025 – Transcript

Just Right Episode 025

Air Date: October 4, 2007

Host: Bob Metz

Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this program are those of the participants, and do not necessarily reflect the views of 94.9 CHRW.

Clip (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine S07E24 – Taxes and social programs):
Quark: Taxes go against the very spirit of free enterprise. That’s why they call it free.
Brunt: The government needed revenues to fund the new social program. Wage subsidies for the poor, retirement benefits for the aged, healthcare for…
Quark: Stop, stop, stop. I had no idea things had gotten so bad.

Bob Metz:
I’m Bob Metz, and this is Just Right on CHRW 94.9 FM, where we will be with you from now till noon. No, no. Not right wing. Just right.

And welcome to the show this morning. Our last show actually before the Ontario Provincial Election, which will be taking place on October 10th of next week. The number to call if you’d like to join the conversation today. It’s 519-661-3600.

Or you can email us at justright@chrw.com. And this being the last week before the election, I am joined in studio today for your interest and for your, perhaps, consideration in the upcoming election by NDP candidate for London North Centre Steve Holmes. How are you today, Steve?

Steve Holmes:
I’m doing well considering all of the talking I’ve been doing lately.

Bob Metz:
I imagine. How’s the campaign been going so far?

Steve Holmes:
It’s been very enjoyable. Most of the people that I’ve met on doorsteps have been very receptive. I’ve had an awful lot of conversations with people, which sort of seems to be in my nature and things have been going quite well.

Bob Metz:
Now, you know, I’m looking at you now. We’ve met for the first time, although we spoke a little bit on the phone last week. I’ve got to be honest with you. You don’t strike me as my typical image of an NDPer. You’re about my age. You’re wearing a suit. You’re wearing a tie. You’re looking a little conservative today.

Steve Holmes:
Maybe more in the business of representing people.

Bob Metz:
Well, tell us a bit about yourself. You told me a little bit before we went on the air, but let’s share that with the public.

Steve Holmes:
Sure. I grew up in East London. I’ve been fortunate to actually purchase the house I grew up in. So I’m in the neighbourhood that I grew up in now, even as an adult, as you pointed out. I have been a city bus driver for 33 years, and so I’ve had an awful lot of conversations with a lot of people. Not all of them pleasant, but an awful lot of them have been very positive with ideas for people that they think would make a positive change in not just government, but social issues and everything else. So that’s sort of where I come from. I’m the president of my local now at the ATU 741 that represents all of the unionized employees of London Transit.

Bob Metz:
I wasn’t aware of that. We’ll have to talk about that a little later.

Steve Holmes:
Sure.

And that’s sort of where the basis of representing people came from, which actually made up my mind an awful lot about whether I would run or not in this election. I also sit on London District Labor Council, and I represent people at WSIB through an organization called the Occupational Disability Response Team.

Bob Metz:
So you’ve been in the public eye for a while then, even within the sphere of your employment and your basic environment. What was it particularly that attracted you to the New Democratic Party as opposed to the Liberal or the Conservatives or one of the other parties?

Steve Holmes:
Well, early on in my union life, I realized that our union actually helped form the NDP, and it was interesting to see that our view and mind has been all along that the NDP really has working people’s views in mind and take those forward recognizing that the not top of the socioeconomic scale are represented more fairly, I think, by the NDP than any of the other parties.

Bob Metz:
And aside from the basic labor background issues, what are the other main issues as you see it for the party? I understand there were six fundamental planks of the Howard Hampton campaign this time. Is that correct?

Steve Holmes:
Yeah, and they’re all related. Everything that we look at, I mean, I find my position really kind of odd in that I see relationships between healthcare and transportation, relationships between affordable housing and the environment. And it seems to me that every time you take away or you think about taking away something or think about adding something, you have to see how it impacts on everything else. Perhaps it’s because of all the activity I’ve had in public transit and seeing how, for example, the Middlesex Health Board looks at public transit as being important for healthcare, in that it assists in cleaning up the air, the fewer cars we have. Then, of course, the less pollution there will be in the air and then the less lung disease or those kinds of things we have.

Bob Metz:
So you see all the issues related, but what are those six major issues?

Steve Holmes:
Well, they break down the fairness in recognizing that we need accessible healthcare for everyone, including dental care. We recognize that some of the things that have been taken out of the delisted services were things that helped us prevent a lot of healthcare problems. And we think that if we could relist those and increase, as we said, the dental care so that people have access to early opportunities, I guess you should say, to recognize diseases, then we’ll end up spending less down the road. So that’s one is the healthcare.

Another one is the environment. Howard mentioned early in his campaign, a program that he calls Green Lights. We talked about conserving. Absolutely the first thing that we believe you have to do if you’re going to do anything environmental is begin to conserve.

And we have to start doing that as soon as possible. And along with that becomes a decentralization of a power generation. In other words, going to things like wind, solar power and things like that. Getting away from the, no matter what the source, other than perhaps the generating station at Niagara Falls that uses water, all of the others that the technologies that man has come up with since horses cranking wheels around. Seems to be whether you’re talking about coal fire generators or nuclear power generators, they all seem to cause, in our view, big problems for the environment. And so we need to find different ways to not just generate power but also to reduce the use. And so that’s our Green Lights program and the environment.

Bob Metz:
Well, you know, it’s funny just speaking about the power issue itself. I’ve been conserving electricity naturally. This is a consequence of its price you want to save on it. But it’s not worth it saving it anymore because we have all these government run monopolies. I can look at my current London Hydro bill, for example, at our office. We use about 30 some odd dollars worth of power for the month and yet our bill is close to 100 dollars. There’s a 45 dollar transmission fee. There’s a debt retirement fee.

There’s other things added, including taxes on top of that. Where is there any incentive for someone like me to want to save electricity? In my case, I’d want to use more just to get my money’s worth because what little I can save out of that 30 dollars a month, I’d have to cut back tremendously to save a dollar or two. And is it worth the effort? Because the rest of the money I won’t save. There’s no payoff for me.

Steve Holmes:
I hate to do this because I’ll talk a little bit about a guy named Adam Beck. The only reason I say I hate to do that is because he was a conservative. But we think he had the right idea. Back then…

Bob Metz:
I’m going to come back to you on that. I’m going to ask you why you think you’re different from conservatives.

Steve Holmes:
In some ways. Anyway, Adam Beck went around telling everybody that we should be supplying power at cost. And the whole idea was that back in those days, there were private companies that were generating their own electricity. A lot of them were, again, in my realm, public transit properties that were electrifying their street railways and stuff like that.

And they realized that since they were already having to put telephone poles up and or hydro poles up, we call them telephone poles, hydro poles up now to run the wires out for their street cars to run on. Then why don’t we just start selling it to the public and selling it to other companies? So they started doing that.

Several of them were becoming very rich at it. And the people, like yourself, the way you’re looking at it now, felt, yeah, I’m paying an awful lot for this. Why am I paying for it when there’s this opportunity? They started looking at the water power at Niagara Falls and said, why don’t we make the water falling down, turn a generator, generate electricity and have it for everyone? So Ontario Hydro was born and the whole idea was that industry and the public could then have it have affordable.

Bob Metz:
Well, what was the situation before? My understanding was that before that there were some private producers of power and they could produce it at an affordable price to people because otherwise they wouldn’t have been using it at all and they wouldn’t have been in business. Isn’t that how it works?

Steve Holmes:
Well, it would be nice if it worked that way. The problem was people were complaining because there was too much gouging going on or what they appeared to be. And the hydro was not available to the general public at the same rate that it was available to industries. Some industries were, because they were generating their own, were charging.

Bob Metz:
You did mention quite correctly that Adam Beck, being a conservative and he’s talking about this philosophy of power at cost. I think that philosophy expands beyond just electricity but to a lot of services where for some reason most politicians and most parties believe that they can deliver some kind of service at cost. I as a consumer on the other hand don’t care about cost, I care about the price.

And of course when government provides a service the price is free but the cost is very high but it’s paid by the taxpayer. Like to me what would the difference be if I could buy say from two different power generators or two different phone companies or whatever. I could be paying a lower price to company A who is just barely making even and therefore or breaking even and therefore giving me power at cost or an even lower price at company B but they’re making a lot of money way above cost.

They’re making a big profit yet the price to them is less than to the price, you know what I’m saying, than to the other company that’s running less efficiently. So why should I be concerned about how much something costs as long as the price is affordable to me?

Steve Holmes:
Well I guess if price is the only thing you look at then…

Bob Metz:
It’s not the only thing you look at value and quality and all that but that’s all part of the consideration.

Steve Holmes:
Recently I had an opportunity to write an article for our newsletter at work and I pointed out that in London we used to in Ontario presumably but I’ll use the example of London. We used to look at success as for how well a company was doing by how much it was contributing to society. If we look at for example maybe now it’s a bad example but the McCormick’s plant. For a long time it was seen as a very successful company because it employed a lot of people, a lot of people that worked there were then members of society that were purchasing from the local economy, keeping the local economy going and that was seen as a measure of success. And I think recently we’ve changed around so that no longer is the measure of success how much a company is putting back into the economy or the local economy.

Instead they’re seeing how much money they’re turning over to their stockholders. So when you look at how much you pay for goods often it’s better off for the economy that you’re living in to purchase goods that are either manufactured here or have better working conditions for their employees

because that’s more success going back into the local economy.

Bob Metz:
And if I have $100 and I can buy say something for $20 from the states that would cost me $30 or $40 here in Canada let’s say, I would still have $80 left after buying that product from the states rather than Canada. That would be a comparative advantage that the states would have over us in terms of that pricing which isn’t going on right now with the way the Canadian dollar is but let’s just suppose, how is that better for the economy? When I’ve got more consumer dollars left by always buying at the lowest price for the quality that I want to have I don’t see how paying more particularly benefits anyone. We’re in a global economy or is that not what the NDP supports?

Steve Holmes:
I would say probably not. I think you have to look at if the global economy supported workers’ rights, civil rights and all those things then perhaps we could believe in that. What we see from the labor movement and presumably from the whole of the NDP we see that there are powers that are being levied and levered that are not taking into consideration environmental issues, human rights issues, workers’ conditions and all those things. Although you could buy the stuff in the states perhaps for a lesser price, I guess it’s not enough information to make a decision on because if you’re buying something in the states that’s perhaps made in China and it’s meeting the American standards but doesn’t meet ours for example about paint on toy.

Bob Metz:
Well that’s a separate issue I would think. We’re just talking not about poisons and harmful things but just consumer goods that people would like and that aren’t harmful in any particular way.

Steve Holmes:
But that’s what raises the cost on some goods. Is the protections for the purchaser at the end results?

Bob Metz:
Well that would be trade barriers and you’re actually arguing against trade barriers. That’s what raises the prices of things.

Steve Holmes:
The prices, you’re arguing about the price. I’m talking about the protection of the consumer.

Bob Metz:
Well the consumer is only concerned with the price. Again I don’t care if company A or B is making orders and money.

Steve Holmes:
You’ve made a large assumption that all consumers only care about price.

Bob Metz:
They may say things but when it comes to pulling the dollars out of their wallet that’s exactly what you’re measuring is real demand not wishing or anything of that nature.

Steve Holmes:
I have a lot of friends who don’t shop at certain stores because although they advertise that they have much lower prices they don’t care for the working conditions or…

Bob Metz:
Oh I’m like that myself. I’ll go to the store, it has a better service. Okay let’s leave that one for now. We’re going to take a break. 661-3600 if you want to ask any questions or join the conversation. When we come back we’ll talk a little bit more about the labor issues. And we’ll be right back.

Clip (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine S04E16 – Forming a union):
Rom: We’re going to form a union.

Clip (Dave Broadfoot – Postal):
A U.S. postal person said neither rain nor sleet nor gloom of night shall stay these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds. A Canadian postal person said we don’t have to take this crap. We’re out of here.

Bob Metz:
Welcome back to Just Right. I’m Bob Metz and this is CHRW 94.9 FM where you can join us at 519-661-3600. I am joined in studio today by NDP candidate for London North Centre, Steve Holmes. Welcome again Steve.

Let’s carry on the conversation right now. Is the NDP still the party for labor?

Steve Holmes:
Yes.

Bob Metz:
Is that a growing constituency? I’ll tell you what my difference is. Of course you already know that you and I come from totally different ends of the spectrum.

So that’s already to be taken for granted. But why would you consider the NDP a party for labor and who do you actually mean by labor? Do you mean the average worker or just unionized workers?

Steve Holmes:
I not only include the average worker but I also include those trying to enter the workforce. Those who have been in the workforce have retired, who want to either continue as a volunteer or sort of having a second job after they’ve retired.

Just to keep themselves busy. All of those people I think are, we consider part of the labor force and that’s part of the people that the NDP I think stand up for.

Bob Metz:
What does the NDP offer to the labor segment say that you don’t think the other parties do?

Steve Holmes:
I guess if you look back to when the conservatives were in power there was an awful lot of strife going on about unions and about labor. And labor was told, and I can say we were told, that we were a special interest group and we wouldn’t be listened to and we didn’t really have a relevant voice.

And yet there was an awful lot of issues that we kept bringing forward that now have been picked up I think by some of the other parties and realized they’re important.

Bob Metz:
Do you not agree that labor is a special interest group?

Steve Holmes:
I don’t necessarily know either way if you think labor is a special interest group or not. I guess my question, I think it was an improper statement to make in the way it was made in that we were told we wouldn’t be listened to because we didn’t have a relevant voice because we were a special interest group.

Bob Metz:
But I’m asking it as a generic question. Would you say labor is a special interest group?

Steve Holmes:
We could very well perhaps be seen as one but it depends on why.

Bob Metz:
Well I agree with you and I think business is a special interest group too. And so our voters.

Steve Holmes:
Exactly. That was our point at the time was whether we’re a special interest group or not you should be listening to the ideas that we have and the things we were trying to bring forward.

Bob Metz:
Well as I understand that labor or sorry union representation of labor has been falling lately and it’s a smaller percentage of the total workforce. If unions are such a great thing for the average worker why wouldn’t the trend be going the other way?

Steve Holmes:
Well society dictates different things at different times and I think when unions were in bad or worse times, when there were less protections for working people and when there were less things in place that automatically legislation and stuff like that. Then there was more need for labor to organize and for people to unionize. And I think perhaps some people see now that because some things have been entrenched in legislation I think they see a little more or a little less need rather for unions.

And I think they’ve just become less necessary in some people’s view. But in my view not all unions are the same. Most of the unions in London, I also sit on London District Labor Council, most of the unions in London participate a great deal in a lot of social programs. In a lot of necessary what we see as necessary organizations and stuff like that.

Bob Metz:
Well it’s interesting you said I once debated Sid Ryan on a television show in Toronto and one of the things I mentioned to him as a representative of labor is that labor seems to be doing a lot of lobbying, political lobbying. And I jokingly said you guys are lobbyists, we just happen to do a little collective bargaining on the side.

But you see this a lot. I mean he was on the show railing against Israel doing all sorts of things that are supposedly being said in the name of labor and workers and members of unions. Is this really the proper sphere or prerogative of a union? Isn’t a union supposed to really be representing the member who pays the dues?

Steve Holmes:
Unions are interesting animals in that the most of the ones that I know of, and I could be wrong they perhaps don’t all work this way, but all the ones that I know of have monthly meetings and members are all invited to come out and attend the meeting and have their voice.

And the union executives are directed by the members of their union in what they do. And if somebody steps out and starts talking about something that their membership doesn’t like, it’s kind of like election time comes around every so many years and they won’t be speaking. I think when you see people like Sid Ryan, Bob White for a long time was a large voice for a lot of social issues. There’s an awful lot of people who have come through the labor movement who have ended up speaking on behalf of not just organized labor, but you know just working together.

Bob Metz:
You see, here’s where I see labor movement as a special interest. I do hear a lot of them, and they might be doing a good job for their members, don’t get me wrong here. But when they’re advocating things like higher minimum wages, when in fact their own members are well above the minimum wage, I don’t really see that personally as doing a favor for the worker. I see them as trying to crowd out the competition and narrow the labor field for themselves. Am I looking at that completely wrong?

Steve Holmes:
I guess I don’t understand where that’s coming from. Recognize…

Bob Metz:
Well, the worker’s main competition is other workers, no? Isn’t that why unions call people who cross picket lines to call them scabs and things like that? And you know, I’ve always wondered why isn’t competitive labor considered as important a thing as competitive business?

Steve Holmes:
I guess in your… from what I’m hearing from you, your definition of competitive labor is what we call the race to the bottom, who will do it the cheapest, not necessarily who has the… Again, I’ll go back to the example I gave you about a successful company.

You have to look… or we think you should be looking at whether or not a company is recontributing or reinvesting in the local economy, and that’s how you should be guessing or gauging whether or not they’re successful, as opposed to how much money they’re turning over to their stockholders.

Bob Metz:
Well, I don’t think that speaks to the issue of the worker, though, and that’s more on the business end of things. This idea of race to the bottom, I’m self-employed, I’m not affected by minimum wages, so I can work for less than I often do.

I’m not racing to the bottom, I can get by sometimes, not all the time, but my income goes up and down. You know, unions are always talking about job security, and yet advocating higher pay. Isn’t job security, wouldn’t that be more guaranteed by lowering pay and thereby being able to compete more, especially internationally?

Steve Holmes:
I don’t necessarily agree with that, and that’s where you get back to the trade barrier.

Bob Metz:
Or not advocating more raises at a time when business is tough. Wouldn’t that be the same thing?

Steve Holmes:
I guess, again, you have to look at… I mean, you’re making some general statements there, for example. If you look back to the Bob Rae days, when the NDP government was in power, we came across a global recession. How did Ontario get through that? Bob Rae came out and dealt with his friends and got them to take back their…

Bob Metz:
Well, the social contract. Sure. Well, that wasn’t… that was his friends… the social contract was with government employees, if I recall. Was it not? He wasn’t affecting the private sector at that time with any legislation.

Steve Holmes:
The private sector became affected because of the way that the public sector was affected.

Bob Metz:
Well, sure. But not directly by the law, just by the fact that he held wages down for a while, because he had to.

Steve Holmes:
Well, he didn’t hold them down, as a matter of fact. He entered into agreements with people.

Bob Metz:
And to keep… to stop them from asking for more money for a period of time, wasn’t that the nature of the agreement?

Steve Holmes:
And the labor movement carried the province through. They agreed to those things.

Bob Metz:
By not asking for more. So if that worked then, why wouldn’t they continue the practice and try to be more efficient?

Steve Holmes:
Because presently we’re told that the economy is chugging along and doing very well. So if the economy is doing very well, why aren’t the people that are doing the work and performing the services being compensated more because the economy is doing better? It’s kind of like, you know, there’s a… do you recognize the prosperity gap that’s growing and widening and deepening?

Prosperity gap between the upper and the rest of the economic scale?

Bob Metz:
Well, if you’re trying to say the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, I don’t know that the latter is true. I imagine there’s a larger gap because people are able to get richer. We’re measuring much of that value in inflated dollars. So you can’t compare a guy, what he’s making today, to what they made 30, 40 years ago.

Steve Holmes:
In actual fact, the prosperity gap doesn’t just talk about the people at the top and the people at the bottom. What we’re losing and what the real problem with the prosperity gap is the people in the middle.

Bob Metz:
People in the middle are disappearing. I agree with you there. The middle class is the one that bears the weight of all the government social programs, really, when it comes down to it, wouldn’t you say? And wouldn’t that be a reason to cut back on social programs? Like, I’m living in a country where half of my income goes to roughly, you know, 40 to a little over 50, depending where you are, to governments. And do you get anything out of that? Not that I can see. I get a healthcare system that you have to wait for service, especially if you’re…

Steve Holmes:
How’d you get here?

Bob Metz:
Sorry? That’s not a healthcare system. That’s a healthcare monopoly. And that’s why I have to stand in line or go to another country to get quick healthcare as many Canadians are finding themselves forced to do.

Steve Holmes:
Because of the cutbacks that have been put in place by previous governments?

Bob Metz:
Again, that’s because they’re running the show and they’re trying to save money. Back in 1993, they all got together and decided we had too many doctors at the Banff Convention. And all the first… all the health ministers of all the provinces said we’re going to cut back on the number of doctors.

And they did. And now we’re paying the price. Had the marketplace been allowed to rule, we’d have probably more doctors than we need. And that would bring the prices down. Of course, prices you’re not concerned with. You’re concerned with costs. Is that it?

Steve Holmes:
I wouldn’t say the prices aren’t a concern, but it’s the cost and the way things… I mean, it’s kind of like… The way I look at it is it’s kind of like I couldn’t afford to buy a… a bus to run a public transit system. But if I had a whole bunch of friends who kicked in, then we could afford a bus. That would be better for the environment.

Bob Metz:
That could also be called a corporation or a business.

Steve Holmes:
Could be. Could be. But why does it have to be a government? A government is a different instrument than a corporation.

Bob Metz:
The City of London has decided they want public transit. Yeah, that’s a corporation. So they run a public transit.

Steve Holmes:
Yes. But beyond that, and this is the part… I don’t mind… I don’t think they should be doing that, but beyond that, they prevent anyone from starting our own public transit company.

Bob Metz:
Sure.

Steve Holmes:
Well, the public deserves some sort of a protection for their investment.

Bob Metz:
Protection of what? From somebody who might compete and do a better job?

Steve Holmes:
Or somebody who might compete and take advantage of, for example, if you just allowed anyone to run buses and pick up fares, which is…

Bob Metz:
Why do you assume I’m saying we allow anyone?

Steve Holmes:
I’m not assuming anything, but I was trying to answer a question. So if you want to finish it, go right ahead.

Bob Metz:
No, no. Well, this is a two-way discussion. I’m not thinking that anybody off the street without a license or who can’t drive should be able to do so. There’s all sorts of qualifications. The private sector has very strict qualifications, both in education and even in transport. I don’t know why you think that public transit has an exclusive monopoly on that.

Steve Holmes:
As I was saying, the City of London has decided they want to put a public service in place. In the realm of public transit, they’ve decided they will run services both at times when ridership is heavy and at times when ridership isn’t. At places where ridership is heavy and at other places to serve or to bring people to those places where the ridership is heavy. And I think what you need to do is you have to look at the agreement that they have, says they will service everybody and they’ll service them during all of these hours.

So during those hours, the City of London has said we’ll get London transit to supply those services. And no one else can come along and do that because they would presumably, if they were smart business people, they would come along and do the routes that pay the most and of course…

Bob Metz:
At least on which they can survive or make a living, right?

Steve Holmes:
The ones that pay the most. That’s the ones they would do. Which would leave the other routes that don’t pay the most to be serviced by whom?

Bob Metz:
By whomever. But the issue is…

Steve Holmes:
The City of London has agreed that they would have public transit.

Bob Metz:
True, but the issue is that the taxpayers paying for that service and I think that is what the City of London transit has that’s different from a normal company. Let’s leave that issue now and go on to… We’re going to take a break now and go on to a more broad issue that affects beyond the political parties and that’s the issue that we’re all expected to vote on on the upcoming referendum and we’ll be back. Right after this break.

Clip (Walter Williams – Majority Rule):
Now the… You know some people say, well Williams, we live… All these things you rail against are a result of the fact that we are a democracy and majority rules. Well first I try to tell the person who says that, well the framers did not intend for it to be a democracy.

They wanted us to be a republic. But more importantly than that, I don’t find gang rape any better than individualized rape. What I’m saying is that just because you vote to rape somebody doesn’t make it right.

Clip (Dave Broadfoot – Insane voter):
In this country you cannot vote if you’re insane, but you can get elected.

Bob Metz:
I’m back. You’re listening to Just Right. I’m Bob Metz and this is CHRW 94.9 FM. Or you can call 519-661-3600 if you’d like to join in the conversation. I am joined today in the studio by NDP candidate for London North Centre Steve Holmes. And we’ve had a lively debate so far on certainly issues of philosophic differences. I don’t know how different we’re going to be on this upcoming issue which affects all of you. You won’t be voting for a party on this particular issue and that is the upcoming referendum that’s going to be held concurrently with the election. And it’s basically first past the post versus mixed member proportional. First thing Steve, does the NDP have an official platform or stand on this particular issue? Or is it more of an individual approach candidate by candidate? Or is it even an issue in that sense? Just leave it to the voters to decide.

Steve Holmes:
Well, we recognize that there’s been a failing I guess, if you want to put it that way. Of the first past the post structure for some time, we see how many votes it takes for some parties to get a seat as opposed to how many votes that are put in for candidates from other parties that end up with fewer seats per vote. So we believe there should have been some sort of a different system put in place and this one appears to us to be a fairly more representative of a system.

Bob Metz:
And so you’d say you’re more or less in favor of it. So what do you see as the failing? You said the first past the post has a failing in it. What is the nature of that failing? Just that we don’t have true 51% majorities?

Steve Holmes:
No, I mean we’ve had 36% majorities. And we believe that those aren’t true representatives of, truly representative of what the people really are asking for in representation.

Bob Metz:
So why then would we go with a system that would increase the number of seats in the house and allow political parties. Remember I’m the president of a political party so you might think I would think this would be a good thing but I don’t. But it would give this power to political parties to appoint a certain number of the seats and in that sense almost take a bit of the voters vote away from him in the riding. Why not just a preferential vote within the riding where for example you could have a first, second or third choice and if your first one gets bumped off right away, your second vote would be counted and then you would still have a basic first past the post system but with a fair representation within the riding.

Why not go that route instead of the MMP which requires a complete rejigging of all the ridings and increasing the power of political parties quite frankly and independence are practically pushed out of the picture entirely from how I look at it.

Steve Holmes:
I wasn’t chosen as one of the committee that looked at all the different systems. I’ve heard of three or four different systems. One of them you just described. The one that they’ve put forth is a mixed system which means that they’re going to look at not just, you’ll still have your first past the post person to represent you. However, you will also have an opportunity to be represented by a party and so you will actually be represented twice.

Bob Metz:
Well, that’s sort of a contradiction in terms I would think. You know, again, even though I run a political party, parties are private associations and private organizations and for taxpayers to either be funding them or forced to deal with them as part of the political apparatus which is what I see this moving towards making parties more of an official part of the electoral structure. I don’t know that I see that as a good thing because right away it’s the parties that get in on the ground floor of the system that are going to be the permanent fixtures and the future looks kind of bleak for the average guy who might want to run as an independent or even start a new party. Is there no danger that you see in that respect?

Steve Holmes:
I don’t see a danger in that. I have to say that not everybody in the NDP thinks that this is a good way to go. I’ve spoken with several members of our party who see problems with it as well. However, the way I look at it is I can’t guarantee because you can’t do that, but it seems to me that any party who realistically looks at themselves as being democratic will have a mechanism in place to choose those people that they put on the list that will be a democratic party. I don’t think that’s a good way of choosing people. They won’t be just putting people’s names on a list and that list will be posted before the election. So everybody who votes when they go in to vote, they’ll know whose names are on that list and they’ll know who they’re voting for.

Bob Metz:
I find that very hard to believe considering I don’t think most people know who they’re voting for in the local riding even under first past the post. It just seems to me that a party like the NDP should be on the first past the post side because at least if you get elected that way and get a majority, as the party has had once, you can rule, quote, or govern according to your own stated principles and policies and guidelines. Whereas if you were always forced into compromising with the liberals and the conservatives, etc., I don’t see how that would be of an advantage to you. I certainly wouldn’t want to be governing in that situation. How could you be held accountable for your policies if they’re always being watered down? Do you see an advantage to the first past the post for smaller parties?

Steve Holmes:
Not necessarily. No? No. I mean, over the last several federally is a good example. Our party has had some say in a lot of the issues that have been going on. We’ve been able to convince from the position of an opposition position, bring some good ideas and some things forward. That’s what I think this is more likely to do. You’re going to have more people involved that may not be involved, won’t be involved with the, if we continue the first past the post, there are some people with some good ideas in some of the other parties that will then be able to be brought in with some good ideas and start looking at some other solutions to problems.

Bob Metz:
Yeah, it’s interesting. Most people are sort of judging the two systems based on how they think or how they might predict the outcome to be, not really looking at the process itself.

And they’re kind of judging them more from the outcome. Now, you’re representing a party that’s called the New Democratic Party. In other words, it sort of has a sense of democracy about it. What would make a New Democrat different from an Old Democrat? Or is that just playing with words?

Steve Holmes:
You’re probably playing with words.

Social democracy is social democracy. We’ve brought it through now to the issues that we’re dealing with are new.

Bob Metz:
Well, that’s interesting. I always thought democracy was more a word that stood on its own. It didn’t need an adjective. When you refer to social democracy, how would that be different from just democracy?

Steve Holmes:
Well, if you’re talking about democracy, how you decide things. And social democracy is just making sure that everyone in society gets a chance at that decision and has a voice in it.

Bob Metz:
And don’t we all have that now?

Steve Holmes:
For example, if you live somewhere that has a conservative or a liberal majority government and your choices are not theirs, although you have voted for someone who didn’t win, you then may not have because there are some people who go around saying you’re a special interest group and I’m not going to listen to you. Which brings us back to the start of the radio.

Bob Metz:
Well, that’s always a situation when you’ve got governments that are sort of telling their citizens what to do. It just strikes me that if the NDP supports majority rule and so much of its philosophy is based on making sure the majority has its say, my conclusion would be, so as long as the majority decides something that new Democrats should be happy with that, regardless of what the government policy is, if the majority decides on it, that’s fine by you? The policy itself, not that you agree with it.

Steve Holmes:
The idea of that is certainly.

Bob Metz:
And so then why would you have an NDP if you’re not there to represent a different idea that you want to get into that system? For example, if we want to do pure majority rule, we wouldn’t even need political parties or candidates. We could all get some big supercomputer and have everybody vote on all kinds of issues.

Steve Holmes:
Are you okay by you?

Bob Metz:
No. We have a structure. We have a structure. You would be forever. Okay, well, we need some shoelaces for the national swim team. So let’s everybody in the country vote on whether we’re going to spend 15 cents on shoelaces to hold the Speedos up with the national swim team. I mean, it gets kind of ridiculous, doesn’t it?

Steve Holmes:
Precisely, and that’s why we have representative democracy.

Bob Metz:
We’re going to leave that one for now. Another break after we come back. We’ll do all this mattering with smaller issues just to get some insights on some broader perspectives of the NDP. We’ll be back right after this.

Clip (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine S07E24 – Greed):
Quark: This is all Moogie’s fault. She’s been polluting Zek’s mind with notions of equality and compassion. Whatever happened to survival of the fittest? Whatever happened to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? Whatever happened to pure, unadulterated greed!

Clip (Mike Hammerall – Law and order):
You can learn a lot by watching television, I found. It’s very educational. For example, if you watch Law & Order, a really great crime show, you’ll learn how lawyers speak, don’t you?

And according to that show, a lawyer can say anything, no matter how mean and insulting, and get away with it. You can just get away with it, no penalty. As long as he says, withdrawn.

Withdrawing? That’s so cool. I wish we could do that.

Wouldn’t that be great? I get pulled over for speeding by one of those tough highway patrol officers. You know why I pulled you over? You thought I was the donut wagon? You idiot.

Withdrawn.

Bob Metz:
Welcome back. You’re listening to Just Right With Bob Metz, and I’m joined in the studio today here at CHRW 94.9 by NDP London North Centre candidate, Steve Holmes. Steve, just to go to some broader issues, you know, a lot of people on the basic issue of crime and law and order and justice are thinking that some of our judges have gone mad with some of the sentences they give people for certain crimes, almost as though they have withdrawn justice from them.

Where does the NDP stand on some of the issues that have been particularly plaguing the larger cities and seem to be coming to London now too with guns and violence and issues of that nature? Because you’d think that’d be one of the key functions of what a government should be doing.

Steve Holmes:
A lot of those issues we think come from unfairly disadvantaged people in society. We think that if you can make it so that everyone is participating in a healthy society, then there’s an awful lot of benefit there that isn’t going their way.

If you make sure that the benefits are going more their way, then of course we believe that there’ll be more contributory as opposed to more extracting of our social benefits.

Bob Metz:
You know, if I were a victim of a crime, I’d be hearing you say that and I’m going, yeah, but what about me? And what about the criminal who’s now committed a crime?

It’s too late to be talking about what happened to him 30, 40, 50 years ago in his childhood, or even impossible to decide that. How does that answer the issue of justice or in terms of dealing with the nature of the crime itself?

Steve Holmes:
Hopefully, if you follow the proper steps, there will be fewer victims of injustices. And when you look at, again, the social structures and the way we think that some people are being left out of the benefit of society, let’s look at, for example, when Mike Harris was in power and made the cuts to the education system, some of the services they got rid of were things that assisted students in schools when they were having problems.

They still haven’t replaced all of the services that used to be there so that students could go and talk to a guidance counselor when they were having problems, when they couldn’t go talk to a social worker when their parents were fighting at home. And I don’t know if you’ve ever experienced any of that sort of stuff, but I happen to know that when a child experiences that sort of stuff, he is more likely to be a perpetrator later in life. So if we had the things in place that assisted those kids in dealing with those kinds of situations, I think we’d have less or fewer victims of crimes to start with.

Bob Metz:
Again, that’s going back into the past, but it doesn’t deal with how criminals should actually be handled today after they commit a crime. It’s one thing to say, we can prevent crime and do X, Y, and Z, but isn’t that also taking away a lot of individual responsibility from people? If I see pressure in the family that’s putting a lot of pressure on families, it’s the rate of taxes and regulations that they’re dealing with. And I remember that in my marriage before it split up, and the taxes were the single most expensive thing in our complete lifestyle. I mean, there was no other, not even all of our living expenses combined, came close to what we had to pay in combined taxes.

Steve Holmes:
But again, you have to look at what you get for those taxes.

Bob Metz:
Nothing. I couldn’t get.

Steve Holmes:
I’m glad you stayed in. I’m glad you stayed in.

Bob Metz:
Well, then you’d have to depend on each of your neighbors to pave the road in front of their house too, because you’d pave the road in front of your house. You’d pay to pave the road from your house to where you work, so that you’d only drive to to and from work. Then when you went to the grocery store, then you’d have to pay a little extra money so that you’d have a piece of road paved from your house to the grocery store. I suppose the area where I’m saying that we shouldn’t be spending taxes just on a free system is basically healthcare and education. Those are the two biggies. That’s two-thirds of the budget.

Steve Holmes:
And you think that society doesn’t gain anything from the education system?

Bob Metz:
Yeah, and it would gain more if the education system allowed for choice, allowed people to pay for their own school system. Because the issue of not affording, I think, whatever you can’t afford, whether it’s healthcare, education, or anything, shouldn’t poverty be treated as a separate issue rather than giving out all these freebie programs, which to me are just for buy-in votes.

Steve Holmes:
I spoke earlier to you about having things interlocking and being connected to each other, and I believe they are.

Bob Metz:
Agreed. I used to do many shows with the…

Steve Holmes:
If you supply a quality education system that’s available to everyone, then society in total gains from it.

Bob Metz:
No question. But the question is, how should that education system be provided? Should it be provided through a government monopoly that prevents… To me, quality isn’t quality about having choice. If I cannot choose to get away from the bad school system and go to a good school system or have a choice, where is my quality control? I have to count on a third party to do it, then, don’t I?

Steve Holmes:
The… I think, to me, you’ve just mixed up two different things. Choice and quality.

Bob Metz:
Well, they go hand in hand without choice. You can’t have quality.

Steve Holmes:
I don’t necessarily agree with that. So I guess I’ll withdraw from this part of the conversation.

Bob Metz:
Well, how can you tell… That’s a good… You brought up a good issue here. How can I tell if I’m getting quality, either in the healthcare system or the education system, if I have nothing to compare it to? Isn’t quality a measurement of excellence, and isn’t it in relative to something else? To something that’s of lower quality? And, you know, whenever we hear about, quote, private education or private healthcare, generally we hear it in terms of superior quality.

Steve Holmes:
I guess if you had a family member who went to a clinic and had some surgery done, and it was a mistake done in the surgery or whatever, and you were at this private clinic and the private clinic said, well, that’s okay. Here’s the insurance policy that covered us when we did that, as opposed to saying, you know, well, here’s the structure that’s in place and the College of Physicians are going to rule these people and tell them what they need to do, bring up the standards, so you would hope those things didn’t happen as often. That’s what I see as different and not necessarily… You don’t need to have competition to have a good quality service.

Bob Metz:
Well, that’s an interesting viewpoint. One last one. McGuinty has been thoroughly criticized for his handling of the Caledonia issue and basically the Aboriginal issue in the province. Has the NDP got a stand on that particular issue?

Steve Holmes:
We probably take the same stand in the Caledonia issue as we did with the issue at Ipperwash. There has been a long process that’s gone through. There have been some recommendations made. They have not been all carried out yet. As a matter of fact, I noticed on the news this morning that one of the lawyers and one of the George Brothers was in town speaking about that. I guess the problem is that’s a federal issue and the federal government should be solving those problems more quickly.

Bob Metz:
Getting a signal here. We’ve got a caller once to ask a question here. Ira put us through.

Caller:
Hello? Hello. I just want to back up a bit and go back into the private health care issue.

Bob Metz:
We only have a couple of minutes left though.

Caller:
I just want to propose a situation that if you’re saying that private education is a better option then say I’m four years old and about to go into the education system and my parents can’t afford for me to go into school then you’re saying that I shouldn’t be able to go to school because my parents can’t afford it.

Bob Metz:
Not at all. Really? If I’m four, that shouldn’t be something that I should be penalized for just because my parents can’t afford it. How am I in any control of that?

Well again, and there the issue is that your whole situation is an issue of poverty and you deal with the issue of poverty separately. You don’t create a monopoly school system for 100% of the people who don’t need the help. That just takes away money from people like you who would need the help. That’s how I see it. What about you, Steve?

Steve Holmes:
I hear what this guy is saying and I agree with him. If you leave it up to families on their own to purchase their education, it goes right against what we’ve been saying all along, is making good quality public education available for everyone and by doing that society becomes more successful. And when it becomes more successful, there’s more benefit for everyone to take from it.

Bob Metz:
Okay, one last thing. I just wanted to see if you have the same feeling that I have and some other people have, not so much about policy or anything like that. Do you think the media is giving the voters a fair image of what the parties are all about and what the candidates are all about? Because my personal view is that, especially locally, no shows like this exist, I realize. But if you look around, isn’t it kind of hard for the voter to figure out who to pick?

Steve Holmes:
Interestingly, I’d say that there is a lot of information, only because I have my in-laws and my wife and everything cutting all of the stuff.

Bob Metz:
Keeping you up to date on everything, eh?

Steve Holmes:
Yeah, I mean, I can’t read them all because there doesn’t seem to be enough time for me to do it all and knocking all the doors, I got it too. But I mean, I guess it becomes difficult. At what point do they say they are keeping everyone informed and balancing, making sure that everybody’s point of view gets brought forward?

Bob Metz:
Well, they got their hands full on that one, that’s for sure. Hey, what do you think? Is Howard Hampton maybe possibly going to be the leader of the official opposition?

Steve Holmes:
Probably not, actually. Howard will be downstairs in a little while, and he’ll be here this afternoon. I hope everybody gets an opportunity to come out and listen to his clear view for the province.

Bob Metz:
Well, I want to thank you, Steve, for coming out and taking my abuse here for an hour, which is pretty well what I do here on a weekly basis. And, folks, don’t forget, next week, October the 10th, is when it all wraps up and those election signs will be disappearing from the landscape shortly thereafter.

Clip (Norm Crosby – Started with nothing):
My grandfather.

My grandfather was one of the most caring men I ever met in my life. My grandfather. My grandfather came to America with holes in his shoes, with torn pants, with a ripped shirt, with nothing but faith and hope and ambition, carrying an old bandana handkerchief wrapped around 860,000 in cash. And he started from that and made a life. Not funny. You couldn’t do it.