Green Party releases platform

Here’s the platform of the Green Party of Canada:

Read this document on Scribd: GPC platform

Notes:
– Money for a Green VC fund for green R&D
– renegotiation of NAFTA
– corporate tax cuts for carbon reductions
raise the GST to 6%
– combines the Liberal Green Shift carbon tax with NDP/Conservative plans for cap-and-trade. Also has a more intense GHG target than the Conservatives with 30% reduction from 1990 levels rather than Conservative’s absolute carbon reduction of 20% by 2020 from 2006 levels.
– raise taxes on cigarettes
– labeling of GMOs
– Single payer, universal healthcare
income splitting for everyone
raise income tax exemption to $20k
Guaranteed Annual Income
– meet 0.7% GDP pledge for foreign aid
– turn Afghanistan mission over to the UN

From carbon taxes, to income splitting to massive increases in foreign aid, I look forward to the costing of this platform.

There is not one word in this platform on proportional representation as it relates to democratic reform. Has the Green Party dropped this from it’s goals? Was this dropped at their last party convention on policy? Is this just more evidence that PR is a distasteful policy to the Liberal Party and a Red-Green alliance depends on seat sharing and first-past-the-post rather than proportional representation? Is the NDP now the only party that supports PR?

Comments

comments

  • Kristen

    Interesting that aside from May all the photos are of little kids – perhaps they are her target audience?

  • East of Eden

    She wants to raise the GST? Oh boy. That will sink her quickly.

  • http://streetadvisorconsulting.blogspot.com markalanwhittle

    Say good-bye to your wallet and all it's contents. It's even more scary than the Green Shift carbon tax pogrom. No wonder the Conservatives are winning, they're the only ones who are on our side.

  • Liz J

    Frankly she can promise the moon, doesn't matter they'll never get to enact it.

    Turn the Afghanistan mission over to the [corrupt]UN? There's our cue to run fast and far from the Green Party of Lizzy May.

  • Timwest

    Also has a more intense GHG target than the Conservatives with 30% reduction from 1990 levels rather than Conservative’s absolute carbon reduction of 20% by 2020 from 2006 levels.

    This would COLLAPSE the Canadian economy big time……… God help us if Dion / May formed Gov't !!

    Ontario voters wake up !!

  • Gabby in QC

    To get an idea of what the English debate will be like, take a look at Ms. May's interview with Don Newman: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/ (Sept. 17)

    No one will be able to get a word in edgewise.
    But since she's so sweet and polite, she apologized at the end of the interview for interrupting Newman. He apologized back.

    Maybe Ms. May could refrain from cutting people off … naw, I guess I'm dreaming.

  • http://loreweaver.btblogs.ca Lore_Weaver

    I think it's important to remember that the “agreement” between the Liberals and the Greens is essentially a tacit endorsement of each others platforms.

    I wonder what Dion thinks about a “Guaranteed Annual Income”. Jeez, did they grab that from the communist platform?

  • http://vollman.blogspot.com Robert V

    What does half of that have to do with the environment? This is more a socialist platform than an environmentalist platform. And we already have a socialist party. What is this, NDP Jr.?

    P.S. Holy massive spending increase, Batman!

  • Bocanut

    Liz May claimed that she's never smoked the evil weed.
    She sure sounded like she was having a bummer '60's flashback acid trip though.
    To-day Lizzie made Hillary sound like Nora Jones.

  • http://returnofthetory.wordpress.com The Trusty Tory

    So now she’s apologized for not smoking dope, even though her platform advocates the legalization of it. What a complete and utter wackjob.

  • Cool Blue

    I find it interesting that all opposition parties, including the Greens, have now adopted Harper’s line that the Kyoto targets are unreachable. A position that they’ve vilified for years now.

    Another thing they vilified Harper for was having the year 2050 as a target year, yet now they’re all basing theing reduction targets on that year.

  • southernontarioan

    And a pony! I want a pony too!

    Seriously, one look at this thing says ‘deficits forever!’ Any tax increases proposed are immediately gobbled up by other programs. (Ie carbon tax -> income tax cuts) The rest of it is pure unbalanced spending.

    Thank goodness the Green party is just a fringe party.

  • http://politicalpicture.blogspot.com/ nbt

    Gas just dropped 10 cents, do we really need a leader like May that has an obvious hidden agenda to raise gasoline by 12 cents a litre?

    http://www.thestar.com/News/article/222051

    I know I could afford another hike.

  • CaptainHighliner

    Who will do the costing estimate income splitting is $1.5-$5 billion alone.

  • http://www.abandonedstuff.com Saskboy

    After 3 more years of Conservative delay, it may indeed NOW not be possible. Of course they'd compare to the Conservative year of 2050, so people don't have to do conversion math in their heads.

    The GST raise would go to municipalities; it sounds like a good idea.
    Income tax exemption should have been $20,000 a decade ago.

    I have to laugh at the people who say it's not a balanced plan, or that it would collapse the economy !!!11! Jaccard Report? Heard of it? No? Conservative like it that way.

  • southernontarioan

    Here are a few of the costs that are unbalanced/balanced

    Carbon tax balances off against income tax cuts, income splitting, income tax exemptions for those under $20 000/year, etc.. Now, many people will be paying more, in fact a lot of middle class people will be paying a lot more, but in and of itself these balance out.

    Corporate tax cuts: Using the Green party targets and their announced $100/tonne tax reduction it would cost $3 billion/year for the first 10 years.

    GST increase/ Infrastructure investment balance out against one another

    Foreign aid: Based on our GDP ($1trillion) and the proposed targets (0.7% from 0.3%) it would cost $5 billion annually.

    Student loan forgiveness: Based on Stats Can this would cost roughly $500 million/year to do.

    Already you are $8 billion over and I haven't even started calculating the health care costs, the costs for twinning the CP rail lines, etc..

    But what you and the Green party are forgetting is that you plan on reducing carbon emissions by ~90%. That means your carbon tax will produce less and less money each year. So the Green party estimates that the carbon tax will bring in $35 billion/year in the first year. But by 2020 it will only be bringing in $24 billion. That's a $12 billion shortfall that will have to be made up by increasing taxes or cutting costs somewhere. But instead in the Green Party budget, revenue from the carbon tax increases each year.

    I could go on but the claims that the Green party budget is 'balanced' is laughable. The only way it is would be if May is lying and the carbon tax is not going to be revenue neutral and instead will generate loads of cash for the government.

  • Just_Asking44

    The Green party is not so Green after all.

    Their platform is an oxymoron. If the environmental side is successful the lower taxes and all those social programs fail because there will be no money to fund them. If the lower taxes and day cares and loan forgiveness works it will only be because the environmental objectives weren't met. I think that Lizzie May hopes the greenhouse gases will increase so she can bring in enough $$ to keep her word. Or is she just covering both sides so no matter which side fails she can still say “look how we succeeded”?

  • Just_Asking44

    sorry for the double up – new at this and didn't think the first attempt took.

  • http://returnofthetory.wordpress.com The Trusty Tory

    Boy, it's a good thing May apologized for actually not smoking pot while promising to legalize it. What's next? Apologies for not trying Heroin? Cocaine? Meth? Who knows.

  • Truth serum

    Wow, I can now see why it was so important to allow this flake in to the tv debate for the LEADERSHIP OF THIS COUNTRY. What the hell were people thinking? Has a public tantrum and threatens to sue, when they weren’t allowed in the debate. Earlier says – on national tv no less, that Canadians are stupid; then tells a blatant lie on national tv, and to one of the most respected tv journalists in the nation. Now with their “plan” obviously nothing more than a nutbar envirowhacko, with way, way out in left field “policy”…. Yah, she and her party are a real catch for our tv debate to see who should lead this nation.

    What the hell were people thinking?

  • Honey Pot

    The election is over, and the Conservatives have won a majority. You just mention raising taxes to the average Canadian at the door, and there is a good chance they will knock you off their front porch.

  • Confused

    The green party platform is an oxymoron. If the green tax on corporations succeeds to reduce greenhouse gases and pollution it will result in no one left to tax and the lower income taxes and multitude of programs those taxes will go toward will fail. If the environmental goals are met the economy side fails if the economy side raises enough $$ to fund all the promises the environmental plan fails.

    I believe The Greens actually want greenhouse gases & pollution to rise so they can bring in more money.
    NOT SO GREEN AFTER ALL

  • East of Eden

    What? You mean there will not be MASSIVE income tax rebates? Oh wait, that is the Garth platform. Sorry.

  • http://choiceforchildcare.blogspot.com Sara

    * Permalink
    * Admin
    *
    o
    o
    o Remove Post
    o Block email
    o Block IP address

    CaptainHighliner 12 hours ago 1 point

    Please login to rate.

    Who will do the costing estimate income splitting is $1.5-$5 billion alone.

    5 billion is exactly how much single income families are paying more than double income families. A cost estimation is irrelevant in this matter, this is about tax fairness. Whether it is green or another party, I don't really care most of Canada wants income splitting.
    If you are that insistent on the Conservatives getting in, then push them for income splitting, it is already in their mandate!

  • jcl

    And of course she realizes that “organic” produce uses 10X the resources to grow and cultivate, right??

  • Craig Hubley

    If you actually “look forward to the costing of this platform” then all I have to tell you is that the $50/tonne carbon tax would more than pay for it, as May herself repeatedly emphasized in her actual speech. This platform guarantees a surplus even if a lot of corporations take advantage of the additional $50/tonne corporate tax writeoff. Since removing a tonne of carbon costs way less than $100, it's a giveaway to every competent manager's budget and a massive tax grab from every pointy-haired boss too stupid to figure out that incandescent light bulbs and CRT monitors are obsolete. Conservation and Demand Management (CDM) is consistently ten or twenty times cheaper than changing energy sources, so putting the economic decision in the hand of the end user makes the most sense and will lead to the most immediate and radical reductions in CO2 not to mention reductions in smog and increases in overall efficiency. The only loser in this scenario is big oil.

    Harper was vilified by the way for fraudulently inventing 2006 as a baseline year when the entire rest of the Earth refers to emissions reduction targets from the 1990 baseline used in Kyoto. It's plain fraud to throw in numbers from a 2006 baseline. Not for having targets in 2050 nor 2020 but for having no serious plan for 2008-2012 that could seriously cliam to replace Kyoto.

    As for electoral reform, the recent Ontario and PEI referendums proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that mixed member proportional (MMP) is totally unacceptable to the Canadian public, at least in its closed-list form with our present unaccountable political parties (that do things like invent the in-and-out scandal and sue their critics into silence and can't even be held to account in court for contractual obligations – see Ahenakew versus MacKay). So the Greens are divided between those dreaming ideologists who believe MMP can somehow be revived and the more intelligent and practical people who realize that IRV and STV (both of which used a ranked ballot) are the only viable reform options. Rather than anger the naive supporters who still believe in MMP by stating that only STV/IRV is now practical to pursue, the GPC wisely leaves the issue out. I think we know they'd approve of a serious electoral reform. Oh wait. We had one: fixed election dates. What happened to that? Another story…

  • jcl

    And of course she realizes that “organic” produce uses 10X the resources to grow and cultivate, right??

  • Craig Hubley

    If you actually “look forward to the costing of this platform” then all I have to tell you is that the $50/tonne carbon tax would more than pay for it, as May herself repeatedly emphasized in her actual speech. This platform guarantees a surplus even if a lot of corporations take advantage of the additional $50/tonne corporate tax writeoff. Since removing a tonne of carbon costs way less than $100, it's a giveaway to every competent manager's budget and a massive tax grab from every pointy-haired boss too stupid to figure out that incandescent light bulbs and CRT monitors are obsolete. Conservation and Demand Management (CDM) is consistently ten or twenty times cheaper than changing energy sources, so putting the economic decision in the hand of the end user makes the most sense and will lead to the most immediate and radical reductions in CO2 not to mention reductions in smog and increases in overall efficiency. The only loser in this scenario is big oil.

    Harper was vilified by the way for fraudulently inventing 2006 as a baseline year when the entire rest of the Earth refers to emissions reduction targets from the 1990 baseline used in Kyoto. It's plain fraud to throw in numbers from a 2006 baseline. Not for having targets in 2050 nor 2020 but for having no serious plan for 2008-2012 that could seriously cliam to replace Kyoto.

    As for electoral reform, the recent Ontario and PEI referendums proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that mixed member proportional (MMP) is totally unacceptable to the Canadian public, at least in its closed-list form with our present unaccountable political parties (that do things like invent the in-and-out scandal and sue their critics into silence and can't even be held to account in court for contractual obligations – see Ahenakew versus MacKay). So the Greens are divided between those dreaming ideologists who believe MMP can somehow be revived and the more intelligent and practical people who realize that IRV and STV (both of which used a ranked ballot) are the only viable reform options. Rather than anger the naive supporters who still believe in MMP by stating that only STV/IRV is now practical to pursue, the GPC wisely leaves the issue out. I think we know they'd approve of a serious electoral reform. Oh wait. We had one: fixed election dates. What happened to that? Another story…