Salaries paid to senior executives of hospitals need to be capped

It’s time to halt the runaway salaries among hospital executives and to implement a cap on the salaries of hospital executives. The Minister of Health George Smitherman and the McGuinty government are turning a blind eye to the growing annual salaries of the CEOs of Ontario’s hospitals, some of which exceed $665,000.

Meanwhile, hospital employees are told there’s no money for more staff, and to watch the pens and paper clips.

As hospital worker Joan Rogers pointed out in a June 30 letter to the Toronto Star, “I work in a major GTA hospital…the volume as increased considerably in the last two years, but the staff has not.”

“However, it seems that hospitals find enough money to pay their executives hefty salaries. Here are just a few examples: the CEOs of St. Michael's and Mount Sinai hospitals make a whopping $688,085 and $592,491 respectively. The CEO of North York General Hospital earns $419,103,” Rogers wrote.

The Green Party would not only cap the lucrative salaries of hospital executives, but also redirect the funds to increase spending on prevention, early detection, and health promotion.

As the baby boom generation starts to age, the massive strain on the medical system could soon make our public health care system unaffordable and unsustainable, unless actions are taken to cap the exorbitant pay of hospital executives and use the funds to increase the budget of the Ministry of Health Promotion, which currently garners 1% of the current Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care budget.

Community building in Toronto Centre

The following is an excerpt from my speech at the Green Party of Ontario's June 7 nomination meeting in the riding of Toronto Centre.

Although it is true that I have only lived in Toronto for a relatively short amount of time, I have come to greatly appreciate the city’s rich ecological and cultural history, which in my opinion, is captured best by Gordon McIvor, who described the city in the Toronto Star, “as the most successful experiment in diversity, tolerance and cultural richness that this continent has ever produced.” Toronto has the second-highest percentage of foreign-born residents among world cities, over 40% of which belong to a visible minority.

However, one of the biggest challenges we face, is the fact that Greens, as Peter Gorrie of the Toronto Star has written, are mostly white and middle class. In a June 2 article, titled, “Why are greens so white?”, Gorrie identified the biggest obstacle that our party faces.

In Canada,” Gorrie says, “the environment has traditionally focused on nature, the north, and green spaces. There’s been little focus on gritty urban issues, such as connections among pollution, poverty, race, housing, public transit, health care, and social justice, which aren’t defined as part of the environmental movement.”

However, when greens do step outside the comfort zone, we get great results. The Toronto Environmental Alliance works with a variety of groups, including those involved in low-income housing and racial equality. And the alliance’s work shows visible minorities are interested in the environment. As Katrina Miller of the alliance put it, “We know, when we go out and connect with the communities, other than the white middle class, we can get great action.”

And by building on the inclusiveness that only the Green Party can offer, I believe we can begin one of the most crucial tasks, which is comnunity building. By reaching out beyond our comfort zone we can connect with the residents of Tornoto Centre.

My name is Mike McLean and I am running for the candidacy of Toronto Centre to offer the reality of choice. As Canadian philosopher John Raulston Saul has said, ‘To believe in the reality of choice is the most basic characteristic of leadership.’

This is our time. We have a vision for Ontario. A vision that goes beyond the next budget, and beyond the next election. A vision for an Ontario that is fair and democratic to everyone. An Ontario with healthy communities, a healthy environment, and a healthy economy.

Choose the future, vote green. Thank you.

Last Action Hero?

“We are sending the world a message. What we are saying is that we are going to change the dynamic on greenhouse gas and carbon emissions. We are taking action ourselves. We are not waiting for anyone.”

This is the message that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger delivered this week as he travelled to Ontario for meetings with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Premier Dalton McGuinty.

Earlier this year, Schwarzenegger, who has just slightly less nicknames than reporters hanging off of him (the Terminator, the Governator, the Green Giant, etc.), announced that California would require a 10 percent reduction in carbon content from all fuels and an 18 percent reduction in C02 emissions from passenger vehicles sold in the state by 2020. In addition, greenhouse gas emissions will be rolled back to 1990 levels by 2020, and reduced a further 80 percent by 2050.

Even environmentalists like Keith Stewart, a climate change analyst with WWF Canada, are taking him seriously, saying that, “he’s turned out to be a surprisngly good politician.” (Toronto Star, May 31, 2007).

However, he also has a large number of critics, especially in the auto industry who are unhappy with his fuel-efficiency measures. In Michigan, “billboards have emerged claiming Schrwarzenegger is trying to kill the Detroit auto industry with California’s new emissions rules.

Schwarzenegger said the message to Michigan, one that could easily apply to Ontario, is: “Get off your butt.”

Explaining his statement, the Governator added, “We are probably doing more to save US auto makers than anyone else because we are pushing them to make the changes necessary”, adding that “California wants to use its economic clout to make the auto industry more globally competitive while improving the environment.” (Toronto Star, May 31, 2007)

The highlight of the Governator's trip was when McGuinty and Schwarzenegger sat side by side and signed deals to reduce carbon content from all fuels by 2020 and to bolster funding for stem cell research. Unfortunately, McGuinty refused to sign on to California’s auto emissions standards, demonstrating a disappointing lack of leadership.

Standing next to Scharzenegger, Premier McGuinty looked weak and timid on environmental issues.

But, perhaps Dalton McGuinty can be forgiven, considering the man standing next to him was the driving force behind some of the most progressive environmental legislation in the history of North America, and also the star of numerous Hollywood blockbusters, including the 1993 action-comedy, Last Action Hero.

Clearly the Governor of California is not waiting for action.

For the Green Party, we are also not waiting for action. We are taking action now to provide leadership on environmental issues in Ontario.

The Green Party of Ontario is advocating for fuel efficiency and emissions standards higher than California for cars and trucks, and the use of more efficient bulk transportation methods such as rail. To encourage cleaner transportation choices, the Green Party would shift provincial taxes from gas and tolls to a levy on crude oil used in the province. Taxes on resources are most effective when applied early in the manufacturing process, as they encourage innovation, efficiency, and alternatives.

Action on the environment begins and ends with what Schwarzenegger calls “active optimism, as guilt is getting us nowhere.”

I believe that active optimism starts with building an ecological economy including a green auto industry based on higher fuel efficiency and emission standards, and a plan for Ontario’s auto industry to shift towards manufacturing fuel-efficient cars and creating long-term environmental goals to ensure global competitiveness.

Church and state

Last Tuesday, I went to see an amazing band from Montreal, the Arcade Fire, at the legendary Massey Hall, a venue noted for its rich history, which dates back all the way to 1894.

Some of the more famous figures that have graced the stage include Winston Churchill, the Dalai Lama, Jerry Seinfeld, and Bob Dylan.

However, on Tuesday night, Massey Hall was home to the Arcade Fire.

Not too long into the set, lead singer Win Butler sarcastically uttered “rest in peace, Jerry Falwell,” before launching into a song titled “Antichrist Television Blues.”

It was a powerful moment.

Born in Lynchburg, Virginia in 1933, Falwell was an American fundamentalist Christian pastor and televangelist. In 1971 he founded Liberty University, an evangelical Christian university, and in 1979, formed the Moral Majority, an conservative Christian advocacy group that campaigned to outlaw abortion and opposed the recognition and acceptance of homosexuality.

In 1965, he gave a sermon criticizing Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement. In the 1980s Falwell was critical of sanctions against the Apartheid regime of South Africa, and called Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu a phony “as far as representing the black people of South Africa.”

In addition, in 1972, the US Securities Exchange Commission charged Falwell’s church with “fraud and deceit” in the issuance of $6.5 million in unsecured church bonds. And who could forget Reverend Falwell’s claim in 1999 that a Teletubbies character, Tinky Winky, was a hidden homosexual symbol.

To be clear, I am not celebrating the death of Reverend Falwell. In fact, I am very sympathetic to his family who must be grieving a huge loss.

However, I think the passing of Jerry Falwell gives us an opportunity to reflect on some of his more controversial policies, such as his attack on the seperation of church and state.

Falwell’s fundamentalist movement wanted the ten commandments posted in all schools, the teaching of intelligent design, opposed evolution, and advocated for the building of more Christian schools across the country.

Here in Ontario, the issue of the seperation of the church and state has primarily revolved around education. The provincial government has continued to fund Catholic schools, ignoring a 1999 UN ruling to end educational discrimination and the decisions by Quebec and Newfoundland to move back to single, publicly funded schools.

It's time to bring our education into the 21st century, starting with a confederated or unified school system that would allow for different types of schools in each jurisdiction. Trustees representing various religious and secular groups woud be part of one unified public body responsible for ensuring that the diverse types of schools follow a core curriculum that reflects Ontario’s values.

Local boards of education would be required to offer a choice of schooling options dependent on the needs of their communities and wishes of parents. Schooling options would range from those currently offered to religious schooling, and alternative models. Each board would ensure schools maintain high educational standards and offer a diversity of learning opportunities.

Independent schools would still exist outside the confederated school board system, but will not receive funding or tax rebates. The revenue saved would be reinvested back into our public system, allowing for the implementation of nutrition and outdoor education programs, smaller classes, more consellors, and other services that are lacking in our schools today.

Ontario should have smaller, community-oriented boards, that would ensure that special needs students don’t fall through the cracks and allow for more flexibility in serving the needs of local students as defined by geography, ethnicity, and lifestyle.

One-size-all is not working. Northern Ontario has high transportation costs while Toronto has high ESL needs. Unchecked support for any type of school without ensuring adherence to standard curriculum and Canadian values of tolerance and respect for other cultures, allows for a divisive system that breeds hate and intolerance.

Confederated or unified school boards, which have been endorsed by Ontario Secondary Schools Teachers’ Federation, would provide funding for all different types of schools, but under the public umbrella and using public school teachers and standard curriculum.

The funding of Catholic schools is a policy that is still stuck in the 19th century, and its not working.

So, rest in peace Jerry Falwell. Rest in peace hate, fundamentalism, and intolerance.

The fog of war

To an average citizen, the war in Afghanistan is growing increasingly more complex and alarming. An estimated 7,000 civilians and 54 Canadian soliders have been killed, and over 225 have been wounded since the war started in 2001.

Former Secretary of Defence, Robert McNamara, has described the uncertainty of war as a ‘fog’, which is simply too complex for human beings to understand and interpret. However, there is little uncertainty as to the motives behind the current conflict in Afghanistan. The reasons are clear.

Afghanistan is a strategic entrance to energy-rich Central Asia, bypassing Iran, the Russian Federation, and China. The United States and its oil corporations have long been working on a pipeline corridor running through Pakistan and Afghanistan. The NATO combat missions, under the banner of the International Security Assistance Force are concentrated in Southwest and Northwest Afghanistan where the oil and gas pipeline corridor from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean is to be located.

Before 9/11, the US had been in direct negotiations with the Taliban government trying to secure the pipeline. The Afghan President Hamid Karzai was chosen as a result of lobbying by UNOCAL, where Karzai was not only a former employee but also had been collaborating with the Taliban government in negotiations pertaining to the trans-Afghan pipeline. The NATO offensives in the western half of Afghanistan can be accurately described as securing the territory needed for the pipeline corridor through Pakistan and Afghanistan from the oil and gas fields of Turkmenistan and Central Asia.

Once built, the pipeline corridor would be a major victory over competing Russian, Chinese, and Iranian energy interests. Control of Afghanistan is vital in deciding the future balance of power in Central Asia and Eurasia, thus whosoever controls Afghanistan has great leverage in the resource-rich Eurasian landmass.

The mission in Afghanistan has cost taxpayers over $2.2 billion since 2001, and is projected to top $4.4 billion by the planned end of the mission in 2009. Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan contributed to a record-setting total of $1 trillion in global military expenditures in 2005.

Most of this budget was spent by countries that represent only 16 percent of the world’s population. In contrast, these same countries spent just $68 billion on international aid. This gross misallocation of funds perpetuates the tendency for nations to use force rather than cooperation.

The Green Party believes that international cooperation and peacekeeping will lead to greater global security. By developing fair economic relationships with emerging countries, we can promote human rights and sustainability. In times of conflict, we can continue Canada’s reputation as peacekeepers and add programs for ecological preservation to protect vulnerable ecosystems.

When applying our policies to the curent mission in Afghanistan, it is quickly realized that we need to bring all Canadian troops back home now.

In defense of bringing the troops home now, Michael Agus of Pickering wrote in a letter to The Toronto Star on April 10, that

“Just as President George W. Bush has done in the United States, Prime Minister Stephen Harper accuses anyone who questions the role our armed forces are playing in Afghanistan of not supporting our troops.

By questioning our loyalty to our country and our armed forces, both of these gentlemen seek to trample on any opposition to their policy of armed intervention in the politics of another independent country.

To set the record straight, we who oppose our troops fighting in what is, for all intents and purposes, a civil war in Afghanistan are undoubtedly our troops' most ardent supporters. It is Harper who sends our troops to a foreign country to die. If opposition to sending them to die is equivalent to not supporting the troops, then I am proud to be in opposition.

There are times when we should send our troops overseas to fight and die in battle, like when our country is under threat of war and when the liberties we hold so dear are in peril. Afghanistan is not one of those times.

We are fighting in a brutal country for a regime that does not have the full support of all of its people and where, if not condoned, the drug trade – which is the mainstay of the economy – is ignored. This is a country that for generations has functioned on a system of warlords, and the belief that we can force the Western idea of democracy is both misplaced and pointless. At some point, our troops will have to come home, if our federal government has its way, after many more die only for this country to revert to its previous and long-standing tribal form of governing.

Fighting a war in Afghanistan is not what our young men and women should be doing. We are peacekeepers, not warmongers. And don't believe for one minute that our being there makes it safer. We are more vulnerable than we have ever been.

Bring our troops home, now.”

Well put.

My address at the Annual General Meeting of the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres

Good morning. Today, I am here to represent the Green Party of Ontario and present one part of our comprehensive plan of action, which includes working towards the prevention and eradication of sexual assualt. Before I begin, however, I would like to take the time, on behalf, of the Green Party of Ontario, to express our deep condolences in the passing of June Callwood, a tireless advocate for social justice, and would like to honour her memory by echoing the words of The Toronto Star, which wrote on April 17, that:

“June Callwood has left behind an indelible mark on this city. Callwood showed all of us how to get involved and get things done. She became a driving force behind the creation of many social agencies operating in Toronto today. Altogether, she helped launch more than 50 social organizations to fight the injustices she saw all around her. These agencies are a testament to her spirit and determination. In addition, she was the first prominent Canadian to publicly support federal compensation for the Chinese head tax, a campaign that culminated with an apology from the federal government last year. And as co-chair of the Campaign Against Child Poverty, she committed herself to obtaining changes in public policy that would give all children a better start in life.

As well as the legacy of bricks and mortar she left, she also taught us an important lesson – that it is possible for one person to make a difference. As she once said so eloquently: "If you see an injustice being committed, you're not an observer, you're a participant." On behalf of the Green Party, I would like to acknowledge the loss of a modern-day hero, June Callwood.

I would also like take the time to acknowledge the critical work that the OCRCC does. On behalf of the Green Party, I would like to thank you for the valuable role you have played in working towards the prevention and eradication of sexual assault. The OCRCC has led the way in recognizing and communicating that violence against women is a political issue as well as social issue.

I wanted to start today with a passage from Elizabeth A. Sheehy, who in a speech in Paraguay in 1996 about the legal response to violence against women in Canada, stated that, “Any history of the development and changes in the law as it relates to women and male violence is also a chronicle of the history of the women’s movement and its relationship to law. In spite of the many legal advances violence against women has not subsided in Canada because women’s vulnerability to male violence and our ability to harness law are inextricably linked to those who hold power. Thus, while law is an important tool in advancing women’s equality rights, law alone cannot end this violence, until all women’s equality is fully realized.”

It’s time to use our democratic system to work towards full women’s equality, and I believe the democratic solution lies in the Green Party and our ability to change the face of politics in Ontario forever. As Canadian author and philosopher John Ralston Saul, has said, “Laws are made by parliaments, assemblies, and congressess. The direction of the next quarter-century will be set not by those with influence but by those who win power. And yet, the opportunity lies waiting – if only momentarily – for someone to set the agenda for a new direction.”

To seize the opportunity that lies waiting, and set the new direction for a Green agenda, the Green Party recommends policy based on principle. That’s what sets us apart. In the Green Party of Ontario, we have Ten Key Values that provide the foundation for our policies. Today, I would like to point out three of those values:

• Social Justice:

The key to social justice is the equitable distribution of social and natural resources, both locally and globally, to meet basic human needs unconditionally, and to ensure that all citizens have full opportunities for personal and social development. This includes a $10 minimum wage, lower income and payroll taxes, and investing in a strong social safety net. The Greens recommend a dramatic increase in the funding made available to rape crisis centres and a reduction in the case load of social workers. Lack of funding to social services and the incredible caseload of social workers are crippling our ability to assist individuals to be active members of the community. This increase in spending will be offset by a dividend of increased employment, increased detection of child abuse, sexual abuse and a increase number of individuals who become functioning members of society again. The cost of inaction is much higher than the cost of action.

• Gender Equality:

The Green Party supports the belief that a feminist perspective emphasizes cooperation instead of competition and nurturing instead of aggression. This perspective must be applied to the governing of our society. To work towards gender equality, the Green Party would advocate full funding for the legal costs of cases involving employment equity and cases that tackle the root causes of gender inequality, such as ignorance, injustice, and prejudice.

• Nonviolence:

Every act of violence delays our progress toward a just society. To work towards non-violence, the Green Party would tackle the root causes of violence, by offering every citizen access to post secondary education and would create tens of thousands of green jobs by shifting taxes off of income and payroll and onto pollution and resource consumption. The Green Party is committed to non-violence and to building a culture of peace and co-operation, by fostering the development of a green society to replace our present industrial society which creates multitudes of unemployed and underemployed. In addition, the Green Party of Ontario also is strongly in favour of a strict ban on all assault weapons and handguns.

Before I finish, I would like to go back to Elizabeth A. Sheehy, who concluded her speech in Paraguay, with the following, “Violence against women must be conceptualized as an issue of substantive equality, and it will be crucially important to clairfy and articulate that understanding as a long-term goal. A government committed to ending violence against women will take its leadership and advice from the women’s movement since that is where it will find the expertise and the political commitment to women’s equality.”

The Green Party is committed to social justice, gender equality, and non-violence. We believe it’s time to use our democratic system to work towards full women’s equality by building a coalition with groups such as the OCRCC, to address gender inequality and end violence against women. Thank you.

Toronto deserves more from their federal government

In retrospect, Ottawa’s latest federal budget had many interesting ideas, but very little to help Toronto. Packaged with an unprecedented public relations effort, the budget lacks any real substance when it comes to the key issues, and was a major letdown for public transit and the possibility of any action on improving the health and well-being of Aboriginal communities.

In reaction, John Ibbiston of The Globe & Mail, wrote that the budget “is as much about who is ignored as who is included. First and foremost this budget finally, tragically, buries the Kelowna Accord…The verdict can’t be escaped. The Conservatives lack the political courage to confront the overriding social policy challenge of our time: eliminating aboriginal poverty on and off reserve.”

Federal funding through the Kelowna Accord is essential to resolving the prolonged crisis facing Aboriginal communities. The Conservative government has allocated just $450 million (over two years) compared with $1.64 billion for the first two years of the previous government's commitment through the Kelowna Accord.

The incidence of Aboriginal infant mortality is almost 20 per cent higher than for the rest of Canada and Aboriginal people are also three times more likely to suffer from diabetes. Reviving the Kelowna Accord is absolutely necessary in laying the foundation for action on the health, education, and future prosperity of Aboriginal peoples. The Conservatives have once again failed to provide any action on improving the lives of Canada’s First Nations.

The budget was also a blow to public transit.

An editorial from The Toronto Star in the days after the budget was released, insisted that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s budget is, “out of step with Canada’s urban reality…A key area where cities had legitimately expected some movement was on a national transit strategy…Flaherty’s plans for an extended sharing of federal gasoline tax money hardly amounts to a transit strategy, because this cash is also spent on roads and other projects.”

Although it was nice to see Mr.Flaherty’s decision to borrow a plank from the Green Party platform by introducing a “feebate” tax incentive to shift drivers out of gas guzzlers and into fuel-efficient vehicles, the measure does not go nearly far enough.

According to a senior industry executive, the new fees on low-efficient vehicles will not create a great movement in reducing the amount of gas guzzlers we have on the road, telling The Globe & Mail that, “if they can afford $70,000 vehicle, they’re going to pay $72,000.”

However, the intiative can also take up to $4,000 off a Toyota Prius. But again, the impact is much too small to make a huge difference in the marketplace. As one cabbie told me, a Toyota Camry goes for about $25,000 with low maintenance and repair costs and great fuel efficiency, whereas the Prius is $40,000 with higher maintenance and repair costs and a little bit better fuel efficiency.

It’s a nice idea, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough. one eye-catching intiative to reduce the amount of gas guzzlers on the road does not add up to an effective transportation strategy. Far from it.

Tackling the problem of getting people out of their cars and onto public transit is a much bigger challenge. An editorial from The Star on Feb.27 read, “Few areas of public policy are more important, on so many fronts, than transit and transportation. The fast and efficient movement of people and goods represents the lifeblood of the region's economy. And that vital circulation is being steadily squeezed by traffic gridlock. It is estimated that congestion robs the economy of more than $2 billion yearly through late deliveries and lost work time.”

Getting people out of their cars could be as simple as increasing funding to public transit. Bruce Campion-Smith of The Star, reported on March 10, “If you build it, they will come. By the tens of millions. That's the tale told by a chart showing the roller-coaster ups and downs of ridership on Toronto's streetcars, buses and subways. It marks the milestones in transit investments – and the perils of service cuts. The message behind the numbers is clear: Investments bring new riders. During the heady days of the '70s and '80s, ridership grew by almost 70 per cent, topping out in 1988.”

Getting people out of their cars and on to subways, buses and light rail not only makes good economic sense, it will also have a dramatic impact on the quality of life in our cities. Readily accessible and efficient mass transit systems address a range of environmental and social problems, including greenhouse gas emissions and air quality, congestion, urban sprawl and noise pollution.

The Canadian Urban Transit Association says that it cost $4.2 billion to operate the country’s transit systems in 2005 with fare box revenues providing only $2.6 billion. Because federal and provincial governments contribute hardly any money to operating expenses, municipalities had to make up 94% of the shortfall. In the US, 30% of the shortfall comes from federal and state governments.

The Green Party has called on the federal government to make an immediate commitment to long-term funding for the nation’s transit systems as part of a national public transportation strategy.

Toronto deserves more from their federal government.