I’m saddened but not shocked about the turfing of Garth Turner from the CPC caucus. Looking back at parliamentary history, the Liberals and even Reform Parties have done the same to dissenting voices for either violating caucus solidarity or party policy. I see this recent event as also an example of how the hi tech internet age has drastically altered traditional political practices in our country. Ottawa and the media will have to get used to the new phenomenom of blogs and internet opinion.

As for Garth becoming the first ever Green MP, I think it would be a dramatic event that begins an alteration of the Canadian political landscape. I honestly think in 20 years we should have the Liberals as the first choice, the Greens second, the Conservatives third as a right wing rump, with the total eradication of the NDP and Bloc parties from Parliament.

“Turner is a classic Red Tory”? Not really, classic Red Tories supported the social safety net, the CBC and other such public enterprises, and were skeptical of the primacy given to unfettered private enterprise by the USA. Roy McMurty, when he was Ontario Attorney-General, was the most classic Red Tory of the post-1963 period. Bill Davis and Joe Clark both had some pale-pink Tory elements to them. Garth Turner is more of an American right-wing populist with an unusual green tint.

While the press talks of him joining the Green Party, I’d say he was giving more serious thought to the Liberals.

While this move may be politically advantageous in the short term and mid-term (and maybe even in the long run too) but I think it will be the end of the left-wing activism that the Greens in Canada (prior to Harris) stood for and an abandonment of the same long history of left-wing activism that the Global Greens have historically stood for. Keep in mind that the most successfull Green parties in the world (such as those in Germany and Scandinavia) are still firmly planted on the left of the spectrum and aren’t flirting with the right no matter what the electoral rewards may be.

Actually, I think this would represent a positive change for the Green Party. Canada already has the NDP if you want left-wing activism. The Green Party offers progressive and environmental activism without the leftist aspect, something I think turns many people off to the NDP.

Garth Turner is in no way a progressive; environmentally or otherwise. Before we begin to heap praise on him, his record deserves closer inspection. Check out his views on property rights and the role of regulation for the public good. For example, environmental land use planning. You will find him to fit right in with a Libertarian from Colorado (that is, even more right wing than an american Republican in some respects).

He is someone who strongly believes in putting property rights into the constitution. What do you think that might do to efforts to protect the public good in terms of the environment?

In a way he would make a perfit fit as Canada’s first Green MP, as it would dispell any notion that the Greens stand for equity in any sense of the word.

Chris — one shouldn’t confuse acceptance of the status quo in land use regulation as synonymous with progressivism. As an urban planner myself, I feel quite strongly that our current zoning by-laws are highly discriminatory and environmentally disasterous. The issue isn’t really about property rights — the property rights argument is used because the regulations are so flawed. Property rights arguments are used, incorrectly I think, to make a case for regulation reform. Fix the regulation of land use and the property rights argument becomes moot. Your last statement demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the Green Party’s positions. They argue that you must use the full range of policy options — incentives/disincentives, regulation, information, direct public owership/operation — in order to combat injustice and inequality (vs. most on the Canadian left would place their faith solely in regulation and direct public ownership). This is not a difference on values; it is a difference on implementation.

Paul - it depends on what you mean by “left”. The Green Party policies are most certainly progressive. But they do not adhere to traditional ways of implementing those policies — i.e. reliance solely on regulation to reduce pollution and CO2. I don’t think advocating a mix of market- and regulatory measures disqualifies them from being considered “left” or progressive.

Wilf - Turner is by no means a right-wing American populist. If you’ve ever had policies discussions with one, you would know the difference between him/her and Turner. By, you are right to note that Turner is a populist. He just fights for the middle class. You may be right that he may lean towards the Liberals.

I would like to add to my previous post. With respect to land use planning/regulation. Mr. Turner has vociferously argued against such land use planning plans and regulations as those implemented by Ontario Conservation Authorities which do such basic things as protect life and property from flooding and erosion. He as fought against the establishment of Ontario’s new sprawl-preventing Greenbelt legislation. His point of view is not simply that these planning initiatives are flawed but that they should not exist because they constrain private property rights. He places private property rights far, far above any concept of public good. That was the first point of my previous post. My orientation is not simply focused on private property rights but it has been Mr. Turner’s focus when it comes to environmental planning initiatives, it is relevant to point this out when commenting on Mr. Turner and his potential as a “Green” Party MP.

My second statement, while harsh, expresses my frustration that so many people are quick to admire the Greens based on a superficial understanding of what they are, or, as in the case of Mr. Turner, could stand for. I argue that the Ontario Green party, in particular, is extremly right wing. Most people find that surprising. The fact that the leader of the Canadian Green Party would be so eager to woo someone like Mr. Turner with his aforementioned record against many basic (i.e. flood protection) components of environmental planning is shocking but revealing when it comes to the Greens.

With respect to the values/implementation approach: I’m not certain that the Greens own the “the full range of policy options” approach. Many progressive governments of all stripes have used the full range of policy options to implement policies. However, I find that the market-first orientation, which I think Greens are moving closer and closer to, tends to be one that conservatives or libertarians prefer most and disregard other more regulatory approaches for fear of constraining things like property rights and as a result are willing to potentially sacrifice needed public goods such as rural areas protected from urban sprawl.

Chris - one can be in favour of compact development (i.e. smart growth), but be against the Greenbelt — note that they are actually separate pieces of legislation (Place to Grow Act and Greenbelt Act). The problem with Greenbelts is that they actually don’t achieve their goal — in fact, the evidence largely supports the view that they contribute to leapfrog development. A more effective mechanism would be a comprehensive transfer of development rights program, whereby property owners sell the development rights to developers who use those rights elsewhere (i.e. in already-built up areas). This provides the best of both worlds — protection of agricultural and/or rural land and more compact development where infrastructure already exists. This is system that has proven very effective in, for example, Montgomery County, Maryland. Similarly, cap-and-trade systems have proven very effective at reducing sulfur emissions that contribute to acid rain. These are “market-based” solutions that achieve very worthwhile and progressive results. Are they right-wing? My feeling is that we need to re-think our regulatory approach — not because it constraints property rights per se — but because it has not achieved the desired results (i.e. because they have been woefully ineffective at achieving anything approaching sustainable development). On the contrary, our current approach to land-use regulations have actually *produced* the sprawl and environmental degradation that we are only now beginning to address. We must separate the desired goal (protection of agricultural land, compact, transit-oriented places, etc) from the bad implementation strategies that we’ve relied upon for the past few decades.

Not only would Turner’s becoming a Green give voice to the over 600,000 disenfranchised Green supporters, he would also lend a hand to the growing movement for proportional representation in Canada. A higher vote share for the Green’s means further decreased chances of majority governments. Once political parties become accustomed to successive minority governments, there is a greater chance they will accept a more proportionally-representative system where minority governments are the norm and many smaller parties are represented. Mr. Turner has an historic opportunity for the future of democracy in Canada. I sincerely hope he will take it.

Democraticspace:

I agree with the point that sometimes greenbelts, and planning in general, can have unintended consequences. As an urban planner, I understand the concept of leap-frog sprawl and how it can sometimes be promoted by greenbelts. In the Ontario example, the Greenbelt Plan was developed concurrent with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe precisely to deal with the issue of leap frog development on the outer ring of the greenbelt plan area. The Greenbelt areas and future growth areas in the growth plan were established where settlement areas had not been designated in the corresponding municipal Official Plans, thus development rights, in terms of establishing new settlements had were not removed but rather retained at their current state. In addition, the geographic extent of the two plans (one plan prevents new urban uses, the other corresponding plan seeks to limit greenfield development while promoting compact growth) encompass an entire urban region including the exurban areas and a rural hinterland. This also helps to deal with the leapfrog issue.

To say that all rural areas (areas that were designated as rural for agricultural use in official plans) that are now within the greenbelt should be compensated with transferred development rights elsewhere in an urban area in this context is an extremely high cost for an effort to control sprawl in the public interest. I would say that a development right to subdivide and urbanize in a prime agricultural area/environmentally significant area that has been previously designated for rural uses does not exist. An expectation that urban development rights exist in all rural areas makes the greenbelt effort in the Ontario context unreasonable and is more of a property rights only approach. And yes, I would say that would be more of a right wing/property-rights-before-the-public-interest approach in this context.

My attempt in previous posts is to point out the specific anti-planning, anti-regulation -in-all its-forms-advocacy that has been demonstrated by Mr. Turner. He appears to be simply against all forms of land use planning, regarding them as an infringement on private property rights nevermind the public interest issue at hand. I truly think that is something to think carefully about despite the good constituency work that Mr. Turner does, especially in the context of a supposed environment-first party.

as a red tory, I disagree that Garth represents me or my views in any way. in short, he’s a backstabber. If he does join the Greens he will only damage himself and the Green Party as well.

Thought I’d drop you a note to let you know thus blog entry has been quoted by Canadian Press:

http://www.cp.org/premium/ONLINE/member/National/061019/n1019149A.html

I believe too that the nature of a stable democracy is for representatives of the people to hold a constituent’s concerns above all else. But sometimes, you have to play for the team you’re on.

Garth Turner has stated in the past, and was quoted in yesterdays Toronto Star, that the voters come first, before any of his party responsibilities. Because this seems like a reasonable plan of action, I don’t see how he can justify becoming a green MP.

He stated too, after Minister David Emerson crossed the floor, that MPs who switch parties should go back to the voters. If Garth’s idea of real democracy is speaking on behalf of the people and not for some sort of political gain, then sitting as an independent puts him in the perfect position to do so. By sitting as the first Green MP, he in effect disregards his own advice about those who choose to cross the floor. Garth Turner should sit as an independent until the next election, and then let the voters decide if they want a Green MP.

As an aside, I don’t see any problem with the election of a Green MP in this country. With the environment becoming the hot topic that it is, May and some of the other candidates would contribute positively to some of the policy debates in this country. But adding any MP to their ranks simply because it’s available is not where that party wants to take itself. It needs to build like it has been doing over the years, and its day will come.

I think that Turner fit in better with Harris’ Greens than May’s Greens. If Turner becomes a Green MP allowing May to participate in the debates, it’s a big question mark as to what the result will be.

On the one hand, she may push the more left-leaning tendencies of the Greens, and split the left, much like Reform and PC split the right in the 1993 election. BC would be a sea of blue.

Or, voters from all parties, with a larger showing from the NDP, could flock to the Greens, a little more in every election, and Canada could start to see formal coalition governments in 10-15 years.

I do think that a Green Turner would leave a bad taste in long-time grassroots Greenies, but maybe the end justifies the means.

GOOD FOR GARTH TURNER!!

HOW ABOUT THIS??

MEDIA: READ ABOUT “TWO USELESS BAGS OF PUSS”, DEFENCE MINISTER O‘CONNOR AND PRIME MINISTER HARPER

WAS MY DAUGHTER TREATED THIS WAY BECAUSE SHE IS FEMALE!!

ISN’T THIS AGAINST THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS!!

24 October, 2006

Hon. Gordon O’Connor
Minister of National Defence
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

Hon. Stephen Harper
Office of the Prime Minister
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

RE: Pte. Patricia

Well, the two of you turned out to be “useless bags of puss“, didn’t you!!

Major K.R. Salsman, Base Surgeon at Shilo clearly indicated that my daughter required proper boots as a “requirement in the performance of her military duty“[see his request attached], and then she was penalized for the “stupidity” of the 748 (Nanaimo) Communication Squadron for not issuing them to her before she attended BMQ’s!

Thank God my daughter has seen what a miserable lot the Communications Department was, without having gone too far.

My assumption is the rest of the DND is the same.

Thank goodness she “has seen the light” and will have none of you nincompoops!!

Little wonder, you’ve got so called “military experts” expressing surprise that the Taliban are so persistent!!

Hey, morons, they have been in the area for a thousand years, know all of the ins and outs of the area, and you people are just figuring out they are putting up an unexpectedly good fight??

And, you’ve got young innocent Canadian kids dying in Afghanistan for your idiocy!!

Nothing but a pair of “jack asses” as far as I can see!

Regards,

T.W.
[former federal peace officer]
Email: BScComplete@shaw.ca

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

24 October, 2006

Captain D.R. Bowhey
Commanding Officer
748 (Nanaimo) Communication Squadron
Nanaimo Military Camp GD Stn A
Nanaimo, British Columbia V9R 7N2

RE: Your letter dated 10 October, 2006 [copy attached]

What “a miserable bunch” to issue a young recruit improper boots, as cited by Major K.R. Salsman, Base Surgeon at Shilo clearly indicating that my daughter required proper boots as a “requirement in the performance of her military duty“[see his request attached], and then penalize her for your “stupidity”!

Patricia is quite relieved she has seen what a miserable outfit yours is without having gone too far in the “Military”.

If this is how all of the DND Departments treat their people, she will have none of it.

I don’t blame her!

In any event, she has returned her kit and, with her commitment to studies / midterms and work, she has no spare time to waste on you folks.

As such, if there are any forms to sign you can simply mail them to her for her signature.

Regards,

T.W.
former federal peace officer
Email: BScComplete@shaw.ca

cc. Gordon O’Connor
Minister of National Defence
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

cc. Stephen Harper
Office of the Prime Minister
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

+++++++++++++++++++++

21 August, 2006

Hon. Gordon O’Connor
Minister of National Defence
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

Hon. Stephen Harper
Office of the Prime Minister
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

Dear Sirs,

Please let me initiate my letter with a general statement that, I would think considering the DND commitments in Afghanistan and around the world, the DND and the Federal Government would be pleased to see such enthusiasm from a young adult.

I am speaking about my daughter, Patricia, who is apparently being geared for release from the DND according to Captain D.R. Bowhey, 748 (Nanaimo) Communication Squadron, because my daughter was apparently physically unfit at BMQ in spite of the fact that my daughter submitted medical documentation to Captain Bowhey that she had been issued incorrect boots prior to her shipment to Shilo BMQ camp and, due to this fact, missed too many classes [see documentation and letters attached].

In fact, my daughter submitted as evidence to Captain Bowhey “Modifications to Footwear” by Major K.R. Salsman, Base Surgeon at Shilo who clearly indicated that my daughter required proper boots as a “requirement in the performance of her military duty.“

In fact, my daughter had been diagnosed with an extreme case of chronic plantar fasciitis at Shilo due to incorrect boots being issued.

My daughter has recorded her objections to her release, dated 8 August and 9 August, 2006 [copies attached].

Hence, I personally fail to see why Captain Bowhey would say my daughter is physically unfit, when she missed classes due to incorrect boots issued at Captain Bowhey’s unit prior to being shipped to Shilo BMQ.

How could my daughter be expected to participate when correct boots were not ordered until one week had already passed at Shilo, and it is little wonder she missed too many classes [Course 02 July, 2006 with Proper Boots only finally ordered 10 July, 2006, see attached documents].

Actually, since my daughter’s return from BMQ due to incorrect boots being issued, she wrote a letter to 748 (Nanaimo) Communication Squadron dated 31 July, 2006 asking for a transfer to a unit that gives weekend BMQs [SQs] so she could catch up for lost time due to the incorrect boot fiasco, to which Captain Bowhey apparently indicated that he already had four other members of the Squad seeking transfer and that it would be about a year before Patricia’s request could be acted upon.

I personally wonder if Captain Bowhey is simply using this request for a transfer as “an excuse” to get rid of Patricia through release using the excuse that she was not physically fit at CFB Shilo BMQs whereas, in fact, Major K.R. Salsman, Base Surgeon at Shilo clearly indicated that my daughter required proper boots as a “requirement in the performance of her military duty.“

I think it behoves the DND to retain such an enthusiastic member as my daughter, Pte. Patricia, and honour her request for a Voluntary Occupational Transfer to an NCM Medic positions in the Nanaimo area [11 Med Coy Victoria, Nanaimo sub-unit] or as an NCM in Artillery in the Nanaimo area [5th (BC) Field Regiment], as she is to understand that both units have several available positions in the Nanaimo area.

Both units apparently have weekend BMQ and possibly a weekend SQ and, in this way, my daughter could easily complete this requirement if she is finally issued proper boots, as per the attached medical request by Major Salsman.

I trust that my daughter will be given a fair shake so that she can take these BMQ [and SQ] courses this coming fall/spring, as she wishes to become a useful member of the DND.

As mentioned, I would think the DND and Federal Government would be keen to welcome such a forthright young woman into their midst.

Sincerely,

T.W.
former federal peace officer
Email: BScComplete@shaw.ca