Green Vision 2010

A big problem with the 'Green' Party is their utter reluctance to confront the issue of population growth and its main driver, immigration. Whatever one thinks of immigration (financial, social, political, &c.), the fact remains that adding over 250,000 people annually to Canada's population (2/3rds of Canada's total population growth) is not environmentally sustainable. Regardless of how dense and New Urbanist new housing developments are, land will be lost to development with population increases. Since less than 5% of Canada's land is arable, the conversion of agricultural land to housing is a serious matter. Also, areas such as Southern Alberta simply can't sustain continued population growth, in terms of long-term water consumption. Landfill space, sewage treatment and fossil fuel use (much of which is the product of population transfer from the warm 'South' to Canada, necessitating fossil fuel heating and whatnot) are also inevitable products of continued population growth.

Obviously, political correctness is a factor in the silence over immigration and population growth. However, a darker motive concerns corporate donations to 'green' organisations (and connections with Green Party supporters). Two of the David Suzuki Foundation's major financial supporters are BMO-Financial and RBC, both of which have lobbied for doubling Canada's immigration intake. The U.S. Sierra Club's $100M donation from David Gelbaum--which came with the caveat that immigration not be criticised--is well known. Look at the donor lists to 'green' groups and see the names of banks, developers, construction companies and other interests profiting from continuous population growth. These corporate interests have been clever enough to deflect attention from the population issue, and frame criticism of mass immigration as 'racist'. This is similar to how climate change has been used to paint nuclear power as a 'green' energy source...

A viable long-term solution would involve seriously reducing the immigration intake, encouraging responsible family planing (in Canada and the third world), Okotoks-style population caps in metro areas and an absolute, Federally-mandated moratorium on greenspace development, or rezoning of greenspace and agricultural land. This also means an orderly wind-down of the completely unsustainable homebuilding/development industry in Canada, which is constantly hungry for warm bodies, raw materials and land. Banks, REITs and ethnic lobbies are other parties behind the push to [over]populate Canada. Also, 'green homebuilding' and 'green growth' are oxymoronic--a static population doesn't require new housing developments. The 'Green' Party is simply too gutless, politically correct and co-opted by lobbyists to confront this.

Oh btw webgear thanks for the link

I downloaded it a few days ago now, and have been trying to get to reading it but women's worlds curling occupied my time, so I will get to it this week and state some opinions on it.

ACSial wrote:

A big problem with the 'Green' Party is their utter reluctance to confront the issue of population growth and its main driver, immigration. Whatever one thinks of immigration (financial, social, political, &c.), the fact remains that adding over 250,000 people annually to Canada's population (2/3rds of Canada's total population growth) is not environmentally sustainable. Regardless of how dense and New Urbanist new housing developments are, land will be lost to development with population increases. Since less than 5% of Canada's land is arable, the conversion of agricultural land to housing is a serious matter. Also, areas such as Southern Alberta simply can't sustain continued population growth, in terms of long-term water consumption. Landfill space, sewage treatment and fossil fuel use (much of which is the product of population transfer from the warm 'South' to Canada, necessitating fossil fuel heating and whatnot) are also inevitable products of continued population growth.

 

Addressing the issue of global population through Canada's immigration policy is like addressing a tsunami by closing the beach hut door.

It's novel length. 

I scanned the ag section.  I sense an urban "green" style policy push, and that's a good thing.  I'm a little uncomfortable with the word "organic" being tossed around so much considering the quality of non-organic but Canadian standardized domestic food is of a high quality with a reasonable price.  They'd be better off, headline policy-wise, by suggesting they'd simplify the food labelling so consumers can tell where a product really comes from.

The fresh produce for schools is brutally long overdue.  

The party's position on genticially modified products is problematic.  There is currently no way to isolate Canadian consumers from GM products at this point in time.  I don't think that's a realistic goal. 

Still, overall, quite detailed.  I have concerns that this is a top-down document that locals have little say in authoring.