Professor Evangelos Michelakis at the University of Alberta has discovered a molecule that can help treat cancer:

A small, non-toxic molecule may soon be available as an inexpensive treatment for many forms of cancer, including lung, breast and brain tumours, say University of Alberta researchers ... In findings that "astounded" the researchers, the molecule known as DCA was shown to shrink lung, breast and brain tumours in both animal and human tissue experiments.

Wow!  Great news, right?  Well, maybe not:

But there's a catch: the drug isn't patented, and pharmaceutical companies may not be interested in funding further research if the treatment won't make them a profit.

I was watching CTV last night and this story left me speechless.  One commentator noted that she was aware of other times that good drugs were left undeveloped since there was no profit in it.

If ever there was a story that highlighted the hollowness of a purely for-profit, market-based viewpoint on the world, then this is it.  This philosophy gained traction in recent decades with Republicans in the US and big-C Conservatives in Canada.  It is no coincidence that individuals who successfully rose to executive positions in an industry that was developed in the same time-frame as this economic model would see the bottom line as the only thing to consider when they write their strategic plans.

There is a parallel here to what happened with the Conservatives on climate change.  Their economic philosphy is like a set of blinders that prevents them from seeing the bigger picture, and leaves them scrambling when changes in the national mood catch them off guard.  Without the blinders, it was fairly easy to see that we were heading towards a political climate that would demand real action on the environment.  But they kept trying to protect their wealthier supporters, and they got hammered on the issue.  There is good reason why such politicians are often called reactionary.  Canadians want leadership, not finger-in-the-wind political calculations on such issues.

I think Canadians instinctively understand that the profit motive is the something that they dislike about Conservative values.  In fact, I think it is quite likely that it will prevent the Conservatives from ever again positioning themselves to form a majority government.  When a conservative talking point such as "let the market decide" is applied to social constructs such as public health care, things start going wrong.  Again, this story illustrates that in spades.

As it happens, there is nothing inherently wrong with fiscal conservativism.  As readers know, the Green Party has a socially progressive, fiscally conservative platform that tries to reconcile the idea of fiscal responsibility with the idea that the purpose of government is to foster the public good.  This idea also has parallels in the business world.  For example, doctors and lawyers are highly-trained and highly-paid professionals, but these professions also have long-standing traditions of doing volunteer or pro bono work.  In large part, I think this is because these professions developed before flawed market-based economic theories started taking precedence over compassion and common sense.

At some point, large corporations need to start paying more than lip service to the progressive concept of giving back to their communities.  It is wrong to funnel the lion's share of their profits to top executives.  Ultimately, neither they nor the public good is served when an inexpensive cancer drug is left undeveloped while individuals in the community watch their friends and their family dying of cancer. 

Develop this drug, and fast, please.

UPDATE:  Visit Scott's DiaTribes for more commentary on this blog posting.

A new poll from Strategic Council for CTV and the Globe and Mail has the Greens at 8% and has increased speculation that there won't be a spring election, since no party has a lot to gain.  Given that such an election would be the third in four years, there are probably many voters and politicians who will be happy enough to give this one a pass.

I just found a website that maintains a rolling, weighted summary of poll results for Canada's federal political parties.  Kudos to Paul at Paulitics for putting it together.

It doesn't take much browsing around the internet or reading the newspapers to learn that all political parties have their fair share of critics, nay-sayers and others either angry or dismissive about the policies and actions of those parties. This is the nature of politics, and healthy debate is an essential component of a strong democracy.

There comes a time, however, that a debate can cease to be healthy. In my experience with the Green Party, unhealthy situations can arise when an individual has a certitude about their opinions that causes them to view differing opinions with hostility and suspicion. Our rapid growth has exacerbated the problem, since the changes, new people and new ideas that come with such growth can be alarming to those used to the status quo. In some cases, an individual may start to believe that a person or group holding a different opinion, or taking an action with which they disagree, could only be doing so because they are corrupt, incompetent or because they otherwise want to do the party harm.

In practice, things are never so black and white. Every decision made by party officials is made in the context of a multitude of circumstances that need to be examined in light of how we can best achieve the stated Constitutional purpose of the party: to advance the party’s platform, policy, values and basis of unity, and to contribute to the welfare of Canada. Given the ever-changing political and organizational environment in which the party finds itself, it is impossible that all of the actions taken by the party will conform to the wishes of any given individual.

There are a number of options available to individuals who think a decision is leading the party down the wrong path. Decisions made by units of the party other than council (e.g. EDAs or Provincial Associations) can appeal to council, and any resultant decision of council that does or does not change the original decision is binding on these other units. Council decisions of any kind can be reversed or amended by future council decisions. Councillors and other elected officials can be voted out of office. And the ultimate authority for decision-making is when members are in a General Meeting; such meetings are historically held every two years. If an individual cannot convince any of these groups to correct a decision, then it is most likely that the original decision accurately reflects "the will of the members" and should stand.

At any time a member or unit of the party can appeal to the party's five-member Ombuds and Appeals Committee (OAC), who, at their discretion, may or may not agree to consider the request and make recommendations about how to correct the situation. Although OAC recommendations are not binding they carry a lot of weight in party circles.

Unfortunately, these well-defined processes are not always followed by those who have concerns. I've known party members and officials who have withdrawn or limited their volunteer work with the party due to harsh and unfair criticism of their decisions and motives. In some cases false information about these members has been published. Others have received threats of various kinds or attempts have been made to harm them in their personal or professional affairs external to the party.

Let's examine in a little more detail some different examples of how a disgruntled person can handle a decision with which they disagree. The first set of examples will examine what happens when the disgruntled individual uses improper actions because their certitude about what is right causes them to be suspicious about the motives of others:

Example 1: Let's assume the person being accused is actually corrupt or otherwise wants to hurt the party. In this case, the corrupt person being accused is unlikely to be bothered by such accusations, and will continue on as before. They may welcome the accusations, knowing that such in-fighting can only harm the party. In this case, it is likely that the situation in the party will continue to deteriorate.

Example 2: Let's assume the person being accused is not corrupt, but is incompetent to some degree. In this case, it is possible that the individual will withdraw, which may seem like a victory to the disgruntled person. However, this victory comes at a steep price. The person who withdrew may well have been simply been in the wrong position at the wrong time. In many cases such a person, if treated with respect, understands that they might be able to better help the party in a different position. But if they are forced out, it is less likely that they will be willing to do other volunteer work for the party.

Example 3: Let's assume the person is capable and the decisions they are making are actually helping the party to grow. They recognize that an effective way to contribute is to get actively involved as an elected party official or committee member. As a result, they are more involved in decision-making and face a higher likelihood of making a decision with which a disgruntled member disagrees. Having a disgruntled member try to force out such a capable volunteer is probably the worst of all worlds.

In all cases, forcing someone out using improper actions may be acceptable and desirable to the disgruntled member, but it is harmful to the party as a whole. Whether or not the person who withdraws is capable, they have a right to their opinion. Also, elected councillors have a constitutional right to make decisions on behalf of the party outside of a General Meeting. Efforts by an individual to undermine that right ultimately serve only to weaken the framework on which the party is built.

The second set of examples will examine what happens when a disgruntled individual decides to try to use due process to correct decisions with which they disagree. In the following cases we can also assume that, rather than going on the offensive, the person would use most of their time to prepare a better solution to the problem and then present this option to those officials who are authorized to correct the original decision. They may also take legitimate steps to remove or censure the person by petitioning the OAC or council, or by working to elect someone better to the position held by an elected official.

Example 4: Let's assume that the person who made the bad decision is corrupt. It is likely that they will ignore any good recommendation and the disgruntled person trying to use due process will have to go up to the next level of authority to present these recommendation. Some time will be wasted, but at some point along the way it is likely that a good recommendation will be implemented. Additional effort will likely be required to remove such an appointed or elected official using due process.

Example 5: Let's assume that the person who made the bad decision is incompetent to some degree. It is possible that the person will not implement a good recommendation, but if the disgruntled individual is capable and continues to pursue the matter in a respectful and impartial manner, it is possible that the situation can be resolved with a minimum of hard feelings and wasted time. However, since an appointed or elected official has a right to make decisions (even if others consider them bad), then the disgruntled person may need to do additional work to replace them.

Example 6: Let's assume that the person who made the decision is capable. In this case, it is likely that they are willing to listen to good recommendations on how to fix problems, and will work to get them implemented. In some cases, there will be differences of opinion between two capable people. In this case, it is entirely reasonable that the elected or appointed official be allowed to stand by their decision.

The following table summarizes the above examples. It also ranks each situation on a scale of 5 to -5, where 5 represents making a good decision agreeable to all in the first place; 0 is the status quo; and -5 means the actions taken make things worse:

It should be clear that in all cases the best solution for a disgruntled person who wants to try to correct problem is to use due process. Although I think this is generally understood in theory, I hope that examining the practical downside of trying to use other, improper methods to correct problems will reinforce the importance of due process. Sometimes due process takes time and this can be frustrating. However, it is essential that members of the party treat others within and without of the party with respect, if we hope to rise above the mudslinging and partisanship that characterizes much of Canada's political discourse.

In practice, there will continue to be some individuals whose suspicions will cause them to attack and accuse. My recommendation to those who find themselves on the receiving end or are otherwise upset by such actions is to try to rise above it. Over time, ordinary members will see that the person doing the attacking is being unfair and harmful, and their influence will wane. In my experience, you will also earn the respect of those who are making positive contributions if are you able to handle such situations gracefully.

This is one of a series of articles examining how to fix key problems facing the GPC.

Columnist Chris Selley at Macleans has picked up on an incorrect meme from Richard Warnica at the Tyee that the Greens are "on the left" of the NDP:

Here is Macleans:

But as Vancouver's The Tyee pointed out last week in an interview with Layton, his party now finds itself surrounded by green. On its right, the theoretically rejuvenated Liberals are led by a man who named his dog after a climate change accord; on the left there is Elizabeth May's suddenly relevant Green Party, ready and apparently able to cherry-pick left-leaning votes.

And here is the Tyee:

On Layton's right is Stephane Dion. The long-shot former Liberal cabinet minister wrapped himself in green before marching to the head of his party in December. Now he can't make a public appearance without flaunting his dog Kyoto, and showing off his enviro chops. On Layton's left is Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green. The party has great brand recognition to go with its growing profile as the go to party on the greenhouse file.

It's been said many times before, but it bears repeating:  the Greens are socially liberal (e.g. on the left) and fiscally conservative (e.g. on the right).  We are far from being to the left of the NDP on most issues, and in fact we are regularly criticized by our own left-leaning members for being too far to the right.  Furthermore, our environmental principles pervade everything we do in a way that transcends traditional political left-right categorizations. 

I understand that reporters don't always have the space to get these points across, but I think that simplifying things to the point of saying that the Greens are "on the left" of the NDP is inaccurate and confusing to both readers and voters.  So, a friendly request to Chris and Richard:  please consider the above points when you characterize the Greens in future articles.

MINOR UPDATE:  Changed "fiscally responsible" to "fiscally conservative" to better make the point I intended to make.

The oilpatch wants nuclear power ... but a picture says more than a thousand words:

Scare-mongering?  A little.  If the picture doesn't concern you, then the over-abundance of other risks and problems associated with nuclear energy and nuclear waste might.

Nuclear is not a solution to global warming.  Energy reduction is seven times more cost-effective.

Up 3 points on the Bloc, and within 3 of the NDP.  But the telling point may be the asterisk at the end of the press release:

*Beginning with this quarter, Focus Canada is including the Green Party in the list of choices offered respondents when asking which party they would be inclined to support if an election were held "today."  This party has become sufficiently established with an appreciable number of Canadian voters, and with the Canadian media, to warrant this change. It is notable that this party: a) increased its share of the vote over the past two elections and now qualifies for public financing through Elections Canada; b) was competitive in the recent Ontario by-election, finishing second, ahead of two of the other major parties; and c) has a new leader who has been successful in gaining a public spotlight in the national media. Finally, the rise of the environment as a major national issue on which the next election will be fought makes it likely that the Green Party will receive added attention by the national media, if not by voters.

I am often surprised with the dismissive attitude some analysts take towards the GPC. Here is Henry Jacek, a political science professor at Hamilton's McMaster University, in an article about Jack Layton published today in the National Post:

"The Greens are going nowhere," he says. "Wake me up when they win a seat."

The Greens can and will win a seat, and soon. It will take a few years for us to have a larger impact in Parliament, but being so dismissive in the face of our steady increase in polling numbers and increasingly prominent national profile doesn't strike me as very good political analysis.

The important story here is not that we may or may not win a seat in the next election. Rather, the story is that if we can continue to make progress over the next few years there is the potential for a significant shake-up in Canadian society as a whole. Since we are drawing our support from across the political spectrum we will have the widespread support necessary to make our policies a reality.

Canada has the potential to be a world leader when it comes to economic, environmental and social innovations. Right now, the grey parties in Parliament are causing Canada to lag Europe and other areas of the world in all manner of policy-making. If rich Canada, of all places, can't be a leader, then how can we expect poorer countries to take the basic steps necessary to protect the environment?

Jacek and other nay-sayers may be snoozing, but the Greens are ahead of the curve when it comes to preventing a global environmental nightmare.

The following paragraphs appear halfway through a Globe & Mail article titled "Green movement getting a blue-chip hue" (probably soon to disappear behind their subscription firewall):

At the same time, a remarkable 7 per sent of corporate executives said they'd back the Green Party if an election were held right away. Gandalf Group principal David Herle said business leaders appear to have passed a "tipping point" where they have realized that "the economic upside is on getting with this [environmental] program, not on fighting it."

This is good news, but it isn't so remarkable.  Some pundits continue to portray us as left-wing but the Greens have been attracting voters from across the political spectrum for some time now.  The numbers for business leaders exactly parallel our polling numbers in general.

The departure of MP Wajid Khan from the Liberals to the Conservatives has left the NDP holding the balance of power in Parliament:

Khan's move across the floor gives the Tories 125 seats, leaving the Liberals with 101. The minority government would now need the support of 29 opposition MPs — the same number the NDP has — to pass legislation in the 308-seat Parliament.

So, let's revisit the promise in the article I linked to in my last blog post:

Updated Tue. Dec. 27 2005 5:47 PM ET  Canadian Press  OTTAWA -- Should Jack Layton's New Democrats hold the balance of power after election night, the price for its support is sure to include a move to a new voting system - one that could give Canadians a steady string of minority governments. ... "I don't want to be two votes short," again, Layton said recently. "I want us to have the ability to achieve what we came here to do. . .and proportional representation will be a big part of any discussion."

Is the time now right for pro-rep, Mr. Layton?

I see that Murray Dobbin closed out 2006 with another article about why Canadians should vote for the NDP. Fair enough. But Dobbin revisits some of his long-discredited arguments about the NDP relationship with the Green Party:

[The NDP] could propose a deal that would see Greens withdraw from winnable NDP seats in return for bowing out of Elizabeth May's Nova Scotia riding and pledging to make proportional representation a key plank in its platform. That would avoid the 2004 scenario where Green support defeated seven NDP candidates and elected Conservatives instead. There might be no deal to be made, but it needs to be tried.

There are enough invalid assumptions and arguments in this one paragraph that I'll respond to them one by one.

It could propose a deal that would see Greens withdraw from winnable NDP seats in return for bowing out of Elizabeth May's Nova Scotia riding

The Green Party and the NDP are two separate parties with distinct platforms and ideas. Canadians have a right to review both platforms and vote for either party as they see fit. It is undemocratic to support a backroom deal that would deny some Canadians this right, and it seems most likely that voters would turn against both parties if such a deal was struck.

Also, the idea that multiple Green candidates would need to be withdrawn in return for the withdrawal of a single NDP candidate shows that Dobbin's proposal can't be taken seriously. The Greens are within striking distance of the NDP in many national polls, and the NDP finished third with only 20% in the Cape Breton--Canso riding where Elizabeth is most likely to run.

and pledging to make proportional representation a key plank in its platform.

This has been a key plank of the NDP for the last two elections:

In an interview with The Canadian Press, Layton's eyes shone at the prospect of moving the country towards a voting system of proportional representation. That was key party issue in the 2004 campaign, but was pushed aside when the NDP came up two seats short of holding a real balance of power in the last Parliament.

Despite being a key plank, the NDP has never made any serious attempt to move forward the idea of proportional representation. If the issue was really important to a party with elected MPs then there are many concrete actions those MPs could take to move things along.  But in practice, the NDP uses the pro-rep argument to make political hay while ignoring the clearly identified need for electoral reform. The Greens have every reason to believe that the NDP would find another reason to not follow up on any promises about pro-rep, should it suit the NDP's political calculations after the election.

That would avoid the 2004 scenario where Green support defeated seven NDP candidates and elected Conservatives instead.

As I outlined here and here it is unlikely that support for Green candidates caused any NDP candidates to lose their elections.

When I read Dobbin's articles I keep thinking that he and the NDP leadership in general can't see the forest for the trees. As much as anything, it is the raw political calculations, empty promises and manipulation of facts that is causing Canadians to tire of the NDP and the other "grey" parties and move their support to the Greens. They see in us an opportunity to start anew, with a focus on making things better for everyone rather than making things better for a specific interest group, whether that group be business or labour. It will be a lot of work to follow through on these expectations, but we are getting more help by the day.

Some readers may have recently read that the Liberals are planning to contest all 308 seats in the next federal election. Others may be aware that Howard Dean has helped lead the US Democratic Party to victory in the recent mid-term elections using a 50-state strategy that aims to build up the infrastructure of the party in every precinct nationwide.

The idea behind these strategies applies doubly to the GPC. Our growth to date is attributable in large part to our success in running 308 candidates in the last two elections. Granted, many of our candidates didn't fare that well. But one of our primary objectives in running 308 candidates has been to raise awareness about the party and our policies, and in that respect I think we have been successful. We have been noticed by most Canadians, a necessary first step in building any organization, and many of those Canadians are starting to understand and trust us.

The next step for the party is to solidify this public understanding and trust, and this needs to be done on a national basis. In my opinion, a risk to our continued growth is that the central party will succumb to the desire to focus our resources in a few ridings by implementing a "beachhead" strategy to try to get someone elected soon, rather than implementing an "equitable distribution" strategy that aims to build the party nation-wide.

First, let's consider the arguments against the beachhead strategy:

1.  Although the beachhead strategy can and does achieve success relative to our past efforts, we are not yet able to get someone elected. It has been tried on three occasions that I know of: in Saanich-Gulf Islands in the 2004 federal election (Andrew Lewis won 18%); in Powell River-Sunshine Coast in the 2005 BC provincial election (Adriane Carr won 25%); and in London North Centre in the 2006 federal by-election (Elizabeth May won 25%). To surpass the 25% hurdle in most ridings I believe voters in that riding will need to see that we have a strong party across the nation.

2.  A failed beachhead strategy looks bad in the media, and too many failed beachhead attempts will start to raise doubts in the minds of voters that we can ever win. A better message to send out is that yes, we can and will win, but our primary focus for the next couple of years is our national growth.

3.  Since we don't currently have the resources to establish very many beachheads, it will be a fairly small matter for the other parties to divert resources to counter us once they realize what we are trying to do. The party doesn't yet have the experience of running a campaign where our candidate is at or near the lead for most of the campaign, and I suspect this will put us at a disadvantage when our candidate becomes a target.

Now consider the following arguments in support of an equitable distribution strategy:

1.  We are accelerating the rate at which we attract highly qualified new people to the party and we don't necessary know where our strengths lie. To focus too much in one area will lessen the support that we can provide these newer individuals when they first get involved. A minimal amount of support for new members can go a long way.

2.  Many of our policies have a national appeal and, unlike the other parties, we don't have decades of regional prejudices working to our disadvantage. We have the potential for strength everywhere and anywhere.

3.  In many cases our policies will significantly impact and change Canadian society, the economy, and so on. If and when we elect a few MPs we will still need broad-based support to help us educate voters about why the changes we are proposing are necessary.  We will also need help defending the party against the attacks of those who stand to benefit from maintaining the status quo. We are still several years away from having the membership base and riding-level EDA infrastructures in place that will allow us to do this.

4.  If and when proportional representation is ever implemented federally then the GPC will be far better off if we work to build nationally. Consider that an increase from (say) 5% to 10% across the country represents about 700,000 votes, but an increase from (say) 10% to 40% in a single riding represents only about 15,000 votes.

5.  It is a rare day that I don't read about the way the charisma and dynamism of Elizabeth May is attracting Canadians to the party. Her ability to get our message out is astounding, and the rest of the party needs to play catch-up: we need to add depth to our policy; we need more riding-level representatives to respond to questions reporters and voters have; we need to improve a central party infrastructure that is creaking under the weight of our rapid growth. These broad-based activities need to take priority to ensure that the party can back up Elizabeth's message.

In the last federal election we won 4.5% and had about 10 ridings over 10%. If and when we win 10% my guesstimate is that we should have about 20 ridings over 20%. When this happens we can revisit the idea of directing extra resources to a few riding-specific beachheads, but, in my opinion, it should not be done before that time. Instead, the party should continue to focus on building regional infrastructures that can support the campaigns of several candidates, until such a time as any one candidate and campaign can step up and run things on their own.

In one sense the next couple of years will be a proving ground for our candidates.  That is, those candidates who have the ability to create a team and be successful without a lot of hand-holding are the ones who will have (a) shown that they will use any resources provided by the central party effectively and (b) shown that they are capable of performing well when their profiles are raised on the national stage.

The GPC can and will elect someone at any time (no-one should underestimate Elizabeth in particular). When it happens, it will be a major milestone and accomplishment. By casting a wide net now we can help to ensure that there will be a wave of qualified candidate-MPs waiting in the wings to join her in Parliament.

This is one of a series of articles examining how to fix key problems facing the GPC.