The NDP voted for the NATO invasion of Kosovo. Jack Layton has said he would not abrogate NAFTA, but would instead renegotiate the contentious parts (i.e. Chapter 11). This is exactly the same position Jean Chretien took in 1993. As for "sacrificing principles for power", Jack Layton is making it clear that he would do just that if he's part of a minority government. Today he told a business audience that the inheritance tax is one of the things he'd sacrifice to be in government.
the party proposes regional interpretation of values...there will be a referendum on day care and Pharmacare, and it could completely undermine medicare through its proposal of "respecting the right of provinces to opt out of federal and provincial initiatives without financial penalty."
(1) The Green Party's referendum on a national childcare system is party of its larger childcare strategy. Available here, its more comprehensive than the NDP's by many magnitudes. The referendum would be specifically on extending Quebec's $5/day (now $7.00/day) childcare system to the rest of the country. I believe the reasoning behind a referendum is to get around provinicial premiers who might block the program. A referendum would give the federal government a mandate to act.
(2) Provincial opt-out. The Green's fiscal policy states: "Our view of federalism in Canada includes the federal government as a driving and unifying force motivating change, while building a coherent national agenda for Canada's economy and society." Canadians already expect this of their federal government. For example, the beloved Canada Health Act sets federal standards for medicare. At the same time, for example in the area of immigration and training, the provinces (especially Quebec) can opt-out of a federal program and deliver it on their own, again while meeting federal standards.
This is a strange criticism coming from the NDP. Jack Layton is providing the provinces with the ultimate "opt-out". Quebec can vote to leave with the most ambiguous question possible. Goodbye Clarity Act if the NDP get power.
the Green Party is Encourage [ing] ISO 14000 Certification
Yes, this is true. It is also true the ISO 14000 is an industry-based certification. It is, however, only part of the comprehensive Green platform on the environment that includes government regulation, citizen participation and the required funding. Why would we close off any avenue that might help create a sustainable future? Surely we would want to talk to industry instead of putting them in an NDP lockdown. Ideas for transforming Canada to a green society in all ways are woven through the entire Green platform, but for more detailed info, please check out Natural Resources, Sustainability, Industry.
The Green Party 2004 platform is calling for only labelling...of foods that are known to contain, or that might contain, genetically modified material.
This is just untrue. The Green platform states:
"The creation of engineered organisms presents risks to our ecosystems that are barely understood. Implementing the precautionary principle means we must avoid conducting uncontrolled experiments on the biosphere."
While the Greens would not ban use of GMOs, they would be subject to severe restrictions. These include banning the transfer of human genetic material to animals. It should also be pointed out, that once products containing GMOs are labelled, demand for GMOs in consumer products will wither.
The use of "green taxes" is a market-based approach rather than a principle-based approach.
Russo is right out to lunch here. I'm not sure what a "principle-based approach" is (isn't the whole Green platform a "principle-based approach"?), but her attack on market-based green taxes shows just what ill-thought piece of propaganda her article is. The Kyoto Protocol, which Canadians take to be the bedrock of their environmental committment, is founded on the premise of market-based green taxes. One of its centrepieces are carbon credits (the so-called "Kyoto credits") that can be traded among industry to reduce greenhouse gas emmisions. Russo's confusion on the fundamentals of Kyoto undermines her credibility on environmental issues, and shows why she is no longer a member of the Green Party.
Today's Green Party proposes to maintain a "rapid response and deployment force capable of supporting humanitarian, environmental and peace-keeping missions."
Again, Russo shows herself to be out of touch with fundamental Canadian values. To call peace-keeping illegitimate is really beyond the pale. Is this the offical postion of the NDP? The Green Party supports bedrock Canadian values like these that make our country a force for good in the world.
Unfortunately, in many key ridings the NDP may lose because of the Green vote.
Now it all comes clear...
Note: hatchet job
inheritance tax
here
fiscal policy
Goodbye Clarity Act
Natural Resources
Sustainability
Industry
severe restrictions
Stumble It!
"The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec do not have, either under Canadian law or international law, the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally."
It's based on this Supreme Court ruling and it says that Quebec does not have the right to unilaterally secede. That might piss off a lot of Quebeckers don't you think? That might be a reason why the NDP would want to repeal it, to respect the democratic rights of the people & nation of Quebec to do as they wish. They shouldn't need the permission of the rest of the country to leave. That's their democratic right. Is the Green Party against the democratic rights of Quebeckers to decide their own fate?
---
Jesse
"Humanitarian intervention, however, has been used to legitimize military intervention."
Like ummm, for example, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan & Kosovo/Yugoslavia etc. So the Greens would have been in Kosovo faster than the Liberals were then? (on the basis of humanitarian intervention). The NDP screwed up on that one back in '99 but at least they have their heads straight now, something I can't say for the Greens.
Quebec is of strategic importantce to Canada. Its history, and the history of French-Canadiens is largely responsible for the fact our country still exists, so the fact that Quebec has been denied this part of their history wouls make a YES vote fraudulent, as would the inevitable U.S. interference, as would the fact that no other 1st-world country has legislation allowing a racist, reactionary minority to not only hold a referendum, but to count the votes. Not to mention the fact that Quebec is already dependent on the USA. What is it going to do if it separates? Wh*re itself to the States even more than it already does? Quebec's taxes would rise, its territory would shrink, its citizens would lose Canadian citizenship, and it wouold either use our dollar and be dependent on us fully, or create their own dollar, the U.S. dollar, and be dependent on them fully, and be stupid fully. It would also be invaded by the States, likely. The troops are right there across the border.
The government MUST have a confrontation with separatists before the inevitable happens. Quebec has no right to separate. Every province in Canada is "Distinct," not just the province of the racist, separatist minority. Most citizens od Quebec are level-headed, but they are quite suggestible, emotional people. Luckily, Gilles Duceppe is a big anomaly, due to his father's history as a famous separatist. Most of the separatist generation is dead or near death.
The residents of Quebec have been treated badly, like everyone by the Liberals, but they still get more carrots that any other province. They are not exploited.
HOW is it that people on this site can talk about how the "Province have too much power," but even consider that Quebec has a right to separate from Canada. It doesn't.
Appeasement doesn't work. Bouchard wanted no other proposals--he lived to glorify his own ego, and so does Gilles Duceppe.
very intelligent debate IMO; Michou presents a Quebec separatist opinion, while I have been trying to get
to the feelings of the 'people' within and the driving
force behind the message...check it out, I would be
interested in hearing others views on this issue...
---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?
Can we realize something? The NDP isn't going to be the governing party any time soon, Green Party or not. Neither is the Green Party. Yet, both parties are going to get some seats, and the only position either can take is that of "Watchdog", so how about working together, not stabbing each other in the back?
Yes, I'm simplistic and yes I'm an idealist, but shouldn't two groups with the same goals have at least some synergy?
---
Ændrew Rininsland
---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?
As for Quebec seperating,the Mohawk Nation will also need to be dealt with.They want independece too.