CamTheCat

Interesting to watch this all as it plays out. Cameron A recent story from the Calgary sun... OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper has slapped a muzzle on the Canadian military, forbidding brass from speaking for fear of detracting attention from his government's top priorities. A top military officer said the Prime Minister's Office recently reeled in Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier to tell him that all of his speaking engagements had to be approved and his speeches would be vetted by Harper's staff. Hillier was also instructed to advise his top generals, admirals and commodores that the order also applies to them. A source close to Hillier said the general hauled in military brass to a closed-door meeting and verbally relayed the instructions in an effort to avoid leaving a paper trail on the discussion. The senior military officer who attended the meeting said Hillier told brass they were to clear all media interview requests with the PMO first. So far, all requests for interviews have been turned down by the PM's staff. "They don't want anything to detract from their five messages or lead to debate or discussion," the source said, asking for anonymity to avoid repercussions from the PMO. Hillier also told brass they not only would have to clear any public speaking engagements with the PMO, but also have Conservative staffers vet their speeches, the senior official said. The military's senior officers were told they should expect it to take about four weeks for speaking notes to be edited and approved. http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2006/...536502-sun.html Here's a great letter to the Toronto Star asking what we're doing in Afghanistan, and what the gov't is saying... National interests hardly at stake Protecting our national interests I'm surprised there has not been more outrage over Prime Minister Stephen Harper's frequent "ditto-head" catchphrases about our military excursion in Afghanistan. For example, "the time for debate is over," "we won't cut and run" and "protecting our national interests." These are clearly not original; we've heard them all before south of the border. But it is the last one that has me most irate. What exactly are our national interests in Afghanistan?... full story at: http://tinyurl.com/hsuh6

Wow. I go away for a week and the political forum community falls apart! I will be watching and participating when babble goes back online. I frequently found myself and my posts under attack there by a select few, but that's how great discussions and debates were started. In those situations either some points were agreed upon, or some posters agreed to disagree, but there was usually mature and reasonable conduct (not always, but usually). Then there were some trolls, and there were some spammers, but by the time this all became a big problem I had grown tired of constantly defending and explaining my posts, over and over, and I had stopped hanging out there. I think I drew a lot of heat because my posts during the election were strongly in support of the Green Party, and as we all remember the NDP declared a smear campaign against the Greens, and rabble has a few passionate extreme leftists and NDP supporters. I wish we could all just get along. Anyways, the drama is too interesting to ingnore. I look forward to watching this all play out. In the meantime there are many other forums out there (including this one) that have great people and great discussions. Cam

Kyoto is only a big waste of our time and money only if you do not value the quality of the air we breathe. It is one part of a strategy to reduce emissions that is by no means the be all and end all of answers, but will help us to become a cleaner country. Our emissions are worse because businesses have not been held accountable (yet) for their emissions. With the new Conservative gov't, I'd like to see them being held accountable. After all, wasn't this part of their platform? Accountability? Maybe it doesn't apply to businesses that pollute, since their environmental platform is so awful. Just thought I'd point this out since you've brought up this political party. Incidentally the Cons have cancelled the One-Ton-Challenge. A strange way to show their concern for the environment. Actions do make changes. We can all take part in showing our gov't that we want big polluters to be taxed for their emmissions instead of the average person having their income taxed to provide subsidies to big polluting businesses. We want them to be forced to reduce their emmissions. Period. Kyoto is a start that we desperately need to make, in light of the fact that we are having a negative impact on our environment that's quite significant. Cameron

CBC story on how US has reduced emmisions more than Canada. "...Canada lags behind the United States when it comes to clamping down on air pollution, says an environmental watchdog. Pollution Watch says the United States reduced air pollution emissions by 45 per cent between 1995 and 2003, while Canada reduced air pollution emissions by 1.8 per cent over the same period...." Another CBC story on businesses calling for action to reduce emmissions. "...In a letter to the Prime Minister, the heads of Alcan, Bombardier, Shell Canada, Falconbridge, Home Depot Canada and Desjardins Group, among others, said Canada needs a 50-year strategy to deal with the fallout from climate change..." Kyoto is a good start; it's a good way to nudge businesses in the right direction. I'm not saying it's all we should do. We need to do more. Cameron

Someone help me out here...I never took any logic courses, but is this the infamous "straw man" that everyone seems to talk about on here? I hope you're not suggesting that I'm a 'straw man'. I'm interested in productive discussions about issues. Coming up to and during the 2006 election I was very active in some political forums learning what the online community thought about various subjects. I have stated my POV on many subjects, and argued well with a number of forum members here and at other forums. I hope to continue to participate here without being called names. If anything, I defend attacks from straw men and some people become upset that I call them on their weak arguments. Cameron Wigmore

You bring up a good point quinton. The GDP has been touted by some as the be-all and end-all of measurement of progress. Nice post august1991. Even someone responsible for the creation of the GDP measurement tool stated that it wasn't meant to be the only economic yard stick, but our government does tend to rely heavily on the incomplete picture it paints so we all can feel comfortable in the ever increasing spped of consuption of our natural capital in the name of a GDP approved 'healthy economy'. The GPI should be applied and used widely by the government at the provincial and federal levels. Only the Green Party has commited to doing so. Regardless of what political party will do what, we should all be able to agree that the GDP is an incomplete tool for measuring what it's supposed to measure. Sure it can show economic activity, but an oil spill is good for the GDP. Crime is good for the GDP, as it keeps the police and ambulances busy. Don't come down too hard on someone who states that we need to reduce our population. If every person on the planet lived like we do in north america it would take three Earths to sustain it. Not only do we need to reduce our rate of consumption, we need to reduce the human population. This can be done by having less children - it's that simple and easy. If you compare me to Hitler or Stalin based on this statement, as was done above, you're showing how openminded you are. If we can take our collective heads out of the sand for just a few moments, we'll see that there are issues that need to be addressed, and that using the GDP without the GPI is like going on a diet and shooting your foot off to lose weight. Cam

A very good point speaker. I thank you for your insight, and will look into this further. Cameron

Voting just to keep the party one doesn't want to win from winning, even if it means voting for a second choice, is not giving us what we want or need. There's nothing strategic in a head to head race for votes. The FPTP voting system has ruined our faith in politics, and even if proportional representation isn't perfect, we'd see a lot more voters turning out. The real race is with the Green Party. This little party is growing rapidly, and voting for them is real strategic voting. 600,000 voters agreed last election, (4.3% of the vote), and I expect to see many people supporting the GPC this election. If you take a look at their platform and policies, you'll see a well thought out strategy for a healthy successfull Canada. Cameron

Regarding the GST, read this media release from the Green Party... Media Releases 2005-12-03 Harper, Martin miss the point on GST The Green Party would reduce the GST on products that cut pollution and improve the health of Canadians, while comparably raising it on products that do the opposite. (Montreal, Saturday, 3 December 2005) - By staking out the pro and con sides over GST cuts, the Conservatives and Liberals have forgotten that the GST is one tool available to the federal government to improve the overall health and direction of society, said Green Party of Canada leader Jim Harris today in Montreal. "The GST should guide the social, environmental and economic priorities of Canadians by linking its rate to the impact of specific products," said Harris. "In the dying days of Parliament, MPs were able to find the time to fast-track a bill to scrap the 8 per cent luxury tax on Canadian-made jewelry, but couldn't find time to reform the GST system to better reflect the needs of ordinary Canadians." The Green Party would reduce the GST on products that cut pollution and improve the health of Canadians, while comparably raising it on products that do the opposite. As part of its overall strategy to reduce poverty, the GST would also be gradually eliminated on education supplies, books and children's clothing. GST rebates would be more accurately indexed to reflect the buying patterns of low-income Canadians. The existing GST is the federal government's double-edged fiscal sword, pumping up government revenues on the one hand, while contributing to increased public costs on the other. According to the Green Party, the underlying flaw of the GST is that the same rate applies to gasoline or Doritos as it does to a fitness club membership or Margaret Atwood's latest bestseller The Penelopiad." In March 2005, the New England Journal of Medicine published a report that children born today have a life expectancy that could for the first time in recent history be shorter than that of their parents. The author of the report blames rising mortality on disease related to obesity and lack of exercise. "When one-third of Canadian female single-parent families report worrying about not having enough to eat or eating the quality of food desired, it's a bit rich of the Conservative party to call a news conference in front of plasma TVs to promise a GST cut on SUVs," said Harris. The Green Party also drew attention to the Liberal Party Red Book, released for the 1993 election that proposed fiscal measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase efficiency and move towards a healthier Canada. "Regrettably, the Liberals have chosen budgetary surpluses over honouring their 1993 pledge." Thought this was on topic for this thread. Cameron

More are more Canadians are realising that the decision isn't our to put off any longer. If every person in the world lived at the same rate of consumption as we do in north america we'd all need three earths to sustain it. Last election almost 600,000 Canadians voted Green. Here in rural Alberta a lot of Conservatives are seeing the Green Party as a real option, as well as the Libs and NDPers. Cam

Ethanol blends and bio-deisel fuels would not be taxed. We know fossil fuels will run out, and that the oil & gas industry is desperate for more fossil based fuels leading to drilling for Coal Bed Methane and extraction of oil from the Alberta tar sands, a process that costs two barrels of oil worth of energy for every three barrels produced. Here are two concepts currently being worked on in our new platform... - Enforce a mandatory target of 25 per cent better fuel efficiency for the automobile industry and increase standards over the next 5 years. - Employ incentives to increase the percentage of ethanol content in gasoline and the availability of other biofuels. Why buy into the story that we have to use fossil fuels? There are alternative energies that are cleaner, sustainable, and CHEAPER. The Green Party will end all federal susidies to the fossil fuel sector. In 1900, at the World Exhibition in Paris, Rudolph Diesel unveiled his new engine that ran on peanut oil. In 2006, the fossil fuels that run our vehicle engines in Canada are responsible for nearly 25 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions. After 100 years of combustion engines, many people still believe that it costs less to fuel a vehicle with fossil fuels than by other methods. But the Green Party looks at the full cost of using fossil fuels and makes a parallel to cigarette smoking. When an individual smokes a cigarette they are placing a future cost on society. When we add the health and environmental costs of driving a vehicle that runs on fossil fuels – the smog alerts, the asthma, the cancer rates, the oil spills – they quickly pile up. Add the cost of instability in the oil industry and it’s a wonder why we have pursued oil for so long. Fossil fuels are creating an ecological and an economic shock. Canadians felt that shock last summer when gas prices rose astronomically. With oil reaching peak production, prices will continue to rise – creating fertile ground for inflation and recessions. The federal government’s solution is to subsidize exploration and production with upwards of $2 billion every year. However, subsidies should be used when governments believe that an investment is worthwhile. It's why we subsidize daycares, education and health services. So, why are we subsidizing industries that are pulling in multi-billion dollar profits while they continue to pollute Canada? We can shift gears. Shift to clean renewable fuels, expand public transport and build healthy communities using “smart growth” strategies that won’t leave us breathless. Dan wrote... "This still ignores the average non-farmer that lives in rural-Canada (check a map, there are alot of us) who has to travel to obtain essential goods and services. I am astonished at how "city-centric" this idea is and find the anti-rural bias to be short sighted, poorly considered and offensive...." Dan, the Green Party is not city focussed. In fact it is exactly the opposite. The Green party is all about grassroots democracy; putting power back into the voter's hands. Empowering municipal governments to make decisions directly related to the issues affecting their towns or cities. Cameron

I stated... "The Green Party has this in their platform... Increase 10 cents a litre tax on fuel- phased in over 3 years. Implement a carbon tax on gasoline, diesel, and coal. Exclude ethanol blends and biodiesels from fuel tax. Use carbon taxes to pay for incentive programs incentive to speed transition to low-impact renewables, and reduce demand with conservation programs and infrastructure changes. I know there's discussion regarding the idea to shift taxes on fossil fuels to earlier points in the production cycle to encourage competition among companies to lower operating costs while reducing emissions. This would allow for the reduction of taxes on the little guy, in keeping with the Greens strategy of reducing income tax. " If we are to reach ecological sustainability, we have to reduce our dependance on and cunsumption levels of fossil fuels. Whether this is through a fuel tax or a well head tax, we need to properly cost our resources, including the environmental costs. I live in rural Alberta, and I know all too well how we depend on fuel for our lives. I believe that heating oil and fuel for farm vehicles may be exempt from the proposed tax, but I have to look into that. Of course no one wants to pay more taxes, and the Green Party doesn't want to see the average Canadian having to bear a larger chunk of the tax burden than the rich, or the big businesses. The Green Party wants to see Cnada have a healthy economy, and is supportive of 'Fair Trade', basically a free market with some government controll so that the smaller, weaker countries don't get exploited by the bigger powers. This is in keeping with the Green value of social justice & equality. As I stated, the new platform will be released soon, and we'll know exactly where the GPC stands on the issues of tax shifting and taxing non-renewable resources to provide incentives for cleaner energies. There has been a lot of thought going into the GPC platform, and I hope you all get a chance to look it over. For now, the current platform is available at greenparty.ca Regarding seal hunting, this is a provincial issue, and as such the federal Green Party has chosen it's position. Provincially, you may find a different point of view. If every person in the world used as much energy and consumed and wasted as much as we do in north america, we'd need three earths to sustain it. Now we can't just suddenly force huge changes, and the GPC will be gradually bringing their policies into action if elected. Thanks for all the replies. Cameron

Great to see some interest. In that the Greens are fiscally conservative, they are very different that the NDP. In fact the GPC is different from all of the major parties, as we have given serious consideration to Ecological Fiscal Reform, a concept which is opposed to consumption for the sake of an ever-growing economy based on materialism and a skewed measurement of success, the GDP. The Greens support the idea of a Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) that would factor in the environmental costs an more accurately reflect true costs of energy and material goods. Feel free to research these concept on the internet - there's a lot of literature on them. The biggest issue for the Green Party is ecological sustainability. To achieve this, we Canadians will have to review how we consume our natural resources. hudreds of thousands of windmills to replace existing energy systems isn't what we want, but instead a gradual shift over to sustainable practices through tax incentives and realistic taxing on resources that factors in the environmental costs. It strikes me as odd that the government provides subsidies to the oil and gas industry, and then taxes consumers at the pump, with little of that money going towards funding research or implementation on renewable resources. The Green Party has this in their platform... Increase 10 cents a litre tax on fuel- phased in over 3 years. Implement a carbon tax on gasoline, diesel, and coal. Exclude ethanol blends and biodiesels from fuel tax. Use carbon taxes to pay for incentive programs incentive to speed transition to low-impact renewables, and reduce demand with conservation programs and infrastructure changes. I know there's discussion regarding the idea to shift taxes on fossil fuels to earlier points in the production cycle to encourage competition among companies to lower operating costs while reducing emissions. This would allow for the reduction of taxes on the little guy, in keeping with the Greens strategy of reducing income tax. This can be accomplished if we all reduce, reuse, and recycle. Simple concepts, but I'm refering to 'deep' recycling as opposed to 'shallow' recycling. A forward thinking government is one that isn't ony concerned with the next four years. The Green Party has considered in their platform the effects on our children and our childrens' children. Far from a meaningless comment, this states that the Green Party will take proper care of our country and it's citizens. Just under 600,000 people are on board with us, so we must be doing something right. In fact, our platform is very well thought out, with a strong focus on how to implement our fiscally conservative budget, while maintaining our support of social justice and ecological sustainability. I hope this answers the above questions. Cam

The Green Party of Canada (GPC) is going to do well in the upcoming election. We received about 600,000 votes last election, and could get 1,000,000 in the upcoming election. People are realizing that the old left/center/right model is not solving our issues. We need a forward thinking government, and I believe that the GPC is the one that will bring our country back on track. Thoughts? Cameron W

I want to see changes made to the way Canada is run, and I think if we had a Green government, the things that should be done would be done. Regardless of what mechanisms are preventing this from happening, I still see it as something that must happen. In all seriousness, the lives of our children and their children depend on our changing the way we are not taking care of our planet.

Regardless of your opinion of Preston Manning, the article does point to the appeal of the Green Party to conservatives.

I would love to see the Greens be a national party but I do not see them getting any seats in the next election. Here in Quebec, we have again become so polarized by the sovereignty issue that we don't even hear about the Greens (although last time we did, they were ahead of the Conservatives!!!) I think I may consider voting Green next time around but until they become part of the national scene and the debate the NDP will continue to be the only pro-environment alternative. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This coming election will have the Green Party participating. I believe the focus is on a ground campaign, as opposed to a media campaign. The Green Party is a part of the national scene. The Globe & Mail recently reported that they are up from 4% nationally at the last election to an average of 8% ! That's double by my calculations, and I think 8% is a significant amount of people. And that's ppl who WILL vote Green - the numbers for ppl who stated they MAY vote are way higher. I think the media is trying to keep this a hush-hush thing, but they can't help but start covering what the Green Party is doing. I've noticed more media coverage of how the current gov't is promoting green concepts, but I don't really see it happening on a big scale, and I think that's what we need. Cameron W

It's hoped that the voters know where a politician stands on key issues before they vote. Typically, a politician will represent their party, but there will always be some who differ in opinion on some issues. I stand by my original statement, that I will stand by my beliefs, and always bring the voter's thoughts and concerns to the table. That doesn't mean that I'm closed-minded - in fact, I would want to discusss differences in order for everyone to understant the 'why' of eachother's thoughts. Cameron W

I agree. At the same time, one cannot simply set their values aside when representing their riding, so this is where a problem occurs. Ideally, the two would be the same - and it's usually so - but when it's not, I think a politician has to speak on behalf of their voters. That said, if the issue was impassable, I personally would not waver on my stand, even if this meant stepping down from office.

This is a very informative thread. Thank you all for your posts. Cameron W

I believe there will be some Green MP's elected in the coming election. People are becoming more confident in this party. In regards to the policy of raising energy costs, the Green party wants to help ppl get away from fossil fuels. They would introduce incentives to switch to alternative energy sources. Using the carbon tax, they would help foster the switch over to solar & wind power, geo-thermal heating, and other renewable energy sources. This idea comes from the concept of 'true cost economics', where the ecological factor is included in the cost of - in this case - energy. With the reduction of taxes for the lower income Canadians (following their 'green value' of social justice), this party is introducing a refreshing concept in government. It's been working in Germany and other countries, and I figure it's time we Canadians got in charge of our government. Cameron W

The Green Party doesn't intend to freeze our poor. At my income I'm considered to be living below the poverty line, and 'm running for the Green Party. Through carefull review of their platform and policies one can see that what the Green Party is doing is reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and increasing incentives to use alternative energy sources. At the same time, they will be restructuring taxation to lower taxes for low incomes, and raise them for the rich elite, and big corporations. Many famililies can't afford energy as it is, so doing nothing is obviously not a solution. I think that we Canadians can and will find a way to clean up our acts and reduce energy useage. Cameron W

Our Lives and Our Environment (from a political perspective) To live green or not to live green. Deaths due to natural disasters (from the International Red Cross website) 1985-1994 – just over 600,000 total worldwide 1995-2004 – just over 900,000 total worldwide Now this year I added up the statistics from all the disasters worldwide that I could find, and it added up to more than 300,000 to date. These numbers take into account the increase in the world population, and it's easy to see that deaths due to natural disasters are increasing rapidly. While there is some question of just how much human activity has affected the global weather patterns, it is a fact that we have affected the patterns to some degree. Most of us vote on the basis of how we think our lives will be affected. The parties we choose best reflect our priorities. Many of us have not seen a direct connection with damaging our earth and our own lives. In the last couple of years, we've been witness to many people dying as a direct result of prolific natural disasters. How can any of us continue to question our role in the changing of weather patterns, while the effects are all around us? How long should we wait before we tell the government that we are concerned for the lives of ourselves and our loved ones? How long should we wait before we decide to reduce the size of our ecological footprint? I've decided to avoid voting for the 'Greys' (all the other parties) and have commited myself to voting Green. The Green Party values include ecological wisdom, and below is their satement... Ecological Wisdom We acknowledge that human beings are part of the natural world and we respect the specific values of all forms of life, including non-human species. We acknowledge the wisdom of the indigenous peoples of the world, as custodians of the land and its resources. We acknowledge that human society depends on the ecological resources of the planet, and must ensure the integrity of ecosystems and preserve biodiversity and the resilience of life supporting systems. This requires that we learn to live within the ecological and resource limits of the planet that we protect animal and plant life, and life itself that is sustained by the natural elements: earth, water, air and sun where knowledge is limited, that we take the path of caution, in order to secure the continued abundance of the resources of the planet for present and future generations. What does the gang here think?

Time to Face Facts Has green living become a national priority? I found some interesting facts in a National Geographic magazine from May, a few years ago. The issue had a big article on climate change and how our studies and models were not certain, but there are some facts that everyone agrees on. As the wet get wetter and the dry get drier, we are seeing some facts emerge. Oceans serve as a vast 'sink' for carbon dioxide (but we're unsure how this happens) Human activity releases about 7 billion tons of carbon (on the form of CO2) into the atmosphere every year, adding to the 750 billion tons already there. Only about half our emmisions stay in the air, and the rest is taken up by terrestrial and marine plants, buried in ocean sediments, absorbed in seawater, or otherwise sequestered. The ocean apparently removes at least 2 billion tons from the atmosphere each year. Volcanic eruptions and burning sulfur bearing coal can reduce the effects of global warming temporarilty. The IPCC (Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change), sponsored by the UN, estimates that rising CO2 emissions, mostly from burning fossil fuels, account for about 60 % of the warming observed since 1850. Carbon Dioxide concentration is about 30% higher than it was before the industrial revolution. I could go on, but the point is that we have had a negative impact on our earth. As we reduce our role in the consumption of our natural resources, we ensure a higher quality of life for ourselves and our children. By using one flourescent lightbulb, turning our lights out when we leave the room, lowering the temperature on our water heaters, insulating our homes better, composting, reusing, and doing all the other little thing that don't seem to make a big difference we can combine our efforts to have a cumulative effect. This IS a political issue, as most parties talk a big environmental game but don't show up to play. The NDP and the Green Party both have the environment high on their list of priorities, and personnaly I prefer the Green Party as they are fiscally conservative. I'm happy to see that Canada is realising the gravity of this situation.

Strategic Voting & the Green Party Time goes by fast, and every election it seems nothing's really changed very much, and strategic voters are still trying to keep their least favorite out of power. This leaves the country with a government that is definitely not my favorite. If I was to wait to see if it was a close race, and then vote for the party I like the best (but not the most), I see it as throwing my vote away. I vote Green no matter what. I'll tell you why I see this as strategic. By voting Green, I send a clear message to the Liberals & Conservatives that I'm not going to be swayed by the voting race, but that I instead choose to show my support of a strong focus on ecology. When you're in the voting booth next spring know that a great many people are standing together on this, and that Green Party support is growing. As the party has gained more support, our government has increased it's focus on the environment, because they don't want to keep losing votes to the Green Party, which is a party that has matured considerably in the last few years. I've noticed many green slogans and statements being made by the other parties, and it seems that everyone is talking about being green. Would you vote for a party that's evidently all talk, or a party that has been green from it's inception? The exception here is the NDP, but I'm talking about the Green Party, who are very different from the NDP. My strategy is to vote for the party I believe in.