Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - January 24, 2015, Winnipeg, Manitoba C M Y K PAGE A15 IDEAS �o ISSUES �o INSIGHTS THINK- TANK A 15 Winnipeg Free Press Saturday, January 24, 2015 T HE leadership crisis now engulfing the Manitoba New Democratic Party could be dismissed as a playground skirmish between petulant, ambitious politicians if it weren't for one significant, underlying narrative. The dissidents who have publicly demanded Premier Greg Selinger step down have alleged he violated the trust of Manitobans by raising the PST in the 2013 budget, a few months after promising he would not. Having lost the trust of voters, the dissidents believe the NDP needs new leadership. However, there is also a deeper cut to this story. The dissidents also allege Selinger was compromising the performance of government to punish those he believed were disloyal. Suggesting a first minister became so obsessed with punishing ministers he perceived to be disloyal that he impaired government operations is a devastating allegation. For the dissidents, the story goes like this: Last spring, faced with low poll results and an election on the horizon, Selinger spoke directly with every member of his cabinet and caucus about whether he should continue leading the party. We know key ministers and political staffers advised Selinger to step down and allow the NDP to rebrand going into the 2016 election. We also know Selinger declined that advice. Following these chats, dissidents claim Selinger became distant and even hostile. They claim he ignored their ideas and shelved their initiatives, all out of spite. This was the narrative offered by leadership candidate Theresa Oswald and other dissident ministers at a Nov. 3 news conference where they announced they were resigning to protest Selinger's leadership. " It's become clear that if you don't support the premier's point of view, your priorities and projects don't move up the queue," Oswald said. It was a position repeated in a live interview at the Free Press News Caf� Jan. 15, when Oswald said the premier was preventing those ministers he perceived to be disloyal from doing their jobs. " It made our jobs difficult if not impossible." If true, it's a pretty serious allegation that would explain, perhaps even justify, the brash actions of those who are trying to force Selinger out. However, is it true? That's an excellent question but one that anti- Selinger New Democrats - on or off the record - have yet to answer in any reasonable fashion. Oswald and fellow leadership challenger Steve Ashton claim the details of exactly what happened in the backrooms of government is confidential and not fit for public consumption. Frankly, that is a position that undermines the credibility of those seeking to get rid of Selinger. It suggests fear of losing the next election, and not a failure to govern, is at the heart of the mutiny. And that is a far less sympathetic narrative. Perhaps even more so than Oswald, who has been somewhat critical of Selinger, Ashton has failed to enunciate the need for Selinger to step down. Although Ashton has not suggested the operations of government were jeopardized by Selinger's leadership, he has nonetheless played the ' suck and blow' game to perfection. In his live interview at the News Caf�, he was pressed to explain why Selinger was unfit to lead. In fact, he several times complimented Selinger for governing through tough times. Why then, you may ask, would Ashton want to replace a sitting premier? Ashton would say the manner in which Selinger introduced the one- point bump to the PST to fund infrastructure - in particular his decision to forgo a legislatively required referendum - was " a mistake." When asked if that was enough to justify Selinger stepping down, Ashton deflected once again. " There's been far too much of New Democrats criticizing New Democrats over the past few months. I'm not going to add to that." The whole suggestion that there is a high road to walk in this story is preposterous. It was only last week both the Oswald and Selinger camp asked veteran NDP cabinet minister Gord Mackintosh to act as peacemaker to ensure the party is united after the March 8 leadership vote. That's clear evidence there is nastiness to this race. Selinger is the premier, he has already won an election and produced one of the largest majorities in NDP history. It is simply not possible to pay tribute to this man while at the same time trying to force him out. Selinger's only avenue of defence in this unprecedented challenge from within is to convince party members blind, lusty ambition is the only reason Oswald and Ashton are seeking to lead the party. And it is they who pose the greatest threat to the NDP's electoral fortunes. By their continued sucking and blowing, Ashton and Oswald are giving the premier at least a fighting chance at making that case. dan. lett@ freepress. mb. ca DAN LETT Selinger's foes suck and blow B EING in Arizona on a university campus and immersed in U. S. culture is fascinating generally, and especially so with regard to the debate about legalization and regulation of recreational use marijuana. I am currently teaching part time at Arizona State University as we develop a North American law degree program. What's really interesting in the Arizona and American news generally is seeing both the language patterns that are being used in the narrative as well as the legislative and political machinations around the issue of marijuana use. With Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska and the District of Columbia having made recreational use legal, many other states are having to address how they will react to increasing popular sentiment about the futility of prohibition. The word legalization seems to have an implication of broad permissiveness that leaves many observers opposed to the idea. It opens the door to lunatics such as journalist Nancy Grace arguing legalization means marijuana would be as available as Twinkies are to young children at the local convenience store. Moreover, the word legalization appears to also imply approval or even a subtle endorsement of the use of recreational marijuana. This contorted framing and condemnation of the word legalization is often done by people whose recreational vice, namely alcohol, which was also once prohibited, is almost a badge of sophistication. They are the ones who love their Napa Chardonnay but preach fire and damnation about Hindu Kush and somehow miss the fact alcohol is far more widely available and legal for potential misuse by children than is marijuana. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I've invested in a marijuana company and stand to gain personally from the reduction or elimination of prohibition. Probably like many of you, I have used ( and inhaled) marijuana occasionally and have never considered its illegality to be relevant to the rest of an otherwise law- abiding life. In the United States, some legislators and proponents have seen the need to change their approach from the word legalization to regulation. It's a distinction that may be an important consideration for how we frame the debate in Canada, because no one is suggesting marijuana for recreational use should be sold in an unregulated way. It needs regulation for quality and strength, just like alcohol. It needs regulation for who can sell it and where, just like alcohol. It needs regulation as to who can buy it at what age, just like alcohol. It needs a system of packaging and consumer information, including appropriate warnings. It needs a regime of enforcement and penalties for those who don't follow the regulations. And the list goes on. Furthermore, when you start to think of it in terms of regulation rather than legalization, people who continue to traffic illegally in marijuana should face more severe criminal penalties under the Controlled Substances and Drugs Act. One of the inherent objectives of regulation has to be to try and eliminate the black market for the stuff, so it's probably a good thing if the price of playing in that black market becomes even more prohibitive. I like the way legalization has morphed into regulation, and it might provide the right kind of political language our governments and public can accept. Regulation isn't an endorsement. It accepts that there may be harm if used by some people and therefore needs control. It doesn't mean government is telling people to consume marijuana just like alcohol regulation isn't a call to drink liquor. It's a tool to control behaviour in a way that's consistent with a desirable or necessary policy outcome, and of course, it's the way governments can levy and collect various taxes. On the legislative front, Americans have the ability to put various questions on the ballot when they go to the polls. Colorado legalized recreational marijuana use because the voters there told the state government to do it. Imagine that - the people actually have a voice! According to a Forum Research poll last August, about 66 per cent of Canadians support either decriminalization or legalization, and that number could easily grow in the context of a government actually describing the parameters of a rational regulatory scheme. Once the voters have spoken, it then becomes very difficult for state legislatures to change the law, and this has many politicians concerned that they get locked into a regime that can't be easily modified as they gain experience and want or need to make legitimate tweaks to the rules. In Arizona and several other states, legislators are starting to wonder whether its better to get ahead of the issue by taking the matter into their own hands and enacting state legislation that would be within their control rather than waiting for the voters to force the issue on the ballot. It's very refreshing to see this kind of democracy in action compared with the almost petrified system we have in Canada once our elections are over. If 60 per cent of Canadians think we should legalize or decriminalize marijuana, there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. In the United States, if the people's voice is loud enough, it rules, and although there's always a risk of mob mentality, there's something great about real- time democracy. Canadians seem to be OK with legal access to marijuana. We can learn a lot from the experience in the United States about how to establish a proper tone and scheme of regulation. It's time to do it. David Asper is a Winnipeg lawyer and businessman. I CAN'T make a cup of coffee, run a bath for my son or even turn on my kitchen tap without thinking about my trip last weekend. I live in Winnipeg and on Sunday I made the 2 � - hour drive out to Shoal Lake, where our water has come from for more than a century. In order for the aqueduct intake to supply water to us in Winnipeg, " at our end of the pipe" as they say, the Shoal Lake No. 40 First Nation, has been made into an artificial island. The media, including the Winnipeg Free Press , have been reporting for years on the chain of truly horrendous and ironic hardships this causes and the history of the broken agreements and ignored negotiations that allows it to persist. Before I went to Shoal Lake No. 40 to visit what they're calling their " Museum for Canadian Human Rights Violations," I knew the basic facts. The community has been under a boil- water advisory for almost 20 years because the polluted water that runs into Shoal Lake from Falcon Creek and Falcon Lake is diverted away from the aqueduct intake to the Shoal Lake No. 40 area. Part of this diversion is the canal that isolates Shoal Lake No. 40. Because there is no road access to the community, two separate plans for a water- filtration plant there have been cancelled. All the drinking and potable water they use is brought by truck in five- gallon jugs. This is just the beginning of the cruel set of ironies. The knock- on effects from not having all- year road access include lack of emergency services, no mail service, no school bus service, problems with solid and liquid waste disposal and an inability to develop economically in order to keep people in the community. During our visit, our very gracious hosts, including Chief Erwin Redsky, Stewart Redsky and Cuyler Cotton, noted this is the good time of year since the ice road across the lake means that they can come and go as they please, although for insurance reasons many companies and services will not cross the ice road. During the summer months, things are much worse. They depend on the ferry to get to work, school, shopping and everything else that happens outside the small community. These daily inconveniences are costly and prohibitive, but it is the freeze and thaw periods every fall and spring that are truly harrowing. Many lives have been lost to sudden and unexpected breaks in the ice. They call the initial freeze and thaw periods " Alcatraz Week." Of course, knowing the facts of a situation is very different from experiencing them and meeting the people whose lives are shaped by them. I also learned countless more details, especially as we walked along the dike that separates the clean Winnipeg water from the Shoal Lake No. 40 water. The dike was built using all the gravel from the First Nation, so they don't have gravel for their own roads on the island. And it is difficult and expensive to truck gravel in due to the access problems. Being in Shoal Lake No. 40 drove home to me how colonialism persists in Canada today. As is all too common across Manitoba and Canada, key resources such as water and land are secured for one community through broken agreements and false promises to aboriginal communities who have lived caring for the land and water for countless generations. And bureaucracy and paternalistic governments at all levels fail to address the situation. And in this case, Shoal Lake No. 40 is not asking for much. Many of these problems could be solved with a bridge and a road. In the last few years, the community used volunteer labour to construct the Freedom Road, a winter road that is also passable in the summer as long as there's not too much rain and a temporary bridge over the canal. Apparently, the City of Winnipeg has committed to build a permanent bridge, although it would connect only to the temporary road. If the City of Winnipeg, the Manitoba and Ontario governments and the federal government would commit to funding the construction of the Freedom Road as a permanent road, many of the hardships could be mitigated. What struck me was the incredible resilience, resourcefulness and openness of the community. I was even more struck by the energy and creativity they have put in trying to educate us, here in Winnipeg, about where our water comes from. There is great documentation of this on their website, sl40. ca. Many of the people there have been reliving the tragedies of friends and family falling through the ice and lack of emergency medical service in order to make us see the consequences of our clean water. In constructing their Museum for Canadian Human Rights Violation, the people at Shoal Lake No. 40 draw our attention to the particular ironies of the newly opened and much- celebrated Canadian Museum for Human Rights. The CMHR celebrates the healing power of water, connects it to First Nations values and uses Shoal Lake water for the pools of water in the Garden of Contemplation, as do all buildings in Winnipeg. " You've heard of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights now come visit, 100 years in the making, the Museum for Canadian Human Rights Violations," is how the pamphlet created by the band uses humour and irony to make its point. " Exhibits made possible by the Government of Canada" and directions that tell you to follow the pipe that provides the " healing waters" featured in Antoine Predock's Garden of Contemplation to its source. This is just the latest in decades of patiently trying to raise our awareness. Back in 2007, a majority of people in the community marched all the way to Winnipeg to bring attention to the need for their Freedom Road. This event seemed to have initial success garnering a double- page article in the Free Press complete with loads of pictures. Stewart Redsky told me many children as young as seven were so excited to participate in this five- day march. But after nothing happened, these children, now teenagers, have little reason to hope we in Winnipeg will ever hear and act on their story. As a Winnipegger, I think we need to tell our stories, living at this end of the pipe with clean water at the price of injustice and a poignant example of continuing colonialism. We need to tell our politicians, municipal, provincial and federal, that we should be able to have clean water without participating in and perpetuating this historic wrong. We should be able to pay our water bills without wondering if we should really be making the cheque out to Shoal Lake No. 40 instead. Peter Ives is a professor of political science at the University of Winnipeg. DAVID ASPER Time to regulate marijuana The price of comfort Shoal Lake suffers for city's clean water By Peter Ives MARY JANE MCCALLUM PHOTO A convoy of vehicles makes the treacherous trip across an ice road at Shoal Lake. A_ 15_ Jan- 24- 15_ FP_ 01. indd A15 1/ 23/ 15 7: 33: 22 PM ;