$18 for 68 cents of gas: minimum charges must go

(Written for Root Issues in the Barrie Examiner under the title "It's time to place the onus on the energy user"; the print version was incorrectly published without the critical first two paragraphs)

Last month I got a rather odd bill from Enbridge. It was for a modest $18.68 (plus tax), but according to the breakdown, I used 68 cents worth of natural gas, for the privilege of receiving which I paid $18. Actual gas was less than 4% of my bill; I paid 26 times more just to be a customer. This can’t be right, can it?

I can explain but not justify this discrepancy. I have an extremely efficient furnace and solar water heating, so we don’t use much gas, especially in summer. But the real reason the bill was so far out of whack is because Enbridge only checks my meter every second month, and estimates for their monthly bills between. Yet despite having had this furnace/heater combination for 4 years, they still can’t estimate right. On the months they guess, they bill me far too much; when they check the meter, the bill is either low or even negative. It seems their system can’t comprehend a conserving customer. If they went to two-month billing like PowerStream, or if their computer got smarter, that problem at least would go away. But it would still leave the problem of minimum billing.

Our gas, electric, and water billing all share a common flaw: a minimum or basic charge you have to pay every month regardless of how much you use. That amount is fixed and mandatory, no matter how much you conserve. As a result, the harder you work to save, the more of your bill is fixed charges. Sure, those who use more pay more, but their customer charge pales next to their consumption fees.

A better, fairer way to bill would be to eliminate customer charges, and raise usage fees slightly to make up for the loss. That way, your bill would simply be a multiple of how much you used, and you’d save more by conserving (or pay more for wasting). When you tank up your car, do you pay a fixed station customer fee on top of the gasoline price? No, those costs are rolled into the price of each litre. So why pay more at home? Although there are infrastructure costs to hook us up, the major bills these days come from upgrading and upsizing our supply to meet growing demand. We must build new power and water treatment plants and drill more gas wells, at great financial and environmental cost. We all end up paying those costs, whether we conserve or waste. And that’s not fair.

Last year Barrie City staff proposed lowering the sliding volume-based water fees and making up for it with higher fixed customer charges. Luckily our Council saw the wisdom in making wasters paying for waste, and kept the sliding rate fee structure. Kudos to them, and let’s see if that same attitude can be used to further lower fixed fees and put the staggering costs of new infrastructure where they belong – on the shoulders of those who use and waste the most water, gas, or electricity.

Erich Jacoby-Hawkins is an educator, father, volunteer, and politician.

Note: although writing this column was sparked by the surreal gas bill I received, the conclusion is inspired by conversations with friend and colleague Dr. Peter Bursztyn of Living Green.

Greens grassroot roots can be very tangled

(Written for Root Issues in the Barrie Examiner)

The most interesting thing times in political parties are leadership contests. Leaders represent the ultimate expression of the party’s “personality”, and in our personality-obsessed culture, that means a lot. Conservative leader Stephen Harper is famous for his tight personal grip on the party message and the government he leads, while Stephane Dion’s poor communication skills hamstrung his entire Liberal Party’s image during the last election. The only Green Party member that most Canadians can name (if they can name any) is leader Elizabeth May.

All major Canadian political parties choose their leaders the same way: wait until the previous leader retires from old age or leaves in disgrace, then have a race. Leadership reviews typically follow elections, especially if they don’t win or increase seat count. Anything under 75% is a sign that the leader needs to move on. But as long as the leader is winning elections or otherwise keeping the members happy, the term has no set limit.

Did I say all parties? There is one notable exception: the Green Party of Canada, which has fixed terms: 2 years until 2006, when it doubled to 4. This set term reflected the general feeling of the leader as the party’s first spokesperson, but at most first among equals, not in charge of anything. Of course, the party had no seats, few members, even fewer candidates, and no assets, so there wasn’t much to lead. Greens come from a grassroots tradition which resists “leaders”, or any top-down structure. Previously 99% of Canadians – even party members! – would be hard-pressed to name the Green Party leader. The position was filled mainly to satisfy Canadian electoral law.

Not a problem until recent years when the party grew exponentially, receiving significant votes, hiring full-time staff, and a paid, full-time (rather than volunteer, part-time) leader. Now leadership actually matters to party success, and a serious stable of contenders vie for the position.

By the rules, there was to be a leadership race this summer, May’s 4-year term expiring in August. But she has not lost a leadership review (as we have no review process), and led the party to more votes in the last election than ever before. In other parties, there would be no race. A fall election looming, it’s awkward timing for a leadership contest; there are good reasons to change the rules.

But rules don’t change easily in the Green Party. It’s the grassroots thing again. Our constitution can only be changed by a vote of the whole membership, which only happens at our general meetings every other year. Motions are pending to change the rules, delaying a leadership race, but will require 60% support at August’s national convention in Toronto. And some members believe a contest now would promote the party and grow membership, so support the status quo and want a race.

Barrie party members will discuss these motions at a public information session at 1 pm this Sunday at the Barrie Public Library. If you’re interested in how parties make their own rules, you are welcome to attend to listen or speak. If nothing else, it’s a chance to see the kind of debate which usually takes place deep in the back rooms.

Erich Jacoby-Hawkins is an educator, father, volunteer, and politician.

Barrie's Caribfest to be the greenest of all

(Written for Root Issues in the Barrie Examiner, published in a slightly abridged version under the title "Caribfest showing great environmental flair")

Culture is a very important part of our economy, because we can grow culturally without depleting our natural resources. Singing, dancing, sharing ideas and stories should be things we can do without having to worry that we are harming the Earth in the process. Yet if cultural events aren’t planned with ecology in mind, they can trample the natural world we want to celebrate. I’ve been to concerts and festivals and been dismayed at the litter left behind, or the energy unnecessarily wasted.


Barrie’s Caribfest is eager to avoid this pitfall, and instead be the “greenest” Caribbean festival in the world. In the process, they will probably be the greenest festival of any type in the region, besides Ecofest itself.

Many weeks ago, Caribfest organizer Ricardo Rowe contacted me, in my role as a director of Barrie’s chief environmental NGO Living Green, to seek our assistance in “greening” Caribfest. At first I was a bit skeptical, since it isn’t a request we’d ever received before, but signaled that we were open to providing whatever help we could. In my mind were already a number of concerns I expected the organizers would overlook. I asked him to send us a written proposal.

When he did, I was pleasantly surprised. Caribfest anticipated and addressed several major concerns I had in mind. Rather than use noisy, stinky diesel generators, stages will hook up to the electric grid and festival sponsor Bullfrog Power will contribute the electricity. To avoid litter and landfill, not only will they have staffed waste sorting stations, but will mandate that all food vendors use uniform biodegradable dishes and containers. And they will offset their unavoidable carbon emissions by planting trees.

This was a fantastic start! It immediately upped the ante, so our board brainstormed more advanced measures to help further green Caribfest. We proposed bike corrals, so cyclists could come to the fest without worrying about parking or bike theft. We suggested event guests and attendees be provided information on getting to Barrie and downtown using transit or shared rides. We recommended that any trees used to offset carbon be planted either in Barrie or in the Caribbean, rather than some unspecified location. And all of those suggestions were enthusiastically adopted! Caribfest even plans to plant food-producing trees in poor Caribbean regions which will not only absorb carbon, but will provide other ecological, health, economic and social benefits.

The greatest challenge, especially for an outdoor summer event, is avoiding the modern plague of throwaway bottled water. Yet the Caribfest organizers are forgoing some lucrative sponsorship opportunities and doing what they can to encourage people to use refillable bottles and our own Barrie tap water, which meets the highest quality standards in the world. They are also asking food vendors to consider locally-sourcing their ingredients in future.

I am happy to say that Living Green is extremely impressed with the commitment of the Caribfest committee to reducing their ecological footprint. If you want to support this kind of approach, your first chance is this Saturday, July 10. Boarding the Serendipity Princess at 8:30 pm is the 6th annual Caribbean Dinner & Dance Cruise. An exclusive evening of food, music, costume and dance awaits. Tickets are limited, so visit Ticketbreak.ca or the Roti Jerk at 69 Dunlop West to get yours soon!
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins is an educator, father, volunteer, and politician.

Alliance to End Homelessness working together

(Written for Root Issues in the Barrie Examiner)

After settling in Barrie more than a decade ago, one of the first groups I volunteered alongside was the Simcoe County Alliance to End Homelessness, also known as SCATEH or “the Alliance”. Serving on the Mayor’s Task Force on Affordable Housing, I worked closely with the Alliance’s founder Mandy Hillyard, who also co-chaired the Task Force.

Over the ensuing three years I learned a lot about housing and poverty issues in Barrie, and when the Task Force was disbanded, I became a member of SCATEH myself. Mandy has moved on to other responsibilities, but the Alliance continues to expand and advocate.

The Alliance has chapters in the main cities in Simcoe County, including Barrie, Bradford, Collingwood, Orillia, and Midland/Penetang. Each chapter is made up of like-minded individuals representing agencies that deal with homelessness, such as shelters, soup kitchens, food banks, drop-in centres, and housing agencies or providers. Groups whose clients are at risk of poverty or homelessness also take part, such as mental health, addictions, or agencies serving those in trouble with the law. In Barrie, the chapter’s members include the Elizabeth Fry Society, Grocery Assistance Program, Barrie Housing, the Salvation Army, Youth Haven, the Women and Children’s Shelter, the David Busby Street Centre, Samaritan House, Ontario Works, the Green Party, Canadian Mental Health, etc.

These partners meet monthly to collaborate, because their portfolios often overlap. They share information about programs or opportunities, as well as needs they may have or what they can offer. They also work together on joint events, such as last fall’s Day of Compassion, which offered food, winter clothing, health services and information free to the impoverished or homeless to help them prepare for winter.

Another traditional event is the “Night Out in the Cold” each fall at Fred Grant Square, which in recent years has included a peaceful march from the Armories to the Memorial to raise the profile of the Chapter and poverty-related issues. After a free meal for 200-250 people, an outdoor debate is held (during election years) where candidates take questions about poverty and family budget issues from members of the public. This year will be no exception, so watch for an announcement of the event in October. As a candidate myself at three of those debates (06, 07 and 08, at the municipal, provincial, and federal levels) I can vouch that they offer the toughest questions and one of the most genuine audiences. An easy gauge of how much a candidate cares for the most vulnerable is whether they even show up for this event, and how sincerely they can address the issues.

The Alliance’s next activity is an Open House tomorrow (Friday June 25), from 9 – 10 am at Trinity Anglican Church, 24 Collier St. This “first annual” event is designed to educate potential new members who can help expand and carry the Alliance forward. After refreshments, Barrie chapter chairperson Paula King will introduce the Alliance’s activities and goals, and then attendees will be able to ask questions, network with each other, and see if there is a role for them as an Alliance member.

The Alliance’s motto is “Working together to end homlessness”. If you are concerned about poverty and homelessness in our community, and would like to play a role in addressing them, then you should definitely attend.

Erich Jacoby-Hawkins is an educator, father, volunteer, and politician.

Renters don't deserve to be denigrated

(Written for Root Issues in the Barrie Examiner)

Stereotyping is a common but harmful practise. Too often, we pre-judge someone based on some grouping they fall into, blaming them for offenses committed by other group members. Done by race we call it racism; by ethnic group, bigotry; by gender, sexism. Most of us realize the harms of these “isms” and try to avoid them, yet still fall into other traps of prejudice.

Debates in Barrie reveal harmful stereotypes about renters, whenever there is a proposal for apartments or townhouses near single-family homes. Every proposed high- or even medium-density development faces the same basic objections: that it will be filled with odious tenants who will cause the buildings to degrade, lowering nearby property values and destroying quality of life. Stereotype alert!

Periodic discussions about allowing “second suites” (dividing a larger house into two separate living units) drag out the same misconceptions. A recent article in the Barrie Examiner stated matter-of-factly that Ward 1 is “plagued by second suites”. I don’t know if that is a quote, a paraphrase, or an editorial insertion, but in any case it’s wrong in several ways.

First, second suites are a form of accommodation, not a disease. Any bad effect must be caused by the occupant, not the unit itself. To say that these apartments “plague” an area implies that any and all occupants are problematic, which is untrue and unfair.

But more importantly, the well-known problems of “party houses” in the city’s north-east are NOT due to second suites. In fact, registering second suites could help reduce the problem.

A “party house” is a home rented out bedroom-by-bedroom to too many people, often students, all sharing one household. In many cases the basement or even living rooms are converted into more bedrooms to rent. The people sharing the home generally share the same attitude towards noise or mess, which can be a big problem if that attitude is lax.

In contrast, a registered second suite requires that each unit has its own kitchen, bath, and living room, and meet fire code. This actually reduces the number of rooms available to rent, so fewer people can fit in the house. It also means two different tenants, one for each unit, so they end up keeping an eye on each other. Neither wants trouble with their upstairs/downstairs neighbour.

But the root issue is that owners and renters are both just people. The common perception that owners treat their homes and neighbours well while renters abuse both is just a stereotype. There are homeowners with run-down properties and tenants whose yards almost sparkle. You can’t tell just by looking at a house whether the occupants own or rent. And renters live in single-family neighbourhoods for precisely the same reasons as people who own there: because they enjoy that lifestyle.

If more existing houses could be legally converted into two-units, it would create more housing of a safe, affordable nature. Discouraging it leaves potential renters with little choice besides inappropriate housing. The only thing accomplished by banning second suites is a worsening of the housing crisis, and the creation of more “party houses”.

Most of us start our adult lives as renters, and most of us will end our lives renting, too, even if we own a home in between. When we denigrate renters, we denigrate ourselves.

Erich Jacoby-Hawkins is an educator, father, volunteer, and politician.

In need of class, politicians go back to school

(Written for Root Issues in the Barrie Examiner)

One of the more rewarding duties of a party representative is visiting schools. This week I was invited to discuss sustainability with Mr. McGill’s grade 9 geography students at Barrie North. (Apparently they asked other parties, but only myself and Barrie MP Patrick Brown accepted.) This is part of what MPs do to earn their salary, while for me it’s 100% volunteer, like all my other political activity.

Certainly students today are much more aware than when I was their age. In advance, they studied a number of topics and watched the documentary “The End of the Line”, about worldwide overfishing. They prepared various questions about sustainable fishing, logging, farming, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and other aspects of sustainability.

For most of their questions, I was able to suggest a number of policy approaches that our government could take, if it chose. Just about any goal can be reached if we put our minds to it and pull in the same direction. Yet in Canada’s case, we seem to be taking two steps back for each step forward.

The kids wanted to know what Canada is doing about suggested international treaties to ban bottom-dragging trawlers, and reduce overfishing of the bluefin tuna. Sadly, in both cases, Canada has lobbied against those sensible actions. Meanwhile, our badly mismanaged Pacific salmon fishery may soon go the way of the north Atlantic cod.

One thing the kids had learned about, and support, are industry-NGO partnership initiatives like the Marine Stewardship Council, which certifies sustainable fisheries. If you only eat fish with the MSC logo, then you avoid contributing to ocean life destruction. But MSC is a voluntary initiative, and for everyone who chooses it, there are many more ignoring the looming extirpation of edible fish. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) seems to be more successful, perhaps because forests on land are much easier to monitor than fish swimming in international waters.

They wondered how Canada could reduce GHG emissions, especially from the tar sands. A moratorium on new tar sands operations would be a good start. But rather than exhibit prudence, our government hopes to strip-mine even more. Every time a new, official GHG reduction target is announced, it’s weaker than the last. Of course, none of them mean much anyhow, since none come with a realistic implementation plan.

For 90 minutes, we discussed how Canada can reduce emissions from the tar sands, protect our fisheries, and preserve our forests. Not being in government, my suggestions were mainly about what we could or should do. On Friday, MP Brown will be meeting the same class to tell them what the government is already doing, or plans to do, for sustainability. (What he’ll talk about for the other 85 minutes, I can’t guess). I know he’ll enjoy meeting this class of bright and concerned students, and I’m sure they’ll have good questions for him.

****

(Follow-up from January) Some good news finally came from Haiti this week: my foster child Valdrist has survived the earthquake and ensuing chaos and is fine. Nine other foster children weren’t so lucky, and my heart goes out to their families. My thanks to plancanada.ca for all their hard work in Haiti and around the world. If you have room in your heart, please consider adopting a foster child.

Erich Jacoby-Hawkins is an educator, father, volunteer, and politician.

If I had a billion dollars...

I love this so much - a great parody of one of my favourite songs - that I can't settle for posting just a link, I gotta put the whole thing right here. Then I changed a few words and added news links.

(with apologies to the Barenaked Ladies)

If I had a billion dollars (if I had a billion dollars)
I'd build you a lake (I would build you a lake)
If I had a billion dollars (if I had a billion dollars)
I'd buy you furniture for your lake (maybe a nice Muskoka chair, or a hammock)
If I had a billion dollars (if I had a billion dollars)
I'd buy you a steamboat (a nice reliant paddley-wheel)
If I had a billion dollars, I'd buy your vo-o-o-o-o-o-ote

If I had a billion dollars
I'd build a gazebo in your town
If I had a billion dollars
I'd install solar lights, then move them around
If I had a billion dollars
Maybe we could put a 10 metre jumbotron in there
(You know, we could just take the steamboat there and hang out,
even though it's nowhere near the summit
Maybe we'll see Tony Clement! or unlicensed security!
I love unlicensed security!)

If I had a billion dollars (if I had a billion dollars)
I'd buy you rubber bullets (but not real rubber bullets, that's cruel)
If I had a billion dollars (if I had a billion dollars)
I'd buy you an exotic meal (like a cattail salad, or shiitakes)
If I had a billion dollars (if I had a billion dollars)
I'd buy Mackenzie King's remains (all them crazy Prime Ministerial bones)
If I had a billion dollars, I'd buy your vo-o-o-o-o-o-ote

If I had a billion dollars
We wouldn't have to walk to the shore
If I had a billion dollars
We'd build it in Toronto cause it costs more
If I had a billion dollars
We wouldn't have to eat Kraft Dinner
(but we would eat Kraft dinner because we're trying to showcase Canada to the world here and Kraft Dinner is Canadian, right?)

If I had a billion dollars (if I had a billion dollars)
I'd buy you a canoe (but not a real canoe, that's cruel)
If I had a billion dollars (if I had a billion dollars)
I'd buy you a fence (maybe concrete, or razor wire)
If I had a billion dollars (if I had a billion dollars)
I'd buy you a sound cannon (haven't you always wanted a sound cannon?)
If I had a billion dollars (if I had a billion dollars)
If I had a billion dollars (if I had a billion dollars)
If I had a billion dollars...

I'd be Steve.


Original by Jennifer Smith, a.k.a. Runesmith, who seems to be a Liberal - but I'll forgive her.