Their social analysis says virtually nothing about the structural causes of poverty, and their solutions borrow from both the former PCs and the Alliance. They talk about how a Green government would "enhance the existing network of . . . school nutrition . . . and food-bank programs . . ." to eliminate hunger in Canada. Those who study poverty with a view to ending it see food banks not as a solution, but as a symbol of everything that is wrong with the way governments approach poverty.
The party is committed to smaller government in a way that no other party is, except the new Conservatives. With respect to the devastated federal public service -- characterized by massive downsizing, unprecedented stress levels, completely inadequate staffing to carry out department mandates and years without real increases in pay -- the Green Party has a single response, and it sounds a lot like Stephen Harper's: "Reform the public sector to be more responsive and accountable." This is union busting by another name, and seems to promise the continuation of the right-wing assault on government employees. If you want the public service to be "responsive," the logical solution is to return it to functional staffing levels.
The Greens' fiscal policies are among their most reactionary and problematic. They toe the Bay Street line by promising to "lower taxes on income, profit and investment, to promote increased productivity and job creation." As for addressing the problem of chronically high unemployment, the party takes a page out of Paul Martin's book of maintaining extremely low inflation -- Greens will still fight inflation by putting people out of work unless unemployment rises above 10 per cent. These policies have been notable failures for the past 15 years -- lowering wages, increasing the productivity gap with the United States and creating mostly low-wage jobs -- and certainly have no place in the platform of a party that pitches its appeals to social democrats.
Any increase in revenue from promised Green taxes on "harmful activities" would be neutralized by lowering income taxes, the most progressive and fair taxes we have. The Greens also call for an increase in property taxes, a regressive tax. They are committed to using surpluses to ". . . reduce the national debt." In other words, the party is to the right of all the major parties, which are now committing billions for spending on social programs that Canadians say they want.
One of the most remarkable aspects of the Green platform is the lack of any commitment to using government legislation or regulation to accomplish core environmental goals.
Here are just a few examples: "The Green Party will: Empower [bioregional] stewards to seek intervenor status in legal actions that impact the health of the ecosystem; . . . work with local environmental groups to reduce pollution levels in the air, water and soil; promote sustainability through education; and monitor the diversity of species, the levels of pollution and the health of the ecosystem."These are not the actions of a government committed to using its mandated power to actually protect the environment. The party also supports the corporate sector's position on self-regulation: "The Green Party will assist and encourage Canadian companies to attain ISO 14000 certification, the international standard for management." The ISO 14000 has been almost universally condemned by the international environmental movement as ineffective and unreliable.
Those Canadians thinking of voting Green because they believe it is progressive had better do their homework. There is more to this party than the user-friendly name would suggest.
Murray Dobbin is author of Paul Martin: CEO for Canada?
Comments
view comments in forum
You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.
Which politician has the guts to put their signature on this policy ?
Food banks are new to society, and it is only a feel-good sensation that keeps them going.
It has always been a political issue, because the politicians opened the doors to the mental hospitals and let people out on the streets that have trouble looking after themselves.
This is, of course, not acceptable, but who is listening ??
Make it an issue: Get rid of food banks.
(I will be criticized for this, but I think the people that have so much, get such a good feeling out of filling a bag for the poor, that it makes them feel good.)
Give them a decent job !! At a decent wage ! Then you can feel good.
Only then !!!!!!!!!!!
---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca
"The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato
They may have some good ideas, and I will have to study their platform a little closer.
I know they are for tax cuts, in some ways, and I am aware that would appeal to a "rightie" like you.
---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca
"The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato
Just to let everyone know that at the web site below, the green party has given a line by line rebuttal to Murray Dubbins story. It's worth a visit.
http://www.greenparty.ca/index.php
"Right, because the Green Party recognizes that citizens can do more for the environment than ANY government EVER can."
What?! More than a government can? Looks like a bunch of Chomsky deregulation anarchists who drive Prius's and live in million dollar homes to me.
to see that the majority of CAP candidates (who replied) had voted
against same-sex marriage.
As for how this fits in, I saw that the Green Party had strongly supported
same-sex marriage.
I thought I was working for a group of progressives. Odd that the
"conservative" Green Party should be the progressive institution on this
matter.
Lets not forget that the Green membership can vote on all policy. While
the core may have started with Green rightists, there is no doubt that a
strong contingent of social liberals, leftists, and progressives have
signed on and are making a mark of their own.
---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?
---
Dave Ruston
I do not necessarily believe that fully. The government does have a part to play but so do the citizens. I feel that whatever party we support, it is important that we look at the whole platform.
I think I can go to any party platform and probably end up not voting at all because I can find at least one or two things in each party platform that I feel are stupid. But looking at a whole platform I can take the good with the bad and at least vote.
If we are still going to work towards creating one big party I think we have our work cut out for us. My question is Who is going to come to the table to make the compromises that are required? To make it clear I am not only asking the NDP but also CAP, Greens, Orchard Supporters, Progressive Canadians, the Patriots, and Former Nationalist. I would like to be proven wrong but from this side I really am very skeptical if we have a chance to make this happen. Their is no give and take and everyone figures that they have the keys to the treasure.
If anyone has any ideas on how bring all these groups together please let me hear from you. At the present time I think that we may be wasting our time on a pipe dream.