Why Should I Care?

Condos are popular first homes for many people today. For some, it will be the biggest purchase they ever make. But how many of us can really judge how well these assets are built or maintained?

The truth is, condos can be anything from dream homes, both affordable and green, to overpriced energy hogs, or worse. Even the smartest consumer can be fooled into making a bad purchase.

That’s why MPP Rosario Marchese proposes the Condominium Owners Protection Act–designed to protect would-be condo buyers and their neighbours alike. Mr. Marchese will be explaining his proposal, and offering perspectives on how we can grow our urban communities in healthy ways, at February’s WSIC event.

Want to be part of the discussion? Or just learn about your neighbourhood?

Join us on February 27 at the Duke of York (39 Prince Arthur Blvd) at 7pm.

Please RSVP on our Eventbrite page for a door prize entry.

How much will you sacrifice for fashion? It’s a question we all ask, especially in the winter. But we aren’t usually thinking about architecture at the time.

Dr. Kim Pressnail, this month’s WSIC guest speaker, made it clear that when it comes to building requirements in this province, form and function are seriously out of balance. And he had a lot of ideas about how to right them.

There are two big reasons to reduce energy use, he explained. The first is cost: it’s cheaper to conserve what we’ve got than to build the new power plants we need to maintain our current energy needs. The second is climate: the trapped energy in our atmosphere is having devastating effects on people (higher frequency and severity of tornadoes, floods, etc).

Saving begins at home, of course. Dr. Pressnail provided us with a number of tips on how to reduce our energy use in the home: insulating walls, replacing damaged windows, and turning down the thermostat.

Dr. Pressnail also made the case for reforming building codes. A building less apt to waste energy is a force for conservation, even if its occupants fall short. And many of our current problems boil down to pretty designs that under perform.

Chief among the culprits: our beloved glass towers, which look futuristic but actually lose heat at a far greater rate than towers built well in the past. Dr. Pressnail emphasized the need to think about future generations—why do we spend so much time pushing for things like legalized marijuana at party conventions while ignoring issues like conservation, which will impact us for generations to come?

He also expressed his dismay at the cancellation of eco retrofit programs, and the lack of logic behind it. The there are government programs that provide stimulus money for citizens to replace granite counter tops but none to insulate our walls? It is always cheaper to build an energy-efficient building than retrofit an inefficient one, but we must make it as easy and cheap as possible to solve problems.

As usual, the WSIC audience responded with lots of questions and comments. Many offered their own ideas on how to reduce energy use; others had suggestions for reforming the codes. Several argued, as Pressnail himself did, that the issue isn’t politically very “sexy,” and therefore requires more effort from those who care about it.

On Monday, we’ll take a look at Energy needs in Ontario.  Ontario’s population is growing,so its energy needs are too. But no one wants a new gas-fired power plant if it’s going to be in their own backyard. In WSIC’s first event of 2012, U of T’s Dr. Kim Pressnail will tell us how Ontario can reduce its need for more power plants in local communities.  His solution is to decrease the burden on our energy grid by mandating better buildingrequirements.

Do you agree? Disagree? Do you just want to learn more?

The event will be held at the Duke of York at 7pm, Monday January 16.

If you haven’t done so already, please RSVP to our eventbrite page for a chance to win
our doorprize.
http://wsicinfrastructure.eventbrite.com/

WSIC hosted a compelling evening of talk last Monday, welcoming special guest, and Conservative MP, Terence Young.

Terence spoke to us about prescription drug safety, a subject that hit him far too close to home. In 2000, Terence’s 15-year-old daughter, Vanessa, died after being prescribed the Johnson & Johnson drug, Prepulsid. Since then, he has researched the industry in-depth, and advocated for both a more transparent drug-approval process and plain-language labeling. As he explained to us, the Americans have far clearer labels than us, because they’re more willing to sue.

A seasoned public speaker, Terence told his story quickly. But the audience encouraged him to keep going. Soon the discussion turned to the ‘legalese’ found on drug labels. He warned us to watch for terms like “narrow therapeutic index,” “potential association with behavior changes including self-harm,” and other euphemisms that obscure the real danger of these drugs. Blunter language, like “this drug can lead to suicidal impulses would allow users to better weigh their risks.

Terence noted that while a mere 27 drugs have been taken off Canadian shelves since 1997, this is no indication that our drug approval process is a good one. Most of those drugs are taken off the market ‘voluntarily’ by the drug companies themselves.  Terence explains that many countries lack sufficient budgets to run their own approval process and depends on the FDA for safety information.  Voluntary market withdraw prevents the drug from being stricken off ‘approved’ lists from abroad.  With no Independent Drug Agency (IDA) in this country, Health Canada is called upon to police itself, potentially critiquing its own approval of drugs—a conflict of interest Terence suggests would not be allowed in other industries. An IDA, if developed, would not be responsible for approving new drugs—but it would be an independent body supervising Health Canada’s decisions.

There was a lot of audience response, as usual with these events. Terence contended that partial results received in drug trials should be published right alongside the most positive results (negating the appearance of a flawless drug); researchers in the audience argued that sometimes, a non-result is just that. It remains unpublished because it has no scientific merit. Dr. Paul Sandor, of CAMH, pointed out that drugs are often held back because their safety cannot be proven.

Terence also expressed concern over the pharmaceutical industry’s enormous expenditures on marketing, its willingness to ‘repurpose’ less-effective drugs to capitalize on their side effects (e.g. Viagara), and its sponsorship of medical journals. All food for thought, and the discussion could have lasted much later into the night, had we the time.

Terence Young is the founder and Chair of Drug Safety Canada, a research and public advocacy organization based in Oakville. He is author of Death by Prescription. [http://www.deathbyprescription.com/author.php]

Health Canada is charged with protecting the health and safety of Canadians, a job that covers everything from overseeing ingredients in cosmetics and bath toys to approving which drugs can be sold in Canada. Is this agency–responsible for so much at once–able to meet its full mandate?

MP Terence Young isn’t so sure. After losing a daughter to a prescription drug which has since been pulled from the market, Young began to explore how the drug industry operates and the conflicting role Health Canada plays in ensuring Canadians’ well-being. In his book “Death by Prescription,”  he advocates for an independent drug agency, unsaddled by conflicts of interest.

On Monday, November 7th, Mr. Young will share his concerns about drug safety in Canada, and lead us in a wider discussion about Health Canada and why it may be coming up short.

We’ll be meeting at the Duke of York Pub at 7pm (39 Prince Arthur Avenue).  Doors open at 7:00, discussion starts at 7:30. Hope to see you there!

Please RSVP at our Eventbrite page for a chance to win our doorprize.

A restaurant and bar’s probably the best place for a talk on food. Better even than a farm, especially with the rain storm we had on Tuesday night

The latest edition of Why Should I Care? focused on food security—an issue with many, many, many facets to it, as the range of questions proved. Our guest speaker was Darcy Higgins, Executive Director of the Food Forward Advocacy Alliance a Toronto-based, registered non-profit organization advocating for a better food system.

Food Forward works with the public, politicians and those involved in the food sector to educate and advocate for food that is local, accessible, sustainable, ethically produced and a lot healthier. Making all that happen will be a lot of work.

Darcy asked us—amid the clink of forks on plates—what the problems were with our current food system. He got a lot of different answers. One of the main ones was the idea that unhealthy foods are subsidized, making them cheap, while healthier foods remain quite expensive. This causes increased health costs down the road. “Pay the doctor or pay the farmer,” said Darcy.

Other concerns included corporate control of the food system, and a shrinking population of farmers working the land. Canadian farmers are getting older, Darcy explained, and their sons and daughters aren’t being encouraged to continue the family tradition.

What can we do?

Darcy’s approach is to bring together diverse groups of stakeholders, to encourage greater awareness of our food industry and how it works.  This includes improving urban access to fresh, healthy food (many Torontonians live more than a kilometer from a grocery store), increasing healthy food options in public schools, and making farming a more viable career option for young people.

The resulting discussion was lengthy, lively and varied. Up for debate (as always) was the issue of government subsidies for certain crops—how involved should the government be in determining prices? On the issue of food shortage, it was confirmed that we don’t have one—in fact, we destroy an enormous amount of food every year. (Milk is poured down drains, yet the price of milk is high in Ontario.) Others questioned the role genetically modified organisms (GMOs) should play in our food supply.

Some guests told stories. The owner of an all-local gourmet food store, the Culinarium, explained his rationale for running his business. Another gentleman described his lifelong hobby of gardening: a source of fresh vegetables for his table since the Second World War. He also pointed out that, within two or three days of being picked, even vegetables you grow yourself taste no better than those from the store.

Of course we talked portion sizes, and obesity. Slaughterhouses came up too, with Darcy arguing the advantages of small-scale operations. He also explained why small-sized grocery stores matter. “Even a store like Sobeys needs to purchase in bulk,” he said. Only small operations can afford to fill a store with top quality meat and produce.

All in all, a nourishing evening for the mind. See you next month.

PLEASE NOTE CHANGE OF LOCATION!!!!

Roughly half the Earth’s population now lives in cities, meaning fewer farmers are producing the food it takes to feed us. Here in Canada, though we are blessed with abundant land, a growing portion of our food is coming from abroad–as oil prices rise, our food cost will sure to follow. Food safety and security is often taken for granted.

Darcy Higgins, Executive Director of the Food Forward Advocacy Alliance, has some ideas on how to fix this. And he wants to share them with us.

Food Forward is a Toronto-based, registered non-profit organization advocating for a better food system. It works with the public, politicians and those involved in the food sector to educate and advocate for food that is healthy, local, sustainable, ethically produced and accessible for all.

We’ll be meeting at Pauper’s Pub (539 Bloor St) on October 12th at 7pm.  Doors open 7pm, discussion starts 7:30.

As always, our events are free.  Please RSVP to using Eventbrite for an entry for our doorprize.

In spite of the looming provincial election, 19 September marked another successful WSIC event, with about 30 interested citizens joining the WSIC team to hear about and discuss Ontario’s Green Energy Act.

John Stepheson kicked off the evening with a discussion on district heating. Space and water heating account for about 20% of our energy consumption, and we can’t live without the heat. Since marginal energy use comes from the grid – which is heavy on fossil fuels – improvements in secondary heating can generate significant returns.

District heating accounts for only about 1% of heating energy in Canada, as these projects have difficulty competing with natural gas on price. In Sweden, by contrast, carbon taxes make gas less competitive and district heating accounts for about 50%. From the speaker’s perspective, feed in tariff prices for alternatives promotes generation but doesn’t provide a market incentive for loads, like district heating, to switch to sustainable alternatives.

John was joined by Kevin Matthews from Canada Composting, a private company that provides anaerobic digestion of organics into methane – the energy output of 1/3 of Toronto’s 120 tons of annual green bin waste. With organics disposal coming to condos, we hope more of Toronto’s waste will be converted to usable methane.

Admittedly, at inception the project was viewed by government as an alternative to landfill disposal. The methane product from organic digestion can be purified and the purified methane – aka “Pipeline Gas” – can join the existing natural gas infrastructure. As volumes and capacity increase, biomass should join other renewables as a generation option, rather than a green disposal alternative.

The Green Energy Act is more than a feed-in tariff. It also mandates that 50% of green tech be manufactured in Ontario: while the photovoltaics mostly come from China, for example, the majority of a given generation system must be made and assembled here in Ontario. John questioned whether this was a suitable use of competitive advantage: the Ontario market is not large enough to develop scale economies as compared to industries in places like Sweden, Austria, and Italy that are already tooled-up.

The Act does not include a provincial plan for siting facilities. Accordingly, proposed facilities have to go through a local process for approval without any legislative aid and are frequently derailed by NIMBY activists. John noted that his company prepares proposals in response to RFPs about annually at a cost approaching 1/4 million; none have been lost, but none have gone ahead. Both speakers agreed that provincial direction is needed to overcome this gap.

Attendees also discussed the economic realities of the higher feed in costs for renewables. While some were concerned that higher power costs means job losses – particularly to Quebec – John noted that there are very few industries in Ontario that are so power intensive, and accordingly very few businesses for which small changes in marginal energy cost would be relevant as compared to most other cost factors. The changes in price would likely be very small: the current mix has an almost negligible proportion of renewables and the marginal price is set by the grid.

Please join us for another night of non-partisan discussion October 12^th with MP Terence Young about the need for an independent drug agency in Canada.

Keeping to the provincial election theme, our next event will focus on the Green Energy Act since the election is shaping up to be a battle over Ontario’s energy future. Much has been heard in the media about wind turbines and solar panels but the media has not paid attention to less sexy, but equally important factors in the energy sector.

How has the GEA affected lesser known but equally important players in the energy and environmental field?

Kevin Matthews from Canada Composting and John Stephenson from FVB Energy will be joining us for a discussion about alternative energy resources and the role that GEA plays in it.

Join the discussion September 19th at the Duke of York Pub at 7pm (39 Prince Arthur Avenue). Doors Open 7:00. Discussion begins 7:30.

Please RSVP on eventbrite for a chance our doorprize.

On Monday night at the Duke of York, more than 80 local residents joined Why Should I Care in welcoming three provincial MPP candidates for the riding of Trinity-Spadina. Incumbent NDP MPP Rosario Marchese, the Liberal’s Sarah Thomson, and the Green Party’s Tim Grant all attended. The Conservative Candidate declined our invitation… and missed quite a show.

Candidates were permitted to begin with a short speech introducing themselves and their positions. After declining a poorly timed cell phone call, Tim Grant proceeded to pull no punches, calling for public transit reform. He noted that the current debate is mostly about how transit is funded, and not about how transit must be planned in order to be successful and sustainable in the long term. Noting that we spend six times as much on roads as on transit, Grant said transport funding should be more reflective of the province’s 80% urban nature.

Liberal Sarah Thompson took a more personal approach, describing her background both in and outside of the riding and in particular her recent bid for the Mayoral chair, hinting that if elected as MPP, Rob Ford might remain in her sights. She also emphasized her entrepreneurial background, first in transportation and presently as publisher of the Women’s Post, saying that she supported the liberal approach of supporting entrepreneurialism over big government.

Incumbent Rosario Marchese seemed, perhaps not surprisingly, most comfortable with the room, promoting a ‘people focus’ for his politics and applying it to condo owners (vs. developers), rules for junk food advertising, tuition fee reduction, and an electric rail link to the airport. He stated that he promotes a return to the 50/50 funding formula for transit, and an end to corporate tax cuts, both of which provide the tax base for these programs.

Following the candidates’ comments, the floor was opened to questions. Speakers were invited to read their question to the candidates but, because of the limited time with all candidates, the audience was then polled to determine whether a majority present wished to hear the candidates’ responses to, and audience commentary on, the question. Questions concerning treatment for Multiple Sclerosis, Ontario Municipal Board zoning, and the HST failed to make the cut, as did others, but questions on child care, nuclear power, affordable housing, underemployment, and transit made for a very active debate and discussion, relevant to the overwhelming majority of participants.
Perhaps the most heated discussion arose from the question about the maintenance of the separate Catholic school system. Ontario’s Environment Commissioner, Gord Miller wisely added that, with French language education, there are in fact four separate systems. While the crowd present seemed to agree with the United Nations, which has censured Ontario for maintaining this system, only Grant was prepared to state that Ontario should break with this constitutional legacy.
Ultimately, all three candidates engaged with the discussion in a meaningful and unscripted way, which was much appreciated by those in attendance and contributed greatly to the success of the event.

Marchese returned frequently to the theme of provincial funding cuts (mostly attributed to Mike Harris) having had a detrimental impact on the city. He also reflected on, as he put it, a now-chronic unfair funding formula, and the ability of the corporate sector to sustain small tax increases, where required, to return to a more equitable ratio.

Thompson was the most combative of the three, taking several opportunities to challenge the incumbent on having realistic plans to back his politics the power in opposition to effect them, and asked for the voters to make a change after 21 years of consistent representation by him.
Grant preferred to focus on how best practices could be adopted in a variety of areas, from building code to job training, and asked voters to make history by electing him as the first Green member of Ontario’s legislature.

The WSIC team extends their thanks to all the candidates and attendees, and invites you all to join and continue the discussion on-line at www.whyshouldicare.ca/, on Facebook, and on Twitter #WSIC_Canada.

By Christine P