25 March 2011
I'm presently going through the platforms of each party to get an idea. I was hoping you could expand on this - http://greenparty.ca/node/13407
Green Solutions
Green Party MPs will:
* Promote revising and updating the laws relating to charitable NGOs so that NGOs can participate in advocacy and be able to retain their charitable status and their ability to accept tax deductible donations.
Could you provide a few examples of what and how you would see this in actual use - i.e. charitable organization XXX does what exactly which gets them what and does what for xxxx? If you can provide it in layman's terms too please.
At this time, I do not wish a phone call nor additional subsequent calls (nothing worst then getting pestered when not asked), I'm just trying to gather information so that I can make an informed choice if another election occurs.
Thank you
“J”
Hi “J”:
Thanks for your inquiry. Right now, some NGOs have charitable status and are able to issue tax deductible receipts for donations. However, if the NGO is perceived to do political advocacy work, they cannot have charitable status and anyone donating to them does not get a tax deduction. The reasoning behind this is not clear. Perhaps some people think that NGOs should not be meddling in politics at taxpayers expense. This is a bit hypocritical because political parties meddle in politics at the expense of taxpayers all the time. The Green Party is advocating for a level playing field in this case. For example, an NGO such as Fair Vote Canada advocates for a change to our voting system to make it more proportional and to make our government more representative of the way that people actually vote. They are considered to be political advocates even though they are very careful not to advocate for one party over another. Because of this, they do not have charitable status and are handicapped in fund-raising. The intent behind the Green Party policy is to make our tax system fair for all of us and remove obstacles to political participation.
I hope this answers your question. Thanks again for taking the time to be informed and for your participation in the political process.
Myron
Thank you Myron
I truly appreciate your clear and understandable response.
“J”
21 Dec 2010
You admit that “democracy can always work better” and I think that is the point that we should be focusing on. There is no one fix for the problems of our democracy which is why it is important that we engage in the process of “tweaking” that you do not want. One of those tweaks could well be lowering the voting age to 16. It is not fair for you to refer to these young adults as irrational “kids” or uninformed “children”. Those stereotypes were blown away not long ago in our community when our high school students stood up and challenged the adults in our community who were being childish and prejudicial in the discussion about the relocation of the high school. They impressed us all with their mature and well-reasoned approach to the controversy.
There are many good reasons for lowering the voting age to 16 or perhaps even younger. All of the political parties recognise this by allowing young adults (some as young as 12) to vote in leadership conventions and candidate nominations. It is a strange quirk in the system that allows young adults to have a say in who can run but not in who can win an election. Many youth under 18 are employed part-time and pay income and employment taxes. Advertisers recognise that this demographic commands an important chunk of decision-making at the check-out counter and we happily add on the sales tax to their purchases. One principle of our democracy is that we give representation to those who pay taxes but we seem to think it is OK to deny this right to our young adults. The arguments against lowering the voting age are the same arguments that were used to deny women and First Nations peoples the right to vote in the past.
It is no surprise that people are not motivated to participate in our form of democracy. Unjustly excluding young adults from the process further discourages participation. It is long overdue for us support this initiative as one step among many that need to be taken to make our democracy work better and to make our valley, our province and our country work better.
14th December 2010
Behind the oil tanker ban story is the pending project to build a pipeline to deliver oil from the oilsands projects in northern Alberta to energy hungry Asian destinations via tanker from northern BC ports. The Conservative government would like to see this project proceed to support the expansion of the oilsands and the ban on oil tankers on the north coast would stand in the way of those plans.
I heartily support the move to ban oil tanker traffic on our north coast and hope that some day we can find ways to severely limit all transport of oil by tanker. I also oppose the construction of the new pipeline from the oilsands to our coast. No, I do not wear rose-coloured glasses and I do appreciate the value that oil adds to our quality of life. Leaving aside the credible threat of climate change from global warming and the problems of peak oil, we have to ask ourselves whether it makes sense to continue to tear up the earth, drill in increasingly risky situations, burn fossil fuels and spew pollutants into the atmosphere when we have other proven alternative energy sources that have much less environmental impact (solar and wind to name just two).
The classic objection is that these alternatives are too costly, too unreliable, too futuristic, ….in other words, not to be seriously considered. Well, I am old enough to remember when the same objections were applied to the development of the oilsands. At that time a few bold energy companies convinced the government to ignore the objections and sink a lot of investment funding into this unrealistic energy venture. Now it is being held out as the hope to fuel the energy demands of the world for the next generation. I applaud the vigorous efforts that have gone into making the oilsands more efficient and less destructive and support more work in that direction. But I do not support the expansion of the oilsands project and the construction of new infrastructure for this especially when it poses new environmental risk (like oil tankers on the north coast) and requires additional public funding (often hidden in the form of accelerated tax credits).
It is time for bold energy companies and bold governments to invest in clean energies for the next generation. We have the technologies. We have some good examples happening in other countries and even here in Canada. We just need leadership with the will to do it. To get it started, let’s create the legislation to ban oil tanker traffic on the north coast. While we are at it, let’s expand that to end the development of new mega-projects for oil or thermal coal and pave the way for the development of clean alternative energy projects.
30 November 2010
The tone of both of these media items implies that this is some kind of failure on the part of Frito-Lay. It turns out that the bags are in fact compostable at temperatures achieved in community or industrial composters and the company is working on a next-generation bag that is both quieter to handle and will compost under back-yard composting conditions.
A serious news investigation should look at the whole picture here. What are the other companies doing in this regard and what happens to other chip bags? How many of them are recyclable? Why are they ending up in the landfills when there is better option? A quick search on the net indicates that most chip bags are not recyclable and cause problems if they are included in the blue bin.
I am not a big fan of potato chips and related products. Whenever I get near a bag it disappears and I don’t feel so good afterwards so I just try to stay away from them. But this is a small example of how we should be finding ways to deliver the everyday products that we consume in packaging that is sustainable and responsible and preserves and enhances our environment. How about a big cheer for Frito-Lay for their efforts to reduce waste and create packaging that can be up-cycled (turned into something that is as useful as or better than the original product)?
Question and Answer from e-mail
Hello [Myron]I'm presently going through the platforms of each party to get an idea. I was hoping you could expand on this - http://greenparty.ca/node/13407
Green Solutions
Green Party MPs will:
* Promote revising and updating the laws relating to charitable NGOs so that NGOs can participate in advocacy and be able to retain their charitable status and their ability to accept tax deductible donations.
Could you provide a few examples of what and how you would see this in actual use - i.e. charitable organization XXX does what exactly which gets them what and does what for xxxx? If you can provide it in layman's terms too please.
At this time, I do not wish a phone call nor additional subsequent calls (nothing worst then getting pestered when not asked), I'm just trying to gather information so that I can make an informed choice if another election occurs.
Thank you
“J”
Hi “J”:
Thanks for your inquiry. Right now, some NGOs have charitable status and are able to issue tax deductible receipts for donations. However, if the NGO is perceived to do political advocacy work, they cannot have charitable status and anyone donating to them does not get a tax deduction. The reasoning behind this is not clear. Perhaps some people think that NGOs should not be meddling in politics at taxpayers expense. This is a bit hypocritical because political parties meddle in politics at the expense of taxpayers all the time. The Green Party is advocating for a level playing field in this case. For example, an NGO such as Fair Vote Canada advocates for a change to our voting system to make it more proportional and to make our government more representative of the way that people actually vote. They are considered to be political advocates even though they are very careful not to advocate for one party over another. Because of this, they do not have charitable status and are handicapped in fund-raising. The intent behind the Green Party policy is to make our tax system fair for all of us and remove obstacles to political participation.
I hope this answers your question. Thanks again for taking the time to be informed and for your participation in the political process.
Myron
Thank you Myron
I truly appreciate your clear and understandable response.
“J”
21 Dec 2010
Democracy and Young People
I usually turn to the editorial page of AV Times anticipating something to seriously consider even when I do not agree with the stand that is taken. So I had high expectations when I read the heading “Democracy depends on our participation”. I was deeply disappointed to find you trashing the idea of lowering the voting age and defending an electoral system that is archaic and unrepresentative. You suggest that the only problem with our democracy is a lack of participation. I suggest that is this is a symptom of much wider problems which include hyper-partisan dysfunctional governments, centralization of power around the party leaders, limited voice for local MPs and MLAs, a sense of futility for voters at the ballot box and lack of representation between elections to name just a few.You admit that “democracy can always work better” and I think that is the point that we should be focusing on. There is no one fix for the problems of our democracy which is why it is important that we engage in the process of “tweaking” that you do not want. One of those tweaks could well be lowering the voting age to 16. It is not fair for you to refer to these young adults as irrational “kids” or uninformed “children”. Those stereotypes were blown away not long ago in our community when our high school students stood up and challenged the adults in our community who were being childish and prejudicial in the discussion about the relocation of the high school. They impressed us all with their mature and well-reasoned approach to the controversy.
There are many good reasons for lowering the voting age to 16 or perhaps even younger. All of the political parties recognise this by allowing young adults (some as young as 12) to vote in leadership conventions and candidate nominations. It is a strange quirk in the system that allows young adults to have a say in who can run but not in who can win an election. Many youth under 18 are employed part-time and pay income and employment taxes. Advertisers recognise that this demographic commands an important chunk of decision-making at the check-out counter and we happily add on the sales tax to their purchases. One principle of our democracy is that we give representation to those who pay taxes but we seem to think it is OK to deny this right to our young adults. The arguments against lowering the voting age are the same arguments that were used to deny women and First Nations peoples the right to vote in the past.
It is no surprise that people are not motivated to participate in our form of democracy. Unjustly excluding young adults from the process further discourages participation. It is long overdue for us support this initiative as one step among many that need to be taken to make our democracy work better and to make our valley, our province and our country work better.
14th December 2010
The Future of Oil
Congratulations to parliament last week for passing a motion to create legislation to ban bulk oil tanker traffic on the north coast of BC. This was an opposition motion that “urges” but does not obligate the government to take action. The bad news is that the minority Conservative government voted against this bill and is not likely to take any action. The scary part is that the same week the environment commissioner issued a warning that Canada is not prepared to respond to a major coastal oil spill.Behind the oil tanker ban story is the pending project to build a pipeline to deliver oil from the oilsands projects in northern Alberta to energy hungry Asian destinations via tanker from northern BC ports. The Conservative government would like to see this project proceed to support the expansion of the oilsands and the ban on oil tankers on the north coast would stand in the way of those plans.
I heartily support the move to ban oil tanker traffic on our north coast and hope that some day we can find ways to severely limit all transport of oil by tanker. I also oppose the construction of the new pipeline from the oilsands to our coast. No, I do not wear rose-coloured glasses and I do appreciate the value that oil adds to our quality of life. Leaving aside the credible threat of climate change from global warming and the problems of peak oil, we have to ask ourselves whether it makes sense to continue to tear up the earth, drill in increasingly risky situations, burn fossil fuels and spew pollutants into the atmosphere when we have other proven alternative energy sources that have much less environmental impact (solar and wind to name just two).
The classic objection is that these alternatives are too costly, too unreliable, too futuristic, ….in other words, not to be seriously considered. Well, I am old enough to remember when the same objections were applied to the development of the oilsands. At that time a few bold energy companies convinced the government to ignore the objections and sink a lot of investment funding into this unrealistic energy venture. Now it is being held out as the hope to fuel the energy demands of the world for the next generation. I applaud the vigorous efforts that have gone into making the oilsands more efficient and less destructive and support more work in that direction. But I do not support the expansion of the oilsands project and the construction of new infrastructure for this especially when it poses new environmental risk (like oil tankers on the north coast) and requires additional public funding (often hidden in the form of accelerated tax credits).
It is time for bold energy companies and bold governments to invest in clean energies for the next generation. We have the technologies. We have some good examples happening in other countries and even here in Canada. We just need leadership with the will to do it. To get it started, let’s create the legislation to ban oil tanker traffic on the north coast. While we are at it, let’s expand that to end the development of new mega-projects for oil or thermal coal and pave the way for the development of clean alternative energy projects.
30 November 2010
The Sun-Chips Flap
A few weeks ago I read/heard a news item that Frito-Lay was removing its compostable potato chip bag from the market because consumer considered the crinkle to be too noisy (e.g. while watching TV or at the movies). Then last week I saw a CBC investigative report that tested the compostable bag and found that it did not break down after 14 weeks in a back-yard compost pile. This is consistent with the experience that I had with one of their bags but I have had a bit of trouble with the conclusions that are being drawn on this story.The tone of both of these media items implies that this is some kind of failure on the part of Frito-Lay. It turns out that the bags are in fact compostable at temperatures achieved in community or industrial composters and the company is working on a next-generation bag that is both quieter to handle and will compost under back-yard composting conditions.
A serious news investigation should look at the whole picture here. What are the other companies doing in this regard and what happens to other chip bags? How many of them are recyclable? Why are they ending up in the landfills when there is better option? A quick search on the net indicates that most chip bags are not recyclable and cause problems if they are included in the blue bin.
I am not a big fan of potato chips and related products. Whenever I get near a bag it disappears and I don’t feel so good afterwards so I just try to stay away from them. But this is a small example of how we should be finding ways to deliver the everyday products that we consume in packaging that is sustainable and responsible and preserves and enhances our environment. How about a big cheer for Frito-Lay for their efforts to reduce waste and create packaging that can be up-cycled (turned into something that is as useful as or better than the original product)?
Join the campaign, make a donation through PayPal.
Follow us around! Know where we are with our calendar.
Help the campaign by getting a sign, flag, newsletter, or volunteer.
Follow our candidate on Twitter!
Follow our candidate on Facebook!
Get Green video! Follow the Green Party on Youtube.
Not sure about your vote? Take the Vote Compass Test on CBC! We bet you're green...
