Green Party of Canada

343 posts / 0 new
Last post
mark_alfred
Green Party of Canada

There's a general thread about the NDP, where people post their random thoughts about that party.  So, seems a good idea to have the same for the Green Party of Canada.

mark_alfred

http://greenparty.ca/files/attachments/green-book-2011-en.pdf

Here's their platform from the last election.  It's a rather light feel-good sort of document, lacking a lot of specifics (though in fairness that could be said of the other parties' platforms too.)

I found it interesting what they said of electoral reform:

Green Party wrote:
Reform our voting system. Hold a national discussion on the health of our democracy, address the growing and undemocratic power of the Prime Minister’s  Office and explore the options for a more meaningful electoral system.  Consider the risks of “first past the post” and vote on whether it should be replaced.  Consider proportional representation.

Interesting that they advocate a referendum (part of the "participatory democracy" that they advocate -- reminds me of the Reform Party).  Also interesting that they aren't firmly committed to proportional representation as the form of electoral reform that they would pursue.

janfromthebruce

Mark that is very interesting re: electorial reform. I remember May going on and on about PP, and yet, in their document it's just a "maybe" really.

autoworker autoworker's picture

I don't believe there's any lack of commitment from the Greens on electoral reform. It would be presumptuous, and arrogant not to consider people's opinions on what form that might take. Comparisons with the Reform platform are facile, and disingenuous. What is the NPD worried about?

North Star

Hey the word labour appears ZERO times in that GP platform. The only use of the word "workers" is a reference to retraining forestry workers. In comparison the Green Party of the US shadow cabinet has a Workers Power Administration, and Marxist economist Richard Wolff is the the chair of the Council of Economic Advisors!

The question if the Green Party of Canada is the most right wing Green Party in the world is a pretty legitimate question. The only other Green Party this right wing are the Greens in Germany. They've been in a government that has supported NATO missions and helped the Social Democrats pass labour market and pension reforms. Most of the other Green Parties in Europe have at least eco-socialist factions, if not openly eco-socialist. The Australian Greens are also opposed to many of Australian Labor's more neoliberal policies.

janfromthebruce

It's not surprising North Star that the Canadian Greens are basically anti labour. Many well known former Greens in Canada left the party because of it's right ward shift. Under May who use to be a progressive conservative and worked with Mulroney it is just so obvious.

Unionist

janfromthebruce wrote:

It's not surprising North Star that the Canadian Greens are basically anti labour. Many well known former Greens in Canada left the party because of it's right ward shift. Under May who use to be a progressive conservative and worked with Mulroney it is just so obvious.

Under Mulcair who used to be a Liberal cabinet minister and worked with Charest who used to be leader of the PC party, it's not so obvious though... did I get that right?

Wouldn't it be nice if we tried judging individuals on the basis of their actual words and deeds, irrespective of what team jersey they're wearing at the moment? Then we wouldn't constantly be visiting the emerg suffering from mental contortions.

 

Unionist

dp

janfromthebruce

I do actually judge May by her words and deeds and so far I see the Canadian Green Party as seeing the market as solving environmental problems as the wrong direction to go. But I can always depend on Unionist to defend both the Liberals and the Greens who always seems to want the NDP to back stop the Liberal Party of Canada.

Of course, one knows that there is no provincial NDP party in Quebec and the only choice politically for a federalist provincial party was the Liberals. But it doesn't seem to matter how often one repeats that, Unionist will forever in a day repeat the same narrow view over and over again.

This faith in the markets is misplaced: only governments can save our living planet

When governments pretend they no longer need to govern, when they pretend that a world regulated by bankers, corporations and the profit motive is a better world than one regulated by voters and their representatives, nothing is safe. All systems of government are flawed. But few are as flawed as those controlled by private money.

Unionist

janfromthebruce wrote:

I do actually judge May by her words and deeds...

But you don't judge Mulcair by his words and deeds. You have never said a critical word about him since he became NDP leader - even when he offers condolences on the death of Thatcher but not Chavez. That's why, while I value your posts and opinions on many topics, I don't take anything you say about the NDP or the Liberals seriously. It's all or nothing for you, unfortunately.

Quote:
But I can always depend on Unionist to defend both the Liberals and the Greens who always seems to want the NDP to back stop the Liberal Party of Canada.

That statement is childish, vindictive, and false. It emanates from extreme partisanship. My criticisms of all parties come from me - not from a playbook. When I praise the positions of the NDP, it means something. When NDP extreme fans do - it means nothing.

Quote:
Of course, one knows that there is no provincial NDP party in Quebec and the only choice politically for a federalist provincial party was the Liberals.

Umm, maybe start with Wikipedia, or a history book, or possible a newspaper, and inform yourself about Québec. The ignorance of that last statement is staggering.

I have never voted Liberal in my life. I laughed and cried when the Liberals came out with their "red book" in 1993. I've been around for a long time. You believed and trusted that party and that red book, and your trust was betrayed. I understand. The same happened with me and the NDP, long before. But I still vote NDP federally, for roughly the same reasons that so many Quebecers did in May 2011. Their vote is conditional. So is mine. It's not like my spouse and kids. That love is forever.

 

 

 

Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
When I praise the positions of the NDP, it means something. When NDP extreme fans do - it means nothing. 

It means you're not being as choosy as you think you are.  If such praise is warranted as a result of a few agreeable acts or promises insofar as they might personally be of some benefit, while other decisions undertaken carry a far wider negative impact, then what kind of objectivity can we expect from such praise?

Unionist

Slumberjack wrote:

Unionist wrote:
When I praise the positions of the NDP, it means something. When NDP extreme fans do - it means nothing. 

It means you're not being as choosy as you think you are.  If such praise is warranted as a result of a few agreeable acts or promises insofar as they might personally be of some benefit, while other decisions undertaken carry a far wider negative impact, then what kind of objectivity can we expect from such praise?

Not sure I understand you SJ. I genuinely hope I don't judge political acts by how they "personally" benefit me. Nor do I consciously criticize trivial flaws (or praise trivial gestures) while ignoring the big picture. So let me give you an example and tell me what you think:

1. During the 2005-6 election campaign, I condemned Jack Layton for saying Parliament should "debate" the Afghan "mission" - he never criticized the mission itself.

2. I praised the NDP for adopting its "troops out now" resolution at the 2006 Québec City convention.

3. I criticized Layton for diluting and distorting the convention resolution afterwards, when he would only call for withdrawal from "combat role" in "southern Afghanistan" - leaving the door open where the convention didn't.

4. I praised Olivia Chow for being the first caucus member to stand up and demand complete withdrawal.

5. I criticized Olivia Chow for proposing the expansion of citizen's arrest while ignoring the "deep roots" of the impoverished addicted person of colour's "crime".

6. I attack Mulcair for his unabashed Zionism and his new-found centrism and pandering - but I voted for him and modestly campaigned for him in three consecutive elections, because he stood the best chance of beating the Liberals in my riding, and because he was taking good stands on Afghanistan, the environment, poverty and ethnic minorities, and other local issues.

Sorry for the list. There are many babblers who look past party labels. There are some who never, ever do. That's my point. Not entirely sure what yours was.

 

janfromthebruce

edit for no response

socialdemocrati...

I'll defend unionist on that account. He's willing to praise anyone when they do right by him, and criticize anyone when they go wrong. He's anything but a knee-jerk NDP critic, and I prefer thinkers like that to a knee-jerk NDP partisan.

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

In this particular area of policy the Green Party policy seems to be a little stronger than NDP policy.   I can live with both policies, and the NDP is in a much stronger position to put forward this policy, but nevertheless Green policy is a bit better in this area.

Green Party

NDP

Also, the NDP has an iThingie app.    No app for any other mobile platform...only the most evil one.

Aristotleded24

North Star wrote:
The question if the Green Party of Canada is the most right wing Green Party in the world is a pretty legitimate question. The only other Green Party this right wing are the Greens in Germany. They've been in a government that has supported NATO missions and helped the Social Democrats pass labour market and pension reforms.

What about the Green Party of Mexico being in electoral alliances with the PRI?

Ippurigakko

in France Green and PS are coalition. PS is most left wing.

mark_alfred

While I feel that the Green Party's policy on electoral reform is rather tepid, I will commend Elizabeth May for saying she will vote in favour of the NDP motion to inform China that Canada will not ratify the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA).  The Liberals appear to be against the NDP motion.  link

autoworker autoworker's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

While I feel that the Green Party's policy on electoral reform is rather tepid, I will commend Elizabeth May for saying she will vote in favour of the NDP motion to inform China that Canada will not ratify the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA).  The Liberals appear to be against the NDP motion.  link

"Tepid": please explain.

mark_alfred

I was just referencing post number one.

PrairieDemocrat15

Canada's Greens are NOT like the Greens of Scandinavia or Oceania (AUS/NZ). They are eco-capialists who focus on market-oriented green solutions. They advocate reduced taxes. Actually, I think one of their recent platforms advicated lower corporate taxes.

Although I'm no fan of the Greens or May, I will not she has been one Parliament's strongest critics of the China-Canada FIPA, the the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreenement with the EU, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. NDP trade critic Don Davies has done a good job on the first two as well.

autoworker autoworker's picture

PrairieDemocrat15 wrote:

Canada's Greens are NOT like the Greens of Scandinavia or Oceania (AUS/NZ). They are eco-capialists who focus on market-oriented green solutions. They advocate reduced taxes. Actually, I think one of their recent platforms advicated lower corporate taxes.

Although I'm no fan of the Greens or May, I will not she has been one Parliament's strongest critics of the China-Canada FIPA, the the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreenement with the EU, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. NDP trade critic Don Davies has done a good job on the first two as well.

The Greens propose introducing a carbon tax (rather than a cap and trade regime) as a basis for shifting taxes away from other sources.. The program would be revenue neutral.

mmphosis
Aristotleded24

autoworker wrote:
The Greens propose introducing a carbon tax (rather than a cap and trade regime) as a basis for shifting taxes away from other sources.. The program would be revenue neutral.

Exactly, it's greenwashing a change to the taxation system.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

autoworker wrote:
The Greens propose introducing a carbon tax (rather than a cap and trade regime) as a basis for shifting taxes away from other sources.. The program would be revenue neutral.

Exactly, it's greenwashing a change to the taxation system.

A bona fide carbon tax would fundamentally shift the economic paradigm away from the current brainwashing which disseminates the fallacy that fossil fuel development is sustainable, without cost to both the environment, and future fiscal balance sheets. There is no free lunch, organic or otherwise. Our children and grandchildren will curse your sophistry.

autoworker autoworker's picture

mmphosis wrote:

International Cooperation (youtube.com)

Great clip! Thanks for posting.

Aristotleded24

autoworker wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:

autoworker wrote:
The Greens propose introducing a carbon tax (rather than a cap and trade regime) as a basis for shifting taxes away from other sources.. The program would be revenue neutral.

Exactly, it's greenwashing a change to the taxation system.

A bona fide carbon tax would fundamentally shift the economic paradigm away from the current brainwashing which disseminates the fallacy that fossil fuel development is sustainable, without cost to both the environment, and future fiscal balance sheets. There is no free lunch, organic or otherwise. Our children and grandchildren will curse your sophistry.

Sorry, adding a carbon tax while reducing taxes for higher income earners (as was done in BC) does nothing for the environment at all. Especially if you don't provide practical alternatives for people. No matter how much driving costs, people aren't gonig to give it up if that same commute by public transit is longer.

JKR

I don't see why this has to be an either-or argument. The solution to man made climate change probably includes a combination of cap and trade, a tax on carbon, progressive tax credits, regulations, incentives, and education. It's a complicated problem that can be dealt with through consensus driven evidence based policy formation. Neo-cons rightfully fear consensus driven evidence based policies.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

autoworker wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:

autoworker wrote:
The Greens propose introducing a carbon tax (rather than a cap and trade regime) as a basis for shifting taxes away from other sources.. The program would be revenue neutral.

Exactly, it's greenwashing a change to the taxation system.

A bona fide carbon tax would fundamentally shift the economic paradigm away from the current brainwashing which disseminates the fallacy that fossil fuel development is sustainable, without cost to both the environment, and future fiscal balance sheets. There is no free lunch, organic or otherwise. Our children and grandchildren will curse your sophistry.

Sorry, adding a carbon tax while reducing taxes for higher income earners (as was done in BC) does nothing for the environment at all. Especially if you don't provide practical alternatives for people. No matter how much driving costs, people aren't gonig to give it up if that same
commute by public transit is longer.

It depends on one's definition of a carbon tax, and what it includes/excludes. A true carbon tax places a premium on the carbon energy inputs themselves. The more intensive the inputs, the more expensive the product. It's basically a tax on one's carbon footprint. If one looks to Europe, for example, high energy prices have encouraged greater fuel efficiency, and better building and appliance standards. However, their attempt at a cap-and-trade pricing mechanism should not be imitated, as the current carbon-market collapse indicates.

autoworker autoworker's picture

JKR wrote:

I don't see why this has to be an either-or argument. The solution to man made climate change probably includes a combination of cap and trade, a tax on carbon, progressive tax credits, regulations, incentives, and education. It's a complicated problem that can be dealt with through consensus driven evidence based policy formation. Neo-cons rightfully fear consensus driven evidence based policies.

With the exception of cap-and-trade, which capitalizes carbon into a commodity to be traded on a futures exchange (see the current price collapse in Europe), it needn't be an either/or proposition. Regulation, education, and consensus remain equally important, as are incentives to conserve and recycle. It would be a democratic stewardship based on consensus-- which is also why electoral reform (PR, in my opinion) is vital to achieving that reality.

mark_alfred

Whether it's a carbon tax or cap and trade or a combination, I do feel that it should not be revenue neutral.  Revenue from carbon pricing should go into investment in environmental initiatives like retrofitting, alternative energy, etc.

mark_alfred

Interesting article by May on the pipeline debate.

http://www.rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/elizabeth-may/2013/04/pipelines-to-e...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Very good article, someone seems to have done the research and is making the right proposals, not that I will be voting Green anytime soon.

I hope all the NDP members on this board start a campaign within the party to adopt a similar policy and abandon the idea of shipping filthy bitumen anywhere.

autoworker autoworker's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

Whether it's a carbon tax or cap and trade or a combination, I do feel that it should not be revenue neutral.  Revenue from carbon pricing should go into investment in environmental initiatives like retrofitting, alternative energy, etc.

Tax savings from revenue shifts could finance such initiatives by energy consumers, to offset price increases. Taxpayers can choose to insulate their homes, and businesses, buy a more fuel-efficient vehicle, take public transit, or continue to pay a premium for their carbon footprint. Policy is about choices, for both consumers, and governments. Additional tax burdens are a non-starter for most people.

lagatta

Lots of people don't own their own dwellings. I'm certainly not against measures that will discourage car ownership and urban sprawl, but we need alternatives - alternatives that will keep transport and building workers working. Car crap is one of the easiest things to shift to sustainable transport.

mark_alfred

While both the NDP and Liberals had statements on the National Day of Mourning on their sites, there was no mention of it on either the Green or Conservative Party sites that I could find.

mark_alfred

autoworker wrote:
mark_alfred wrote:

Whether it's a carbon tax or cap and trade or a combination, I do feel that it should not be revenue neutral.  Revenue from carbon pricing should go into investment in environmental initiatives like retrofitting, alternative energy, etc.

Tax savings from revenue shifts could finance such initiatives by energy consumers, to offset price increases. Taxpayers can choose to insulate their homes, and businesses, buy a more fuel-efficient vehicle, take public transit, or continue to pay a premium for their carbon footprint. Policy is about choices, for both consumers, and governments. Additional tax burdens are a non-starter for most people.

Taxpayers then could also choose not to do any of the things you mentioned.  Such a loose proposal would not accomplish anything besides weakening government and strengthening big business.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

autoworker wrote:
mark_alfred wrote:

Whether it's a carbon tax or cap and trade or a combination, I do feel that it should not be revenue neutral.  Revenue from carbon pricing should go into investment in environmental initiatives like retrofitting, alternative energy, etc.

Tax savings from revenue shifts could finance such initiatives by energy consumers, to offset price increases. Taxpayers can choose to insulate their homes, and businesses, buy a more fuel-efficient vehicle, take public transit, or continue to pay a premium for their carbon footprint. Policy is about choices, for both consumers, and governments. Additional tax burdens are a non-starter for most people.

Taxpayers then could also choose not to do any of the things you mentioned.  Such a loose proposal would not accomplish anything besides weakening government and strengthening big business.

Mark, you nailed it, that is exactly right. AW, he's got you dead to rights on this one.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

autoworker wrote:
mark_alfred wrote:

Whether it's a carbon tax or cap and trade or a combination, I do feel that it should not be revenue neutral.  Revenue from carbon pricing should go into investment in environmental initiatives like retrofitting, alternative energy, etc.

Tax savings from revenue shifts could finance such initiatives by energy consumers, to offset price increases. Taxpayers can choose to insulate their homes, and businesses, buy a more fuel-efficient vehicle, take public transit, or continue to pay a premium for their carbon footprint. Policy is about choices, for both consumers, and governments. Additional tax burdens are a non-starter for most people.

Taxpayers then could also choose not to do any of the things you mentioned.  Such a loose proposal would not accomplish anything besides weakening government and strengthening big business.

Mark, you nailed it, that is exactly right. AW, he's got you dead to rights on this one.

Taxpayers could choose to do nothing, and pay more, as would business and consumers. At some point, it would would impact their consumption habits. I don't see how it would "weaken" government, or strengthen it, for that matter, as it would be revenue neutral. It would, however democratize the economic decisions that are made. But then, there are those who don't trust the people to make good choices, and would rather impose what they believe is for their own good.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Indeed that is the case and our seat belt laws and motorcycle helmet laws are two things that readily jump to mind. Climate change is an issue that affects the whole community and regulation of things that can have a major effect is a democratic option given those negative consequences.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Indeed that is the case and our seat belt laws and motorcycle helmet laws are two things that readily jump to mind. Climate change is an issue that affects the whole community and regulation of things that can have a major effect is a democratic option given those negative consequences.

Nailed it K. Sorry AW, K has you dead to rights as well.

autoworker autoworker's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Indeed that is the case and our seat belt laws and motorcycle helmet laws are two things that readily jump to mind. Climate change is an issue that affects the whole community and regulation of things that can have a major effect is a democratic option given those negative consequences.

First, you have to get people to believe that climate change exists, let alone get them to vote for major changes to their lifestyles and expectations. Helmets, seat belts, vehicle safety standards, etc. are as much driven by the increasing medical and insurance costs, as by a desire to protect the public from their own recklessness. But, if you need an an example of the limits, and resistance to regulation, the gun registry comes to mind.

trotwood73

Here's a question for the Green Party leader: why did she vote against the NDP motion tabled today by the NDP Environment critic, Megan Leslie (Halifax):

“That this House: (a) agree with many Canadians and the International Energy Agency that there is grave concern with the impacts of a 2 degree rise in global average temperatures; (b) condemn the lack of effective action by successive federal governments since 1998 to address emissions and meet our Kyoto commitments; and (c) call on the government to immediately table its federal climate change adaptation plan.”

janfromthebruce

oh wow -

Peggy Nash ‏@PeggyNashNDP 3h

Wow Liz May and Lib MPs vote with CPC vs #NDP climate change motion. Breathtaking #hypocrisy. #cdnpoli #fb.

Trudeau #Libs join HarperCons to vote AGAINST NDP Motion on climate change! THIRD vote Trudeau has cast w/ Harper & agst #NDP #Canpoli

Eliz May responds via twitter

Elizabeth May MP ‏@ElizabethMay 1h

@nathancullen Where was the "action" part of that motion?? I couldn't find it. & the 2 degrees phrasing was a mess. Why not a good motion?

I guess May didn't read the motion, as the motion's action was #3 table its federal climate change adaptation plan.

PrairieDemocrat15

During the BC leadership debate Green Party leader Jane Sterk was chastising Clark for not allowing more private (wind) power in BC.

trotwood73

More on Elizabeth May voting against the NDP motion this evening.

She blogged about it: Why I voted against the NDP climate motion .

It looks like she's trying to spin this because of how bad it looks. She essentially says the motion (it was NOT a bill) did not go far enough. Very lame.

People on he Facebook don't seem to be buying it either.

The more I see of Elizabeth May in action, the more I wonder what the hell she is doing!?! It almost makes me wonder it the Green party is not some perverse creation of the Liberal or Conservative parties to split the left/eco vote from the NDP.

mark_alfred

Odd.  Does she dispute that there "is grave concern with the impacts of a 2 degree rise in global average temperatures" caused by government inaction for some time?  If she does, then it may explain why she would also dispute the need for the government to immediately table its federal climate change adaptation plan. 

Adaptation, from Wikipedia, is defined "as a response to climate change that seeks to reduce the vulnerability of biological systems to climate change effects. Even if emissions are stabilized relatively soon, climate change and its effects will last many years, and adaptation will be necessary."

janfromthebruce

May is now facing off against environmentalist who think she just blew it big time - this was a no brainer to support. Now both the Libs (whose claim to environmental fame is Dion naming his dog Kyoto and doing squat as a govt about climate change) and May showing Green pettiness.

So on one side you have one Green, a rump of Libs, and Cons on the same page - nice optics!

autoworker autoworker's picture

So, the NPD is equal to the CPC in terms of political gamesmanship, but lacking in policy action that adroitly targets what is arguably the most crucial issue facing future generations. Play us a fiddle, while we all dance to their clever jig! I once had someone tell me that environentalists were "reverse scabs" for protesting clearcutting. The same disingenuous crap persists. I trust that Peggy Nash has costed the impacts of this flawed motion.

mmphosis

I think that the Greens and NDP need to work together.

autoworker autoworker's picture

mmphosis wrote:

I think that the Greens and NDP need to work together.

Elizabeth May proposed to do just that, and was rebuffed. Well, the NPD won't have the Greens to blame when the results are tallied in Labrador. They Greens should have run a candidate opposing the Muskrat Falls project. Who knows, they may have come in ahead of the Dippers.

Pages