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
Showing posts with label Green Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Green Party. Show all posts
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
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)
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)
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Political Will a Prerequisite to Sustainable Planning
The title from a May 14, 2009 press release from the Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba (PCWM) says it all: "Manitoba’s Proposed Land Use Policies Encourage Urban Sprawl".
(I highly recommend that readers check of the PCWM response at: http://www.mts.net/~pcwm/plup_response.pdf)
In the PCWM response to the PLUP consultation, they quip that "...the March 2009 draft should more accurately be entitled, 'Provincial Infrastructure, Servicing and Land Use Policies' as it moves away from the focus of sustainable land use planning and concentrates more on providing infrastructure and services to low density, scattered 'urban centres', rural residential and cottage development. This will promote urban sprawl, particularly in Winnipeg’s commuter-shed. This direction is unsustainable both environmentally and economically."
Having attended the Provincial Land Use Policies (PLUP) consultation process, held at the Norwood Hotel in Winnipeg, MB on April 27th, my observations were concurrent with those of the PCWM.
In short, these regulations are pure "greenwash". Many green buzz-words are incorporated throughout the 63 page draft, but words do not give this document the strength to promote sustainable land use. It is disingenuous for the NDP to cast about carelessly these buzz-terms, while at the same time promoting the continuation of our car-dependent, water- and energy-intensive infrastructure systems.
First off, the draft regulations are nearly toothless. They are not binding laws but are merely advisory in nature. According to the section entitled "Scope and Application": "The Policies are to be read as a whole and ...are to be applied to the circumstance or consideration." (pg 8).
The only problem is PLUP are so contradictory, however, that they cannot be read as a whole.
Too elaborate I provide two examples: Infrastructure Development and The Mid-Continent Trade Corridor Concept.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The PLUP on "Infrastructure" delineates that "alternative solutions" rather than extending or expanding existing infrastructure should be considered and in particular "demand side management techniques and low impact development" should be utilized (pg 48; PA:6.6 b.).
These policies are then utterly undermined by the mandate to connect both new developments and existing self-sufficient developments to centralized pipe-based wastewater facilities (pg 49; PA6:8).
On one page the PLUP outline that we should not extend or expand our current infrastructure, and on then on the next page they instruct the extension of the same old piped wastewater infrastructure -- which is dependent on continuous quantities of water to maintain the flow and therefore wholly incompatible with demand management techniques.
How are these policy interests to be reconciled with each other?
"The pressure to extend water, sewer, roads, transit and other services and infrastructure will tax these services to an unsustainable degree. It could lead to the demand for major infrastructure expansion such as twinning the aqueduct from Shoal Lake that has a finite water supply. Winnipeg currently has a massive infrastructure deficit. To ask the city to spread its services and infrastructure throughout the region is simply not sustainable nor is it fair to the citizens..." elaborates the PCWM.
MID-CONTINENT TRADE CORRIDOR
The Development Plan By-Laws require various appropriate studies be undertaken and made public before the approval of any new development, including among them studies on "greenhouse gas emissions inventories and forecasts" as well as "climate change vulnerability/risk assessments" (pg. 20; BL: 3. f, g).
Yet the Capital Region is ensured of the 'protection to capitalize upon any identified economic development advantages' including an expanded 24-hour airport and the concept of a Mid-Continent Trade Corridor. (pg 62; PA 9: 2).
Yet going back to the By-Laws where are the public studies for the greenhouse gas/climate change impacts of the Mid-Continent Trade Corridor? Clearly the construction alone, let alone the increased air, freight, and rail traffic will caused an increase in emissions.
In the PLUP section on "Agriculture" the preamble states:
"It is expected that rising fuel costs and climate change may place an increased demand on the production and protection of local food sources. Producing food for local consumption reduces food miles traveled and consequently greenhouse gases;" (pg. 31; PA 3).
Given that nearly all goods are transported by our fossil-fuel based transportation system it generally holds true that reducing the miles traveled of all goods in general will consequently reduce greenhouse gases, dependent of course on the method of transportation used.
The concept of a Mid-Continent Trade Corridor however is entirely dependent on the notion of transporting goods across the globe. It is also heavily dependent on air travel, which has the heaviest footprint of any form of fossil-fuel based transportation.
So which policy directive is to prevail? The one that calls for planning to reduce greenhouse gases, or the plan to build a Mid-Continent Trade Corridor which is wholly dependent on unsustainable greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuel based transportation infrastructure?
Further to this, Downtown Winnipeg stands to lose the Greyhound Bus Depot and the Post Office Headquarters to the proposed Mid-Continent Trade Corridor. How does this fit in line the PLUP "Settlement Areas" which make a commitment to maximize investment in the downtown (PA 2: 8., 9.)
This is just two examples of how the PLUP often contradict themselves, but how can conflicting policy directives constitute a land use plan. Ultimately political considerations will prevail in the planning process. What is needed, perhaps even more than better planning policies themselves, is the political will from our politicians to commit themselves to a sincere rather than a face-value commitment to sustainable land use planning.
[Note: Draft PLUP can be read at http://www.gov.mb.ca/ia/plups/draft.html or in pdf form at http://www.gov.mb.ca/ia/plups/pdf/draft.pdf. Referenced by page number and policy. -- Eg. (pg 42; PA5: 3.a.) refers to page 42 pdf version; Policy Area 5: directive 3.a.]
(I highly recommend that readers check of the PCWM response at: http://www.mts.net/~pcwm/plup_response.pdf)
In the PCWM response to the PLUP consultation, they quip that "...the March 2009 draft should more accurately be entitled, 'Provincial Infrastructure, Servicing and Land Use Policies' as it moves away from the focus of sustainable land use planning and concentrates more on providing infrastructure and services to low density, scattered 'urban centres', rural residential and cottage development. This will promote urban sprawl, particularly in Winnipeg’s commuter-shed. This direction is unsustainable both environmentally and economically."
Having attended the Provincial Land Use Policies (PLUP) consultation process, held at the Norwood Hotel in Winnipeg, MB on April 27th, my observations were concurrent with those of the PCWM.
In short, these regulations are pure "greenwash". Many green buzz-words are incorporated throughout the 63 page draft, but words do not give this document the strength to promote sustainable land use. It is disingenuous for the NDP to cast about carelessly these buzz-terms, while at the same time promoting the continuation of our car-dependent, water- and energy-intensive infrastructure systems.
First off, the draft regulations are nearly toothless. They are not binding laws but are merely advisory in nature. According to the section entitled "Scope and Application": "The Policies are to be read as a whole and ...are to be applied to the circumstance or consideration." (pg 8).
The only problem is PLUP are so contradictory, however, that they cannot be read as a whole.
Too elaborate I provide two examples: Infrastructure Development and The Mid-Continent Trade Corridor Concept.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The PLUP on "Infrastructure" delineates that "alternative solutions" rather than extending or expanding existing infrastructure should be considered and in particular "demand side management techniques and low impact development" should be utilized (pg 48; PA:6.6 b.).
These policies are then utterly undermined by the mandate to connect both new developments and existing self-sufficient developments to centralized pipe-based wastewater facilities (pg 49; PA6:8).
On one page the PLUP outline that we should not extend or expand our current infrastructure, and on then on the next page they instruct the extension of the same old piped wastewater infrastructure -- which is dependent on continuous quantities of water to maintain the flow and therefore wholly incompatible with demand management techniques.
How are these policy interests to be reconciled with each other?
"The pressure to extend water, sewer, roads, transit and other services and infrastructure will tax these services to an unsustainable degree. It could lead to the demand for major infrastructure expansion such as twinning the aqueduct from Shoal Lake that has a finite water supply. Winnipeg currently has a massive infrastructure deficit. To ask the city to spread its services and infrastructure throughout the region is simply not sustainable nor is it fair to the citizens..." elaborates the PCWM.
MID-CONTINENT TRADE CORRIDOR
The Development Plan By-Laws require various appropriate studies be undertaken and made public before the approval of any new development, including among them studies on "greenhouse gas emissions inventories and forecasts" as well as "climate change vulnerability/risk assessments" (pg. 20; BL: 3. f, g).
Yet the Capital Region is ensured of the 'protection to capitalize upon any identified economic development advantages' including an expanded 24-hour airport and the concept of a Mid-Continent Trade Corridor. (pg 62; PA 9: 2).
Yet going back to the By-Laws where are the public studies for the greenhouse gas/climate change impacts of the Mid-Continent Trade Corridor? Clearly the construction alone, let alone the increased air, freight, and rail traffic will caused an increase in emissions.
In the PLUP section on "Agriculture" the preamble states:
"It is expected that rising fuel costs and climate change may place an increased demand on the production and protection of local food sources. Producing food for local consumption reduces food miles traveled and consequently greenhouse gases;" (pg. 31; PA 3).
Given that nearly all goods are transported by our fossil-fuel based transportation system it generally holds true that reducing the miles traveled of all goods in general will consequently reduce greenhouse gases, dependent of course on the method of transportation used.
The concept of a Mid-Continent Trade Corridor however is entirely dependent on the notion of transporting goods across the globe. It is also heavily dependent on air travel, which has the heaviest footprint of any form of fossil-fuel based transportation.
So which policy directive is to prevail? The one that calls for planning to reduce greenhouse gases, or the plan to build a Mid-Continent Trade Corridor which is wholly dependent on unsustainable greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuel based transportation infrastructure?
Further to this, Downtown Winnipeg stands to lose the Greyhound Bus Depot and the Post Office Headquarters to the proposed Mid-Continent Trade Corridor. How does this fit in line the PLUP "Settlement Areas" which make a commitment to maximize investment in the downtown (PA 2: 8., 9.)
This is just two examples of how the PLUP often contradict themselves, but how can conflicting policy directives constitute a land use plan. Ultimately political considerations will prevail in the planning process. What is needed, perhaps even more than better planning policies themselves, is the political will from our politicians to commit themselves to a sincere rather than a face-value commitment to sustainable land use planning.
[Note: Draft PLUP can be read at http://www.gov.mb.ca/ia/plups/draft.html or in pdf form at http://www.gov.mb.ca/ia/plups/pdf/draft.pdf. Referenced by page number and policy. -- Eg. (pg 42; PA5: 3.a.) refers to page 42 pdf version; Policy Area 5: directive 3.a.]
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Politicians: Priorities Please!
So much of the Elmwood by-election campaign has focused on the Disraeli Bridge. One candidate campaigns on plans to spend an untenable amount of money to keep the bridge open, and the next one foolishly follows his lead--even making it his campaign slogan. The tired old politician finally wakes up midway through the campaign and issues a statement that mimics all candidates position without really saying anything at all. Why has this been the centrepoint of the debate?
The bridge is but a symptom of the real problem: poor city planning and traffic congestion.
No matter how we deal with this situation, traffic interruption will be the result. If the bridge is partially closed down, traffic will actually be congested for a longer period of time. If we twin the Louise bridge, congestion will undoutedly ensue during that construction. In the meantime we risk a catastrophe like the one witnessed in Minneapolis! Perhaps we should step back and start to examine the root causes.
This is where the Green Party of Manitoba (GPM) comes in! If the bus came by your front door step every two minutes would you consider leaving the car at home? What if you had ample room to read or relax? What if the bus had wireless internet connection? These are not impossible aims, all that is required is the political will.
The province presently gives Winnipeg Transit a mere $24 million per year under its 50/50 cost sharing operating grant. WE CAN DO BETTER! The province is spending $13 million on the Kenaston underpass and $8 building roads to a new IKEA store---meanwhile in Elmwood the streets are riddled with potholes and there is atleast one bridge that is falling down, my fair lady-- perhaps we should quit building new neighborhoods and focus investment on older neighborhoods like Elmwood.
The people of Elmwood know this better than most. They have seen the small independent corner store displaced by the new suburban box stores--all too often with the help of public money. They have seen the increased traffic run through their neighbhorhood as the suburban development has expanded in North Winnipeg.
A politician's job is to provide direction and set priorities. We are quite literally expected to anticipate the future. The other candidates were nearly condoning speeding earlier in the campaign, one even admitted to getting a speeding ticket, and the other thought that speeding tickets were about raising revenue rather than protecting public safety. Shortly, thereafter a car ran into a house just off of Henderson Highway. Are these the people that you want to leave in charge of protecting you? Your children and loved ones?
This campaign is about the political will to move us in the right direction. Is the Disraeli Bridge really our top priority? What about the children in Elmwood who go to bed hungry every night? What about the Elmwood residents who do not feel safe in their own neighborhoods? What about residents that lack adequate health care service? What about the parents that can't find suitable daycare arrangements? What about the state of our lakes and waterways? What about the perilous future of our planet?
James Beddome
Elmwood Candidate &
Leader of the Green Party of Manitoba
Authorized by the official agent
The bridge is but a symptom of the real problem: poor city planning and traffic congestion.
No matter how we deal with this situation, traffic interruption will be the result. If the bridge is partially closed down, traffic will actually be congested for a longer period of time. If we twin the Louise bridge, congestion will undoutedly ensue during that construction. In the meantime we risk a catastrophe like the one witnessed in Minneapolis! Perhaps we should step back and start to examine the root causes.
This is where the Green Party of Manitoba (GPM) comes in! If the bus came by your front door step every two minutes would you consider leaving the car at home? What if you had ample room to read or relax? What if the bus had wireless internet connection? These are not impossible aims, all that is required is the political will.
The province presently gives Winnipeg Transit a mere $24 million per year under its 50/50 cost sharing operating grant. WE CAN DO BETTER! The province is spending $13 million on the Kenaston underpass and $8 building roads to a new IKEA store---meanwhile in Elmwood the streets are riddled with potholes and there is atleast one bridge that is falling down, my fair lady-- perhaps we should quit building new neighborhoods and focus investment on older neighborhoods like Elmwood.
The people of Elmwood know this better than most. They have seen the small independent corner store displaced by the new suburban box stores--all too often with the help of public money. They have seen the increased traffic run through their neighbhorhood as the suburban development has expanded in North Winnipeg.
A politician's job is to provide direction and set priorities. We are quite literally expected to anticipate the future. The other candidates were nearly condoning speeding earlier in the campaign, one even admitted to getting a speeding ticket, and the other thought that speeding tickets were about raising revenue rather than protecting public safety. Shortly, thereafter a car ran into a house just off of Henderson Highway. Are these the people that you want to leave in charge of protecting you? Your children and loved ones?
This campaign is about the political will to move us in the right direction. Is the Disraeli Bridge really our top priority? What about the children in Elmwood who go to bed hungry every night? What about the Elmwood residents who do not feel safe in their own neighborhoods? What about residents that lack adequate health care service? What about the parents that can't find suitable daycare arrangements? What about the state of our lakes and waterways? What about the perilous future of our planet?
James Beddome
Elmwood Candidate &
Leader of the Green Party of Manitoba
Authorized by the official agent
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)