An interview with Green Party leader James Beddome

I sat down with The Green Party of Manitoba leader James Beddome for a coffee at Stella's on Sherbrook. I do not guarantee that the transcript that follows is 100% accurate, but it is at least a close approximation:

*****

Anybody Want A Peanut?: So, some background: you're studying to become a lawyer ... what brings you into this nasty, dirty arena of Manitoba politics? Why not work as a lawyer for 10 years, make a pile of cash, and then enter politics?

James Beddome: You know, politics has always been my passion. At a very young age I have wanted to get into politics. I think I looked at it the other way: law was going to be my way into politics, along with a Political Science and Economics degree. So for me, the question is why not be involved, and how could I not be involved? I literally am a little bit of a political animal, so that's why I am involved and I'm enjoying it as it goes along, and I hope that I get elected as MLA, but if that doesn't work out, then the plan B is I go through law school and I'll see what happens in four years.


AWAP: You did a great job in the televised debate.

JB: Thank you.


AWAP: You have been excluded from other forums, though you seem to be getting more recognition in the media. But as a party that does not have any members in the legislature and does not have a full slate of candidates, why should the Green Party be considered as one of the big players?

JB: I think that all parties should be included, and I extend that beyond the Green Party, because I think it's really important that we get the ideas out there. I think voters are smart enough to be able to determine which ideas are good for themselves, and to not include the smaller parties creates such a structural disadvantage in the sense that all you hear is the status quo ideas. I think it's good for people to hear new bold ideas, even if they're not ready to agree with them, because I think it helps to create change in and of itself.


AWAP: But you have to draw a line somewhere...

JB: Our argument was that we had candidates in 56% of the seats -- 32 of the 57. We did want a full slate. We're going to keep pushing for that four years from now, so our point is we want some credibility, we are becoming a provincial party: we've got a candidate in Flin Flon, we've got a candidate in Kewatinook, we've got a candidate in Brandon, we've got rural candidates and we've got candidates in Winnipeg, so it's not as if we don't have fairly accurate diversity and representation. I should put another diversity plug out there: we have a 50% female slate, we've got I think five candidates of aboriginal and/or Métis descent, and two people you could identify as visible minorities as well as people who are part of the gay and lesbian community, so we have full diversity in Manitoba.


AWAP: Okay. So... tax: In the past 12 years the tax brackets have rarely been increased, resulting in a de facto tax increase every year, and we have one of the lowest basic personal exemptions in Canada, meaning overall we are one of the highest taxed provinces in the federation. Does the Green Party promote any meaningful tax reform?

JB: Ya, we propose bold tax reform, and I have to be frank and admit that we know it will take a while to implement, so what we're trying to sell as a party is that, look, we'll give you the 20-year vision and work towards it rather than people who only look at their four year fortunes. So, to go to our tax plan, it actually deals with what I talked about on the debate which is the universal basic income, and it would work as a de facto positive tax exemption.

The way that we want to structure it is such that everyone is guaranteed a certain set minimum -- let's say $10,000 per year.. maybe that's too high, but it works well for the numbers that I'll use here -- so, $10,000 per year is what people would be guaranteed to receive -- about $800 per month -- so you have that positive amount. Now, on every dollar you earn ... let's go high, let's say 50% -- now I know that's going to scare voters but this is just hypothetical ... but if we're taking 50% of every dollar you earn but you're guaranteed $10,000, when you start earning $20,000 you've actually paid fully back into the system. The system would operate in such a way that it ladders up as you earn an income. It's a more fair way that we think we could reform the tax system. Now it would require a lot of cooperation from the Feds, and we think we could replace a lot of social service programs -- employment insurance, other social services, employment and income assistance programs -- with this, while still retaining some special programs for people with disabilities. So we think it's a bold way to reform the entire tax system. I'm not naive enough to think that it will happen overnight, but that's why I hope we get into the legislature and have some of the resources available to research this, talk to the people in the tax department and have a little more weight as to why I'm requesting this information ... why I should be entitled to have it.


AWAP: One thing that I write a lot about on my humble little blog is Bipole III. We've talked a little bit about this before. If I understand the Green Party's position, it's that the Bipole III line doesn't need to be built at all. We can use our existing capacity and build on that with conservation and clean energy. Is that more or less correct?

JB: That's fairly correct. I would just caution it with saying that we may build it at some point, but what I think is most important is that our own regulator, the Public Utilities Board, is warning that we may lose money on these export deals that we're signing. Maybe over time we'll be able to pay down this debt, but of course Manitoba Hydro wants to increase its debt to equity ratio. We don't have a Manitoba energy plan. We have some good programs like Power Smart, but I don't think we've taken energy conservation seriously in terms actually trying to focus on demand management. Further to that, we think that there is a lot of capacity in southern Manitoba for the 1000MW of wind energy that's already licensed. That adds to your reliability factor because you have some local electricity -- granted intermittent electricity, so there is a need to overcome some of the technological barriers with intermittent renewable energies -- but the fact that we have the base of hydro that we can generally count on I think very much helps us, because we can learn to become leading edge managers in what they call "smart grid technology" and how you manage energy flow with intermittent energy and a baseline of stable electricity, in our case hydro. So, it's sort of like "let's hold off and think this thing through." We don't have to build it right away. The real driver for building Bipole III is Keeyask and Conawapa, so what we're trying to say is let's not just talk about one line, let's talk about the whole energy development strategy and then let's try to map out an actual plan, and I think there are so many more possibilities that might open up if we look into creating an actual plan.


AWAP: Your hair always looks great.. Do you have a stylist you can recommend, or certain products that you use?

JB: (laughing) Really I don't even have a consistent styling product that I use, but thank you. The Free Press has some pictures of my hair dangling in my face so it doesn't always look great.

AWAP: Actually it's better that way.

JB: Oh you think the hair in the face works? Okay..


AWAP: As a former employee of AECL, one thing that caught my eye was a promise by your party to stop, if I understand it, the transportation of nuclear products across Manitoba. I can tell you, as far as risks to the population goes, this is one of the smallest ...

JB: It may be a fairly small risk. I know that they have very secure cement containers. I guess for us the biggest problem though is they want to store it up in Creighton Saskatchewan, is basically the issue, right? They want to store waste coming from Bruce in Ontario in Saskatchewan, and what that means is the waste is going to be transported through our province, and I think that Manitoba needs to stand up and say something. Yes, the risk needs to be mitigated, but not only that it's wear and tear on our highways .. we're basically on the losing end of the stick on that one on so many levels and we need to stand up and say something. Why should we get pushed over by Ontario and Saskatchewan? I do know that it's a small risk but there are a lot of people who are concerned about it and I suppose Greens are not particularly in favour of nuclear energy. The waste factor makes it problematic, so part of it comes from that.


AWAP: All of the other party leaders seem to be in favour of hiring more police officers for Winnipeg, even though we have high per capita staffing levels already. I know you have a different idea about that. Explain ...

JB: Ya, it's about actually interacting police with the community. Basically what we would like to do is embed police officers in the same community on a regular basis. So in my riding here in Wolseley you would have, I don’t know the staffing levels so this is hypothetical, let's say you had 6 police officers, that's 2 police officers per day on a rotating shift. So let's just say .. you would have two officers who regularly work in Wolseley all the time. They would get to know the people in the neighbourhood. If you get to know the people in the neighbourhood they will be more comfortable confiding information and you will also be able to figure out the patterns and habits of people and you'll have a better idea of where you should be keeping a closer eye, and we think that's a way of making policing more effective. The province already funds police officers here in Winnipeg and in other places in Manitoba, and basically what we're saying is, we're fine with that but here is how we want you to implement it. There is a lot of power with the province to actually work with municipalities in terms of offering funding but making it conditional on certain conditions.


AWAP: I was going to ask you about that too, because Winnipeg is a big battleground and all of the parties are planning things for Winnipeg: soccer fields, police officers -- here is how many we want you to hire and how to deploy them. Why is it the province's responsibility to sort of micromanage the city this way in the first place? Why not allow city hall to deploy officers as they see fit, or build soccer fields as they see fit?

JB: Well, because inevitably city hall is going to be coming to the province for money. That's just the reality of finances in Canada. If we're going to be funding the municipalities -- and we should be better funding our municipalities in Manitoba -- then let's try to do it in such a way that we can work constructively together. Too often we have the city and province working at opposite aims, and it's the citizens that pay. We get ineffective government and we get waste of your tax dollars because one level is trying to do one thing and the other level is trying to do the other, and it creates needless expenditure of time and money.

AWAP: Alright, so last question: there are I imagine lots of undecided voters out there who don't who to vote for because they are all promising the same thing or they're disengaged. For somebody who is going to the polling booth on Tuesday, what would you tell them if you could say something? What should be the one issue on their mind?

JB: If they don't want to vote then they need to understand that they're letting somebody else make the choice for them. If they're scared into voting for one party or the other because they're being told they have to vote strategically, they need to understand that a vote isn't just a vote for the party that's going to win, but you should vote with your conscience, vote with your heart, vote for who you think would make your best representative. You're not voting for the Premier, you're not voting against Hugh McFadyen or Greg Selinger. You're voting for the representative of your local area. People should to take that into consideration as well. I'm finding a lot of undecided voters here in Wolseley. This isn't a riding that the conservatives are going to take. This is a riding where you have a choice of a number of people and you have to make that choice.

AWAP: Good. Thank you very much and good luck in the election.

JB: Thank you very much. It was a pleasure to do the interview.

*****

The Green Party finished a distant second in Wolseley in 2007, but they have since increased in stature on the political scene. If they have a chance to win a seat, this is where they would do it. It will be interesting to watch on election night.

An interview with Livio Ciaralli, candidate for council

This is not the first time that Livio Ciaralli has run for council in Charleswood/Tuxedo. He ran four years ago as well against Bill Clement. This time the race is wide open, with seven fresh faces and no incumbent. I found Livio door-knocking out in the drizzle the other night, and asked him some questions over coffee:

Peanut: There are seven people running in Charleswood. How do you break away from the pack? How do you differentiate yourself from all of those other candidates?

Livio: I think I have differentiated myself: by buying my own bus pass, by taking transit, by biking to work, I'm sending a message that I'm going to be like everyday normal people. My councillor's allowance: I won't spend anything on myself. The full funding will be going back into the community. That's a line in the sand I've drawn, and if people pay attention to it, they can ask the candidates "what are you going to do for me?"

The other issue that's going to differentiate me is that I won't be talking about little problems like crime and roads, because there is one bigger issue at hand and that is taxes and funding, so hopefully people will understand that. That makes me completely different than any other candidate so far, including the mayor, Sam, and Judy. I'd almost say that my platform is a mayoral platform.

P: Alright ... but there are issues within your ward ...

L: When you're living in Charleswood, it's almost like living in cottage country. You know we have crime, but, I mean my son got hit in head with a beer bottle. That's the kind of crime we're talking about: petty theft, teenagers doing what teenagers do. Sure you'll have the odd really bad thing that happens, like a murder happened over here, but that can happen anywhere. But in Charleswood there's really no major issues ... except on Wilkes we're starting to have some issues with traffic. So there's pockets with issues, but when you look at it reflected throughout the ward of Charleswood Tuxedo -- there really isn't that much of a problem compared with other wards.

P: I know that you don't want to raise taxes. I read on John Dobbin's blog that you would like to find efficiencies. A lot of people say that when they're running for office, but when they get in they either can't find them or if they find them they can't capture them. Do you have a plan B? What happens if you can't get those efficiencies?

L: I think I can get the efficiencies because I'm a contractor. I've done a lot of work with the city over the last 15 years so I see how they mis-handle contracts. They know my price but to make things easier they pay the general contractor's price. There's no cost control there. On one contract they marked up my price 100%. That's huge.

The other way we can find efficiencies is through materials management. They have to change the way they do business. They have to be aggressive. Right now they just put it on the web site, and three bids and they're done. But the biggest thing they have to do is convince the civil servants to get them to the point where if they save money on a budget -- let's say they save $20,000 on a project, the city gets $10,000 back and the other $10,000 can be a bonus. So hopefully that gives them incentive that if emp A is working and emp B is not, then employee A will say "Hey excuse me, we're talking about our bonus here".

P: To get things done, you're going to need support of other councilors. Are you a persuasive guy? Are you going to rough them up a little bit?

L: I am a bit rough around the edges, but I hope the ideas I have will appeal to them. The main platform issue should appeal to all of them, right? To go and get proper funding from the province, or to have a constitution for Winnipeg going forward. That should appeal to all of them. Now, maybe council is a day to day thing that gets mired down in specifics, but I want council to elevate itself because we need to plan for the next 100 years. We can't be managing all these little items and having all our energy sucked up because of it.

So you put your plan forward and you start working the tables and you see where their heads' at, and you start trying to get your vote. But council is dominated by a conservative mentality now, and I want EPC gone because it's no good for council and maybe with it gone council has more power because they all get the same information at the same time.

P: What's Judy's position on EPC?

L: Oh .. she choked on the question. Judy wants EPC. She wants the same power Sam has. She wants control of EPC.

P: That's why you'll never get rid of it. If the mayor wants it ..

L: Well, if the mayor wants it, sure he's got control of EPC right off the hop, but I'm hoping that with a change of politics at city hall, people start realizing that either it's gotta change to like it was with Susan Thompson where it was a rotating basis through council ... it's gotta be a point where somebody can't control it with set votes.

P: What do you think of Wyatt's idea to put a plebiscite on the ballot ...

L: Sorry. It's just more bullshit. You know, it's been talked about before. It skirts the issue. Eventually we have to stop paying taxes. No matter how many times they want to empty your pocket ... it's the only thing they can do. It's lazy. You want more money? Go get it from the province. That's where the real fight is. If you're too scared to do that, don't come asking to raise taxes of any kind of level. Cause you know, they'll raise it 1%. Five years, 10 years down the line, hey there another 1%. Sorry .. I just don't buy it.

P: Shifting gears a little bit here -- at this stage of the game, what's our best option for rapid transit: BRT, LRT, or flying reindeer pulling sleighs?

L: Hmm Mmm .. I like reindeer.

P: Word has it that's what Sam is planing for when he get's re-elected. LRT is gone and the reaindeer are in. It will be more expensive, but he thinks it will increase ridership.

L: Well, aside from the fact that's it's the wrong thing to be building -- either LRT or BRT -- and in the wrong spot, and we really don't need it as much as people think we do ...

P: We started it.

L: Right, we started it. Do we have the money to complete it to the U of M?

P: I believe we have the money to complete BRT.

L: Then complete it. Complete it. Because Sam is not really going for an LRT. He just wants to transfer the BRT money which is about 100 mil into infrastructure, then he wants to dip into the federal government. People have to understand how Sam operates. What he's doing to you with BRT/LRT, he's going to do to the federal government once he get's his LRT money. He's going dance around it until he picks up that money and puts it back into BRT. It's a shell game, but that's the only way he knows how to operate. So ... we will get BRT, but Sam's game is to get 100 million bucks more. Like he did it with Glen Murray's stuff: when BRT first came on. He took that money and put it into community centres, right? And yet we still have a BRT going. You understand that shell game he's playing? He got a ball park paid for himself. Sam is probably the greatest socialist there is when it comes to taking taxpayers' money.

I kind of support it that way. I would support him if he looked at major platform and elevated himself to that level and said, "you know what? This is something I'm going to fight for. You guys can squabble about crime and all this, but I'm going to elevate it to this level." and I think he would be the greatest mayor in Winnipeg. I think he can do it.

So did I answer your question? Finish the BRT already, but if he's going to get more money back ... I'm just saying that no matter what he does we're getting a BRT.

P: Oh yeah?

L: Yeah. There's no way that Sam thinks that BRT, changing to LRT, is rapid transit. And if he thinks it is then he's an idiot.

P: Out of all four mayoral candidates, who do you like the best?

L: You know what? If Sam came out and made a statement about Crocus and said I'm going to try to pay some of this back ... even though it's just symbolic, I think he would be the best man. I think that was a crooked deal made by crooked people behind closed doors. And, if he kind of looks at changing the way he is I'd probably go with Sam.

Judy: she blew it with me on EPC right off the hop, and she blew it with the tax increase. We all we need money; that's just not where we want to go get it. I can't support her. I can work with her, but I can't support her.

So right now I'll give one shot with Sam and we'll see. Because, I don't know ... I don't know ... if he doesn't give me my answer I'll just spoil my ballot.

The other two guys, I've looked at their stuff and, their stuff is .. well ... if my apserations are this high and their's are this low, I can't even look at them.

P: Here's the most important question: do you think Leah Hextall is sexy?

L: I don't even know who she is.

P: She's a sports anchor on CTV. If I mention her in the blog it will get more hits and you'll get more exposure. Especially if I also mention "bikini" or "lingerie".

L: If you asked me about Mary-Agnes Welch...

P: Mary-Agnes Welch? What do you think of her?

L: I like red heads.

P: I have quote here: something about eradicating poverty and homelessness in ten years. How do you do that?

L: Well, the funding formula. The province gets $3.7 Billion each year in federal transfer payments. I think the city should get a provincial transfer payment. Since we have over half the population in this city, I'm not going to ask for half, I'm going to start with $600m or $700m. With that money, our operating expenses, the taxes that we pay everyday, will go towards operating the city. With the transfer payment we can use that to fund our infrastructure, and then these projects that you want to roll out over the next ten years, we can pay for them.

Now I understand that at a provincial level they're going to have to find efficiencies, but we can't go ahead with a city our size on our own. Sam just said we have a $4.7 Billion infrastructure deficit. How deep are your pockets? How deep are taxpayer pockets to pay for that? We have to stop making bad decisions.

P: Do you think we can get anywhere with the NDP, or do you think the conservatives might do a better job of helping out the city?

L: Council has one year to plan. There's an election in one year. If council can agree that unicity is finished, that the City of Winnipeg act, although it was very good -- it had ambition -- lacked funding to reach those goals ...

( -- diversion into a conversation about types of coffee after waitress stops by -- )

Oh .. again .. if we make that statement, we have one year to tell the three political parties: which ever one of you agree to this, we'll give you Winnipeg. If you don't agree to it, we'll do whatever we can to let people know that you don't want Winnipeg to be independent and responsible for it's own role. You want to control us forever.

So, it's got to end at some point. It's a discussion that one day will have to happen unless you guys want to pay taxes for the next ten years. You're going to be paying them, there's no doubt about it. Let's assume that Russ gets his 1% sales tax, so on everything you buy there's an extra 1% ...

P: and the province and the federal government will match it

L: Ya, OK, they'll match. So let's assume they'll match it. That's not bad. I've got no problem, instead of this funding formula, with taking 1% of all PST paid in Winnipeg as funding as long as there's no strings attached, and the check has to be in the mail - Jan 2 - or else how are you going to pay for the 55 new cops?

So all our problems boil down to money. The question is where do we get the money? Tax, or getting our fair share of what we already pay? When you think about it, if the province can get $3.7 billion from the feds ... their budget is $10 billion ... if they can get 3.7 how the hell do you support a $10 billion province on the 6.3 that you collect? It's insane.

Community funding is the same story, where if you set up a fund for communities and the financial departments invests it for them, the return is split between 15 communities, and then it goes to the community where grassroots can spend doing what they need to do. But without funding you can't put in a program like that.

P: Last question: what's your favorite Italian Restaurant?

L: I like Bella Roma. (The location of our interview.)

Interview notes: accuracy of the interview is not guaranteed, but should be pretty close. All typos are mine. Next time I do one of these I am asking 'yes' or 'no' questions only. Thanks to Livio for his time, and for picking up the tab at Bella Roma.