The most recent budget clearly demonstrates that the current government of Manitoba refuses to accept that economic health and social well being require more than Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
The Selinger Government is trying to convince Manitobans that a $555 million budgetary shortfall is not so bad since our debt to GDP ratio is only 24.4%.
It is not unreasonable to run a deficit during tough times, but the flip side is that you pay down your debts when times are good. Budgets are about planning. This implies reasonably attempting to foresee the future. In this regard, successive decades of NDP and Conservative governments have failed us.
When Greens talk about budgeting, we speak not only about the public coffers, but also about the public goods, natural resources and ecological habitats in this province. A sustainable society is based on understanding our natural capital, and planning appropriately is at the core of the responsible Green approach. Nowhere within the budget documents can you find an impugned value for vital ecological services, such as fresh air, clean water, and fertile soils -- nor for other important indicators of economic health, including healthy families and communities, active citizen involvement, and volunteer contributions.
These non-monetary costs are not captured in the budget, nor are they captured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) statistics, which measure the value of all monetarily exchanged goods and services in an economy. GDP sums all goods and services within an economy without regard for the attributes of the service in question. This leads to some strange results. For instance, the costs associated with a stolen car: filing an insurance claim, paying the deductible, the police hours spent on apprehending or attempting to apprehend the thief, justice related costs (including the cost of the court and any costs of incarceration), plus the costs to repair the vehicle, are all added into GDP. Likewise, costs associated with toxic spills and the resultant clean-up are also positively added into GDP. Obviously we do not want more car thefts and toxic spills, yet these add to the GDP number, and we're told this is a good thing?
There is inherent value in sustaining our planet -- our survival depends on it! Forests ecosystems, for instance, have considerable value. A provincially supported study conducted by the International Institute for Sustainable Development [IISD] valued the ecological services of a section of boreal forest East of Lake Winnipeg at $121.35 to $130.30 million annually (That’s for fresh air, fresh water, carbon sequestering, and various other valuable activities like eco-tourism, hunting, and fishing). If we extrapolate the IISD's valuation, Manitoba's forests yield $854.75 million dollars in ecological services to Manitobans every year.
Though numbers on a spreadsheet cannot adequately capture the tranquil beauty of our irreplaceable and wondrous ecosystems, we need to recognize that these ecosystems have value. They provide clean air, clean water, and habitat for wildlife. Perhaps if economic value was placed on these ecosystems, and these numbers were transparently included in the budget documents, and new well-being indicators such as the Genuine Progress Indicator were also incorporated, Manitobans would have a clearer picture of where we stand. Perhaps this could help facilitate a long-term plan to ensure that Manitobans leave their children and their children’s children a better planet than the one they have inherited.
------------------------------------------------
The IISD study valued 40,000 km² of forested land at 130 million per year (http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2008/ecosystem_valuation.pdf). According to Conservation Manitoba there are 263 000 km² of forested land in Manitoba (http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/forestry/forest-education/general.html). Assuming that 130 million per year for 40,000 hectares is a fair valuation, then the entire forested area in the province yields $854.75 million in ecological services.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Planet is the source of all prosperity
The letter below was in response to this article which was itself a response to an earlier argument.
PLANET IS THE SOURCE OF ALL PROSPERITY
Spencer Fernando’s recent article, “A Conservative’s View on Climate Change” (Jan. 13, 2010) requires a serious response from a green perspective. First, it must be said that not everyone who showed up at Rod Bruinooge’s office to rally for a strong Canadian stance on climate change was in fact a Green Party member or supporter. Greens support vigorous debate, and within the party itself there is a wide range of perspectives on how best to create a sustainable planet.
Fernando mischaracterizes the green position on the carbon economy by implying that greens are so naive as to seek to stop the carbon economy overnight. Rather, greens wish to introduce a pragmatic strategy towards greatly reducing Canada’s carbon emissions. This program would include a revenue-neutral carbon tax at extractive sources, to be offset by reductions in income tax, primarily in the lower taxable brackets. Greens advocate an orderly transition to a green economy by granting incentives to industries willing to invest in producing economically — and environmentally — sound energy and technologies. Retooling infrastructure and retraining workers will be necessary in this transition, but will require strong leadership from the federal government — leadership not being shown by Stephen Harper.
Greens are not opposed to technological advancement; in fact, we embrace it. The appropriate technology and transition movements sweeping across Great Britain and Europe shows locally-coordinated, cooperative solutions in action, and effectively undermines the conservative fear-mongering that jobs must be lost in the transition to a post-carbon economy.
Fernando claims the conservative government's position is "clear," yet there are few concrete ideas that he puts forward. The only idea is the notion of carbon capture and storage. Yet in the same paragraph Fernando declares, "Now is not the time for extreme and unproven experiments." Perhaps Mr. Fernando is unaware that carbon capture is really little more than an unproven experiment still being conducted. Even if this technology proves itself useful in the long term, it will still be a very expensive “band-aid” approach that fails to deal with the problem at its source. In essence, government support for carbon capture is a subsidy to the oil industry. How does this create a “fair market” with a level playing field? Instead, this creates an uneven playing field that unduly benefits carbon-intensive, multinational fossil-fuel companies to the detriment of our planet.
The Alberta model calls into question the notion that the tar sands benefit all Canadians. A recent report illustrates how the gains from the tar sands are private while the costs associated with social, health and ecological problems stemming from the industry are paid for by the public. The Norway model, meanwhile, illustrates how high state royalties on oil and gas development allow for industry profitability, while Norwegians are justly compensated and the funds are prudently managed: Norway invests over 95 per cent of its royalties from the industry in long-term, secure funds. A strong federal government would mitigate the oil patch profit-at-all-costs mentality by recognizing that Canadians will need a steady economy and social standards well after the boom ends. The UK-issued Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change showed the costs associated with not taking strong action on climate change are greater than those associated with regulating and moving away from fossil fuel use.
Mr. Fernando claims that the trend of human progress has been unmistakably positive. If we want to ignore the disappearance of species at a hugely inflated rate, the rapid melting of ice caps, the eutrophication of our oceans, the pollution of our air, water and soil, the rise of cancer and heart disease in OECD developed nations — then yes, we’re progressing. The rest of us working to create sustainable and just societies beyond the boom and bust cycle of linear resource extractive industries are a little more realistic. The planet is finite. Greens understand that our delicate planet sustains a complex web of living systems, which we are both part of and dependent upon. There are limits not only to the total biomass of the planet itself, but also on our planet and our own capacities to absorb pollutants and remain healthy. A wise government would understand the real source of prosperity is the planet itself.
Fernando claims that Conservatives support vigorous debate. With many Canadians disgusted by conservative obstruction of climate negotiations in Copenhagen, and with Parliament shut down, the Campus Greens will happily debate Canada’s climate policy with the Campus Conservatives, publicly. Will Conservatives rise to this challenge?
PLANET IS THE SOURCE OF ALL PROSPERITY
Spencer Fernando’s recent article, “A Conservative’s View on Climate Change” (Jan. 13, 2010) requires a serious response from a green perspective. First, it must be said that not everyone who showed up at Rod Bruinooge’s office to rally for a strong Canadian stance on climate change was in fact a Green Party member or supporter. Greens support vigorous debate, and within the party itself there is a wide range of perspectives on how best to create a sustainable planet.
Fernando mischaracterizes the green position on the carbon economy by implying that greens are so naive as to seek to stop the carbon economy overnight. Rather, greens wish to introduce a pragmatic strategy towards greatly reducing Canada’s carbon emissions. This program would include a revenue-neutral carbon tax at extractive sources, to be offset by reductions in income tax, primarily in the lower taxable brackets. Greens advocate an orderly transition to a green economy by granting incentives to industries willing to invest in producing economically — and environmentally — sound energy and technologies. Retooling infrastructure and retraining workers will be necessary in this transition, but will require strong leadership from the federal government — leadership not being shown by Stephen Harper.
Greens are not opposed to technological advancement; in fact, we embrace it. The appropriate technology and transition movements sweeping across Great Britain and Europe shows locally-coordinated, cooperative solutions in action, and effectively undermines the conservative fear-mongering that jobs must be lost in the transition to a post-carbon economy.
Fernando claims the conservative government's position is "clear," yet there are few concrete ideas that he puts forward. The only idea is the notion of carbon capture and storage. Yet in the same paragraph Fernando declares, "Now is not the time for extreme and unproven experiments." Perhaps Mr. Fernando is unaware that carbon capture is really little more than an unproven experiment still being conducted. Even if this technology proves itself useful in the long term, it will still be a very expensive “band-aid” approach that fails to deal with the problem at its source. In essence, government support for carbon capture is a subsidy to the oil industry. How does this create a “fair market” with a level playing field? Instead, this creates an uneven playing field that unduly benefits carbon-intensive, multinational fossil-fuel companies to the detriment of our planet.
The Alberta model calls into question the notion that the tar sands benefit all Canadians. A recent report illustrates how the gains from the tar sands are private while the costs associated with social, health and ecological problems stemming from the industry are paid for by the public. The Norway model, meanwhile, illustrates how high state royalties on oil and gas development allow for industry profitability, while Norwegians are justly compensated and the funds are prudently managed: Norway invests over 95 per cent of its royalties from the industry in long-term, secure funds. A strong federal government would mitigate the oil patch profit-at-all-costs mentality by recognizing that Canadians will need a steady economy and social standards well after the boom ends. The UK-issued Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change showed the costs associated with not taking strong action on climate change are greater than those associated with regulating and moving away from fossil fuel use.
Mr. Fernando claims that the trend of human progress has been unmistakably positive. If we want to ignore the disappearance of species at a hugely inflated rate, the rapid melting of ice caps, the eutrophication of our oceans, the pollution of our air, water and soil, the rise of cancer and heart disease in OECD developed nations — then yes, we’re progressing. The rest of us working to create sustainable and just societies beyond the boom and bust cycle of linear resource extractive industries are a little more realistic. The planet is finite. Greens understand that our delicate planet sustains a complex web of living systems, which we are both part of and dependent upon. There are limits not only to the total biomass of the planet itself, but also on our planet and our own capacities to absorb pollutants and remain healthy. A wise government would understand the real source of prosperity is the planet itself.
Fernando claims that Conservatives support vigorous debate. With many Canadians disgusted by conservative obstruction of climate negotiations in Copenhagen, and with Parliament shut down, the Campus Greens will happily debate Canada’s climate policy with the Campus Conservatives, publicly. Will Conservatives rise to this challenge?
Re: Tories Do Bluegrass, Greens Twist and Shout
In the Feb. 3rd article, "Tories Do Bluegrass, Greens Twist and Shout”, printed in The Manitoban, Blaike Hamm makes the absurd argument that having seen no Campus Greens in attendance when James Bezan, Conservative Member of Parliment (MP), spoke at the University of Manitoba on January 18th, that this was evidence of "...indifference to environmental issues at its finest." This is absolutely ridiculous! There is any one of a numerous reasons why the Campus Greens may or may not have been in attendance, such as conflicting academic or work schedules. I can only speak for myself, but I had a group project due and was working on the project with my project partner accordingly.
Hamm should check his information when he criticizes the Campus Greens for submitting three letters. I was absolutely delighted to read Ms. Beaudette's letter, but I do not know her personally, and thus I had no idea that she submitted a letter with similar argumentation. I do know Alon Weinberg, and he was instrumental in the writing and editing of the commentary piece published in my name in the January 27 edition. Afterwards, Alon decided that he wanted to pen a few more of his thoughts and they were subsequently published online.
To state that the issue of prorogation "...does not directly affect the Green Party at all...", is offensive and undemocratic. The operation of Parliament concerns more than simply the 308 MPs. Inside or outside of Parliament all Canadians have an interest in the activities of our government. MPs have a duty to represent all of their constituents, not just those that voted for them. By extension, this means that the present Conservative government needs to govern in the interest of all Canadians, not simply in the interests of the roughly five million Conservative voters. I will accept that this minority government was duly elected in our present first-past-the-post system, but these five million voters only accounted for twenty-two percent of the registered voters who cast their ballot. This government then needs to be mindful of the concerns of the forty per cent of people who did not vote, and those that voted for another party; including, of course, the one million, and growing, Green Voters. To quote Hamm: "I will let the reader come to a conclusion, based on the facts and numbers...", to determine if the Conservatives had adequate support to unilaterally shut-down Parliament at tax-payers expense?
Perhaps more Campus Greens should have been in attendance when Bezan spoke, but what exactly does Mr. Hamm want? Perhaps he wanted Campus Greens to show up and pound a drum whenever someone was trying to speak? That is what the Campus Conservatives did during the December 16th, 2009 Copenhagen rally in front of Winnipeg South MP Rod Bruinooge’s Office.
The sarcastic tone of Mr. Hamm's letter is distasteful. Had Parliament not been shut-down, or if it had been simply adjourned, Mr. Bezan could be continuing with his work as Chair of the Environment Committee, but as with all other Committees it is now shut down post-prorogation. Perhaps Mr. Bezan made some good points regarding what the Conservative Government is doing? Unfortunately, and by Hamm's own admission, "no specifics on environmental policy" were discussed in his letter. The Campus Greens have no problem debating ideas, but if the Campus Conservatives really want to have a "respectful exchange of ideas" then perhaps they should stick to the issues.
Hamm should check his information when he criticizes the Campus Greens for submitting three letters. I was absolutely delighted to read Ms. Beaudette's letter, but I do not know her personally, and thus I had no idea that she submitted a letter with similar argumentation. I do know Alon Weinberg, and he was instrumental in the writing and editing of the commentary piece published in my name in the January 27 edition. Afterwards, Alon decided that he wanted to pen a few more of his thoughts and they were subsequently published online.
To state that the issue of prorogation "...does not directly affect the Green Party at all...", is offensive and undemocratic. The operation of Parliament concerns more than simply the 308 MPs. Inside or outside of Parliament all Canadians have an interest in the activities of our government. MPs have a duty to represent all of their constituents, not just those that voted for them. By extension, this means that the present Conservative government needs to govern in the interest of all Canadians, not simply in the interests of the roughly five million Conservative voters. I will accept that this minority government was duly elected in our present first-past-the-post system, but these five million voters only accounted for twenty-two percent of the registered voters who cast their ballot. This government then needs to be mindful of the concerns of the forty per cent of people who did not vote, and those that voted for another party; including, of course, the one million, and growing, Green Voters. To quote Hamm: "I will let the reader come to a conclusion, based on the facts and numbers...", to determine if the Conservatives had adequate support to unilaterally shut-down Parliament at tax-payers expense?
Perhaps more Campus Greens should have been in attendance when Bezan spoke, but what exactly does Mr. Hamm want? Perhaps he wanted Campus Greens to show up and pound a drum whenever someone was trying to speak? That is what the Campus Conservatives did during the December 16th, 2009 Copenhagen rally in front of Winnipeg South MP Rod Bruinooge’s Office.
The sarcastic tone of Mr. Hamm's letter is distasteful. Had Parliament not been shut-down, or if it had been simply adjourned, Mr. Bezan could be continuing with his work as Chair of the Environment Committee, but as with all other Committees it is now shut down post-prorogation. Perhaps Mr. Bezan made some good points regarding what the Conservative Government is doing? Unfortunately, and by Hamm's own admission, "no specifics on environmental policy" were discussed in his letter. The Campus Greens have no problem debating ideas, but if the Campus Conservatives really want to have a "respectful exchange of ideas" then perhaps they should stick to the issues.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Chief Electroral Officer Controversy: Time for some Greens!!!
Well in today's Free Press and in the Winnipeg Sun there is a story about the Opposition Boycott of the process to appoint a new Chief Electoral Officer (CEO)--links below.
http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/2010/01/21/12565621.html
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/search-for-new-chief-electoral-officer-opposition-storms-out-of-meeting-82349692.html
I was also in attendance, and the Committee even appended my written submission to the official records--I have copied it below for your reference.
It is shameful that our politicians are not seizing this valuable opportunity. Do we need a public inquiry regarding the 1999 election fiasco? ABSOLUTELY! Let's get to the bottom of this, and clear the air one way or another.
However should we be obstructing the process, or should we get on with appointing a new CEO, now that the present CEO has given his notice of resignation. I would argue the latter. Further to this, I think we have the perfect opportunity to make some Legislative changes to the Elections Act which would make the process more impartial, and multi-partisan.
Please enjoy my submission below.
Dear Members of the Legislative Committee on Standing Affairs,
Re: Order of the Day - “To consider the process for hiring a new Chief Electoral Officer”
Date, Time, & Location: January 21st, 2010 at 6pm in Room 255 of the Legislative Building
I. INTRODUCTION: Providing some context.
This committee, The Legislative Committee on Standing Affairs (herein referred to as “Standing Committee”), is meeting to begin the process for hiring a new Chief Electoral Officer (herein referred to as “CEO”). As the Standing Committee is likely aware the previous CEO Richard Balasko had a thirty year career with Elections Manitoba, and held the position of CEO for twenty years. Balasko is leaving amidst cries from opposition party leaders for him to resign or elaborate further on the decision not to proceed with prosecutions against any NDP party member regarding the improper recording of union workers as expenses rather than donations-in-kind during the 1999 election. Balasko for his part has claimed that the law keeps him from speaking openly about the investigation.
This controversy hurts all Manitobans! It is neither good for our democracy, nor is it fortunate, that a long-standing CEO's integrity is in question. There are serious allegations that need to be addressed. The NDP party, and those individuals involved could voluntarily waive their rights to privacy and allow Elections Manitoba the right to release the information regarding the investigation. Or a public inquiry could be called. Either way it is vital to a vibrant democracy to clear the air, one way or another. That said, nothing is conclusive at this moment, and it is more productive to look at the selection of a new CEO as an opportunity to review what other jurisdictions have done in order to determine how we can avoid these types of problems from occurring in the future.
II. LEVEL OF CONSENSUS: Making the appointment process multi-partisan!
Under The Elections Act (C.C.S.M. c. E30, s. 22,23) if the CEO position is vacant, or will be vacated within a year, the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs is to consider candidates and make recommendations to the President of the Executive Council (also known as the Premier), and the Lieutenant Governor is to appoint the CEO. Thus in Manitoba in effect it is the Premier who tells the Lieutenant Governor who to appoint, based upon the the recommendations made by the Standing Committee. In this way we can see that under a majority government the Premier has a considerable amount of sway in the appointment process, and this thereby needlessly politicizes the appointment process.
Under British Columbia's, Election Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 106, s. 4.1) the Lieutenant Governor is to appoint, on recommendation of the Assembly, a CEO who has been unanimously recommended by a Special Committee of the Legislative Assembly. When the Special Committee of the B.C. Legislative Assembly last met in 2002, the Special Committee of the Legislature was largely composed of Liberals but importantly it included Joy McPhail, a B.C. MLA and Provincial Leader of the opposition NDP, thus the perspectives of at least two parties were considered during the selection process. It should be noted that although dominated by Liberals the Special Committee was reflective of the composition of the Assembly at the time which was overwhelmingly Liberal.
Appointment of a CEO in Prince Edward Island, according to the Election Act (R.S.P.E.I.
1988, E-1.1, s. 2), requires a recommendation by the Standing Committee on Legislative Management, and a resolution by the Assembly with more than a 2/3rds approval from the P.E.I Assembly. —thus under this system, with the present NDP majority in Manitoba, some opposition support would still be required to appoint a CEO.
Most provinces do require some form of legislative oversight in the selection process, but the two statues above, stand out as exemplary because they require a high degree of consensus in the appointment process. Therefore in most ordinary circumstances, appointment of a CEO would require approval from multiple political parties. If multiple political parties perspectives are taken into account during the selection process then there will be less of a basis to question the CEOs integrity.
II. LIMITING TERMS: Providing an opportunity for periodic review.
Many provinces also limit the term of a CEO. In most cases CEOs can be be reappointed, but particularly, if as discussed above, a bi-partisan process in used, this can provide a very valuable opportunity to hold the CEOs accountable.
British Columbia (Election Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 106 s. 6), and Saskatchewan (Election Act, R.S.S. 1996, E-6.01, s. 4.4) limit the term of a CEO from the date of appointment until 12 months after the completion of two general elections, and in Alberta (Election Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. E-1 s. 3.3) the appointment is limited to a 12 months period after a single general election, before re-appointment or retirement is required. New Brunswick (Election Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. E-3, s. 5.1.1, 5.1.2) in contrast limits the term of a CEO to a fifteen year maximum; CEOs are appointed to term ranging from eight years to ten years, and this can be extended for an additional five years before the CEO must retire.
III. CONCLUSION: Looking Forward
Nothing in life is perfect, and it seems fair to mention the above-mentioned provinces have also had their share of controversy. The political controversy in Alberta, surrounding the removal of Lorne Gibson instantly comes to mind. I do not pretend that these other provinces statutes are perfect, rather I think given that we in Manitoba are now beginning the process of selecting a new CEO, that we should look at the strong points of other provinces legislation to craft our own unique “made-in-Manitoba” process. I have highlighted how other provinces have term limits, and a higher degree of consensus in the appointment process. Being in transition from one CEO to another, presents the perfect opportunity to amend the Elections Act accordingly.
I would note that today I received an e-mail from Mr. Blaikie, in which he indicated that he “...would be happy to arrange to meet ... to hear the input that the Green Party of Manitoba has to offer regarding the hiring process of the Chief Electoral Officer.” I thank the Minister for this invite, and will follow up accordingly, but I do believe that the input of political parties needs to be formalized into the process. One idea, similiar to the BC model, might be that CEO candidates would need to receive unanimous approval from a committee composed of a designate from each registered political party in the province.
In any event, what we need to do is to try to de-politicize the process by which the appointment of a CEO is done. Sitting before us we have the perfect opportunity to do so. I hope that you will take these ideas into consideration. I would also be more than happy to speak to the Standing Committee and answer any questions that they might have. I will be in attendance this evening and I can also be reached via e-mail, but post, or phone (with e-mail typically providing the fastest response).
Respectfully Submitted on January 21, 2010,
James R. Beddome, Leader, Green Party of Manitoba
leader@greenparty.mb.ca
1-877-742-4292 (leave message); or direct by cell: 204-990-5195
Box 26023, RPO Maryland, Winnipeg, MB, R3G 3R3
http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/2010/01/21/12565621.html
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/search-for-new-chief-electoral-officer-opposition-storms-out-of-meeting-82349692.html
I was also in attendance, and the Committee even appended my written submission to the official records--I have copied it below for your reference.
It is shameful that our politicians are not seizing this valuable opportunity. Do we need a public inquiry regarding the 1999 election fiasco? ABSOLUTELY! Let's get to the bottom of this, and clear the air one way or another.
However should we be obstructing the process, or should we get on with appointing a new CEO, now that the present CEO has given his notice of resignation. I would argue the latter. Further to this, I think we have the perfect opportunity to make some Legislative changes to the Elections Act which would make the process more impartial, and multi-partisan.
Please enjoy my submission below.
Dear Members of the Legislative Committee on Standing Affairs,
Re: Order of the Day - “To consider the process for hiring a new Chief Electoral Officer”
Date, Time, & Location: January 21st, 2010 at 6pm in Room 255 of the Legislative Building
I. INTRODUCTION: Providing some context.
This committee, The Legislative Committee on Standing Affairs (herein referred to as “Standing Committee”), is meeting to begin the process for hiring a new Chief Electoral Officer (herein referred to as “CEO”). As the Standing Committee is likely aware the previous CEO Richard Balasko had a thirty year career with Elections Manitoba, and held the position of CEO for twenty years. Balasko is leaving amidst cries from opposition party leaders for him to resign or elaborate further on the decision not to proceed with prosecutions against any NDP party member regarding the improper recording of union workers as expenses rather than donations-in-kind during the 1999 election. Balasko for his part has claimed that the law keeps him from speaking openly about the investigation.
This controversy hurts all Manitobans! It is neither good for our democracy, nor is it fortunate, that a long-standing CEO's integrity is in question. There are serious allegations that need to be addressed. The NDP party, and those individuals involved could voluntarily waive their rights to privacy and allow Elections Manitoba the right to release the information regarding the investigation. Or a public inquiry could be called. Either way it is vital to a vibrant democracy to clear the air, one way or another. That said, nothing is conclusive at this moment, and it is more productive to look at the selection of a new CEO as an opportunity to review what other jurisdictions have done in order to determine how we can avoid these types of problems from occurring in the future.
II. LEVEL OF CONSENSUS: Making the appointment process multi-partisan!
Under The Elections Act (C.C.S.M. c. E30, s. 22,23) if the CEO position is vacant, or will be vacated within a year, the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs is to consider candidates and make recommendations to the President of the Executive Council (also known as the Premier), and the Lieutenant Governor is to appoint the CEO. Thus in Manitoba in effect it is the Premier who tells the Lieutenant Governor who to appoint, based upon the the recommendations made by the Standing Committee. In this way we can see that under a majority government the Premier has a considerable amount of sway in the appointment process, and this thereby needlessly politicizes the appointment process.
Under British Columbia's, Election Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 106, s. 4.1) the Lieutenant Governor is to appoint, on recommendation of the Assembly, a CEO who has been unanimously recommended by a Special Committee of the Legislative Assembly. When the Special Committee of the B.C. Legislative Assembly last met in 2002, the Special Committee of the Legislature was largely composed of Liberals but importantly it included Joy McPhail, a B.C. MLA and Provincial Leader of the opposition NDP, thus the perspectives of at least two parties were considered during the selection process. It should be noted that although dominated by Liberals the Special Committee was reflective of the composition of the Assembly at the time which was overwhelmingly Liberal.
Appointment of a CEO in Prince Edward Island, according to the Election Act (R.S.P.E.I.
1988, E-1.1, s. 2), requires a recommendation by the Standing Committee on Legislative Management, and a resolution by the Assembly with more than a 2/3rds approval from the P.E.I Assembly. —thus under this system, with the present NDP majority in Manitoba, some opposition support would still be required to appoint a CEO.
Most provinces do require some form of legislative oversight in the selection process, but the two statues above, stand out as exemplary because they require a high degree of consensus in the appointment process. Therefore in most ordinary circumstances, appointment of a CEO would require approval from multiple political parties. If multiple political parties perspectives are taken into account during the selection process then there will be less of a basis to question the CEOs integrity.
II. LIMITING TERMS: Providing an opportunity for periodic review.
Many provinces also limit the term of a CEO. In most cases CEOs can be be reappointed, but particularly, if as discussed above, a bi-partisan process in used, this can provide a very valuable opportunity to hold the CEOs accountable.
British Columbia (Election Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 106 s. 6), and Saskatchewan (Election Act, R.S.S. 1996, E-6.01, s. 4.4) limit the term of a CEO from the date of appointment until 12 months after the completion of two general elections, and in Alberta (Election Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. E-1 s. 3.3) the appointment is limited to a 12 months period after a single general election, before re-appointment or retirement is required. New Brunswick (Election Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. E-3, s. 5.1.1, 5.1.2) in contrast limits the term of a CEO to a fifteen year maximum; CEOs are appointed to term ranging from eight years to ten years, and this can be extended for an additional five years before the CEO must retire.
III. CONCLUSION: Looking Forward
Nothing in life is perfect, and it seems fair to mention the above-mentioned provinces have also had their share of controversy. The political controversy in Alberta, surrounding the removal of Lorne Gibson instantly comes to mind. I do not pretend that these other provinces statutes are perfect, rather I think given that we in Manitoba are now beginning the process of selecting a new CEO, that we should look at the strong points of other provinces legislation to craft our own unique “made-in-Manitoba” process. I have highlighted how other provinces have term limits, and a higher degree of consensus in the appointment process. Being in transition from one CEO to another, presents the perfect opportunity to amend the Elections Act accordingly.
I would note that today I received an e-mail from Mr. Blaikie, in which he indicated that he “...would be happy to arrange to meet ... to hear the input that the Green Party of Manitoba has to offer regarding the hiring process of the Chief Electoral Officer.” I thank the Minister for this invite, and will follow up accordingly, but I do believe that the input of political parties needs to be formalized into the process. One idea, similiar to the BC model, might be that CEO candidates would need to receive unanimous approval from a committee composed of a designate from each registered political party in the province.
In any event, what we need to do is to try to de-politicize the process by which the appointment of a CEO is done. Sitting before us we have the perfect opportunity to do so. I hope that you will take these ideas into consideration. I would also be more than happy to speak to the Standing Committee and answer any questions that they might have. I will be in attendance this evening and I can also be reached via e-mail, but post, or phone (with e-mail typically providing the fastest response).
Respectfully Submitted on January 21, 2010,
James R. Beddome, Leader, Green Party of Manitoba
leader@greenparty.mb.ca
1-877-742-4292 (leave message); or direct by cell: 204-990-5195
Box 26023, RPO Maryland, Winnipeg, MB, R3G 3R3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)