Where is Manitoba's Commitment to Kyoto?

SENT ELECTRONICALLY DECEMBER 13, 2011

Dear Acting Conservation Minister Dave Chomiak,

I am absolutely appalled at your recent comments to CBC's Michaylo Prystupa regarding Manitoba's efforts to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.[1]

In 2008 your government enshrined into law the Climate Change and Emissions Reduction Act. This Act enshrined into law a target of 6% below 1990 levels by 2012. This 2012 target was deliberately set because it mirrored Canada's national Kyoto Protocol GHG reduction target. This government was applauded for enshrining a Kyoto Protocol-compliant target into law in 2008, and while I still have many criticisms in regards to effectiveness of existing policies intended to reduce GHG emissions and the non-existence of other policies needed to reduce GHG emissions, I will acknowledge that at least having a Kyoto-compliant target showed the most minute modicum of leadership

The fact that this Government will fail to meet its target is not surprising, in fact failing to meet GHG reduction targets seems to be a habit of this provincial NDP government. The previous 2002 target stated in Kyoto and Beyond: Meeting and Exceeding Our Kyoto Targets was "...reductions of up to 18 per cent below 1990 levels by 2010, and reductions of up to 23 per cent by 2012." [2]

But to publicly announce amidst international negotiations in Durban (UNFCC COP17) that your Government was abandoning its Kyoto-compliant target was most irresponsible! Even the climate change denying federal Conservative party had the sense to recognize that it would be foolish to formally announce its withdrawal from Kyoto Protocol during the Durban negotiations. Did you give thought to the impacts that this announcement might have on the ongoing international negotiations?

With a federal Canadian Government that refuses to take sincere action on reducing GHG emissions, it is even more incumbent on provincial governments to show leadership and to forge ahead, with or without the help of their federal counterparts. Given the constant downgrading of Manitoba's emission reduction targets, the ill-timing of this current announcement, and the fact that Gary Doer is now a slick oil-sands salesperson for the Canadian Government,[3][4] it is hard not to think that this current provincial NDP government is purposefully attempting to sabotage any sincere action towards GHG reductions.

I will also point out that the Climate Change and Emissions Reduction Act, which enshrined the 6% below 1990 levels by 2012 target in law, has never been fully enacted. Sections 7, 8, 11, and 12 will only come into force in October 1, 2012, three months before this government will, by your own acknowledgement, fail to reach the 2012 target enshrined by the law. What is most disappointing is that these unproclaimed sections relate to government operations regarding green building standards for buildings owned or funded by the Government of Manitoba, and fuel efficiency standards for Government of Manitoba vehicles. If the Government itself is unwilling to take leadership, then what message does this send to the rest of the Manitoba?

Now I recognize there was also an acknowledgement that a Manitoba energy plan shall be forthcoming in the New Year. Of course, as with anything, the devil is in the details, but I acknowledge that Manitoba is desperately in need of a comprehensive energy plan, so I look forward to seeing what your Government brings forth in the New Year. I would also like to know what opportunities will be given to the public to provide input on the provincial energy plan?

When then Premier Gary Doer first announced the Climate Change and Emissions Reduction Act, he stated that “...our goal is to reduce emissions here in Manitoba,”[5] so it is somewhat surprising to hear you blame the failure to meet our target on the basis that Manitoba was not able to receive credit for the emissions it reduces abroad through export of hydro-electric energy. I acknowledge that displacing American coal plants has advantages, and helps to reduce global GHG emissions, but presumably this is done because it is profitable to do so; therefore we are not exporting energy as a benevolent act to combat global warming, but because it is in the best interest of our Crown utility, Manitoba Hydro. I, like many Manitobans do not think we should be rewarded for doing something we would have done anyways, rather we should be rewarded for taking concrete actions that reduce emissions here in Manitoba.

Also, I would point that your references to the installation of wind-generated-electricity in Manitoba in regards to actions that reduce Manitoba's emissions seems misleading. The only way that this could be true is if your government was to acknowledge that emissions from hydro-electric reservoirs are higher than you presently acknowledge. Is this the interpretation that I should take? I am a firm believer that we need expanded wind-generating capacity in Manitoba, and I am critical that your government will seemingly also fail to meet the target of 1000 megawatts of installed wind generating capacity by 2015. However installing wind energy will not at present significantly reduce Manitoba's emissions. There are many other good reasons for pursuing alternative renewable energy, such as wind and solar, particularly micro-generation, but in the context of Manitoba these arguments are more about energy autarchy than significant GHG reductions.

Lastly, the fact that Manitoba is a relatively small GHG emitter is also no excuse for failure to reduce our emissions by 6%. While there are some unique challenges in that the bulk of Manitoba's emissions originate from a larger number of small disparate emitters, rather than a smaller number of large emitters, it should also be acknowledged that our relatively low level of emissions in comparison to other provinces means that a 6% decline is that much smaller of a reduction that needs to be achieved.

Answers in Manitoba need to focus on behavioural change and demand management, particularly for our transportation and agricultural sectors. Further, and much more significant investments in public transportation, possibly even making it fare-free may entice urban people to drive less. Following Saskatchewan's lead in implementing a crown-owned inter-city bus carrier may likewise improve access to transport in rural areas. Likewise truly supporting a Manitoba transition towards organic and locally based agricultural market can help to reduce the GHG emissions related to the transport of food. Moving away from the production of and application of synthetic fertilizers, would also help to reduce Manitoba's GHG emissions.

There are many opportunities for Manitobans to both better themselves and the Manitoba economy, while also lessening our impact on the planet. I would be happy to sit down and discuss this further if you wish.

The 6% reduction in GHG emissions below 1990 levels should only be a starting point, followed by further reductions in the future. It is fair enough for this government to acknowledge it's failure, although further consideration to the timing of said announcement should have been given, but the objectives should not be abandoned. Instead, it should be at minimum be reaffirmed that we remain committed to reducing emissions below 6% below 1990 levels, a new target date should be set, and we should look at why we failed to achieve our objective and attempt to learn from this failure. I truly hope that this promised new energy plan will be an attempt at accomplishing this.

In summation, I would like answers to the following questions:

1. When will the new energy plan be announced?
2. How will the public be able to provide input on this new energy plan?
3. Will your government make the basis and underlying assumptions for Manitoba GHG emissions public? If so how?
4. Can you provide a break down of how the $145 million, promised alongside the Climate Change and Emissions Reduction Act was spent, including if any of the promised money was not spent?
5. In your Government's opinion, what are the annual average emissions from hydro-electric reservoirs, if any?
6. Will your government remain committed to reducing Manitoba based emissions significantly below 1990 levels? Is so by what date do you now expect to reduce emissions below 1990 levels and by how much?

I thank you in advance for a timely response to these questions. Should you need further clarification on any of my concerns and/or questions, or should you want to discuss the matter personally, I would be happy to sit down and meet and discuss matters over the phone. My e-mail and cell-phone number can be found below.

Sincerely,

James R. Beddome
Leader, Green Party of Manitoba

References:


1 Mychalo Prystupa “Manitoba Fails Its Own Climate Change Law” CBC (December 6, 2011), online:
2 Government of Manitoba “ Kyoto and Beyond: Meeting and Exceeding Our Kyoto Targets: 2002”, online:
3 Gary Doer's August 14, 2009 speech at the NDP convention in Nova Scotia (see 20:05 to 22:17), online:
4 Konrad Yakabuski “Gary Doer sells oil sands from coast to U.S. coast” Globe and Mail (August 24, 2011), online:
5 Transcript of Bill 15 Press Release (April 11, 2008), Manitoba Legislature, Winnipeg, MB (pp. 12-13), online:

Wolseley Was Rob'd

I am proud of the Green Party of Manitoba effort in the 2011 election campaign. With a very limited buget we fielded a record number of candidates, finished with a record number of third place finishes, gained the credibility of being included in the televised debate for the first time ever, and garnered more than 10,000 votes. But unfortunately we were not able to win a seat.

Not being able to represent the people of Wolseley stings! If I may jest for a moment, Wolseley got Rob'd.

Jesting aside, I called Rob on election night and congratulated him and we agreed to sit down and see how we can work together.

Issues that I can see myself working with Rob on include:

-Keeping new genetically engineered crops out of Manitoba, as I have had some previous e-mail correspondence with Rob in regards to that mater.

-Working to change animal husbandry practices, particularly the practices of confined animal feeding operations.

-Working to amend the Highway Traffic Act to clarify how practicable, is as “right as practicable.” Working to create clear legislated standards would work to the benefit of cyclists and motorists alike.

-Working to demonstrate that free-fare transit is a sensible idea that will save money over the long-term – particularly after the savings from to MPI, hospital, and emotional trauma costs from reduced traffic congestion and collisions are taken into account.

-For years Greens have been lobbying to eliminate, or at least significantly decrease the use of pesticides, and a logical place to start is a ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides as is done in or in the works in the majority of Canadian provinces. In the dying days of the last Government, which was of course re-elected they promised to enact legislation preventing the cosmetic use of pesticides in consultation with industry stakeholders. This later qualification is worrisome, and I hope to work with Rob to ensure that Manitoba brings in the strongest and most comprehensive legislation possible in regards to prohibiting the use of pesticides in particular circumstances.

There of course are many additional issues that need addressed - too many to address in a single blog entry - I encourage all readers to share additional suggestions with me.

The point beng is that I am not going anywhere. I live in West Broadway, I will continue to serve as Leader of the Green Party of Manitoba and work with Mantobans to create a better future.

Thanks to the many people who supported the Green Party of Manitoba campaign with their money and time. Thank you to the 10,000+ Manitobans who voted Green. Together we are slowly but surely making progress.

Vote Your Conscience. Vote on Issues.

In this upcoming federal election, I wish I could convince Canadians to Vote their conscience and to vote on issues. As most of you know I am the current Leader of the Green Party of Manitoba, but what I am talking about goes beyond this. Certainly I want you to vote Green, but more than that I actually want you to vote in who you truly believe. I want you to research issues and vote your conscience on those basis alone.

It was quite comical the other day, when sitting in a restaurant having a bite, I ran into a local politician with known ties to the NDP. The politician jested at me have you heard about this biased CBC questionnaire – apparently most of the NDP affiliated politicians were being told to vote Green by the CBC's Vote Compass. I had to swallow first, I had taken the Vote Compass and the damn thing told me to vote NDP (I am obviously voting Green BTW)! We had jovial laugh though, with the politician asking with a smirk why is it that the poll is telling so many people to vote Green, and me replying because of course we have the best policies (see: Vision Green is available on GreenParty.ca). As the Councillor left I thought to myself how engaging and enjoyable that exchange was – That's how cross-partisan politics should be I thought.

So what should we take from the fact that a CBC poll is telling voters to look at parties outside of their traditional comfort zone. In short, not much. But, I think it means that perhaps voters should take a closer look at what the respective parties have to offer, and should really think about what their conscience is telling them and vote for who they truly want.

Chris Rock's blunt words express it best:

"I'm conservative", "I'm liberal", "I'm conservative". Bullshit! Be a fucking person! Lis-ten! Let it swirl around your head. Then form your opinion. No normal, decent person is one thing, okay? I've got some shit I'm conservative about, I've got some shit I'm liberal about.”

Do we really think that a web quiz should be determinative?

Now I am not trying to knock the vote compass. Unlike Stephen Harper and the C.R.A.P, or Layton and the N.D.P. I am not going to argue that the survey is biased (see Winnipeg Sun, March 30, 2011 “CBC defends voting tool that appears to lean Liberal”). Rather I would argue that it is limited, and people need to understand it for what it is: a heuristic device (an entity that exists to enable understanding of, or knowledge concerning, some other entity). The political realm is simply too vast, too complex, to be pigeon holed into a circle which denotes degree of left and right economic and social policy.

Nor am I saying that people should quit taking the quiz on the CBC website. Au contraire, the quiz is a great for people to begin to engage themselves, but they need to go further - they should look into their results on a question by question basis, and they choose some of the questions which interest them and research these issues even further. People need to engage in politics more: they can organize debates in their community; or they can get involved with a political campaign; and they should put more effort into the latter activities rather than the first activity of completing a 10 minute online survey.

We elect people to manage our tax dollars, our ecological resources, and to a certain extent our cultural direction as well. Perhaps placating your desire to know “who you should really vote for” is better served by: reading up on issues on your own, or calling or visiting each and every individual candidate (if possible) and determining for yourself who you want to vote for, rather than relying on an entertaining web device to make the decision for you.

This election we need to make it about something more than election web surveys, and viewer response polls to the latest attack campaigns! We must engage people in the issues, and the political process itself, we must get people to think about ideas that go beyond their pre-conceived notions. I think we can, and the Green Party and Elizabeth May are truly working to make this a reality! This is why we need Elizabeth May in the Parliament, and we need her in the debates!

Secondly people need to vote their conscience this upcoming election. Strategic voting is ironically a bad long-term strategy as it actually creates less option over the long term.

Let us use the sale of beverages in a chain of convenience stores across the country as an analogical heuristic device to explore the issue further. Right now said store has four beverage choices which are offered consistently: coke, diet coke, orange crush, or cold water from a fountain; in Quebec bottled water is very popular but it is not available elsewhere in Canada; and up to fifteen other varieties are offered sporadically across the country.

However people are being told that they need to drink coke or diet coke. Coke because: “It is that good old-fashioned coke!” Diet Coke because: “It is so-o-o much healthier than regular coke!” If in response people decide not drink water from the fountain, not to drink orange crush or the numerous other small brands, then eventually these options may disappear.

This is the folly in strategic voting and our antiquated first-past-the-post electoral system.

The following snippet from the comments of the CBC website is particularly telling about the malaise in our democracy:

“I want to vote Green, but the Green candidate here won't win, so my vote would be lost. Even if I vote for my second preference, the piddly petty candidate in my riding won't win, so again: my vote would be lost. I don't want to vote for the candidate whose win is a foregone conclusion. So what do I do, not vote at all?”

We need proportional representation, but at the same time Canadians need to recognize that every vote says something. Voting is about democracy, and to be deceived away from voting your true conscience undermines democracy – over time deteriorating the political choices offered.

Greens offer a different approach to democracy! We believe in proportional representation, we believe in meaningful grassroots citizen engagement, and Elizabeth May is trying to promote a democracy of respect – where politicians don't score points for acting like buffoons.

Firstly even if the candidate of your choice is not elected, the vote is certainly not wasted. Voting for a candidate provides moral support, even if the ballot is not cast for a winning candidate behind that vote is a democratic individual expression of choice, adding credence to the ideas that candidate espoused.

Secondly political parties receive subsidies. Your vote delivers a few dollars a year to the party of your choice provided that they received more than 2% of the vote across the country. From this subsidy the Conservatives received $10.4-million; the Liberals received $7.3-million; the NDP received $5.0-million; the Bloc Québécois received $2.8-million; and the Green Party received $1.9-million.

Now Stephen Harper wants to cut the per vote for “budgetary reasons”, which is kinda funny when the man was voted out of office because his Government was found in contempt of Parliament for not disclosing the financial costs of fighter jets and prisons, and for guarding his minister who inappropriately and without authorization rejected funding to respected Canadian not-for-profit organizations doing overseas aid work.

But even if we want to talk about the budgetary impact of subsidization of political parties why is Mr. Harper only talking about the $27.4 million per-vote-subsidy which provides parties with stable funding proportional to their proportion of the vote garnered? Why is he not talk about the other subsidies to political parties? Election expense rebates the Parties worth $29.2-million combined, and Candidate rebates worth $28.7 million. The two combined more than double the size of the per vote subsidy. I think that most Canadians feel their vote is worth even more than a few dollars, and they would rather see political parties rewarded for earning votes rather than spending money during an election.

The dilemma facing the Canadian electorate is to elect who they truly want, rather than who they are told to vote for. Hopefully Canadians have the wisdom to vote with their conscience and to vote on the issues, and capabilities of candidates, rather than focusing on polls and political shenanigans.

CBC Vote Compass “Canada Votes 2011”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/votecompass/

The Hill Times, Jan 20, 2011: “Comparing the per-vote subsidies to all federal political subsidies”
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/dailyupdate/printpage/63

Winnipeg Sun, March 30, 2011 “CBC defends voting tool that appears to lean Liberal”:
http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/decision2011/2011/03/30/17814986.html

Chris Rock (HBO 2004) “Never Scared”, on Wikiquotes
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Chris_Rock

Elizabeth May Should be in the Debates!

So once again the television consortium has decided not to allow Elizabeth May in the debates. Even though the Green Party could theoretically form government, while the BQ could not! This is not say Duceppe should be excluded from the debates, quite the opposite. I am saying Canada needs to hear more political voices – particularly a few more feminine voices!

The Debates are fundamental in helping people to discover more about their democratic options as citizens. It is in the best interests of Canadians if all parties are involved in the debates.

Greens received nearly a million votes in the 2008 general election. The Greens have a definite perspective, and is the only party prepared to offer a detailed 131 page plan for voters to read years before the election. (Vision Green: http://greenparty.ca/issues/vision-green)

By excluding Greens (along with the other smaller parties) the democratic debate suffers. So what can you do if you want Elizabeth May in the deabtes?

Sign the petition: http://www.demanddemocraticdebates.ca/petition.php

Send a text message to the Chair of the Media Consortium, Mr. Troy Reeb of Global TV on his cell phone at 647-261-3752

Email the news directors of consortium members CBC, CTV, Global, TVA

Email party leaders Stephen Harper, Jack Layton, Michael Ignatieff and Gilles Duceppe

Forward this infomation to your friends and family

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY VOTE GREEN!

Tax Credits Are No Way to Fund Post-Secondary Education

I attended a debate On March 2, 2011 hosted by the University of Winnipeg Politics Society, as the Leader of the Green Party of Manitoba. Representatives from all four other political parties were present. The possibility of a University of Winnipeg faculty strike was raised several times and was clearly on the minds of students and faculty. Other concerns raised included: student debt, rising tuition fees, predictability of funding and corporate involvement in universities.

At the debate I tried to point out that while it would take time to move towards a system of universal access to education it clearly could be done.

Education is after all one of the classic examples of a public good. Education is a huge economic driver! And this warrants subsidization because of the overall positive benefits. An educated population drives innovation and facilitates the creation of new ideas leading to better ways of doing things. A vibrant economy is created when individuals, businesses, and organizations have access to educated population. Society needs people of all gambits: tradespeople, businesspeople, medical professions, teaching professionals, agriculturalists, and these skill sets and so many more must be learned somewhere.

College or University education is increasingly required in today's job market. European countries, particularly Scandinavian nations, manage to deliver extremely low-cost or even free education. Quebec delivers education to its residents at a substantially subsidized rate. So what is stopping us from taking similar action in Manitoba?

Now the common response to this is that we cannot afford to lower tuition fees, but is this actually true?

Using 2009 Statistics Canada data, we can see that Revenues of Universities and Colleges in Manitoba is ~$1.116 billion:

-The Manitoba government contributions ~$559 million, or around half of the revenue;

-The Canadian government provides ~$93 million, which adds up to less than 10% of revenue;

-Students pay ~$214 million in tuition fees, contributing to around 20% of revenue;
Local governments in Manitoba contribute ~$12 million;

-And the remainder is generated by Universities and Colleges themselves.

Looking at these numbers, clearly the federal government has not pulled its fair share since cutbacks in the mid-nineties.

That said education is a provincial responsibility, so the province needs to be willing to go it alone if the Federal Government fails to cooperate. Now to be fair the NDP have increase funding for post-secondary education, but these increases have quickly been eaten up.

A 'Dipper' Post-Secondary Education pamphlet handed out at the debate claimed an “80% increase in annual provincial funding for Manitoba's colleges and universities since 1999 – while the consumer price index rose only 22%.”

What the pamphlet neglected to address is that according to Council on Post-Secondary Education 2010 data between 1999 and 2009 university and college enrolment increased by around 35% depending on whether it is calculated on the basis of absolute number of students, or number of full-time equivalent students.
This adds up to a roughly 65% increase in costs, once the 22% CPI inflation and 35% increase in enrolment are factored together.

The same 'Dipper' pamphlet also bragged that the “Manitoba tuition fee rebate” and “Federal tax credits” equated to “An excellent deal for Manitoba students and Manitoba's economy.”

With respect, I could not disagree more!

Federally post-secondary education tax credits are worth $1.8 billion across Canada. Re-directing this money away from tax credits and funnelling it directly towards post-secondary institutions, and student loan, grants and bursary programs could unleash desperately needed funding for Universities across Canada.

In Manitoba the situation is much the same provincial tax credits for post-secondary education cost Manitoba about $25 million per year, and the new tuition fee rebate is estimated to cost up to $90 million per year.

The NDP Government commissioned report on post-secondary education, written by Dr. Ben Levin, explains the problem with tax credits quite well:

“...evidence suggests that the tax credits are not effective in encouraging enrolment in higher education ... Students from higher income families are the main beneficiaries of tax credits... for students of modest means the credits are not helpful because the money does not arrive when it is needed. Cash at the start of the year is much more important than the promise of a refund or credit in the future... about two-thirds of the value of the credits claimed in Canada each year is not used by students in the year earned. Instead, these amounts are transferred to a parent or carried forward to a future year. This means that most of the benefit, already indirect, is not available even within a year of the expense being incurred. ... Accordingly, accessibility would be improved if funds were used for direct assistance to students rather than for tax credits .” (p. 32-33)

I love Manitoba! As a student presently studying law in Manitoba, with the intention of establishing a Manitoba practice I will likely qualify for the 60% tuition fee rebate. So I personally stand to benefit, but from a public policy perspective I have to wonder: is a $90 million dollar tax cut - worth more than 40% of the value of annual tuition paid by Manitoba students - the best use of government revenue?

As a student I will receive up to an additional $250 tax credit in 2010, that will increase to a maximum of $500 in subsequent years. But why not just reduce tuition by an equivalent amount? I need the cash in fall when I am starting school, not in spring after I file my taxes.

Once I graduate and begin working in Manitoba I will be eligible for a 60% rebate of my tuition fees over as little as six years or as long as twenty years. But few graduates think about tax liability when selecting a new job; they are much more concerned with opportunities for advancement and the terms of compensation. Is this tax credit really going to attract the best and the brightest, or is it just going to give up to a $25,000 tax cut to people like myself who are likely to stay regardless of the tax fee rebate?

Even if retention is the aim of this tuition fee rebate it would seem to be more logical to target rebates for needed professionals, such as doctors and nurses in Northern and rural Manitoba. The rebate could be tied to a contractual agreements that would require the individual benefited from the the rebate to service needed areas. Such a targeted approach would seem to be more effective and economical.

For me the money spent on post-secondary tax credits could be spent more wisely. Tuition fees could be lowered, universities and colleges could be given more funding to retain and reward great staff and ensure that best technology is available thereby improving the quality of my education, funding to student aid could be increased so that more students qualify, and there is so much more that could be done if we moved away from the idea of using tax credits to fund post-secondary education.

OPEN LETTER & PETITION TO SELINGER & STRUTHERS - Possible Introduction of Genetically Engineered Alfalfa into Manitoba

Please sign my petition at: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/gpm_gmo/
Full text of petition copied following sources.


Dear Premier Selinger and Agriculture Minister Struthers,

I am writing this letter in the wake of United States Department of Agriculture`s (USDA) approval of genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa, in hopes that the Manitoba Government will take action to prevent the introduction of GE alfalfa in Manitoba.

Ensuring that alfalfa in Manitoba remains GE free is vital to the growing organic food industry in Manitoba. Alfalfa serves as both a nitrogen fixing cover crop, and an important source of feed for livestock. If GE alfalfa enters Manitoba it will contaminate non-GE alfalfa and this will mean a loss of certification and income for Manitoba's burgeoning organic food sector. It is also noteworthy that 107 national and local farmer and consumer organizations accross Canada were signatories to the No GE Alfalfa Campaign. The Manitoba contingent included: Manitoba Forage Council, Organic Producers Association of Manitoba, Robertson - Stow Farms Ltd., JUST Community Market Co-operative Ltd., and Keystone Grain Ltd. - in additon to numerous national organizations that represent Manitoba farmers.

The Canadian government and CFIA have already approved Monsanto’s GM alfalfa, but Monsanto has not yet applied for “variety registration” -- the next step before the crop can be commercially grown in Canada. Passing the buck along to the Federal Government or the Canadian Food and Inspection Agency (CFIA) is simply unacceptable! The province of Manitoba should be lobbying the Canadian, American, Ontarian, Saskatchewan, North Dakotan, and Minnesotan governments to avoid growing GE alfalfa because GE contamination does not respect political borders - bees can carry pollen several miles, and the cross-border sale of hay and livestock could also cause contamination.

The Green Party of Manitoba (GPM) implores the Manitoba government to pass legislation which makes Manitoba a GE free zone – at least for those crops which have not yet been contaminated. As indicated in our 2007 platform if elected the GPM would: “Ban agricultural biotechnology in Manitoba and require labelling of all products sold in Manitoba containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs).”

The GPM is furthermore initiating an ongoing educational campaign regarding the pracautionary principle as a reasoned approach to public health and safety policy, especially in relation to our food systems. Under the precautionary principle, the onus to prove food safety or the safety of other new products being introduced into the marketplace. Unfortunately, the increasing privatization of research has called into question the impartiality of corporate-driven research, as the case of Health Canada whistleblower Shiv Chopra and countless others have shown. The long-term safety of genetically-modified organisms on human and ecosystem health have simply not been proven according to verifiable scientific principles.

As the Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiaves (MAFRI) website page Alfalfa Hay5 acknowledges, in addition to the United States presently alfalfa from Manitoba is exported to: Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Taiwan. If Manitoba alfalfa is contaminated with GE alfalfa then these export markets may be closed to Manitoba producers.
Manitoba agricultural producers, particularly organic producers, have lost the opportunity to sell their produce and save their seed through the introduction of GM canola. Most canola grown on the Canadian prarires is gentically modified (GM), and even those who do not plant GM canola likely have GM canola in their crops due to cross-breeding and volunteer canola plants. This has largely denied organic certification for Manitoban canola growers and caused restrictions on the exports of Canadian canola.

In contrast, agricultural producers in Prince Edward Island, where GM canola is not grown, fulfill a demand for oilseed that is not contaminated with genetically modified crops and have seen an influx in orders from Japan as of late – they are even marketing the oil in Japan with a picture of P.E.I. on the bottle, thereby promoting the province of P.E.I. as well.

Consumers do not want GE foods, and at minimal they want the right to know if they are eating GE food or not. As reported by CBC's Marketplace “...numerous surveys... [indicate] up to 90 per cent of Canadians want mandatory labelling of GM [Genetically Modified or Engineered] food.”

It also seems worth noting that your federal NDP counterparts have introduced Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm)8, is scheduled for third reading today, February 9th, 2011. The bill would support Canadian farmers by requiring that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.

So, will you now do the right thing and stand with your federal counterparts along with small, family organic producers? Or will you side with the Conservative Party of Canada, Monsanto and the rest of the biotech industry on this critical issue?

I look forward to a prompt response regarding what the Manitoba Government intends to do regarding the threats posed by new GE crops, including but not limited to alfalfa.

Respectfully,

James R. Beddome
Leader, Green Party of Manitoba
leader@greenparty.mb.ca

-Sent Electronically (why waste paper?) to Selinger and Struthers on February 9th-

SOURCES:

Unites States Department of Agriculture press release (January 27, 2011). USDA Announces Decision to Fully Deregulate Roundup Ready Alfalfa, availabel online at: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2011%2F01%2F0035.xml retrieved February 2, 2011.

Saskatchewan Organic Directorate (March 23, 2006). Position Paper on the Introduction of Genetically Modified Alfalfa, available online at: http://www.cban.ca/About/Priorities/GE-Alfalfa/Position-Paper-on-the-Introduction-of-Genetically-Modified-Alfalfa retrieved February 2nd, 2011.

National Organic Coalition (March 3, 2010). No to GE Alfalfa Campaign, available online at: http://www.cban.ca/Resources/Topics/GE-Crops-and-Foods-Not-on-the-Market/Alfalfa/National-Organic-Coalition-Submission-on-Alfalfa retrieved February 2nd, 2011.

Green Party of Manitoba 2007 Platform (pg. 12), available online at: http://greenparty.mb.ca/GPM/pdf/GPM-Platform-2007.pdf retrieved February 2, 2011.

Government of Manitoba website: Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives, Alfalfa Hay, available online at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/crops/forages/bjd29s01.html retrieved February 2nd, 2011.

CBC News (December 8, 2010). Japan eager for P.E.I.'s non-GMO canola, available online at: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2010/11/08/pei-japan-gmo-canola-584.html#ixzz1629nYbeCwhere retrieved February 2nd, 2011.

CBC (March 6, 2002) Marketplace, available online at: http://archives.cbc.ca/lifestyle/food/topics/1597-10956/ retrieved Fenruary 2nd, 2011.

House of Commons of Canada, Bill C-474: An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (1st Reading November 2, 2009). Availalbe online at: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=4330153&file=4 retireved Februrary 2, 2011.

PETITION
TO THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA:
The background to this petition is as follows:
1. January 27, 2011 the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved genetically engineered (GE) pesticide resistant alfalfa for commercial use.
2. The Canadian government has already approved GE pesticide resistant alfalfa, but variety registration -- -- the next step before the crop can be commercially grown in Canada -- has not yet been applied for.
3. 107 national and local farmer and consumer organizations accross Canada, including Manitoba Forage Council and Organic Producers Association of Manitoba were signatories to the No GE Alfalfa Campaign sent to the USDA March 2010.
4. Experience with othe GE crops such as Canola and Flax has shown that GE crops contaminate non-GE crops, and this contamination closes off important export markets for producers – parttcularly organic producers who also lose their certification from GE contamination.
5. GE crop contamination does not respect political boundaries.
6. The use of pesticide resistant crops has led to the development of pesticide resistant weeds thereby leading to the use of more not less pesticides.
7. Producers right to save seed is jeopardized by GE crop contamination and proprietary restirictions against saving seeds following GE contamination.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
1. To pass legislation which prevents new GE crops from being grown in Manitoba.
2. To require the labelling of all products composed of GE substances and sold in Manitoba.
3. Lobby the Canadian, American, Ontarian, Saskatchewan, North Dakotan, and Minnesotan governments to avoid growing GE alfalfa, or at least create border buffer zones, to prevent cross-border contamination.

SIGN ONLINE AT: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/gpm_gmo/
BUT I will aslo need your ink signatures - sorry petition guidelines of the Manitoba Legislature.

Manitoba Consumers Pay More Than American Utilities

- A Closer Look At Manitoban Electrical Exports & Future Hydro Development

The construction of Bipole III is very much tied to the idea of building new dams in Manitoba's North. If the $5.5 billion 695 MW Keeyask dam and $7.7 billion 1485 MW Conawapa dam are built a Bipole IV and V will likely also be needed. So we as Manitobans need to ask ourselves do we need all this power? And do we need all this debt?

Most Manitobans seem to be under the false impression that Manitoba Hydro charges more per kilowatt hour (Kwh) for power exported to the U.S. than charged to local consumers.

Basic charges and rates vary among customer types in Manitoba: residential rates start at 6.38 cents per Kwh and ratchet up as demand increases, small and medium size general service customer rates start at 6.84 cents per Kwh and ratchet down as demand increases, large size general use customers pay less than 3 cents per Kwh but face additional demand charges.

In contrast Manitoba Hydro receives from 5.4 to 6 cents per Kwh for long-term fixed price contracts, and 2.4 to 4.5 cents per Kwh for power sold on the short-term spot markets. Manitoba Hydro's 59th Annual Report (pp. 100-101) shows: roughly 13.6 billion Kwh in annual sales to Manitoban general service customers grossed Hydro $669 million; nearly 7 billion Kwh in annual sales to Manitoban residential customers grossed Hydro $477 million; and of the nearly 10 billion Kwh in net exported electrcity Hydro grossed 427 million.

Now exports are bulk sales and the price to individual residents and businesses in Manitoba reflect the added costs of distribution lines, converter stations, maintenance costs, etc. Higher costs to Manitoban customers is therefore justified to a certain extent. Additionally revenue from export sales is used to subsidize domestic rates (not to mention helping spendtrhift governments balance the books from time to time).

But what about the risk of building these new dams in Manitoba's North?

There is obvious financial risk. The billions of dollars of debt being accrued to construct dams largely for export outside of Manitoba creates the risk that adverse fluctuations in currency and/or energy prices could threaten Hydro's profitability. Likewise, with a warming planet the threat of drought increases and lower water levels also threaten Hydro's profitability. Additionally if water levels or delays in dam construction result in Manitoba being unable to meet contractual power sale obligations, this could also harm Hydro financially. Since we the taxpayers underwrite Hydro's debt, we will be on the hook if Hydro defaults.

There is also the ecological and social costs of futher dam construction. Flooding, mercury poisoning, shoreline and river embankment destabilization, habitat disruption, introduction of new species in foreign water systems, and greenhouse gas emissions from reservoirs are some of the ecological costs of large-scale hydro-developments.

Socially, Manitoba Hydro certainly has a checkered past in regards to its relations with First Nations peoples. Construction of Dams in the 1960s and 1970 resulted in flooding, mercury poisoning, and the relocation of entire First Nation communities. The new model, set by the Wuskatim dam presently under construction, appears to be one of “engaging” First Nation communities in so-called “joint partnerships”. However observers, such as Peter Kulchyski of the University of Manitoba's Native Studies Department describe the Wuskatim agreements as “deeply flawed” and note how Nelson House band council came to power in a “deeply divided election.” Blocakdes of the Wuskatim Dam construction site in the summer of 2009 is further evidence of the continuing divisiveness of Hydro development in Manitoba's North.

These risks and external costs should be enough to give us pause, or atleast to argue for greater scrutiny of Hydro's risk management. Fortunately the Manitoba Public Utilities Board is presently undergoing a review of this very same issue. Manitobans would be wise to pay close attention to the hearings as they develop.

Getting serious about energy conservation in Manitoba, rather than patting ourselves on the back for a baseless A+ is a good place to start. Over the past ten years per customer electrcity demand in Manitoba has been relatively stable. Manitobans remain among the most wasteful users of electricity in the world. Hydro has some incentive to reduce energy use to free up additional electrical capacity which could then be exported. But it is the Government of Manitoba rather than Hydro which needs to take the lead on this. Helping consumeres to reduce electrical consumption is good government policy. It will help residents and businesses to save money, and it can avoid the financial, social and ecological costs of additional Hydro development.

Editors Note: I will return this issue again, but in the meantime I encourage your feedback on this issue. (jbeddome at yahoo.com)

Quick Update: Energy in Manitoba

Further to my last post "East, West, or Windtower", a couple of notworthy updates.

1. TRANSMISSION LOSS FROM NORTHERN DAMS -

“More than 10 per cent of the power generated by the next generation of mega-dams will vanish when it's shipped south down the three Bipole transmission lines, including the contentious west-side line.
... Once Keeyask and Conawapa are up and running in 2023, total line losses will grow by 254 megawatts to 479 megawatts,” according to Winnipeg Free Press (Jan. 18, '11) freedom of information requests.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/premium/mega-dams-to-lose-megawatts-line-loss-increases-with-distance-travelled-114079764.html (subcription required).

2. IS CHEAP ENERGY A GOOD THING? OR WOULD A LOW INCOME PROGRAM BE MORE EFFICIENT?

A November 2010 report submitted to the Public Utilities Board (PUB) by Green Action Centre and TREE (Time to Respect Earth’s Ecosystems) argues for:
-A maximum affordability level for energy bills set at six percent of income.
-Subsidies to low-income households to offset energy bills above this amount, based the customer’s previous average energy bills
-Low income households would have the incentive and opportunity to increase conservation as the benefit is fixed for a period of time based on previous usage rates.
-Manitoba Hydro and all its customers would benefit as the subsidy could be reduced over time, taking into account reduced consumption as a result of conservation measures already taken.

I commend this report for challenging the conventional wisdom that cheap energy is always a good thing, while at the same time being mindful of the tenets of social justice.

“Revenue from these exports is currently used to keep rates as low as possible for all Manitoba consumers, including residential, commercial, and industrial power users. Our cheap energy undermines our province’s commitments to conservation, while doing a poor job at meeting equity goals. In fact, to the extent that higher energy bills often correlate to larger home sizes and higher incomes, these subsidies are regressive and benefit wealthier Manitoba families. (Emphasis added.)

Green Action Centre argues instead that at least some of the proceeds from our exports could be used to support a low-income energy affordability program that would give all Manitoba families, regardless of income, the opportunity to keep their energy bills affordable.”

http://greenactioncentre.ca/content/electricity-how-affordable-is-cheap/

http://greenactioncentre.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Home-Energy-Affordability-in-Manitoba-A-Low-Income-Affordability-Program-for-Manitoba-Hydro.pdf (Full Report)

East, West, or Wind Tower? -Green Leader Exposes Manitoba Energy Myths-

Manitoba Hydro (Hydro), and more specifically the issue of where to route Bipole III, is likely to be one of the major issues in the upcoming 2011 Manitoba General Election. It is unfortunate this binary “east side” vs. “west side” has dominated the public discourse, because the larger questions about how we use, produce, distribute, and sell energy within and beyond Manitoba remain largely unasked.

Hydro's $8.5 billion debt is the single largest debt obligation of Manitoba – accounting for just under 37% of provincial debt obligations. To be fair Hydro is at present successfully managing its debt, but the taxpayers of Manitoba will be on the hook if Hydro failed to meet debt obligations. Over the next decade this debt could easily soar above $20 billion as Hydro anticipates spending an additional $18 billion, largely on the construction of new dams in Manitoba's North.

Hydro already produces enough electricity for Manitoba's needs – although we do at times import fossil fuel based energy. This means that new energy sources are largely being developed in Manitoba for the purpose of increasing electrical exports. Now this is not necessarily a bad thing, but this does mean that we as Manitoba taxpayers bear the risk if these export markets become unprofitable for whatever reason.

By far the cheapest way to free up more energy for export – or to prevent the need to import dirty energy – is to use energy more efficiently. Manitoba's per capita consumption of electricity is among the highest in the World! For all the NDP and Hydro rhetoric about getting an A+ in energy efficiency, if you look at Hydro's financial returns you can see that for the most part energy demand per customer (for both elecctricity and natural gas) has remained more or less stable in Manitoba over the past ten years. So what exactly did we get the A+ for?

On January 10, 2010 the Manitoba Government announced that the St. Joseph Wind Farm (St. Joseph) was operational. The 138 megawatt (MW) wind farm was built in ten months at a cost of of $345 million ($260 million in financing was provided by Hydro which will be repaid in energy).

A comparison of St. Joseph with the $1.6 billion 200MW Wuskwatim dam reveals that that wind-generation is cheaper than hydro-electric energy. Yes it is true that Hydro operates at an average efficiency of 65-75%, while wind operates at an average efficiency of 40%. But even after this is taken into account St. Joseph cost $6.25 million per megawatt (MW) of average deliverable capacity – only costing to Hydro $4.7 million per MW – whereas in contrast Wuskwatim cost $10.666 million per MW of average deliverable capacity.

Now granted there is also a need to create the infrastructure to connect the wind energy to the grid, and wind energy has intermittency issues. There is however also lower transmission losses when the energy is produced in Southern Manitoba, which is both closer to export markets and where most energy is consumed in Manitoba, rather than hydro dams located in Manitoba's North.

Manitobans are smart innovative people! We are constrined not by the technological capacity of better energy efficiency, or the feasibility of non-fossil fuel based alternative energy such as wind and solar, but by the limits of our own creativity. It starts with having an open, honest, and frank public discourse about energy. The point here isn't to provide all the answers, but to point out that a more thorough debate on energy use, production, and distribution is drastically needed in Manitoba.

Unfortunately this debate is impeded by the political rhetoric, and energy myths propagated by Manitoba's three other political parties.

James Beddome, Leader
Green Party of Manitoba

Calculations:
Wuskwatim - $1,600 million/(200MW *75%) = $10.666 million/MW
St. Joseph - $345 million/(138MW * 40%)= $6.25 million/MW
(When the $95 million Pattern Energy contribution is added into the equation the cost to Hydro for St. Joseph reduces to $4.7 million per MW)