10-18-2019 UPDATE: Scott wrote to his Green Party candidate

*** 10-18-2019 UPDATE: after waiting 12 days for a response from Mr. Daniel Green, (also after having voted in the advance polls for his Liberal opponent, Rachel Bendayan - oh well) today, at 3:10 pm, I received the following response:

Hello Randboro,

Thank you for your email.

We at the Green Party of Canada understand that you were troubled by a recent story on the Green Party of Canada’s stance on abortion.

Rest assured it is, and has always been, the Green Party of Canada’s policy that all women must have timely access to safe, legal abortions.

Although the Leader does not have the power to whip votes, all Green Party Members of Parliament must endorse the Green Party’s values, including a firm support of a woman’s right to choose. There is zero chance an elected representative of our party will ever reopen the abortion debate.

We vet all candidates to ensure they agree the abortion debate is closed in Canada. Any who disagree are not allowed to run.

We hope that we can continue to count on your support.

Best,

Kat Lorimer

--
info@greenparty.ca 

So... I guess I wasn't wrong at all, was I? How can anyone know how their MP would vote on any issue before them, given this canned response from the Party HQ?

*** END of 10-18-2019 UPDATE (original post below) ***


Given the nature of the Green Party of Canada, and their leader's stance that all votes will not be whipped, I decided that I would reach out to my local GPC candidate, Daniel Green, to understand his own positions:

Mr. Green,

As a committed humanitarian and former GPC financial officer for the riding of Papineau, (but mostly because of my devotion to the continuance of life on this planet) I voted for you in the recent by-election and was pleased to see you came in a strong third.

I did not know then about your party's position on not whipping votes.

That said, I feel the Green party platform is insufficient for me to determine whether or not my vote should go to you again on the 19th of October. I find your bonafides on environmental issues to be substantial, however it behooves me to ensure your stances on other contentious issues would not leave me crestfallen should you come to represent me and the others in Outremont riding in the HoC.

For this reason, when Justin Trudeau speaks clearly about women's right to choose on the decision of abortion, I rest confident that your rival, Ms. Bendayan, will not let me down. When he speaks about any other policy, I feel confident in voting for my Liberal candidate, even if the policies they put forth today are less than the climate crisis demands. Because they give me confidence they will be what they portend to be, as a government. As of now, they have my vote.

Am I wrong?

Sincerely,

Scott Murray

Why I support the Greens but vote otherwise

I am a big Green supporter and believe they have the best platform. Dagnammit, I joined the party and contribute a few bucks to show that I care. But I also live in Quebec (and on the island of Montreal) and my local candidate both:
a) is a relative lightweight, and
b) has no hope of winning, but might garner enough votes to keep my second choice from winning.

Hopefully most of the other GPC supporters aren't in a similar bind. But I frankly prefer to return Justin Trudeau to his seat than to help get a (yawn) Bloq Québecois elected by uselessly splitting the federalist vote.

There is a bigger picture here. The last few years showed us that keeping Harper to a minority government does not preclude his screwing with everything the majority of Canadians hold dear, including the use of the Senate to thwart the will of the House on partisan grounds. He'll do it again. And again. Right now, we need a Liberal government, imperfect as it may be, to stave off the loss of our country's most cherished shared values.

- 30 -

Greens, NDP to merge; Layton and May step aside, with support of key Liberal defectors

Could you just imagine a headline like that? Only if you accept the fact that the federal Liberal party is finished as a viable political entity. It was this particular realization, coupled with Warren Kinsella's post earlier today, that got me thinking along these lines.

Michael Ignatieff, since wresting control of the Liberal Party of Canada a year ago, what have you accomplished? You raised some cash and bored people to tears at every lectern that would plug in a mic for you. Then last Autumn, you boldly stated you were going to challenge the PM in an election at the first opportunity. Then you backed down sheepishly and announced you would be hosting a fabulous thinkers' conference the following Spring.

Allow me to let you in on something (I pray you are sitting down): believe it or not, within hours of its closing, scarcely anyone in this country noticed your big ol' "thinkers conference" even took place. Your middling popularity perpetually wanes like the attention of students listening to a meandering lecture on the nuances of meaning in a post-modern world; their minds wandering as they wonder how their liberal education will ever help them land a meaningful job with hope of putting more than a bit of food on their families' tables.

Meanwhile you and your party are getting railroaded at every turn by a wily, unscrupulous opponent. Your brightest stars and best ideas are the equivalent of Ovechkins and Kovalchuks on otherwise directionless teams, fizzling out hopelessly when the time comes to put up or shut up. Not since Robert Stanfield has a major party been led by someone with such a mix of blandness and dubiously-principled mediocrity.

I hope it hasn't escaped your attention that, when lumped together, the Greens and the Dippers are the favoured option of more Canadians than your own party, historied and entrenched as it is. As a scholar, I trust you can see the significance of this. Tilt at your right-centre windmills all you want, but it isn't getting you anywhere (least of all, into 24 Sussex).

Jack Layton, dear Jack, please please, do go (yes, now). You have done a decent job making your party politically relevant again without completely selling the furniture. You and your party's members have been stalwart cage rattlers and fought the good fight (mostly). Alas, you have had your chance to get the country to trust you and it just hasn't happened. Face facts, Jack, and step aside to allow a fresh face to come forward that can inspire more than just your base.

Elizabeth May, dear Elizabeth, you have gallantly tried to unseat a nasty bit of work in Peter MacKay, and have sold out too easily in launching yourself across the country in search of that magic riding that can propel Canada's first GPC member into the HoC (oh, teehee, would that be you, personally ***blush***?), but this is starting to get ridiculous. No other candidate is helping the cause - if that is the true goal - except by providing more federal dollars to the party coffers just by being so hopelessly listed on the ballots of all the nation's ridings; and thus giving the local Harpercons an even better chance of coming up the middle to win those ridings without any real support. This strategy has sadly failed you and the Greens for two elections now, despite owning the moral high ground definitively. You are an eloquent and intelligent leader, but it just is not going to happen. Please understand this and step aside for a new leader to take hold of a new, merged party.

So who are the party backroomers with the courage, pull and good sense to will this sort of merger to happen? Which individual has the fire, moxie, charisma, wherewithal, smarts and financial backing to make a run of it in leading such a party?

Who will lead the United Progressive Party of Canada?

- 30 -

GPC site redesign a huge improvement

Go check it out. greenparty.ca is a whole lot snazzier. Bravo!

Libs Not Making it Easy Being Green (for May) Anymore

The Green Party's stated electoral goal is to concentrate their efforts on winning a seat for leader Elizabeth May.

Last month she announced that she would not run in Nova Scotia again, and moved her home to the West Coast riding (of Saanich-Gulf Islands).

May has said her party has made her election to the House of Commons a priority and insisted that she run in the riding with the best chance of electing a Green MP.

But her campaign manager John Fryer dismissed the notion she's simply a parachute candidate.

"Canada needs Elizabeth May in Parliament and when we surveyed the country we found this riding seems to be the greenest," Fryer said.

Unfortunately, it's always risky to put all your eggs into one basket - especially when that strategy backfired once already.

Here's hoping for the best, but I have to say, both incumbent Gary Lunn and the new Liberal candidate in May's hand-picked BC riding look like pretty tough competition, even for a party leader with May's profile.

I guess in the end, there is no safe riding for the Greens. You'll recall Kermit the Frog sang about our plight, (way back before he became a Disney stooge).



My only beef with this party - which has the best platform of the lot - is that its leader has a nasty habit of painting herself into corners. [gulps] "Quixotic" is definitely not the first adjective one wants people to associate with one's party.

- 30 -

hat-tip to impolitical

Mike Duffy, you are a tool

And Harper is a fool for taking the bait. Here is The National Post's Don Martin on Harper's comment of the whole incident:

To use his first spontaneous media appearance of the campaign to declare Mr. Dion the most unworthy of the two candidates for prime minister based on a minute of misunderstanding is not the most flattering reaction for the prime minister.

In the end the incident they hoped to use to define Mr. Dion as a confused ditherer may actually provide more telling insight into the character of Stephen Harper.

This tempest in a teapot is rather eloquently summed up here. And kudos to Mr. Comartin for his unfailing decency. I hope he gets re-elected on Tuesday.

As for Mr. Duffy? Heck, this isn't even the first time this week he's been a total jerk, and Ms. Elizabeth May was stellar in calling him on it:


CTV has some better assets at their disposal than Duffy. If there was ever a time for fresh blood, it's now. Duffy, I know you're not reading this, but let me tell you something: I studied journalism under Lindsay Crysler, Enn Raudsepp, Rod McDonnell and a host of other painstakingly ethical professors at Concordia University in the 80s and early 90s. This sort of thing would have given me a failed grade and censure from the department. You have a national audience. Canada deserves better than this from its biggest commercial television network.

- 30 -

Harper and Layton CAVE: the day belongs to May

Victory for democracy!

Mother May I? The answer is now yes. From here on in Canada, May Day may now be celebrated on 10 September. Thank you Mr. Layton, and Mr. Harper, for putting an end to this silliness and respecting the will of the vox populi (as well as good ol' common decency).

Dare we hope that this might become a trend?

- 30 -

Mother May I? Layton ties himself in knots, while Harper clams up

You won't have to try hard to read between the lines of this CP report on Layton's appearance, wherein he proves that he has the requisite two sides of one mouth to live up to our current Prime Minister's standard.

REGINA - Jack Layton says the NDP's reputation for fighting the establishment and championing the underdog is intact despite his refusal to allow the Green Party a podium at the televised debates.

The New Democrat leader is on the defensive over the decision to exclude Green Party Leader Elizabeth May from the Oct. 1 event.

At a Regina coffee house, Layton told a breakfast crowd of cheering supporters that the NDP won't "let the old interests and powerful sectors" stand in the party's way.

But later, he defended excluding May by saying she had already endorsed Liberal Leader Stephane Dion for prime minister.

Layton also tried to shift responsibility for the decision to the television networks that will host the event.

Some NDP supporters at a Monday night rally in Vancouver expressed shock at the party's stand.

No kidding they expressed shock. Enough that Layton figured he couldn't keep running for cover any longer, evidently.

As for Peevey Stevie, after whining on and on yesterday about how unfair it would be to have to face May, he's evidently decided that's not the right side of the issue to be on after all, and today is shutting his yap on the matter (looks like he already winded himself apologizing for his pooping puffin problems).

And we thought the American election was entertaining? Heck, we've even got "Scandalpedia" now (courtesy of the Grits).

- 30 -

Layton, Harper taking cues from McCain more than Obama

It's really sad how NDP leader Jack Layton has reacted to the Mother May I? question. Here is a guy who has huge posters put up (see the corner of St-Laurent and Jean-Talon in Montreal) with just his own name and mustachioed grin. He daily stands at a podium with only his name emblazoned upon it. He is flying in a campaign plane with only his name on the side in giant letters. Yet he wouldn't take ownership of his decision to deny Elizabeth May's voice at the upcoming televised leadership debates by speaking to the media about it himself. Instead, he sent his spokesperson to explain it, and belied his claim to strong leadership himself by meekly choosing to duck reporters' questions.

Layton was hustled away by handlers when reporters tried to clarify if he had said he would pull out.

"I'm looking forward to debating the prime minister," was his only comment.

Before Lavigne spoke, another NDP official speaking off record said that a negotiator for Layton had told network organizers that he would have to "reconsider" his participation but had not threatened to boycott.

And then the NDP spokesperson couldn't resist promoting the entirely false meme (that may have been true two elections ago) of the Green Party being a one-issue party. Seems to me that if your actions do not jibe with your rhetoric, you are not doing anything to gain the trust of voters who have been skeptical of your party for decades. It reminds me of a line from Obama's incredible DNC acceptance speech: "He just doesn't get it." Of course the 'he' Obama was referring to was his Republican counterpart, John McCain, but it surely applies to Mr. Layton on this day.

For the record, the Vision Green is a 160-page tome in pdf, and covers the economy, taxation, public security, Afghanistan and just about everything in the federal realm and beyond:

Vision Green presents leading-edge thinking and rational, realistic solutions for all the issues facing Canadians. It was developed by a 31-member Green Shadow Cabinet and was informed by experts, activists and citizens who participated in policy workshops held across Canada. All the proposals are based on policies approved by the membership of the Green Party.

Green Party solutions are rational because the Green Party, unlike other parties, understands the scientifically verified limits to growth set by the carrying capacity of our planet. We must work within these limits. Otherwise, we will exhaust resources, degrade our environment and put our economy, health and children’s future at risk.

Our solutions are realistic because they follow “best practices” already in place in parts of Canada or other countries. These practices are cost-effective, deliver results and benefit people, the economy and the environment.

The Green Party’s down-to-earth solutions will work in Canada because they have worked around the world. Many have been successfully applied in Europe, where Greens are elected at all political levels, including the European Union and national parliaments. Countries where Greens have served in government are the countries creating new high-paying jobs while simultaneously meeting targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They are the countries where the gap between rich and poor is small and the standard of living is high. These countries don’t trade off the environment for the economy. Their economies and environmental laws are both strong.

Many people find it hard to position the Green Party on the old political spectrum. We believe in sound fiscal management and strengthening our economy while ensuring that it is sustainable. Does that mean we are “right wing”? We believe that government must provide needed social services while protecting our environment and the rights of women, minorities and disadvantaged people. Does that make us “left wing”? We don’t think so. More and more people are simply thinking of the Green Party as the party of the future.

The Green Party is different from other parties in another important way. We will never place the pursuit of power above principle. We will not allow partisan politics to get in the way of good ideas and needed action. We agree with Canadians who say it’s time for parties in parliament to stop bickering and get on with the job of combating climate change and taking better care of our environment, our health and our economy.

Let's not forget Harper's atrocious behaviour in this matter - he was the first one to spread lies and threaten to boycott the whole affair if the Green Party leader was given a seat, perhaps to protect the shaky seat held by his lil buddy, Junior MacKay, against whom May is running herself.
Why not just letElizabethspeak.ca, guys? Or are you enjoying this media storm that's taking you all off-message?

- 30 -

BREAKING: Mother May I? Duceppe says he never said no

The BQ says: Don't look at us. Their spin is they told the consortium they preferred if it were limited to four debaters, but never ever EVER said they'd boycott unless Elizabeth May was shut out.

Go read more from Andrew Coyne. Especially this:

I have a feeling this is backfiring badly on all concerned. Have a look at the CBC story on this sordid business: there are more than 600 comments attached. (This Globe story: 430 comments) A firestorm, in other words. I wonder who will be the next member of the Gang of Three to buckle?

- 30 -

Strong Leader too scared to Face May

"You can fight for democracy at home
And not in some foreign land"
--Billy Bragg, from the song:
"Help Save the Youth of America"

Shorter Peevey Stevie: Oh the horrifying injustice of it all! Oh boo hoo... Oh it's so unfair what those Big Bad Green Meanies want to do to me... Don't they know I'm a very strong, strong leader? Oh why must they be so unfair?!?

And then the media "Consortium" humbly bows down to His Mightiness and grants the sulky power-tripping democracy-hating Strongman his wish. Disgusting.

What a sad day for democracy in Canada. Here's May's reaction (per the Globe and Mail):

Ms. May claimed Mr. Harper is concerned that Greens are stealing votes from Conservatives, pointing to the riding of Guelph where their party polls show the Greens are up at the expense of the Tory candidate.

When asked directly about Mr. Harper's prediction that she will endorse Mr. Dion, Ms. May replied: “We know he's had a stylist who also is billed as a clairvoyant working for him, I wonder if that's what he's basing this on,” she said. “I don't know how to respond to something so absurd.”

Fight, Elizabeth May, fight.

4:40 PM UPDATE: I see from the CBC story that Layton and Duceppe also vetoed the debates if May was going to be there. What is this? An old-boys club mentality? Is there collusion going on here? Doubtful. But this just shows how powerful a good idea can be when the men on top of their little kingdoms feel it's more convenient to silence their critics than to face them. And they will make their platitudes about the great democratic institutions of this country while doing so. Count on it.

You call yourselves leaders? That's just
heartbreaking.

Utterly Pathetic.

Shameful.

5:00 PM UPDATE JimBobby Sez is equally outraged, and sez so rather succinctly:

Nevermind that polls have consistently shown that 77% of Canadians want the Green leader in the debates. Nevermind that 660,000 Canadians voted Green in 2006. Nevermind that the Green Party is one of only parties to receive federal funding. Nevermind that Canadian taxpayers shell out over $1 million a year to the Greens. Nevermind that the Greens run candidates in all provinces.

Nevermind democracy, you wimp chickenshit bastards.

Today is a dark day for Canadian democracy. The blame goes squarely to Harper, Layton and Duceppe. I will not watch the debates between these tweedle-dee and tweedle-dumbasses. Craven cowards who used their collective might to thwart democratic debate. Bastards! Dirty, rotten, chickenshit bastards!

And her party isn't agitating for Quebec separation either I might add...

- 30 -

Ingrid Hein up against Justin Trudeau, Vivian Barbot in Papineau

I humbly ask you to consider the words of Papineau riding's GPC nominee, Ingrid Hein:

With a six-month old on my hip, I take on this challenge because I believe she deserves a better future, as does my 3-year old son.

How will we answer (our children) when they ask why, why did we let the planet become so sick? What will we tell them? I used glass baby bottles and sippy-cups, we will tell them. I had a compost. I tried to buy local and organic when I could afford to, we will say. Okay, alright. But this is only the beginning. The whole planet needs to think green, and it has to start at the government level. In North America, it can start with the Canadian government.

Hein and her riding rivals will be participating in a debate on culture and law & order (the real stuff; not the TV show) on CBC Radio One, Montreal (98.5 FM) on Monday, September 15th, at 7:40 am (EDT).

P.S.: Speaking as the newly minted GPC Financial officer for Papineau, we are currently graciously accepting donations; and volunteers sporting any combination of political savvy, campaign sign affixing wherewithal and baby wrangling know-how (some experience in that regard preferred, however one-on-one training will be provided). Contact me, Scott Murray, at the Randboro email address, or through the riding email address.

- 30 -

Afghanistan and the cost to Canada in fighting there

This post copied - and expanded on - from a comment I made on John Waugh's blog post: NDP Pathetic on Afghan war

What this adds up to is pretty simple. During this campaign Layton will leave the war on the back burner. He will not make opposition to the war a central plank in his campaign platform. He will not repeat his party's opposition to the war unless he has to. He will not fight for the withdrawal of Canadian forces from Afghanistan.

Progressive Canadians have no party, they have no leader.

In defending the NDP as the party best representing those like me who feel Canada has no business participating in ISAF (the NATO-led combat mission in Afghanistan), leftdog has a point with his comment that the NDP have been the loudest political voice in opposition to our combat role there. But at the same time, it's telling that he had to go back eight months to find any mention of the NDP stance being put forward by the party machinery on Canada's role within the ISAF mission.

I think what this says (and John Waugh was astute to pick up on it) is that the NDP don't see this issue as even cracking the top ten list for them - on the eve of an election campaign to boot.

This cuts to the heart of the matter for a lot of us who may have previously defended/supported the NDP and share much of their worldview; but have found it just as partisanly unwelcome a home as the Martin Liberals had been.

But there is another party with ideas on the subject. I am talking of course about the Green Party.

On page 104 of the Vision Green policy document (updated just last month) you may note on pages 103-104 the GPC maintains the NATO-led mission is wrong and that Canada should withdraw our troops from the effort by this coming February at the latest.

...Despite this disheartening situation, there is also a very high risk that the immediate removal of all foreign troops would lead to the outbreak of a full-scale civil war and a humanitarian catastrophe. Accordingly, the Green Party believes we need to shift as rapidly as possible away from the current US-led NATO command mission, to a more ethnically balanced and regionally represented United Nations command effort and a greater security role for the Afghan National Army. This mission redesign improves the probability that over time the conditions will emerge for a viable political solution to the conflict...

Will this become a central plank in the campaign? I certainly hope I can influence this from within the party. While global warming and its potential for devastation is perhaps the most important issue for humanity right now, the wars in Afghanistan and elsewhere must not be dumped out of the discussion merely for politically strategic reasons.

As John rightly points out, this is our biggest international commitment currently, and it sucked up all the resources we had previously spent 35 years building up as world leaders in peacekeeping activities - a shameful about-pace for which the Liberals and Conservatives need to be held to account, and which (one would hope) the NDP, Bloq Québecois and GPC would not let up on.

3:00 p.m. Update: It seems I was even timelier in posting this than anticipated.

OTTAWA — A majority of Canadians still view their soldiers as peacekeepers and would rather see them helping disaster victims than fighting, an internal poll prepared for National Defence suggests.

The results of the exhaustive survey, obtained by The Canadian Press, come despite the best efforts of both the Conservative government and the military to rebrand the Canadian Forces as a combat outfit.

“The image of the Canadian peacekeeper is one that has taken hold in the Canadian national psyche in the decades since the Korean War,” said the Ipsos Reid study, which is expected to be released Monday.

“Recent attempts at repositioning this traditional role toward one that emphasizes a more activist approach which includes the use of force have met with relatively little interest and still less acceptance.”

Why am I not surprised?

- 30 -

The Fighting Greens vs. the Panicky Tories

It's really quite astounding - the lengths we in the Green Party of Canada have to go to to get the mass media to include our leader in the nationally televised debates for the upcoming election.

Not only did we register a domain name ages ago as a rallying point for democracy loving Canadians to help us petition the TV bigwigs for a seat at the table...

Not only did we field a full slate of 308 candidates in the 2006 federal election...

Not only did we embrace a previously independent sitting MP into the party fold to prove GPC representation in the House of Commons...

Now we are taking the unprecedented step of hiring a lawyer to press the case to the CRTC.

Former party leader Jim Harris said the Greens won't hesitate to resort to court action if current leader Elizabeth May isn't allowed to participate.

"We're going to allow the broadcasters the chance to do the right thing," Harris said at a news conference.

"This is pre-emptive, to say, 'If you do not do as you should, then there will be legal consequences."'

If the group of major broadcasters that organize the debates refuse to give May a spot, Harris said the party will file a complaint to the CRTC.

Should the federal broadcast regulator rule against the Green party, a judicial review of the decision will be sought, he said.

The party said the broadcast consortium - which includes CBC Radio Canada, CTV, Global Television and TVA - exercises "carte blanche control" over who participates in the debates, but lacks clear criteria for inclusion.

Harris said it would be a "very good thing" to have laws spelling out the rules for inclusion in the debates.

"We should have criteria such as major support in polls across the country, such as running in all ridings, these are pretty simple criteria, objective criteria, and yes, we should have them," said Harris.

And how do the Harper Conservatives respond? By their own novel (read:"twisted") logic, the GPC's Elizabeth May cannot be present alongside the Liberals' Stephane Dion since they don't hate each other as badly as the Conservatives would like. From the CBC report:

The federal Conservatives are seeking to block May from the debates, citing a deal struck by May and Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion where they agreed not to run candidates against each other in their respective ridings.

"You can't have one leader onstage that has already endorsed the candidacy of another and signed an electoral co-operation agreement," Harper spokesman Dimitri Soudas said.

"When it comes to the debate, they can have May or they can have Dion," he said. "But they can't have both."

It has been a normal practice in the past for political parties to occasionally not run candidates against rival parties' leaders.

To present such a laughably ridiculous argument must mean the Cons are really scared of what might become of a truly formidable opponent like May taking Harper on in front of a live TV audience.

Here's another good reason to include the Green Party of Canada: how many other parties grew their support by 100% since receiving 4.5% of the votes tallied in 2006?

And how's this for a good reason to include Elizabeth May: as the only female leader of a national party, maybe it would be nice to see some diversity up there, eh?

Or can't four white guys handle it?

If you think they can, why don't you make your opinion known to all the major Canadian TV media by signing our petition and helping us fight for democracy in this country. After all, we know that's what most Canadians want to see!

And if you're interested in making your voice heard over at the CRTC, here's where you can do that.

My fellow Canadians, I thank you.

- 30 -

Arctic Ice gone by 2013?

Do I hear 2080?
2080

Do I hear 2050?
2050

Do I hear 2030?
2030

Do I hear 2013?

This is almost like listening to an auctioneer. Even though the average global air temperature has declined from last year, we still appear to be on our way to an historic low of arctic sea ice:

Most of the cover consists of relatively thin ice that formed within a single winter and melts more easily than ice that accumulated over many years.

Irrespective of whether the 2007 record falls in the next few weeks, the long-term trend is obvious, scientists said; the ice is declining more sharply than even a decade ago, and the Arctic region will progressively turn to open water in summers.

A few years ago, scientists were predicting ice-free Arctic summers by about 2080.

Then computer models started projecting earlier dates, around 2030 to 2050; and some researchers now believe it could happen within five years.

(emphasis mine)

No wonder we're seeing signs of Tories and extraction industries licking their lips, eh? Elizabeth May knows the score and she's calling them out: The Tories don't want to fight global warming. They're ready to welcome it in fact. It might be good in the short term for the Canadian bottom line, but just ask Westmount-Ville-Marie Green Party candidate Claude William Genest why the consequences of unchecked global warming are being deemed a crisis.

- 30 -

Why I'm proud to be Green

Elizabeth May asks all the right questions.

CALGARY – Green Party Leader Elizabeth May today called on the Harper government to stop stalling and cooperate with the Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC).

“There is no credible reason of security or strategy in blocking access to documents about the treatment of prisoners. Defense Minister Peter MacKay and Prime Minister Stephen Harper apparently want a cover up, not an inquiry,” she noted.

The hypothetical of how evidence of treatment of prisoners could possible be a security issue is mooted by the fact the MPCC is itself an arm of government with full security clearance.

For more than a year the complaints commission has been unable to access key evidence due to obstruction by the government.

“Canadians want the truth. The allegation that detainees were tortured needs to be thoroughly investigated. What does this government have to hide?”

This used to be a country the world could look up to as an example of what it looks like to have respect for Human Rights. Not so under the Super Secret Harper Imitation Tories regime.

What I don't understand, is why we don't hold these Prisoners of War ourselves? And you can call them "detainees" to try and skirt the UN declaration all you want - the distinction is merely mealy-mouthed posturing. The fact is: you're in a war zone. You take prisoners. They're prisoners of war, okay?

It's disgusting to me that my country is failing to live up to its responsibilities to the world, and it's a damn shame this practice is unfairly tarnishing the reputation of our fighting men and women who are forced to carry out these orders.

- 30 -

Disappointed in You, Dion

Please tell me either Bill C-484 will die in committee, or that you will whip the vote if it comes up for a third reading - even (or especially) if it's a confidence vote. Readers: please get all the details about this cloaked anti-abortion bill from Cathie, and carefully study the list of who voted which way. Wondering who's been all over this while we've been busy fussing over Cadman? Check out Unrepentant Old Hippie.
As for you, Mr. Dion...

Please tell me this sort of publicity is a brilliant part of fighting back against the Harper attack ads questioning your leadership.

Please tell me how this is in any way productive?

Hate to throw your own words back at you, but you deserve it:

What was the Leader of the Opposition THINKING?!?

I know what I'm thinking. Although I've never been a Liberal and only once voted that way federally, it's about time for the Green Party and me to get to know each other a whole lot better.

In the meantime, Dion, instead of focusing on the bit players, please train your attack at the top.

Thank you

- 30 -

UPDATE: Best line of the day on this goes to Dave: "I have a better idea. All of you go to the pub, order a table-full of beer and weep in it. It'll have the same effect."

Mar. 6, 4:00 PM (EST) UPDATE: Thanks to Jennifer Smith for providing the link to the official list, with the undisputedly correct MPs' votes, updated now.