a result, the crowded left departed the debate as divided as it went in and that has many in the environmental community increasingly concerned.
United in fear
No matter that the environment shouldn't be the domain of the political left and despite the current Conservative government's record (May noted the Conservative success in expanding Canada's national parks while criticizing it's overall environmental record as a "fraud"), environmental organizations from coast to coast seem united in their fear of another Harper-led government - especially if it's a majority.
"The community is coming together over the very real reality Harper will form the government again," said one environmental advocate, speaking anonymously as his organization's charitable status prohibits these groups from being politically active.
"The main concern is climate change and the fact that the Conservative's tactic to lower greenhouse gas emissions through 'intensity' targets simply will not work.
"Even Alberta's auditor general said so when reviewing their province's strategy, which mirrors the federal Tory plan."
Getting political
Despite this unified message that the Conservatives are wrong-headed on climate change — an opinion the opposition parties tried to demonstrate during both debates as well — the environmental movement is becoming more aware that to change the status quo, they must find ways to get political themselves.
"If you look at the record of the four other political parties — the NDP, the Greens, the Liberals and the Bloc — they're all substantially better than the position of the Conservatives," said Stephen Hazell, executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada.
Hazell was joined by Greenpeace executive director Bruce Cox at a press conference last week to urge Canadians who care about the environment to "vote for any party but the Conservatives."
The environmental message from other involved groups isn't as overt as the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, but they appear to be finding ways of sending out the same message of strategic voting, albeit through proxies.
In the Vancouver Sun, James Hoggan, a board member of the David Suzuki Foundation, argued why the ABC (Anybody But Conservative) campaign is a must for environmentally conscious voters.
"Only one leader still stands against the international consensus (on climate change), Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper," said Hoggan.
Strategic voting
Still other environmental organizations are going so far as to create new, arms-length organizations, such as Conservation Voters of B.C. — a non-profit, non-partisan organization that is comprised of environmental leaders from different groups, albeit representing themselves, not their organizations. It is endorsing specific 'green candidates' in B.C.
The biggest — and most comprehensive — push for strategic voting on green issues is the new website VoteForEnvironment.ca.
Looking at every riding in the country, the site uses the results from the 2006 election mixed in with recent polls and anecdotal information to try to determine the greenest candidate with the best chance of beating the Conservatives in any given riding.
If every green voter followed the website's suggestions (as of Saturday), it says that instead of electing a Conservative minority of 141 MP's to 73 Liberals, 57 Bloc, 35 NDP, and no Greens, the electoral result would shift to a Liberal minority with 109 MP's to 97 Conservatives, 53 Bloc, 46 NDP, and 1 Green.
But why is the strategic voting mantra only now, in the days after the debate, catching on with the environmental community?
Before the debates, many conservation groups, privately, were torn.
Some wanted to back one of their own in former Sierra Club executive director Elizabeth May and her Green party so that the party would gain traction and firmly place environmental issues on the political agenda for the long term. Others felt it was critical to be pragmatic and actively back the Liberals who offered the best chance of advancing green issues in the short term.
So what changed?
"The realization that no party on the left is going to be able to win on their own — and that leveraging our base to ensure strategic voting succeeds is the only way we're going to get a government that gets climate change," another member of a leading environmental organization's executive told me, again on the condition of anonymity.
Of course, as obvious a solution as strategic voting may be to many political observers, it must be remembered that this is a bitter pill to swallow for many in the green lobby because it flies in the face of the same democratic principals and messages that these groups rely on to advance their cause with their supporters.
It's hard to argue "forgo the party you believe in and choose the party with the best chance of winning" in one breath and then turn around and say "do the right thing and make your voice heard in support of policy X even though policy Y has more support."
While talk of a Green-Liberal alliance persists (helped along by Elizabeth May's recent comment that "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."), most believe it is just that — talk.
As a result, strategic voting's best chance is in the hands of the national environmental movement and their ability to organize. Fast.
Will it work?
As Susan Riley in the Ottawa Citizen recently pointed out, it is a hard sell.
"Some say strategic voting doesn't work because it requires disparate individuals to set aside their own first choices for the common good. This is doubly difficult when the most-electable alternative isn't clear," wrote Riley.
Similar efforts in the United States to mobilize green voters have had some success, but that pales in comparison to the impact of the religious right as a voting block.
In Canada, while strategic voting helped the Liberals in both 2004 and 2006, it wasn't the result of a concerted effort on the part of environmental organizations, rather it was the by-product of the surprisingly successful last-minute Liberal scare tactics about Harper's so-called hidden agenda.
If a strategic green vote wave is to wash across the country, a prime test will be in the riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands - home to the country's largest base of environmentally-inclined voters as well as Gary Lunn, a Conservative cabinet minister.
Lunn has been the riding's MP since 1997 and won each election with one of the smallest percentages in the nation.
In the last election, if the green vote in that riding had united, the Conservatives would have been denied a cabinet minister — one who many environmentalists see as wearing the goat horns, at least partially, for the Tory's green plan.
And if a similar unification of the green vote had occurred in fewer than a dozen ridings across the country, Paul Martin would have won.
This time, Liberal candidate Briony Penn — a high profile B.C. environmentalist — looks as if she just might be able to unify green voters and defeat Lunn.
Of course, this is not the result of a brilliant strategic-voting movement, but rather the by-product of the NDP having been forced to drop their candidate, Julian West, in the riding because of skeletons in his closet.
Still, beggars can't be choosers, according to many in the environmental community who are privately mobilizing their troops behind a concerted strategic-voting push in the election's final week.
Between perceived success in Saanich-Gulf Islands and an Angus Reid poll on Saturday that suggested a large majority of Liberal, NDP and Green supporters would switch their votes to stop the Conservatives, many conservation groups are hoping it will be the incentive needed to rally their troops.
After all, many in the environmental community argue, if only a few thousand Canadians decide to make the environment their ballot issue in a few dozen ridings, it will be enough to deprive Harper of his majority, maybe even his minority.
Text source: CBC
Living wage shows real cost of raising a family
Would lift thousands out of poverty, share prosperity of BC’s economy
A new study calls on major public and private sector employers to pay a living wage that would lift low-income families out of poverty and severe financial stress. A living wage allows lower-income families to avoid having to make impossible choices, such as whether to buy food or heat the house, feed the children or pay the rent.
The living wage calculation includes basic expenses for a two-earner family with two young children (such as housing, childcare, food and transportation), and government taxes, credits, deductions and subsidies. It finds that each parent would need to work full-time at an hourly wage of $16.74 in Metro Vancouver and $16.39 in Greater Victoria in order to pay for necessities, support the healthy development of their children and participate in the social and civil life of their communities.
Working for a Living Wage: Ensuring Paid Work Meets Basic Family Needs in Vancouver and Victoria – 2008 was released today by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, First Call: BC Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition, and the Community Social Planning Council of Greater Victoria (as part of the CCPA/Simon Fraser University Economic Security Project).
“With Statistics Canada data showing that BC has had the highest level of child poverty in Canada for the last five years, it’s clear that not everyone is benefiting from BC’s economy,” says Adrienne Montani, Provincial Coordinator of First Call. “And child poverty is very much about low wages – more than half of BC’s poor children live in families where at least one person has a full-time, full-year job.”
“The living wage is different from the minimum wage, which is the legislated minimum set by the provincial government,” explains Seth Klein, report co-author and CCPA-BC Director. “The living wage calls on employers to meet a higher standard for both their direct staff and major contractors – it reflects what people need to support their families, based on the actual costs of living in a specific community.”
Says Tim Richards, co-author and a senior law instructor at the University of Victoria, “even though the living wage would allow families to escape severe financial stress, it is based on a very modest budget. The living wage does not allow for a family to own their own home, manage a serious family emergency, pay debts, save for retirement or their children’s education.”
“This study shows what families need to earn in order to have a decent quality of life — not merely to survive,” says Jane Worton of the Community Social Planning Council of Greater Victoria. “For those who want to end child poverty, this is where the rubber hits the road.”
“Full-time work shouldn’t keep people in poverty,” says Janice Abbott, Executive Director of Atira Women’s Resource Society, a non-profit that pays a living wage to all its staff. “Employers need to make sure employees aren’t struggling just to get by, unable to spend time with their families, constantly stressed by debt and financial crisis.”
Deborah Littman, study co-author, has worked extensively with London Citizens, a UK group that has successfully lobbied a number of major public and private employers to adopt the living wage. Says Littman, “These employers see the benefits of a living wage. It means less employee turnover, lower absenteeism, improved morale and higher productivity. It also means being able to market themselves as living wage employers — a distinction that is rapidly gaining currency in the UK.”
Although the living wage is not a call for legislation, the study doesn’t let governments off the hook.
“Governments can reduce wage pressures on employers by enhancing the child tax credit for low-income families, bringing in universal child care, reducing public transit costs and increasing affordable housing,” says Klein. “Right now, many government supports designed to assist low-income families are out of reach to working parents because the thresholds are too low. Employers who would find the living wage challenging should urge governments to strengthen the public services and supports that enhance our economic security.”
“If we’re going to end child poverty, a living family wage must be at the core of our strategy,” says Montani. “Employers and governments alike share a responsibility to achieve the living wage.”
The researchers have also provided a living wage calculation guide for other communities, available at www.policyalternatives.ca.
Text source: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. This study is part of the Economic Security Project, a joint initiative of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and Simon Fraser University, and funded primarily by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). The study also received financial support from the United Way of the Lower Mainland.
Download the Report/Study:
