2013-05-24T14:14:57-04:00 Matt Price http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=matt-price Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Matt Price Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3275065 2013-05-15T12:30:57-04:00 2013-05-15T12:31:06-04:00

Matt Price http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-price/ Damien Gillis beat me to it. Rats, I thought at first, but then found myself pleased that somebody else did the work, and better than I could have.

The topic was Justin Trudeau's capture by the kind of political advisors who may simply put a gentler face on the disastrous pathway Canada is now on with regards to energy, trade, and undermining the conditions that make our planet habitable.

This can be done because Trudeau is our ink blot, a psychological device that lets us project our beliefs onto him, letting us think he stands for us. While he speaks in broad platitudes, his name is also a powerful symbol of Canada, so he is able to bring along voters regardless of substance.

At the same time, something surprising was needed to establish leadership-aspiring Trudeau with gravitas on Bay Street, so the decision was made to come out in favour of China's takeover of Nexen, and in favour of the Keystone XL pipeline -- equivalent in climate pollution to 51 coal fired power plants. Incredibly, Trudeau criticized the Harper government for not doing enough to promote it. Trudeau even followed Alison Redford into the dark place of advocating censorship by going after Thomas Mulcair for talking about Canada's awful environmental record while in America.

I'll leave for another time whether the Trudeau brand can sustain the dissonance that comes with trying to simultaneously be about "hope" while pushing projects and policies that run the other way, particularly with the younger demographic Trudeau is associated with. We are now at that dire point where those promoting more fossil fuels are simply on the wrong side of history.

Ultimately, we'll get the Trudeau we deserve.

As with all politicians, but perhaps more so in Trudeau's case, they follow rather than lead, and unless we organize ourselves to lead, other forces will step in, chief among them those with a vested interest in keeping Canada on the destructive path it is on. And this leads to a conversation about building a progressive movement and progressive infrastructure in Canada, something conservatives figured out a decade ago, and something that we are just waking up to now.

Ironically, the Harper government sees itself as dismantling the progressive infrastructure that Pierre Elliot Trudeau put in place during his time in office while it sets about putting its own in place. Several years ago in the book Rescuing Canada's Right, Tasha Kheiriddin and Adam Daifallah called for conservative infrastructure to compete with what they then saw as a state-funded progressive infrastructure network in Canada.

So now we have the Harper government's aggressive push to shut down or weaken groups or initiatives that could be considered part of this progressive network, for example the Court Challenges Program, Status of Women Canada, Rights and Democracy, KAIROS, Katimavic, the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, and many more. Not content to stop at government-funded groups, the Conservatives have also gone after NGOs and unions to weaken them.

Meanwhile, conservatives have been putting in place their own infrastructure. In addition to the Manning Centre, there is the National Citizens Coalition, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the Civitas Society, the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, the Fraser Institute, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, the Montreal Economic Institute, the Society for Quality Education, Merit Canada, Ethical Oil, and the political science department at the University of Calgary. On the media side, there exists the National Post, the Sun TV and newspaper outlets, as well as various talk radio stations.

In short, Canadian conservatives have successfully put in place an infrastructure that is used to hold politicians of all stripes -- including Conservatives -- accountable to right wing causes and ideals, while eviscerating or weakening entities that could do the same on the other side.

Into this political environment step Justin Trudeau and other leaders. We've already witnessed the coordinated pushback whenever Mulcair dares to question the oil agenda. So, for an ink blot like Trudeau, what do you think he will do? Tellingly, his advisors have presented relatively little target for the right wing infrastructure to go after, but have safely risked presenting a target for progressives, because they know we are weaker. This is a pattern that is unlikely to change much until we get our act together.

Politicians follow, not lead. Canadian conservatives have organized a movement and an infrastructure to lead. Unless Canadian progressives do the same, we will continue to get the Trudeau -- or any other leader - that we deserve. We can continue to complain about what our elected officials do or don't do, but in the end it's up to us. We need to organize.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2616580 2013-02-05T08:41:21-05:00 2013-04-07T05:12:01-04:00

Matt Price http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-price/ writing about powerful new forms of organizing in the social change sector. My own experience has been in the Canadian environmental community, but many of the exciting lessons today are coming out a variety of sectors in the U.S., and particularly from those that have learned the same lessons as the Obama presidential campaigns.

As Canadian unions come under increasing attack by the Harper government (welcome to the club!), there are lessons to be learned from south of the border. A great model I'll dig into a little here is Working America.

Working America was spun off by the AFL-CIO in 2003 as a "community affiliate." It has the express purpose of organizing non-union members around issues that are consistent with the values of U.S. unions, while at the same time being careful to be authentic about real bottom-up organizing, taking on issues that people themselves are identifying.

And, with three million members and growing, Working America is clearly doing something right, building a powerful base for politics and for social change.

Working America deploys canvas teams to go door-to-door in target neighbourhoods, asking what people care about and giving them a chance to sign up for an optional $5 membership fee.

Membership does come with some benefits (eg. legal aid, car insurance), but Organizing Director David Wehde says that most people sign up because they feel "it gives them a voice."

Campaign issues are chosen from a list of progressive issues, based on what people are saying, and could be local, regional, or national in nature. The whole three million membership is surveyed twice a year. Members are encouraged to get actively involved in rallies, in lobbying, and in reaching out to their friends, family, and neighbours. They are also mobilized around elections.

Working America is a community affiliate with a seat on the AFL-CIO council, but it's also its own entity with its own governance board, being careful not to be seen as a "front group" or it would lose its legitimacy at the local level. At various times, though, it does rally around core union campaigns, having laid the groundwork of trust to be able to do this.

As unions across North America struggle with declining membership, initiatives like Working America are a way to nevertheless grow influence. The model could be adapted for Canada, and would need to apply these lessons:

• Seek to organize non-union members by going deep in key geographies over the medium to long-term


• Practice authentic ground-up organizing, listening to what people care about and taking on those issues -- meet people where they are at


• Have a low bar for entry, and then cultivate more activity over time


• Design an authentic vehicle that is affiliated with labour but also has its independence

Organizers from around the world are taking note of Working America's success. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, and the Australian Council of Trade Unions are all looking at the model.

But the model isn't a quick fix and instead builds over time. Working America began with just four organizers and a contract canvass, and nine years later is a three million strong powerhouse. So, if we want to do something like it in Canada, there's no time like now to get started.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2162562 2012-11-20T12:53:54-05:00 2013-01-20T05:12:01-05:00

Matt Price http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-price/
The Justin Trudeau campaign, keen to put to bed allegations of its candidate being a lightweight, just put out an opinion piece embracing the takeover of Nexen by China's state owned CNOOC.

Unexpected, eh? It must therefore be substantive.

It doesn't help that the federal Liberal Party is still running against Stephan Dion. That whole green thing was a temporary hiccup. Best now to cosy up to the tar sands to prove it.

Don't worry about throwing those Katimavik-style hopes and dreams of the next generation under the bus. They'll need to take cover there anyway as Sandy after Sandy bears down on them, in between droughts, that is.

It also doesn't help that the other "serious" Liberal candidate, Martha Hall Findlay, is also wanting to out-substance Trudeau also with shallow contrarianism. Supply side management? We're against it. Surprise! Now, take us more seriously. And, screw those thousands of Canadian dairy farmers -- it's not like they're part of that middle class we keep talking about representing, right?

And, before this turns into Liberal-bashing, the federal NDP is also at risk of falling into the same trap. By wanting to be seen as pro-trade, they tip-toe around deals cut by the Conservatives to give corporations even more rights to beat back democratically-elected governments at the municipal, provincial, and federal levels instead of calling them out for what they are. When did "pro trade" end up meaning "anti-democracy?" And, when did we become numb to this in our national political discourse?

To progressive politicians of all stripes: being substantive means more than being contrarian and saying the unexpected -- it means levelling with Canadians about the real challenges and opportunities in front of us. For example, it means:

• Taking our heads out of the sands on climate change. The math is stark, but Canada is blessed with massive untapped renewable energy potential. Let's embrace that so that we can face our kids and grandkids. Yes, this means leaving fossil fuels in the ground.



• Capping the tar sands where it is. Alberta is already booming and facing growing pains -- who in the heck benefits by doubling and tripling? China maybe, but not Canada. We don't need to expand. Expansion may serve the interests of the oil industry, but not of Canadians. It would be a relief to end the battle that growing this industry means.



• Making stuff instead of just digging stuff up. Canada is losing hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs and lagging behind on innovation. We already have emerging regional disparities with Ontario and Quebec suffering. We need to stand up to those who want to silence this conversation by name calling.



• Making trade be about trade, and not new powers for corporations. Why are we giving companies more rights to sue democratically elected bodies for doing what their voters want? This is akin to changing our constitution, only without asking anybody about it first.



• Not wrapping up your pet agenda by co-opting the Occupy message. Suddenly everyone (or here, or here) is about the 99%, or more softly, the "middle class." This then becomes meaningless as the various parties dress up their usual stuff in this clothing. How about a real debate involving the actual middle class -- including dairy farmers, even -- about what they want to see?

Serious stuff. Substantive, even. Who knows, a real debate about Canada with real options beyond the current narrow bandwidth may open up and engage Canadians in politics again. Goodness knows that what's currently on offer isn't exactly inspiring.


]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1997918 2012-10-22T11:54:57-04:00 2012-12-22T05:12:01-05:00

Matt Price http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-price/ Fight the Right, Warren Kinsella gets some big things correct while leaving some big things out.

First, he deserves credit for writing this book, period. There are lots of kitchen table and bar-room conversations underway about how progressives can rebuild and undo much of the damage that the Conservatives are doing to our country and planet. But, we need more. We need to air ideas and strategies, to nominate, debate, discard and to choose. And, we'll not get there without more public efforts like Kinsella's.

Second, he is absolutely on the money regarding the need for the Liberals and the NDP to embrace math and to realize that as long as they divide the progressive vote, the Conservatives will build a dynasty. I say this as one who doesn't have a home party, but for a true Grit like Kinsella to say it gives you a sense that it's really just common sense. Every time Mulcair or Trudeau disavows inter-party cooperation, Harper does a happy dance because he's been there, fixed that, and knows it's why he's PM.

Finally, Kinsella's book is at its best when it does what he does best -- giving specific election advice. He runs through the political truths that progressive parties and candidates often run afoul of -- be authentic, keep it simple, and speak to the heart. He also calls for aggressively pushing out a renewed progressive narrative, or fall victim to being defined by our opponents. While he doesn't fully flesh out such a narrative, he looks to the Occupy message of inequality, the one per cent vs. the 99 per cent, as showing the way. (The Broadbent Institute seems to agree).

There's much more, including a lengthy detour through attempting to understand the conservative mind and the conservative message, with interviews with thought leaders like George Lakoff on this, and for those interested in that topic, the book is well worth picking up.

There are some big things, though, that Fight the Right leaves out.

The saying that "to a guy with a hammer, everything looks like a nail" would seem to apply. As a master of the war room, Kinsella gravitates to the rough and tumble of everyday political messaging, but says almost nothing about the long term infrastructure building that underpins it. He briefly acknowledges that his own Liberal party has lost many of its organizers, while the Conservative party is not only united behind Harper but has one of the most advanced databases about Canadians in the country.

Much more can be said about the political infrastructure the Right has built in Canada, or you can just read what the Manning Centre says about it, since it broadcasts it loud and proud. There is nothing that comes close on the progressive side, no solid foundation from which to project power.

Kinsella also begins to expose a key progressive conundrum, without calling it out so we can grapple with it properly. He correctly notes that youth don't vote at the same rates as older Canadians, and that if they did we'd likely have more progressive governments. At the same time, he's unapologetic about the kind of negative political campaigning that turns so many youth off from politics. Some go even further on this point, arguing that negative campaigning by its very nature reinforces conservative political framing (eg. cynicism). Yet, it's a conundrum, since at the same time we cannot simply cede the field and let others walk all over us.

I do think there's a common answer to both this conundrum and to the infrastructure deficit, but it's not an easy one. While the right will always have big money on its side, progressives can and should have people power on their side, but this doesn't happen by itself. People need to be given pathways for political engagement on terms that work for them, and for the vast majority this will not be through a political party.

Kinsella notes that the Occupy movement, while directly engaging a segment of the public, has so far shunned electoral politics. Labour has traditionally been a vehicle for engaging its members in progressive politics, although with a declining share of the population being unionized, it may need to innovate by giving non-members pathways for engagement, as some unions in the U.S. have been doing successfully. NGOs can provide another engagement pathway, as groups like Lead Now are now doing. Much more is needed.

By directly engaging citizens, this kind of progressive infrastructure building can itself be an antidote to the cynicism of day-to-day Ottawa (and provincial capitals), while also providing direct channels of communication with ever greater numbers of Canadians that don't rely on the conflict-driven traditional media.

It's not a shortcut, but I don't think there is one. Yes, progressive politicians should take Kinsella's advice about authenticity, simplicity and speaking to the heart. Yes, we need a new progressive narrative as a counterweight to the one that is currently trashing our country and our planet. But, we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that we don't have a lot of hard work to do, a lot of one-on-one relationships to build, and a lot of alliances to forge if we are to succeed.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1899003 2012-09-21T12:29:11-04:00 2012-11-21T05:12:01-05:00

Matt Price http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-price/ Mr. Krushchev said we will bury you

I don't subscribe to this point of view

It would be such an ignorant thing to do

If the Russians love their children too

Sting wrote these lyrics regarding the threat of nuclear war from the Soviet Union, but they seem relevant again, this time in the context of the federal Conservatives' cynical push to make the NDP wear the "carbon tax" label by simply saying it often enough.

It likely didn't occur to the strategists in the permanent Conservative Party war room that they would be mounting this branding push at a time when the severity of the impacts of climate change would be on such full display. The number crunchers who micro-target segments of the Canadian voting population probably don't get their news feeds from the various agencies that monitor arctic sea ice or the drought conditions now savaging farmers across North America.

So now we have the spectacle of the trained seals of the Conservative Party standing up to berate the NDP over a carbon tax that the NDP itself has (wrongly) campaigned against, at the very same time as story after story tells us how much trouble humans are in as a species by not quickly replacing carbon intensive energy sources like the tar sands with the abundant clean energy sources at our disposal.

You wonder whether this leads to any cognitive dissonance within the ranks, whether Conservative MPs have any deeper sense of being utterly tone deaf on the issue that even Stephen Harper has been quoted as saying is "perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today." If, that is, we believe that Harper believed what he was saying, and not just making stuff up, like he has told his troops to do today.

While these MPs do travel in packs and reinforce to one another what are acceptable standards of decency in the "post-truth" environment they seek to create, they nonetheless leave Ottawa from time to time to face constituents and their families. They may need a wink and a nudge to justify saying all those, er, untruths, because it's just the way the game works, right, and everybody does it. It's not like being principled wins anymore.

But then they may find themselves in quiet everyday moments, watching the domestic bustle unfold around them, and wondering what the world will be like for their grandkids who have come over to visit, or for their young nephews and nieces they see playing at family gatherings.

And at those moments, they will return, at least inside themselves, to the real-truth environment where they know that the political theatre they allow to exist is in fact toxic to the interests of their young relatives who are entirely dependent on our elected officials to make responsible decisions in the here and now.

The question, though, is whether those same MPs will act on that inner knowledge and go against the strategists in the war room by rejecting ignorance. The question is whether their love of their children will prevail over cynicism, and whether they will reach for solutions and help us rapidly transition to a green economy, as they must if we are not all to be buried by our carbon folly.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1696669 2012-07-24T12:03:48-04:00 2012-09-23T05:12:09-04:00

Matt Price http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-price/ slapped in the face -- politely but publicly -- by Alberta Premier Alison Redford -- who rejected British Columbia's demand for "a fair share" of royalties from Alberta's oil pipelines.

It should make for an interesting backdrop to Canada's premiers getting together in the Council of the Federation meeting in Nova Scotia this week, where energy will be front and centre on the agenda.

This caps a somewhat bizarre number of days that saw the B.C. Premier sneak in and out of meetings with Redford and also Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall, presumably where she laid out the five conditions she placed on her government's support for Gateway that she had her Ministers release.

Four of the conditions dealt with safety and First Nations accommodation vaguely enough to allow for fudging an agreement, but the real kicker was the demand for some form of revenue sharing to balance the fact that B.C. would bear the majority of the risk, while Alberta would get the majority of the reward.

A few hours later, though, Clark had her reply to the conditions. "Leadership," Redford said "is not about dividing Canadians and pitting one province against another." Or, in other words, keep your hands off our money.

With that answer, it's hard to see how Clark could conceivably climb down from her conditions while saving face with B.C. voters already galvanizing in opposition to the pipeline. Even the B.C. Conservative Party, a pipeline booster, had attempted to scoop Clark with its demand for some kind of revenue sharing, so when you add that to the B.C. NDP's staunch opposition, you have all of B.C.'s political establishment now without a pathway to support the project.

This episode also puts the lie to Redford's recent diplomacy around a "national energy strategy." It seems that whenever another premier stands up for their province in a way that questions Alberta's oil industry, she reaches for the "divisive" label to beat them down. She did this with Ontario Premier McGuinty, and now with Premier Clark.

So, it would appear that what Redford means by "national energy strategy" is really an Alberta oil strategy that the rest of the nation signs off on. With aggressive cheerleading of anything oil-related coming out of Ottawa, it's easy to think that kind of agenda can be pushed through.

But, when the realities of climate change, oil spills, and a high dollar are inseparable effects of an oil economy, Redford is going to have to come up with more than polite diplomacy to craft something that is truly in the national interest rather than just in the interest of Alberta's oil industry.

Meanwhile, the Gateway project is looking increasingly like it's dead in the water.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1619708 2012-06-22T15:49:13-04:00 2012-08-22T05:12:22-04:00

Matt Price http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-price/ kudos for her performance in the recent federal legislative session against the "Trojan Horse" budget bill.

But, in addition to Parliamentary smarts, in an electoral context she has the power to change the game entirely. As the leader of Canada's fourth party -- or fifth if you count the Bloc -- her power lies not in her ability to run candidates, but rather in her ability not to.

Canada's progressive vote remains fatally divided. Anyone thinking the federal NDP will simply eclipse the Liberals hasn't spent enough time in Ontario's suburbs -- the linchpin of Harper's majority and a place where the NDP brand does badly. This is why Harper cares less for national polls, but also why he goes ballistic whenever there's a whiff of a "coalition" -- the true threat to his power.

Nathan Cullen made a popular run at this issue in his leadership bid, and Bob Rae now says it's up to the next Liberal leader.

While NDP and Liberal party officials wrap their heads around the math, Elizabeth could decide to emerge as chief broker. She could not only voluntarily decide to split the progressive vote in fewer ways in ridings that will be close races by not running candidates there, but could even go one step further and send voters who want to defeat Harper a strong signal by endorsing candidates from other progressive parties, particularly individuals that hold values similar to those of the Green Party.

This might be heresy to party purists, but hold the outrage for a minute and consider other factors.

First, the Green Party's breakthrough in winning a seat last year came when it decided to concentrate resources on a winnable riding. The lessons of this strategy still hold true, meaning that the Greens could mount meaningful efforts with a view to winning in only a handful more ridings in 2015. This leaves open other strategies in other ridings.

Second, when Harper did away with the per vote subsidy, he took away the financial incentive to run a Green candidate in every riding in order to maximize the financial payoff. For a small party like the Greens, it is very challenging to field 308 -- and soon to be 338 -- quality candidates in an election. Now that the financial incentive is gone, it's better to focus both good candidates and scarce bandwidth on fewer races.

Third, in every election there are various efforts by third parties to endorse and support the strongest progressive challenger to beat the Conservative candidate in various ridings, so why shouldn't the Green Party harness this energy and become the main go-to place where it takes place? It could even become the fiscal agent for those willing to donate to that strategy, and organize volunteers who want to do that. This would be tapping directly into the same enthusiasm that Nathan Cullen did.

If Elizabeth announced tomorrow that the Green Party will only run in x number of ridings in 2015 and is willing to talk to other parties about where those candidates run, it wouldn't take long for the other parties to come to her to begin to talk, even if was quietly. She could also make known that endorsements could be in the works if other parties identify and run candidates who have similar values to the Green Party.

Would this result in reciprocity from the other parties, like she achieved in one riding with Stephan Dion? Perhaps. But, even if not, it would still be more than worth it. For the reasons laid out above, this could be the Green Party's strongest play regardless, and would position Elizabeth as the de facto broker of progressive forces in Canada, cementing her role as a pivotal leader.

Meanwhile, it would also help push along the math vs. tribalism debate that is hobbling a progressive alternative in Canada, one that is desperately needed as our country and our planet are increasingly eroded, against the will of the majority of Canadians.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1477315 2012-05-04T12:42:28-04:00 2012-07-04T05:12:04-04:00

Matt Price http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-price/
We're generally an obedient lot, except while on skates, so what gives with the plan of a group of Canadians to block Warren Buffett's coal trains near Vancouver this Saturday?

Most of us watched the Al Gore movie on climate change, told pollsters we were concerned about it, and then went back to business as usual.

It's not that we stopped believing in the fact of it -- although there are a handful of reality-challenged columnists who still embarrass themselves on this front -- but rather that we haven't created the structures that build our emotional investment in it.

As KC Golden says, each of us participates in an "ecosystem of denial" where we get confirmation of our own failure to change from the fact that those around us are doing the same -- it becomes a vicious cycle. We therefore bury the reality of climate change to some distant part of our brain where it festers, giving us anxiety similar to a person who knows she has a life- threatening ailment, but refuses to go to the doctor.

Part of this vicious cycle is people thinking, 'if climate change was so serious, then those in the know would be lighting their hair on fire, and they're not, so it can't be.'

How many climate scientists have we heard couching their message in calm, measured tones, so as to appear credible? How many environmentalists have we heard talking only about light bulbs, so as to appear reasonable?

This is why it's such a big deal that Marc Jaccard will be standing in front of the coal trains too. He's a Simon Fraser University professor used to walking in the hallways of power, consulting to governments and industry alike.

In his words, he feels "absolutely sick" about taking this kind of action, but says, "I am in a world now where there isn't any place for sane analysis." Note the use of words relating to sickness and sanity: a microcosm for the psychology of our society as a whole.

It is these kinds of actions that begin to break down our ecosystem of denial and instead create a "culture of responsibility" where we are shown the seriousness of our shared predicament through the seemingly dramatic actions of people around us, including those like Jaccard.

We have already been treated to a chorus of calling those who want clean energy instead of fossil fuels "radical," by the oil ideologues in Ottawa, and I expect we'll hear much more of that. The evidence, though, clearly shows that those who promote coal and oil are in fact undermining the necessary conditions for prosperous human life on this planet, quite possibly the most radical and irresponsible act ever.

Those on the train tracks and those standing up for alternatives to the tar sands -- given what we now know, this is what's "responsible" in today's world.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1457825 2012-04-27T14:23:53-04:00 2012-06-27T05:12:02-04:00

Matt Price http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-price/
What are the Conservatives scared of, indirectly gutting environmental laws via the budget, rather than standing proud in the House to vote for the more appropriately named "Big Oil Now RunsThe Country Act"?

Why does the Harper government dislike kids so much, formally reneging on Canada's international climate commitments when even the small c-conservative International Energy Agency now warns us we are on track to a civilization-killing six degrees of warming?

(Oh, and why wasn't the latter considered by most media to be "news," even in brackets?)

When did the mandate of Ducks Unlimited and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters change from protecting fish and wildlife to protecting the asses of Conservatives?

Why isn't Bev Oda travelling with a flask of Ethical Apple Juice from Canada instead of that $16 foreign juice?

Will some of the new $8 million dedicated to investigating charities go into uncovering the activities paid for by the U.S. Koch Brothers going to the Fraser Institute, or the charitable conservative infrastructure building of the Manning Centre?

Why isn't the Canadian oil industry already required to post adequate liability insurance for spills, something that the City of Vancouver is now asking for there?

What would Peter Kent have thought about his media muzzling of civil servants when he was a journalist?

Does anyone remember all those politicians telling us they didn't need to pass actual carbon pollution regulations because carbon apture and storage was going to save us?

If one of the massive, leaking, bitumen filled toxic tailings 'ponds' combusted, would it qualify as a "lake of fire"?

Will 2012 go down in history as the year that Canada officially tipped over into being a petro-state?

What are you doing to take our country back?]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1423560 2012-04-13T11:39:26-04:00 2012-06-13T05:12:01-04:00

Matt Price http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-price/ This is the third and final piece in a series that began here and continued on the Huffington Post.

B.C. is a puzzle to the rest of Canada. It swings right and left like a pendulum in terms of governments in Victoria, with colourful political scandals involving drunk driving, decks, and fantasy theme parks. Its resource battles are the stuff of legend, with citizens packed off to jail by the hundreds.

All of this could once be dismissed as a curiosity that didn't matter much to the real work of Confederation. Until recently, that is, when Canada's centre of gravity shifted from east to west, and when our lateral outlook shifted from Europe to Asia.

Suddenly B.C.'s Pacific coast is on the front lines of the new Canada, with no better symbol of that than the battle over Enbridge's proposed tar sands Northern Gateway pipeline.

Yes, this battle is about the sensitive coastline, supertankers and oil spills. Yes, it is about the fact that the pipeline would carry more carbon pollution each year than B.C.'s entire emissions.

But the battle is also about more than just issues. Ultimately, it is also about the collapse of the "Laurentian Consensus" and about the fact that oil is now the foundation for a new Conservative coalition that has managed to cobble together a majority in Ottawa. In its most dramatic terms, it's about the future of Canada, with B.C. as the flashpoint.

It is an irony that Stephen Harper, a proponent of decentralizing power to the provinces, now wants to override B.C. objections by declaring this pipeline to be a matter of "national interest" and attacking anyone opposed to it. But, now that his Ottawa runs on oil, the industry must get its way, regardless of what the people want.

Has Harper miscalculated? Since going on the attack in January, his party has dropped 16 points in B.C. polls. To be sure, B.C. has pockets of deep blue sympathetic to the Conservative cause, but as with B.C. culture in general, these are populists who don't like to see far-away Ottawa throwing its weight around like a bully.

Team Harper also seems to misunderstand the power of First Nations in B.C. The province has few treaties, which leaves open the question of who controls things and which creates significant legal uncertainty. B.C. First Nations expect to be asked for consent for major industrial projects, but have so far received condescension.

The other reality is that if you politically map the Pacific coastline itself, you will see a sea of orange, not blue. Those who can actually see the water vote for Harper far less frequently. Vancouver has declared itself the "greenest city." Victoria has elected Canada's only Green MP. This is hostile territory for an oil regime.

And in an age when the impact of climate change will only become more serious and more visible, an idea is taking hold along the coast that it's just plain dumb to facilitate the export of carbon so that others can kill our shared climate. Protests against coal shipments have begun not just in B.C., but along the U.S. coastline. The Enbridge pipeline would also be a major offender, as would Kinder Morgan's proposal.

In sum, the battle over the proposed Enbridge pipeline represents the clash of the new oil-driven Conservative coalition versus an unwilling province packed with people who have never been known to roll over and play dead. This will rock the country.

The last time a political party in Ottawa used a "national interest" argument to impose its energy agenda on a province, it poisoned the well there for generations. And as the planet burns, this time around it is about more than political poisoning, but about the actual poisoning of our atmosphere that those generations need for security and prosperity.

We therefore have no choice other than to define and pursue an alternative Canada that isn't driven by oil. Our work begins now.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1415187 2012-04-12T11:08:19-04:00 2012-06-12T05:12:01-04:00

Matt Price http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-price/ This is part two of a three part series that began here.

The insult would only work on Ontario.

When Conservative MP Peter Van Loan accused Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty of being the "small man of confederation" for demanding that Ontario get more seats in the federal redistribution process, the words stung precisely because they cut against history.

Ontario's role in Canada's crumbling "Laurentian Consensus" has been the self-effacing responsible big sibling to the younger, smaller other provinces. Where others reach quickly for the "bash Ottawa" tactic to gain votes at home, Ontario is Canada, and so Ontario is Ottawa.

McGuinty felt this again recently when he raised the very legitimate point that our high petro dollar is costing hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs in his province. "How dare he be so divisive!" screamed Premiers from Alberta and Saskatchewan, serial addicts of division themselves. As egocentric little siblings, they are allowed, but not responsible Ontario. No, Ontario must suffer silently, even if it is the siblings inflicting the pain.

But now that the consensus is crumbling and that oil is driving Ottawa, Ontario's role has become less clear. On the one hand, the Mowatt Centre has found a growing feeling of unfairness felt by Ontarians in Canada's federation. Ontario is showing the biggest jump in the number of people feeling that their province is not respected.

On the other hand, it is Ontario that handed Harper his majority, one that is dancing on the ruins of everything that the Ontario of old helped to build. In his analysis of the collapse of the Laurentian Consensus, John Ibbitson points out that it has not been replaced by another consensus driven by Calgary, but rather by a Conservative "coalition," cobbled together piecemeal by Harper, and for now running through Ontario's 905 area code region where stressed suburbanites and immigrants have been heavily courted.

The key question for the coming decades of Canadian politics is whether this Conservative coalition turns into a new enduring consensus, or whether a new progressive and sustainable story of Canada emerges that speaks to people in Ontario's 905 belt, championed by at least one political party willing to invest in the ground work to make it real.

And here is the dilemma for Canada's opposition parties: The future of Canadian government depends on Ontario's suburbs where the Liberal brand is by far the most credible alternative to the Conservatives, at a time when the NDP is in ascendance everywhere else. The political tribalism standing in the way of cooperation between these two parties is perhaps the main thing that Harper is relying on to grant him time to change the country in his image, which is precisely why he goes nuclear whenever a "coalition" is discussed.

So, despite the westward shift in Canada, Ontario is still the pivot point when it comes to who runs things in Ottawa. The flashpoint, though, is BC. More on that in the next and final part of a better recipe for Canada.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1406625 2012-04-05T15:38:29-04:00 2012-06-05T05:12:01-04:00

Matt Price http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-price/ Maclean's cover story about "How Ottawa Runs on Oil" should be required reading for anyone seeking to understand where Canada is heading under the Harper government. He not only puts into context the tactical attacks on environmentalists, but also explains how there is a fundamental shift underway in Canada, one based on oil.

Wells touches on how oil is helping to drive the demise of what some call the "Laurentian Consensus," the marriage of Ontario and Quebec elites with communitarian values that has shaped the last 150 years of Canadian history, and has shaped what our country is today and whom we are as a people. Globe and Mail columnist John Ibbitson goes into detail about the collapse of the Laurentian Consensus in a powerful essay.

With Western elites now firmly in charge of Ottawa, and with oil now dominating our economic, foreign and environmental policy, it's clear that we are facing a tectonic shift in Confederation. Wells and Ibbitson are less likely to judge rather than to try to explain, but the simple fact is that the new reality can't survive if we are to have an atmosphere that continues to let us prosper as a species.

Governor General Award-winning author Andrew Nikiforuk is less circumspect about Canada's descent into a "petro state." He draws on the work of Thomas Friedman to show how Canada is starting to exhibit the signs of anti-democratic oil regimes -- noting that Alberta is already ahead of the rest of the country in this regard. Nikiforuk has also been one of the few writers in Canada trying to educate Canadians about Dutch Disease and how Canada's case is costing hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs -- yet because they are out East, they matter less in the new ideology that sees jobs only out West.

And here's the rub with the new regime in a nutshell: it is predicated on cooking the planet. Little publicized from last summer's Energy Ministers summit was the fact that the rationale it provided to justify Canadian oil expansion assumed six degrees of planetary warming, three times the amount that scientists consider safe to avoid catastrophic climate change.

This is why the Harper regime cannot tolerate environmentalists and their reminding Canadians that the Canada he wants to build is equivalent to driving off a cliff.

Yet it remains true that there must be something that replaces the Laurentian Consensus as a positive model for Canada that a majority of Canadians will vote for, and we don't know what it is yet. We do know that it must connect to the underlying values of tolerance and fairness that are still strong across the country, and that it must work for the next generation of Canadians who will have to deal with environmental change.

This is our work. To articulate the new vision and to build the infrastructure to develop and support it politically. The clock is ticking.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1397554 2012-04-03T14:57:24-04:00 2012-06-03T05:12:01-04:00

Matt Price http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-price/ wrong direction. According to a study that appeared on ekospolitks.ca in March, 44.7 per cent of Canadian's think this country is going in the wrong direction. So, continue to shout at your television, or get out there and do something about it?

This past weekend, I witnessed first hand how it's done.

On Saturday, about 180 university and high school students joined with concerned citizens and fanned out across B.C. Premier Christy Clark's constituency. They called it "Storm the Riding" after UBC's annual "storm the wall" contest.

These people were in turn inspired by a core group of university and high school students and faculty who built outwards.

Pairs of canvassers were given a route map to go door knocking to ask voters to ask Premier Clark to take a stand against the proposed Northern Gateway tar sands pipeline, which would single-handedly ship more carbon than B.C.'s entire annual emissions, totally wiping out the actions that British Columbians are taking to reduce their carbon footprint.

So far, Premier Clark has refused to take a stand on the project, but it's exactly this kind of wishy-washiness that has gotten her in trouble at the polls. It's exactly those polls the Storm the Riding event took direct aim at by going directly to her voters.

A great short video of the event, well worth watching, can be found here.

If anyone tells you youth don't care as much these days, this event proves that wrong. Young people are increasingly concerned about the irresponsibility of so-called "grown-ups" and the stupid decisions they are making with regards to the future, in full light of science that is telling them just how wrong those decisions are.

When this concern is channeled into smart organizing -- like targeting a riding that is in play between political parties -- the result is a model for change that could and should be scaled up if we are to get Canada back on the right track.

Existing environmental and social change groups need to pay attention here. Too many of us activists are seated behind our desks instead of getting out there and talking to voters. And, no, social media isn't a replacement for the face-to-face conversations we need to build the necessary relationships to get change from decision makers.

Today we storm one riding. Tomorrow we storm dozens of them.

Key Learnings:

1) Rally at least a core group (a few is enough to begin) around one focal point activity;
2) Do something that politicians really feel (hint: they care most about their direct voters);
3) Do something face-to-face to build new relationships for change.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1367888 2012-03-21T14:02:08-04:00 2012-05-21T05:12:01-04:00

Matt Price http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-price/ 16 points in B.C., hopefully in part because of their bully campaign on behalf of Enbridge's tar sands pipeline. But they show no sign of letting up, with an oil-soaked budget expected on March 29.

Former Conservative Fisheries Minister Tom Siddon just spoke out against leaked plans to gut federal habitat protections for fish. Reports say that Harper will slip this into the budget, and the government has not denied it.

Bloomberg Businessweek also tells us the budget will contain other measures to speed oil infrastructure projects.

All this comes as Alberta's oil economy is already already more than booming -- with real GDP growth forecast at 3.9 per cent in both 2012 and 2013 -- while our petro-fuelled high dollar causes economic harm to other manufacturing industries in Canada, with 500,000 lost jobs lost.

With the tar sands therefore needing no help, thank you very much, it's hard not to conclude that the budget's boosting of big oil is purely ideological.

If a minister tries to tell you that gutting protections is about "balance," according to a statement released by the fisheries minister's office,
take another look at an open pit tar sands mine or at the trillions of litres of toxic tailings now gracing the Athabasca region in vast, leaking, human-made lakes. Yes, that's right, according to an article in Albert'a alt-weekly, Vue Weekly, the tailing ponds from the tar sands are growing: "Every day, roughly two billion litres of water--enough to fill 800 Olympic swimming pools--are added to the ponds, which are already over 11.5 trillion litres in volume."

If anything, a rational response from a government that wants to try and justify doubling down on fossil fuels at a time when climate scientists tell us we must do exactly the opposite would be to strengthen, not weaken, environmental laws. Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver and Environmental Minister Peter Kent will have a harder time in their international tar sands lobbying trips having to gloss over the fact that they are taking things backwards, not forwards.

So, we Canadians must accept the fact that we have at least another three years of oil ideologues holding the levers of power in Ottawa. The polls in B.C. are at least encouraging, showing that voters there aren't buying it. Let's hope that the rest of the country soon wakes up too.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1314933 2012-03-03T12:01:09-05:00 2012-05-03T05:12:02-04:00

Matt Price http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-price/ beavers, and now she's coming for our charities.

Conservative Senator Nicole Eaton is swinging into action again -- not that action is generally associated with the Senate, other when there are democratically-enacted climate laws to kill.

Now she's holding hearings into foreign funding of charities engaged in environmental issues, saying that they should disclose their foreign revenue sources, and that they should disclose their political activities.

Uh, the thing is, they already do. (Hint: see CRA form T3010).

But, this actually isn't about those pesky "facts," it's about a witch hunt started by the shadowy Conservative "ethical oil" club, and taken up by various Ministers of the Crown, debasing the integrity of their offices as part and parcel of the broader Conservative scorched earth approach to anyone who doesn't share their ideology (and in this case, unconditional love of the tar sands).

So, an example of the kind of question you won't see Senator Eaton asking is this: Why is it ok for Enbridge to raise a $100 million war fund to lobby for its Gateway tar sands pipeline, getting $10 million donations from foreign companies like Sinopec, and fail to disclose the source of the money or the activities it pays for?

In fact, that leads us to compare how charities are treated in Canada vs. how corporations are treated. Neither has limits on sourcing revenues overseas, but charities, unlike corporations, disclose the sources of foreign revenue, are limited (to 10 per cent) in how much they can spend on policy advocacy, disclose their advocacy activities as a matter of their charter, and are banned from engaging in partisan activity.

See the table summarizing this below. Seem fair to you? Little wonder that Ottawa is such an environmental laggard.

]]>