The Green Party is the only truly global party, with Greens in 70 countries and elected Members of Parliament in Europe, Latin America, Australia, and New Zealand. Together we work to press the nuclear super-powers to meet their obligations for disarmament, to reduce and eliminate the nuclear threat. We work to shift military budgets to peacekeeping and peace-building. We work to ensure the education, health protection and economic autonomy of women and girls around the world to address poverty and over-population.

Greens see the world as a planetary whole. We believe the essence of a strong security policy starts with addressing the single largest security threat to modern civilizations the climate crisis. As Gwynne Dyer pointed out in his book, Climate Wars, military establishments around the world are aware that the threat of increased political destabilization due to increased severity and frequency of severe climatic events warrants treating climate as a security threat. The spectre of millions of environmental refugees is a real and near-term reality, if we do not move aggressively to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Honouring binding multilateral treaties, such as the Kyoto Protocol, is a measure of a nation’s reliability and integrity in the world. As the only nation to have ratified and then repudiated Kyoto, we have blotted our copy book in the community of nations. Our domestic fossil-fuel expansionist policies put us at odds with the International Energy Agency, the European Union, and more.

Meanwhile, addressing global disparities, working together as nation-states to improve the standard of living for all, is more than a free market issue. It requires equity, the rule of law, and enhanced global governance.

Defence policy needs to be nested in the context of how we see our role in the world. Increasingly, Prime Minister Stephen Harper appears to defining our role in two ways trade and military hardware.

We are entering into cookie-cutter trade agreements with small (and in some cases corrupt) economies. Jordan, Panama, Colombia, with China yet to come. Our international posture is one of unquestioning support for Israel (I support the existence of the state of Israel, but think unquestioning cheer-leading is a disservice to peace in the region), and joining NATO missions with zeal.

Meanwhile, we are sending the signal that diplomacy is a dwindling concern. For some time, the Harper Conservatives have been shrinking our embassy presence so that a Canadian in trouble in Nicaragua, for example, is told the closest Canadian presence is in Guatemala and in any event, your phone call is directed to a 1-800 emergency line in Ottawa. With the 2012 budget, we are selling off diplomatic residences a decision surely to be rated penny wise and pound foolish by successor governments.

The most high-profile domestic defence question is clearly the botched procurement process for the F-35s. In many ways the F-35 fighter jet is the perfect object lesson from former U.S. President and former General Dwight Eisenhower’s warning to beware of the “military-industrial complex.” Canada’s rationale for joining in the process in 1997 had little, if anything, to do with domestic security and everything to do with hoped-for aerospace contracts.

Under Liberal prime ministers Chrétien and Martin, Canada put up initial funds to participate (first $10-million in 1997 and then a further $150-million in 2001). Up until this point, the auditor general found no fault with the process and accountability of decision-making. It was beyond the scope of the auditor general’s report to investigate whether Canada needed the F35s. Just as it was beyond the auditor general’s responsibility to find out which of the political masters were aware of the various and repeated acts of incompetence and failures of due diligence he went on to report.

The auditor general recounted such a trail of violations in the fundamentals of normal procurement process that even seasoned Ottawa-watchers are stunned. The decisions were generally taken in reverse order. First came the decision, followed by inventing criteria to justify the decisions, and then, lastly the rationale. Not one, but two, departments were found to have failed in the exercise of basic due diligence. Both the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada (Public Works) were found to have fallen below the standard of due diligence. 

The essence of the AG report is not, as Defence Minister Peter MacKay now claims, that the AG found a novel way to add up the costs of the jets. The essence of the report is that Canadians were lied tofor years. Parliament was misled for years. And the whole F-35 project, from 2006 onwards, was typified by a litany of rogue decision-making. What we need to know is how it happened that two departments suspended judgment, cut corners, and violated process. One theory is that Public Works and DND were independently willing to abandon normal procurement rules. More likely, the orders came from the one in control of all departments the Prime Minister who wants to remake us as a warrior nation.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May represents Saanich-Gulf Islands, B.C.
Originally printed in the Hill Times.

The post Single Largest Threat to Modern Civilizations is Climate Crisis appeared first on Elizabeth May.

For a principled Conservative like Andrew Coyne, the budget failed to meet traditional conservative values. I agree.  One of those values was conservation of natural resources.

Killing a deficit is never easy. It involves choices.  With our Green Scissors package of proposals, we found lots of places to cut.  Cuts to government advertising, the Prime Minister’s Office budget, subsidies to fossil fuels, nuclear and biotechnology and many other areas are all areas that could provide serious savings.  

The choices made in Paul Martin’s time as Finance Minister were devastating to social services.  In recent history I think most progressive voters would think those were the worst budgets with cuts to health care, down-loading to the provinces and so on.

The measure of harm from budgets has become percentage cut in funding. So a 6% cut in Environment Canada spending or 4% cut in Parks does not sound like an anti-environmental budget.   

Here is why this is worse.  The most serious threat to our future is the climate crisis.  A responsible government would be working to reduce fossil fuel dependence and maximize jobs in energy efficiency retrofits, conservation, and investments in renewable energy. This budget does not even mention climate change. 

Instead, it is re-writing environmental laws and regulations to speed the development of fossil fuels.  The Enbridge pipeline and supertanker scheme was clearly a beneficiary of the budget.  The so-called “streamlining” of environmental assessment is all about ending environmental reviews at the federal level wherever possible, passing them to the provinces.  Incredibly, the budget time limits on environmental reviews are claimed to apply retroactively to the review already underway (and already weakened by the 2010 budget implemention act changes to CEAA) on the Enbridge mega-pipeline across the Rockies to Kitimat to run super tankers through the most treacherous waters on earth.

Money is being spent in the millions on pipeline agencies, more green-washing for “tanker safety” and money to help develop the off-shore from what looks like the government undertaking seismic testing for the industry.

The budget targets as its primary focus the development of fossil fuels  — off-shore drilling, even targeting the sensitive and highly productive fisheries resource in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, on export of bitumen crude for jobs in refineries in other countries, and expansion in the oil sands.

The voices of critics are being silenced.  Even the tame, in-house agency, the National Round Table of Environment and Economy is being killed.  Created under Brian Mulroney, the NRTEE had continues to talk about climate change.  Its reports were developed in multi-stakeholder processes always involving the industry, but even mentioning climate change is dangerous if you are by statute an advisor to government.  So its legislation is to be repealed, budget eliminated.

And environmental groups have prompted a new $8 million to the Canada Revenues Agency  — $8 million to develop the new rules to shut down criticism – to develop “sanctions” against charities that become too “political.”

This is devastating.  Taken together, this is a war on the environment. It cannot go unchallenged. In the House, Stephen Harper has the votes and after a heated and likely unpleasant round of political theatre, it will pass. We need a grassroots mobilization that says to Stephen Harper, “we will not abandon our children and grandchildren to the ravages of the climate crisis. You have no right to turn your back on our kids. We will stop you.”

The post Why the 2012 budget is the worst in the history of Canada appeared first on Elizabeth May.

However, I have enjoyed the “me-firstism” of every party. The Conservative Party wants to take credit for the fact our banking system withheld the recession so well. The New Democrats, apparently, feel they are responsible. I would like to add, as leader of the Green Party of Canada, we had absolutely nothing to do with protecting our banking system. 

We all owe a thanks to previous Liberal finance minister, Paul Martin.

Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I guess I might have spent a bit too much time at the beginning of my comments trying to clarify the record. I genuinely believe that, in reviewing and listening to a lot of the debate of the bill, individuals like Paul Martin, the former minister of finance, and Jean Chrétien did protect the industry by ensuring we had those regulations in place.

My concern was not as much as trying to assume credit for those two individuals, but rather that we do not try to rewrite history when others members stand and try to assume the credit when it is not true.

The post Financial System Review Act (Bill S-5) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Certainly many Canadians from a non-partisan position have voiced their support. Many wrote to tell me they felt I had won the debate in 2008. Canadians of all stripes and backgrounds have sent very heartening messages of support. Two former Prime Ministers (the Rt. Hon Joe Clark and Rt. Hon Paul Martin) both have spoken out to decry the decision. So, too, has the former head of Elections Canada, Jean Pierre Kingsley. Kingsley, quite rightly, pointed out that with 7% of the vote in 2008, and running 308 candidates across Canada, in no other country could he imagine us being excluded.

Margaret Atwood and Farley Mowat expressed their outrage, but the so-called Consortium would not budge. Veterans activist Sean Bruyea wrote to express his anger that after fighting for democracy over-seas, veterans return to Canada to find it dwindling at home. Ron Wright, author of Short History of Progress, among other books, wrote a statement we included in our appeal to the Federal Court:

“Democracies are rare in history; they are easily hijacked by tyrants, and lost by neglect.  Harper has got away with far too much already.  Many Canadians have little idea of the damage he has done to our constitution and our country, though Elizabeth May has certainly been keeping score.  Now media barons are trying to shut her out of the campaign debates.  This decision is an outrage.  All Canadians, whether Green or not, are being cheated.  May’s clear and thoughtful voice must be heard.”

And here we are, days after the debates. The doors stayed barred. The consortium (CBC, CTV, TVA, Global and Radio Canada) wrote to those who complained (or at least CBC did) that the decision was approved in advance by the four old line parties. The Consortium’s lawyer argued in court that if I were included, the other party leaders might not participate and then there would be no debate at all. I don’t think the other leaders wanted me there either. They issued strong protestations and got the French debate moved to accommodate the Stanley Cup play-offs. They washed their hands of the Consortium’s decision to exclude the Greens, which they were all too happy to hide behind.

All the other parties and the national media have decided that the single largest threat to civilization, climate change, is not an issue in this election. In the 2008 federal election campaign, I grew slightly weary of the question, “what’s the point of the Green Party when all the parties are trying to be green?”

In 2011, the question has shifted, “Now that climate change is not an issue, what’s the point of the Green Party?”

Meanwhile, Greens have identified one of the best ways to arrest rising health care costs is by taking on Big Pharma. Twenty per cent of costs are now due to pharmaceuticals and it is the fastest rising portion of our health care expenditures. The magnificent work of the Therapeutics Initiative (TI) at UBC is at risk because Big Pharma is lobbying the BC government to cut its funding. Why? Because this little group of diligent experts has been advising our provincial government with an independent evidence-based assessment of new prescription drugs. There are an estimated five hundred British Columbians alive today because the TI advised that Vioxx would do more harm than good. We need evidence based assessment, a centralized bulk buying agency to eliminate the unsafe prescription drugs and drive down the cost of the ones providing a benefit.

Our agriculture policy takes aim at corporate influence at Agriculture and Agri-food Canada and within the Canada Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). CFIA is responsible for both promotion of Canadian food exports and food safety at home. It is essential that the food safety regulator not have a dual mandate and conflict of interest. We want to protect the family farm, ensure farmers make a decent income on farm, whether organic or not. We cannot allow the Cargills and Maple Leafs to drive food policy.

So, in this election campaign, the Green Party has been sidelined by the media Consortium, removing the risk of any inconvenient truths being voiced at the debates. In the debates, there was no discussion of Libya, Energy policy, First Nations, Fisheries, Pharmaceuticals, Womens’ Rights – the list is long.

The debates debacle was an insult to any and every Canadian who believed our electoral system included a fair process to oversee the televised leaders’ debate. It should be the very last time Canadians allow the ad hoc media executives behind closed door approach to democracy. To vote to ensure that such exclusion cannot happen again, to ensure that the efforts to suppress these truths will not succeed, please allow me to be your voice.

The post The Debates Debacle appeared first on Elizabeth May.