Green Party of Canada

brookmere wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Ms. May thinks that influence could even get the Conservatives to drop their dyed-in-the-wool opposition to carbon taxes if it means the difference for them between governing or spending more time in opposition.

That's an incredibly stupid thing to say. A minority Conservative government would be unable to get rid of the carbon tax anyway. She's saying she would be willing to ally the Greens with the Conservatives against the Liberals and NDP, for nothing. This is a gift to the Liberals and the NDP and I hope they pick up on it.

I agree. This may be the worst political move May has made.

+I sincerely hope that Green 'progressives' are so turned off by this idiotic person that not only does May lose her seat but the Greens end up with 0 Parliament seats and the party takes decades to rebuild. I am PISSED. There was I time I considered voting Green. I must have been smoking crack.

I hope she pays the ultimate political price.

Ken Burch wrote:

I'm not really sure that we can say Chretien is to Trudeau and Martin's left.  As PM, he was to the right of Mulroney, and IIRC, Mulroney was fond of gloating about that.

I don't understand what left and right have to do with three men who are nowhere near the "left" side of the political spectrum.  It just tells me that the terms left and right have become meaningless.  They are all neo-cons who ruled on behalf of their corporate masters. Hell they might even have visited at Paul Desmarais Sr's Florida residences at the same time. Those politicians have a relationship with Power Corp, SNL, Bombardier etc that has nothing to do with left and right. Canada is a corrupt country and has been for a long time.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

I'm not really sure that we can say Chretien is to Trudeau and Martin's left.  As PM, he was to the right of Mulroney, and IIRC, Mulroney was fond of gloating about that.

I don't understand what left and right have to do with three men who are nowhere near the "left" side of the political spectrum.  It just tells me that the terms left and right have become meaningless.  They are all neo-cons who ruled on behalf of their corporate masters.

In relative terms, most politicians can be considered to the right or left of other politicians. Joe Clark is to the left of Preston Manning, for example, but that doesn't mean he is "on the left".

So was Mussolini to the left or right of Hitler?  How about Queen Victoria and King Leopold. Frankly I don't care whether politicians are to the left or right of Robespierre. It used to mean something during the reign of terror but now it is a meaningless distinction. They are all from our ruling class and share that world view.

Elizabeth May was part of the Progressive Conservative government: "In 1986, May became Senior Policy Advisor to then federal Environment Minister, Thomas McMillan of the Progressive Conservatives." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_May)

In 2006 she sat with Mulroney when he received the "greenest PM" in history award. 

Environmentalist Elizabeth May and former Liberal environment minister Sheila Copps shared the head table with Mulroney, who was crowned the greenest PM in a magazine survey of high-profile environmentalists and others.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/mulroney-honoured-for-environmenta...

What else would one expect from her than being okay in supporting a Con government on environmental issues despite its denial of global warming until a month ago and only then in the vaguest manner that has resulted in its climate change plan being ridiculed by environmentalists. Scheer's actions since announcing the plan have only drew more criticism. In spite of this May continues to suggest she could support the Cons. 

When Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer released his greenhouse gas reduction plan last month, it was rightly criticized as thin and vague. As of this week, it’s a whole lot thinner.

On July 8, Mr. Scheer sent Prime Minister Justin Trudeau a letter accusing the Liberal Leader of imposing a “secret fuel tax.” As every Canadian by now knows, the centerpiece of the Conservative election platform is opposition to the federal carbon tax, or any carbon tax, anywhere, ever, in this galaxy or any other. But Mr. Scheer’s letter wasn’t about that.

Instead, he attacked future plans for fuel standards, of a type Canada has long had. Beginning in 2022, Canadian refiners will have to create gasoline that is 10 to 12 per cent less carbon intensive, which in plain English means 10 to 12 per cent less polluting for each kilometre driven. Mr. Scheer claimed these regulations will eventually cost Canadian drivers 4 cents a litre. If elected, he pledged to scrap them.

All of which clarifies the Conservative environmental platform, and reveals it to be a seriously unserious plan.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-andrew-scheer...

Brock Grills has resigned for "personal reasons" as the Green candidate in Peterborough-Kawartha.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5671336/brock-grills-resigns-federal-green-pa...

Elizabeth May is reaching out DIRECTLY to progressive voters here on Rabble, by writing an op-ed. It is to ease the minds of progressive voters ready to leave the NDP for the Green Party.

Will Greens ever compromise climate for power? Never. By Elizabeth May

http://rabble.ca/news/2019/07/will-greens-ever-compromise-climate-power-...

But why would Rabble ever let Elizabeth May have the time of day on their own forum?

Here's a question for May.

What would May do if she was PM when the US requested Meng Wan Zhou to be arrested and deported to face faux charges related to illegal trade embargos imposed by imperialisr US.

What would May do when the US attempts to impose illegal embargos and internal interfering with the domestic politics of Venezuela, Iran, China, Russia etc etc.

What about Palestine? China relations vs US relations? Expanding trade with China vs US.

Is anyone going to ask May the questions that the Imperialist corporate Media demand Jag answer? And if so when? When!

Mighty Middle wrote:

Elizabeth May is reaching out DIRECTLY to progressive voters here on Rabble, by writing an op-ed. It is to ease the minds of progressive voters ready to leave the NDP for the Green Party.

Will Greens ever compromise climate for power? Never. By Elizabeth May

http://rabble.ca/news/2019/07/will-greens-ever-compromise-climate-power-...

But why would Rabble ever let Elizabeth May have the time of day on their own forum?

An op-ed in which she once again repeats the discredited Liberal talking point that the NDP brought down the Martin government and caused the Harper victory-when she knows full well the government would have fallen even if the NDP had voted to keep it in power and even though keeping that government in power for one more month wouldn't have made any significant difference in the election results.

The GPC is as progressive as the GOP. And May is Trump. Fuck,do I want her to lose her seat. I hope somehow someway she does.

what a load she spews. saying what a PM could do without even having motions yet she would support Scheer while falsely condemning the NDP for bringing down a Liberal  government and bringing us Harper.

Harper, Scheer's overlord.

does she not hear herself?

Honestly, that proposal is populist nonsense just on the left instead of the right. I have a better proposal, how about the federal government lives up to its responsibilities and fixes the water systems.

The Greens are certainly not on the left. BC Provincial Green Party leader forced the NDP to abandon introducing the card checkoff for union certification because the NDP needed Green support to pass the legislation. "Andrew Weaver made it very clear if there’s card check included in this bill he would not support it." (https://vancouversun.com/news/politics/b-c-ndp-backs-off-push-to-scrap-s...)

Tyson Kelsall, Campaigns Chair on the Young Greens of Canada council, the youth wing of the federal Green Party of Canada, quit the party in 2015 because she realized the party was not going to be a "a progressive party that was going to stand up to the neoclassical economic structure, bring awareness to stopping pipelines, and put real environmental protection onto Parliament’s agenda". Kelsall notes that the Greens agree with the Liberals on most policies. 

Greens in Canada have often championed the fact that their platform rises above the traditional left-right spectrum, and as long as someone aligns themselves with their six principles, they can be a Green.  These principles: non-violence, sustainability, social justice, ecological wisdom, participatory democracy and respect for diversity, leave room for vagueness and opens their party up to a diverse set of people. This is why a centrist-liberal, like Elizabeth May, someone as politically ambigious as Georges Laraque, and a former NDP MP can all be part of the same party. It’s why former Green Party Leader, Jim Harris, can endorse a conservative in the Toronto mayoral race that featured an actual progressive in Olivia Chow. This is why May won in a previous Conservative riding, rather than a traditional progressive/left riding. On January 19th, she will host and give a platform to former Conservative Premier Joe Clark for a speech. Here, arises their greatest shortcoming: the Green Party has no backbone. Their platform subscribes to no ideology, and thus they do not stand for much. The reason they claim to be something different than the other mainstream parties is the very same reason that negates their existence at all. ...

If Canadians needed any further proof that voting Green is not intrinsically voting progressive, they can look to newly elected Vancouver School Board trustee Janet Fraser who, while holding the balance of power, voted for a right-winged NPA member to be the school board chair, over a Vision Vancouver candidate. Her pathetic defense was that “voters brought change”, despite the fact that the Vision incumbent, Patti Bacchus received more votes than any other trustee, and Christopher Richardson, the NPA trustee, received the fewest on the board. Fraser says her decision was “based on Green values”. The NPA is backed by the far right think-tank, the Fraser Institute. Their mayoral candidate openly supported corporate classroom funding from Chevron. It is also known that right-leaning parties tend to be anti-union, which pits them ideologically against the British Columbia Teachers Federation. First, does she think voters would have elected a Green trustee, if they had thought a Green would help bring a Chevron partnership onto the school board’s agenda? Moreover, what does this say about “Green values”? A few days after Fraser cast her vote, BC Green Party Leader Adam Olsen wrote a post called “Left-right politics” where he denounces the left and right spectrum, and says, “Greens are defined by…the quality of decisions we make and our ability to defend those decisions”.

One fellow Green explained to me that, “we’re basically running on a 1990s Liberal platform”. Perhaps, these are the citizens who May and the Greens are pandering to, Liberals who care about the environment a little bit more than Justin Trudeau, who has shown support for Keystone XL and previously for Energy East (although that is waning with so much grassroots opposition), but agree with most Liberal Party politics.

speaking out of both sides of her mouth.

Slim chance as she got 54% of the vote last election

The NDP nevertheless should choose an outspoken candidate who calls a presser and contradicts May’s BS every time she opens her mouth

alan smithee wrote:

The GPC is as progressive as the GOP. And May is Trump. Fuck,do I want her to lose her seat. I hope somehow someway she does.

The Green Party has narrowly edged the NDP for third place in fundraising for the second quarter

Between April and June, the Green Party raised about $1,437,722, beating the NDP’s $1,433,476, according to financial statements posted to Elections Canada’s website on Wednesday. The NDP did, however, have 14,936 contributors, overtaking the Green Party’s 14,616.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/07/31/news/greens-top-new-democrat...

jerrym wrote:

The Greens are certainly not on the left. BC Provincial Green Party leader forced the NDP to abandon introducing the card checkoff for union certification because the NDP needed Green support to pass the legislation. "Andrew Weaver made it very clear if there’s card check included in this bill he would not support it." (https://vancouversun.com/news/politics/b-c-ndp-backs-off-push-to-scrap-s...)

Tyson Kelsall, Campaigns Chair on the Young Greens of Canada council, the youth wing of the federal Green Party of Canada, quit the party in 2015 because she realized the party was not going to be a "a progressive party that was going to stand up to the neoclassical economic structure, bring awareness to stopping pipelines, and put real environmental protection onto Parliament’s agenda". Kelsall notes that the Greens agree with the Liberals on most policies. 

Greens in Canada have often championed the fact that their platform rises above the traditional left-right spectrum, and as long as someone aligns themselves with their six principles, they can be a Green.  These principles: non-violence, sustainability, social justice, ecological wisdom, participatory democracy and respect for diversity, leave room for vagueness and opens their party up to a diverse set of people. This is why a centrist-liberal, like Elizabeth May, someone as politically ambigious as Georges Laraque, and a former NDP MP can all be part of the same party. It’s why former Green Party Leader, Jim Harris, can endorse a conservative in the Toronto mayoral race that featured an actual progressive in Olivia Chow. This is why May won in a previous Conservative riding, rather than a traditional progressive/left riding. On January 19th, she will host and give a platform to former Conservative Premier Joe Clark for a speech. Here, arises their greatest shortcoming: the Green Party has no backbone. Their platform subscribes to no ideology, and thus they do not stand for much. The reason they claim to be something different than the other mainstream parties is the very same reason that negates their existence at all. ...

If Canadians needed any further proof that voting Green is not intrinsically voting progressive, they can look to newly elected Vancouver School Board trustee Janet Fraser who, while holding the balance of power, voted for a right-winged NPA member to be the school board chair, over a Vision Vancouver candidate. Her pathetic defense was that “voters brought change”, despite the fact that the Vision incumbent, Patti Bacchus received more votes than any other trustee, and Christopher Richardson, the NPA trustee, received the fewest on the board. Fraser says her decision was “based on Green values”. The NPA is backed by the far right think-tank, the Fraser Institute. Their mayoral candidate openly supported corporate classroom funding from Chevron. It is also known that right-leaning parties tend to be anti-union, which pits them ideologically against the British Columbia Teachers Federation. First, does she think voters would have elected a Green trustee, if they had thought a Green would help bring a Chevron partnership onto the school board’s agenda? Moreover, what does this say about “Green values”? A few days after Fraser cast her vote, BC Green Party Leader Adam Olsen wrote a post called “Left-right politics” where he denounces the left and right spectrum, and says, “Greens are defined by…the quality of decisions we make and our ability to defend those decisions”.

One fellow Green explained to me that, “we’re basically running on a 1990s Liberal platform”. Perhaps, these are the citizens who May and the Greens are pandering to, Liberals who care about the environment a little bit more than Justin Trudeau, who has shown support for Keystone XL and previously for Energy East (although that is waning with so much grassroots opposition), but agree with most Liberal Party politics.

You're absolutely right Jerry. It's not as if the Perfectly Progressive NDP would ever team up with right-wing interests:

Quote:

Over the last few weeks the three BC Green Party MLAs have been repeatedly outvoted on legislation related to liquefied natural gas development.

But the defeats in the legislature have given the Greens a chance to demonstrate how they differ from the province’s two main political parties, starting with their opposition to the $40-billion LNG Canada project in Kitimat.

“In the face of what to us looks like staggering... evidence about this being the worst possible direction to be taking, it was really important that we voice that opposition,” said Sonia Furstenau, the MLA for Cowichan Valley. “All of the evidence right now is telling us the last thing the world needs is a massive new point-source emitter of greenhouse gases.”

...

Yet in the legislature, only the three Green MLAs made the case against the government’s direction.

...

Premier John Horgan has argued that the LNG Canada proposal fits with the CleanBC plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and that the provincial government stands to gain $23 billion from the project over its lifetime.

It will see thousands of jobs created in a part of the province that badly needs them, he’s argued.

In doing so, he’s contributed to the conclusion among many environmentalists that despite the Green role in the government, it values jobs over anything else.

An April 6 Globe and Mail article found there was little difference between the NDP minority government and the former BC Liberal government in policies on forestry, mining, LNG and Site C.

Longtime activist and Order of Canada recipient Vicky Husband offered a blunt assessment in an interview: “They haven’t changed a damn thing ... there doesn’t appear to be an environmental bone in their body.”

...

Warren Bell, a Salmon Arm doctor and Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment board member, said the Greens are taking the right position given the threat of climate change.

“It’s not surprising this rift has developed,” he said. “What is surprising is the BC Liberals and the NDP are finding common cause around this particular matter... It’s turning the NDP and the Liberals into Tweedledee and Tweedledum on this particular policy area.”

The Greens have long argued that the BC Liberals and NDP have many policies in common.

“We were clear about this in the 2017 election campaign, that the other two parties were offering a pretty similar vision, and I think the Greens, what really sets us apart, is we have a very different vision for the future of B.C. than either of the other two parties,” Furstenau said.

Exactly contrarianna. No party or politician is perfect. I'm an NDP partisan. Even with the Greens in contention to win my area in the provincial election, I will still vote NDP. I want the NDP to do well. Part of the NDP doing well means that if the NDP is doing something wrong, I want to know that so that the NDP can fix that.

Sure, disagreeing with the Greens is fine. My problem with some of the attacks on the Greens that I have seen is it seems to ignore why people are attracted to that party. I belive that a big driver of that attraction is disillusionment with the entire political establishment, and it comes across as if to throw stones at the Greens while disregarding the actions of the other political parties which led people to even consider the Greens in the first place.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

In a thread about the Green party of Canada the BC NDP is irrelevant. But I personally would never support the BC Greens because its leader actively campaigned for Gordon Campbell at the height of his corrupt regime.

I have always found May to be less than honest with the truth when it comes to the NDP. She has always attacked the party during election campaigns and always will. She is now fishing for conservative voters across the country to send her money  so she can target NDP ridings like my MP Gord Johns. Because it is for the greater good to try and defeat an environmentalist, really, trust me, its about saving the planet not EMay's ego or crass party politics.

I appreciate that perspective and I respect the principles involved. My issue is with NDP partisans constantly throwing rocks at the Greens to prove that the Greens are not "progressive" while they have major blind spots to the NDP flaws, many of which the Greens are correct on when they critique. That doesn't win people back to the NDP, that just makes people want to check out of politics altogether. When people check out of politics, the right is more likely to be successful.

We Call For A Leadership Race in the Green Party of Canada

https://twitter.com/dimitrilascaris/status/1190342376981696513

"Green Party of Canada supporters have launched a petition calling for a leadership contest. After 13 years of Elizabeth May at the helm, it is time for the grassroots to consider alternatives in an open contest."

was this brought on by her shilling to become speaker? 

https://www.straight.com/news/1320416/martyn-brown-i-didnt-vote-elizabeth-may-be-speaker-i-voted-her-leadership-voice-climate

Most progressives and community activists that I know personally,here in BC despise the NDP  for its compromised actions...so any collaboration formally with the Greens, means the end for the Greens, which still have some credibility.

So I was wrong in my pronouncement:

Quote:

Federal Green Party Leader Elizabeth May is stepping down as party leader.

Speaking to reporters in Ottawa Monday, May said that she is leaving the post she has held since 2006, effective today.

May said she will continue to sit as a member of Parliament and will be the party's parliamentary caucus leader.