Victoria Branch visits MP David Anderson

On Friday, Dec. 20, 2002, a delegation of four Victoria World Federalists visited our local MP, Environment Minister David Anderson. The delegation consisted of Aquiles Garro Jimenez, Caspar Davis, Inez Walker and Philip Symons. Philip, as an old acquaintance of Anderson, introduced the delegation and the three topics we wanted to discuss: Kyoto, the war on Iraq, and reform of political party funding. An additional last-moment question (by Aquiles) was, "What are your personal goals for the coming session of parliament?"

Inez congratulated Anderson on helping to get the Kyoto protocol ratified. She asked if he thought the protocol would get the needed number of atifications to come into effect. Anderson replied he was sure it would, but even if it didn't it is vital to get going on global warming. He also mentioned that there was a large selling job still to do. He said Canadians should weigh the costs of acting on Kyoto, only to find that scientists had over-estimated the extent of global warming, against the costs of not acting on Kyoto, and then finding the scientists were right! The costs of the former error are miniscule compared with the latter. He also mentioned the co-benefits we could obtain from implementing the protocol, such as improved health. And he said that while there was a problem in the present protocol with letting large developing countries off the hook, we would be irresponsible to insist such countries comply, and not implement Kyoto ourselves. We must set an example.

Caspar presented Anderson with a one-page summary of Fergus Watt's recent notes on a presentation Fergus made to the Centre for Security and Defence Studies, Carleton University, and Canadian Peacebuilding Coordinating Committee. He emphasized that it is in Canada's interests to protect and promote the rule of law, and that a preemptive invasion would open the floodgates not only for US intervention, but also for interventions by any other countries that had bones to pick with neighbours. Anderson agreed that there would be serious problems in where to draw the line.

Anderson re-iterated that Canada wants to abide by UN rulings, to which Caspar responded that the U.S. has great persuasive powers over most if not all the Security Council members. Anderson pointed out that the Security Council vote supporting arms inspections had been unanimous, to which Caspar replied that we had no problem with the inspections, but going to war on Iraq was another matter. Philip suggested that trying to remove a state's leader by military force was against international law, to which Anderson agreed. Philip then asked if Canada would therefore not be an accessory to an illegal act if it were to support the U.S. Anderson side-stepped that trap by replying that the situation was not that black and white.

In introducing the need to reform political party funding (banning donations to political parties from corporations and unions...) as a means of strengthening democracy, Philip mentioned that World Federalists had long promoted a Parliamentary Assembly (PA) for the UN, so far with little success. Anderson interrupted to note that parliamentarians were far more involved now in international affairs than they were ten to fifteen years ago - "even in NATO...". As an ex-World Fed., Anderson is aware of our push for a PA, and seemed to indicate we should keep up the pressure.

On reform of political party funding, Anderson raised the issue of how funds were to be raised and distributed, noting also the argument that restricting funding is a restriction on freedom of speech. Caspar mentioned two proposed methods of raising funds: distribution from the public purse, either by ticking a box on the income tax forms indicating to which party $5 of the tax should be given, or by the decision of a non-partisan, all party committee. Caspar said he preferred the former method. Anderson suggested we should not abandon the principle of private rather than public funding of political parties. We did not have time to point out that the majority of the funding already comes from the public purse, a fact about which he may be unaware. He reiterated his concerns about restricting freedom of expression through donations of private individuals, but he seemed to see no problem ending corporate and union donations.

As we were standing to leave, Aquiles asked, "What are your personal goals for the next year?" Anderson quickly listed off, "implementing the Kyoto protocol, legislation for clean air and safe drinking water, cleaning up toxic waste dumps, and protecting endangered species."

The half-hour meeting was a pleasant opportunity for bringing World Federalist issues before a generally sympathetic cabinet minister.

Philip Symons