UVic Greens’ News Page
(Last Update: May 16, 2005 )
Environment
Greens
have earned a place at the table
Broad Coalition
Endorses Green Candidate Ken Rouleau - Apr 28, 2005
Elections
BC Bans the WCWC's "Vote Wild" Newspaper - April 19, 2005
Green Party
of BC Newsletter and Appeal - April 19, 2005
11th
Hour for the Taku River Wilderness? Please Take Action!!
Canada's Sewage Report Card Results: Victoria
Suspended
The Frugal, Efficient (And Apparently
Popular!) Green Campaigns
Fair Vote Canada Newsletter - March 2005
Lloyd Axworthy's letter to Condi Rice tells it
like it is
Campbell weathers attack from NDP and Greens in B.C.
leaders' debate
May 2, 2005 Message from Green Party of Canada
Leader Jim Harris (Awesome Polls!!!)
Greens have earned a place at the table
The party’s ideas should be
included in any policy debate
|
|
by D I A N E F R A N C I S
|
The Green Party has hoisted its support
to respectable levels and its leader, Jim Harris, deserves to participate in
future national televised election debates.
“The networks excluded us even though
in current polling we are higher than the NDP was in 1993,” he said in an
interview in
I just signed a petition asking
Four current polls show them at an
average of 8% support nationally — more than the NDP’s 6.3% in 1993 when they
won nine seats. The difference, however, is that the NDP has enough clumped
support in highly unionized regions to win seats, while Green support is
widespread and may not result in seats.
However, it’s interesting to note
that the Greens are second favourite among 2.6 million Canadians and were 50%
more popular in a recent
“We may win some seats in B.C.,” its
personable leader said this week. He’s a business author and consultant and
began his career as a researcher at the Financial Post.
While the party’s support of the
flawed and ineffective Kyoto Accord is unacceptable to many of us, the facts
are the party has some interesting ideas that should be included in any policy
debate.
“We see the ecological debt as the
predominant issue for the 21st century,” said the former Progressive
Conservative. “The old line parties have become completely irrelevant. This is
what people care about. Twenty years ago, you wouldn’t have believed that the
majority of people would be drinking bottled water. But in 20 years, the
majority of people in
Some 1,500 elderly die in
Jim is a fan of hybrid vehicles,
which shave the use of gasoline by half, and he drives a Toyota Prius.
“I would give GST revenue to cities
only if they required all their taxis to be Priuses,” he said. “
“That taxi requirement — and the same
could be applied to other fleets — would secure a market big enough to get a
hybrid plant in
Schwarzenegger goes to
Jim says such creative policies would
position
“We are told what’s good for the
environment is bad for jobs and that’s simply not true if you apply smart
policies. This means not spending billions on a declining and dinosauric auto
industry,” he said.
Jim, whom I interviewed last year
after the election, is a hybrid himself — part green and part Tory blue.
“I believe in balanced budgets,
paying off the national debt and shifting taxes from one group to another to
promote environmental and economic efficiency,” he said.
He has some good ideas and some truly
goofy ones, such as increasing royalties on oil and natural gas production or
phasing out nuclear power. Both oil and power generation have nothing to do
with the federal government but are strictly provincial matters. So it’s mostly
empty rhetoric. So is the party’s knee-jerk attack against genetically modified
foods and oil company windfall profits.
On the plus side, he has some
interesting policy notions:
Make Canadians and companies realize
that conservation pays off. Incandescent “light” bulbs are really “heat” bulbs
that are a fraction as efficient as fluorescent ones. “You are $77 better off
buying two compact fluorescents from Home Depot for $6 than spending 60¢ on an
incandescent bulb,” he said.
He proposes “fee-bates,” such as
imposing a 1% tax on the purchase of gas-guzzlers, then shifting those revenues
to reduce taxes on hybrids. Another example is shifting tax subsidies from old
dirty industries to future clean ones, such as building wind turbines.
“The market prices of oil will cause
huge disruptions and we just want to be ready. For instance,
He would introduce the “negawatts
concept” and allow consumers who conserve to reap benefits. This is to
recognize that if their efforts save one kilowatt, they have left behind one
kilowatt in the grid that doesn’t have to be generated. “Seventy-five per cent
to 90% of energy is used wastefully,” he said.
The Green policies will not result in
higher taxes, he said. “Everything we propose is revenue-neutral. We are
committed to paying down the national debt.”
He said the Liberals have created a
monstrous planning process to implement
The Liberals are unacceptable because
corruption “seems to be systemic” and they would bankrupt the country with
spending promises just to keep power.
As for the NDP, the Green Party’s
arch-rival for the youth vote, he said: “The NDP has billed themselves as green
but everywhere they have been in power, they harmed the environment and
economy.”
Green Party of BC Newsletter and Appeal - April 19,
2005
Dear Green Party members and supporters,
Green Party candidates in all 79 ridings are running strong campaigns.
Many of you watched Adriane Carr deliver
a powerful Green message on the televised leaders' debate.
Throughout the campaign, Adriane has brought forward progressive Green
ideas such as a fair tax on BC trees:
http://greenparty.bc.ca/news/2005/05/137.php
scrapping transportation megaprojects:
http://www.greenparty.bc.ca/news/2005/05/128.php
and advocating for the survival of small farms:
http://www.greenparty.bc.ca/news/2005/04/122.php
Check out our complete platform at:
http://www.greenparty.bc.ca/platform.html
If these are the kinds of ideas you want to see represented in our
provincial legislature, there has never been a better time to support the Green
Party of BC with a donation:
https://greenparty.bc.ca/donate_cc.php
Thank you for any help you can give us,
Alan Dolan
Chair
Green Party of BC
Elections BC Bans the WCWC's
"Vote Wild" Newspaper - April 19, 2005
Editor’s Note: WCWC sought legal advice, and the next Wednesday, showed
up on
the legislature steps to start handing out their paper again. Elections BC has
since seen the error of their ways and backed down from this
counter-democratic
edict.
Defend the right to speak up against bad government policies - YOUR help
is greatly needed!
Yesterday, the Wilderness Committee was given written notice by
Elections BC that they are banning the distribution of our "Vote
Wild"
newspaper as of today. The reason given for suppressing the newspaper is
because they've deemed it to be "partisan advertising," as it
criticizes
the government before an oncoming election.
See the WCWC press release at:
http://media.wildernesscommittee.org/news/2005/04/1270.php
Nowhere in our newspaper does it even mention the names of any political
parties, except on the last page where it lists all the websites of the
4 main political parties in BC (BC Liberals, NDP, Green Party,
Democratic Reform BC). Nor does it ever say who to vote for or against.
In addition, the newspaper (Volume 24, Number 3) is part of a series of
regularly published educational newspapers that the WCWC has published
roughly six times a year for the past 24 years, millions of copies - it
is not a one-time "advertisement".
See a copy of our Vote Wild newspaper at (copy and paste the whole thing
if the long address doubles over to a second line):
http://www.wildernesscommittee.org/campaigns/policy/vote_wild/reports/Vo
l24No03
In essence, Elections BC's ruling means that you can't criticize the
government before an election. We greatly disagree. We believe it's the
democratic right of all citizens to speak up about the government's
policies whenever need be, including or especially before an election,
and to disseminate information to others that also fulfills this basic
democratic function.
This includes criticisms of the extreme, anti-environmental policies of
the BC government to privatize public lands at breakneck speeds, log and
mine our provincial parks, attempts to ban new park creation through a
"Working Forest" act, systematically drive the spotted owl into
extinction by approving logging plans precisely in the habitat of the
last few pairs in BC, lift the moratorium on salmon farm expansion, push
the federal government lift the coastal oil and gas moratorium,
liquidate ancient forests at breakneck speeds, reinstate grizzly trophy
hunting, greatly expand raw log exports, weaken legislation designed to
limit the discharge of cancer-causing dioxins into the water, promote
dirty coal-fired power production, oppose Kyoto's ratification...and
countless others.
We've received a legal opinion that states that our newspaper is not
partisan and does not contravene any laws. Therefore we'll continue to
distribute the newspaper to as many BC homes as possible.
So now more than ever, for those who believe in the citizens' rights to
openly criticize government policies, for those who believe in a clean
and healthy environment for all species, we hope you'll join us and help
us get the word out about these most pressing environmental issues.
So far, hundreds of our Eco-Election volunteers have gone door to door
to almost 27 000 homes, handing out our educational newspapers and
circulating petitions. We've already moved 120 000 Vote Wild newspapers
door to door, through mail-outs, and through newspaper inserts. Please
help us! (SEE BELOW ON HOW YOU CAN HELP)
There are only 4 weeks left until the election. More than ever, let's
make our efforts really count!!
For the Wild,
Ken Wu, Pearl Gottschalk, Cassbreea Savage, Karen Sullivan
Western Canada Wilderness Committee, Victoria
Broad Coalition Endorses Green Candidate Ken Rouleau -
Apr 28, 2005
Hello all,
I just received a phone call by an organizer at the Broad Coalition who
has informed me that they are sending out a press release tomorrow endorsing my
candidacy in Saanich North and the Islands.
This is being done so as not to 'split the vote' in our area. This has
been an issue for many years and both Greens and NDP members have expressed
concern that this could happen again this election- allowing the Liberals to
continue their reckless governing of our province. The Broad Coalition have
also endorsed Adriane Carr in Powell River-Sunshine Coast.
Please pass on this endorsement of my candidacy far and wide and ask all
NDP supporters and Candidate, Christine Hunt, to acknowledge and support this
decision. Christine and I have much mutual respect for each other. Both of us
agree that we cannot split the vote, and in our constituency, the Green Party
placed second in the 2001 BC election with 25.4% of the vote (compared to
the NDP's 17.6%).
The progressive voice must be heard again. This election, VOTE GREEN! And
vote Yes to the STV so we will not have to worry about strategic voting in
2009.
We are on the verge of an historic moment for our province and the Green
Party in North America. We Greens will do everyone justice and honour in the BC
Legislature.
More information will be forthcoming.
Sincerely,
Ken Rouleau, Green Party Candidate-SN&I
www.greenpartysgi.ca
Green Party of Canada Newsletter - May 2, 2005
Dear fellow Green Party of Canada member,
If you haven't yet heard, this week two national polls showed the Green
Party of Canada rising substantially in voter support, with one sample giving
us 8% of the vote and the other an impressive 10% nationwide for an election
likely to be called this spring. That's more than double the 4.3% of votes we
received in the 2004 election.
More Canadians view the Green Party of Canada as a credible alternative.
This is great news. It is heartening that our hard work is beginning to
pay off and I thank you sincerely.
More and more Canadians are responding to our message of government
accountability, fiscal responsibility, social progress and environmental
sustainability. Perhaps more importantly, Canadians from
coast-to-coast-to-coast are viewing the Green Party as a credible alternative
to the country's three old-line parties.
For the first time in generations, Canadians have the opportunity to break
the outdated mold of left versus right and vote for a party that's out in front
with a positive vision for all Canadians and fresh ideas for the 21st century.
The Green Party of Canada is ready to make a difference.
In fact, all over the country, at water coolers and at family
get-togethers, Canadians are asking one another about the election and our
future. And the emerging consensus appears to be that the old-line parties' way
of doing things isn't working.
From corruption to the unfair tax burden, from the failure to adequately
protect our family farms, our communities and our environment, from addressing
the challenges facing health care and post-secondary education, the old-line
parties no longer seem to have the answers.
I believe more and more Canadians are ready for a different approach, and
I know the Green Party has the integrity, the ideals and the fresh ideas to
take on the challenge.
Let's focus our energy and redouble our efforts.
These are certainly exciting times for our party, but I should offer some
words of caution here as well. Polls are notorious for fluctuating week to week
and survey to survey. And over the course of the next few months, Green Party
numbers will no doubt see many ups and downs. This is to be expected. And as
encouraging as this week's poll results are, let's not be swept up by the
rollercoaster ride of disappointment and euphoria in the coming months.
Instead, let's focus our energy and redouble our efforts to ensure that
our message continues to reach all Canadians yearning for a true political
alternative.
We've only just begun and we still need your help.
So what's next? Pat yourself on the back for all the hard work you've done
to get us all to this point. But let's take nothing for granted. Right now in
communities across Canada hundreds of Green Party members, concerned citizens
like you, are preparing for the upcoming Election. And there's still so much
work to do.
JOIN: If friends and members of your family are not yet members of the
Green Party of Canada, ask them to join. Visit www.greenparty.ca to find out
how.
DONATE: Volunteer your time or make a tax-deductible financial
contribution. Every minute and dollar helps! Our website makes it easy.
RUN: Last election, the Green Party of Canada fielded candidates in all
308 ridings across the country. As a credible national party, we intend to do
so again. If you're interested in running, please contact us as soon as
possible.
Make no mistake. The Green Party of Canada's moment has arrived but we
need your help. Let's change politics, let's change our country and let's
change our world for the better!
Yours truly,
Jim Harris
Leader, The Green Party of Canada
P.S. Please visit the Green Party website at www.greenparty.ca to find out more about how you can help..
11th Hour for the
In the far northwestern reaches of
The mining company, Redfern Resources Ltd., is seeking approval to build a 160 kilometre road through the heart of the
The beleaguered East Atlin Caribou Herd would be seriously harmed, along with the grizzlies, mountain goats, moose and wolves, if the road is built and access is provided for hunters. The federal Canadian Wildlife Service has even raised these concerns. In addition, biologists (including those in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, at first) point out that construction of the road would threaten the salmon runs of the Taku by damaging vital habitat with silt and debris.
The provincial BC Liberal government has already given approval for the construction of the road and operation of the mine.
Now it is up to the federal Liberal government. They have just released a “Draft Screening Report” by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). After intense lobby pressure by the BC Liberal government and the mining company, DFO dropped its earlier concerns and decided that the road’s construction won’t do significant harm to salmon and their habitat afterall and recommends that the project go ahead.
This is where YOU come in:
There will be a public commentary period on the Draft Screening Report. You have until Feb.18 to let the government know whether or not you want them to reject this destructive project from the majestic Taku watershed.
The federal Liberal government states they only want “technical” commentary on the long and complex report. This is simply a way to limit public participation on the issue. They also want comments to be funneled into the hands of non-elected DFO bureaucrats who don’t respond to public pressure (as their jobs don’t directly come from the electorate) - though they do seem to respond to corporate lobbying. Let’s not fall for their ploys.
SPEAK UP loud and clear, with a simple message, to the elected government officials in this
country, while also sending your message into the commentary process. Please commit to getting at least one friend to do the same.
Let the federal Liberal government know whether or not you:
- Think they should reject the application of Redfern Resources Ltd. to build a 160 kilometre road into the heart of the Taku Wilderness watershed - Think the Tulsequah
Chief mine project should be rejected or at the very least be subjected to a full Panel Review as allowed for under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). - Think they should listen to their own biologists in the Canadian Wildlife Service, who’ve stated
that the East Atlin Caribou Herd would be threatened by building the road, and to fisheries biologists who note that salmon habitat would also be damaged. - Believe that public concerns, not only “technical submissions”, must be included and considered
in the commentary process on the Tulsequah Mine road project. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is very clear that public concern is a legitimate factor to be considered in any assessment. - Believe that a tally
should be taken by the end of the process on Feb.18 of the numbers of people who make submissions and their position on whether or not they oppose construction of the road - Believe that open
house, public hearings should be held on this matter, including in Vancouver
and Victoria, as the issue is of provincial and national significance.
Send your letters (you can CC it to all the following
addresses at once), and include your
street address (very important!), to:
Sue Fahrlinger, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Official Tulsequah Commentary Address: tulsequahcomments@pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Prime Minister Paul Martin pm@pm.gc.ca
Honourable Stéphane Dion, Minister of the Environment Dion.S@parl.gc.ca
Honourable Geoff Regan, Federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Regan.G@parl.gc.ca
Honourable Jean Lapierre, Minister of Transport Lapierre.J@parl.gc.ca
Mr. Paul Scott, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Paul.Scott@ceaa-acee.gc.ca
Ms. Karen Hall, Environmental Officer Transport
AND to your Member of Parliament, who you can find by typing in your postal code at: http://www.gc.ca/directories/direct_e.html
Also, write to your local newspaper on this issue - we need to reach hundreds of thousands more people about the Taku.
For more info visit the Transboundary Watershed Alliance’s website at: www.riverswithoutborders.org or call Nola
Poirier or David Mackinnon at (604) 484-4804
THANK YOU very much for your help – it will be the sheer number of concerned citizens speaking up that
will keep the Taku WILD for the 21st Century.
- Ken Wu, WCWC
--------------------------
Western Canada Wilderness Committee Victoria Chapter and Store 651 Johnson St. Victoria, BC V8T 2R7 250-388-9292 wc2vic@island.net www.wildernesscommitteevictoria.org www.bcoilslick.org www.workingforest.org
Sierra
Legal MEDIA RELEASE
http://www.sierralegal.org/m_archive/pr04_09_08.html
Hundreds of billions of litres of toxic, raw
sewage still dumped into
"More than a decade after our National Sewage
Report Card first brought attention to the abysmal level of sewage treatment in many cities across
The report evaluates twenty-two cities and
assigns them a letter grade based on the quality of their sewage treatment as determined by various criteria including
level of treatment, volume of raw sewage discharged and their progress
since the last report in 1999.
Although some cities examined in the report have
made substantial progress, the lack of discernible improvement in many cities was alarming. Of the twenty-two cities
documented in the report, six (
The highest grades in the third National Sewage
Report Card went the cities of
"While communities like Halifax and St
John's have finally recognized that sewage treatment is a necessity, not a luxury, the City of Victoria continues to rely
on the absurd assumption that dumping more than 34 billions of litres
of raw sewage into our local waterways each year does not harm the
environment," said Jim McIsaac of the T. Buck Suzuki Environmental
Foundation.
The report provides several recommendations,
including increasing efforts to prevent harmful pollutants from entering the sewer system in the first place and replacing
environmentally harmful chlorine disinfection with safer alternatives.
"It is simply shocking that the toxic soup
we call sewage is regularly being dumped into our lakes, rivers and oceans," said Christianne Wilhelmson of GSA.
"In addition to the organic matter and microorganisms you generally
associate with raw sewage, today sewage contains hundreds of toxic harmful
chemicals such as heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants and PCBs."
"Unlike the
The report also calls for federal and provincial
funding to ensure proper treatment facilities are built in all communities in
Copies of the Report and a Media Backgrounder are
available for download at: www.sierralegal.org. A full summary of Report Card grades and French versions of these
materials are also available.
-30-
For further
information please contact:
Sierra Legal: Margot Venton (604) 685-5618 ext 245, cell (604) 313-3132 John Werring (604) 685 5618 ext 232, cell (604) 328-1633 GSA: Christianne Wilhelmson (604) 633-0530, cell (604) 787-7166 LEAS: Mae Burrows (604) 669-1921, (604) 526-1956 T. Buck Suzuki: Jim McIsaac (250) 360-1398
Related media materials:
Read the Media Release or Backgrounder View a Summary of the Grades (50kb pdf file) Read the French summary (135kb pdf file) Download the REPORT (1mb pdf file)
The environment is in trouble and the religious
right doesn't care. It's time to act as if the future depends
on us – because it does.
By Bill Moyers
Recently the Center for Health and the Global
Environment at
12/08/04 " AlterNet" -- I accept this
award on behalf of all the people behind the camera whom you never see. And
for all those scientists, advocates, activists, and just plain citizens
whose stories we have covered in
reporting on how environmental change affects our
daily lives. We journalists are simply beachcombers on the shores of other people's knowledge, other people's experience, and other people's wisdom. We tell their stories.
The journalist who truly deserves this award is
my friend, Bill McKibben. He enjoys the most conspicuous place in
my own pantheon of journalistic heroes for his pioneer work in
writing about the environment. His best seller "The End of Nature" carried
on where Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" left
off.
Writing in Mother Jones recently, Bill described
how the problems we journalists routinely cover – conventional, manageable programs like budget shortfalls and pollution – may be about to convert to chaotic, unpredictable, unmanageable situations. The most unmanageable of all, he writes, could be
the accelerating deterioration of the environment, creating perils with huge momentum like the greenhouse effect that is causing the melting of the Arctic to release so much freshwater into the North Atlantic that even the
Pentagon is growing alarmed that a weakening gulf stream
could yield abrupt and overwhelming changes, the kind of changes that
could radically alter civilizations.
That's one challenge we journalists face – how to
tell such a story without coming across as Cassandras,
without turning off the people we most want to
understand what's happening, who must act on what they read and hear.
As difficult as it is, however, for journalists
to fashion a readable narrative for complex issues without
depressing our readers and viewers, there is an even harder challenge – to
pierce the ideology that governs official policy today. One of the biggest
changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer
marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval
Office and in Congress. For the first time in
our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in
Remember James Watt, President Reagan's first
secretary of the Interior? My favorite online environmental
journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us
recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the last tree is felled,
Christ will come back."
Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't
know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots out across the country. They are the people who believe the bible is literally true – one-third of the American electorate, if a recent
Its outline is rather simple, if bizarre (the
British writer George Monbiot recently did a brilliant
dissection of it and I am indebted to
him for adding to my own understanding): once
Israel has occupied the rest of
its "biblical lands," legions of the
anti-Christ will attack it, triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. As the Jews who have not been converted are burned, the Messiah will return for the rapture. True believers will be lifted out of their clothes and transported to heaven, where,
seated next to the right hand of God, they will watch their political and
religious opponents suffer plagues of boils, sores,
locusts, and frogs during the several years of
tribulation that follow.
I'm not making this up. Like Monbiot, I've read
the literature. I've reported on these people, following some of
them from Texas to the West Bank. They are
sincere, serious and polite as they tell you they feel called to help bring the rapture on as fulfillment of biblical prophecy. That's
why they have declared solidarity with Israel and the Jewish settlements and backed up their support with money and volunteers. It's why the invasion
of Iraq for them was a warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelations
where four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be
released to slay the third part of man." A war with Islam in the Middle East is
not something to be feared but welcomed – an essential conflagration on the
road to redemption. The last time I Googled it, the rapture index stood at 144
– just one point below the critical threshold when the whole thing will
blow, the son of god will return, the righteous will enter heaven and sinners
will be condemned to eternal hellfire.
So what does this mean for public policy and the
environment? Go to Grist to read a remarkable work of reporting by the journalist, Glenn Scherer – "The Road to Environmental Apocalypse." Read it and
you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed – even hastened – as a sign of the coming apocalypse.
As Grist makes clear, we're not talking about a
handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. Nearly half the U.S. Congress before the recent election – 231 legislators in total – more
since the election – are backed by the religious right. Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings
from the three most influential Christian right advocacy groups. They include Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Conference Chair Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Policy Chair Jon Kyl of Arizona, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, and Majority Whip Roy Blunt. The
only Democrat to score 100 percent with the Christian coalition was Senator
Zell Miller of Georgia, who recently quoted from the biblical book of Amos on
the senate floor: "the days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that I will
send a famine in the land." he seemed to be relishing the thought.
And why not? There's a constituency for it. A
2002 TIME/CNN poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies found in
the book of Revelations are going to come true. Nearly one-quarter think the Bible predicted the 9/11 attacks. Drive across the country with your radio tuned
to the more than 1,600 Christian radio stations or in the motel turn some of the 250 Christian TV stations and you can hear some of this end-time gospel.
And you will come to understand why people under the spell of such potent prophecies cannot be expected, as Grist puts it, "to worry about the environment. Why care about the earth when the droughts, floods, famine
and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the apocalypse foretold in the bible? Why care about global climate change when you and yours will
be rescued in the rapture? And why care about converting from oil to solar
when the same god who performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes can whip
up a few billion barrels of light crude with a word?"
Because these people believe that until Christ
does return, the lord will provide. One of their texts is a high
school history book, America's providential history. You'll find there these
words: "the secular or socialist has a limited resource mentality and views the
world as a pie ... that needs to be cut up so
everyone can get a piece." However, "[t]he Christian knows that the potential in god is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in god's earth ... while many secularists view the world as overpopulated, Christians know that god has made the earth sufficiently large with plenty of resources to accommodate all of the people." No wonder
Karl Rove goes around the White House whistling that militant hymn,
"Onward Christian Soldiers." He turned out millions
of the foot soldiers on Nov. 2, including many who
have made the apocalypse a powerful driving force in modern American politics.
I can see in the look on your faces just how hard
it is for the journalist to report a story like this with any
credibility. So let me put it
on a personal level. I myself don't know how to
be in this world without expecting a confident future and getting up every
morning to do what I can to
bring it about. So I have always been an
optimist. Now, however, I think of my
friend on Wall Street whom I once asked:
"What do you think of the market?" "I'm
optimistic," he answered. "Then why do you look so worried?" And
he answered: "Because I am not sure my optimism is justified."
I'm not, either. Once upon a time I agreed with
Eric Chivian and the Center for Health and the Global Environment that people will protect the natural environment when they realize its importance to their health and
to the health and lives of their children. Now I am not so sure. It's not
that I don't want to believe that – it's just that I read the news and connect
the dots:
I read that the administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has declared the election a mandate for President Bush on the environment. This for an administration that wants to rewrite the Clean
Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act protecting rare plant and animal species and their habitats, as well as the National
Environmental Policy Act that requires the government to judge
beforehand if actions might damage natural
resources.
That wants to relax pollution limits for ozone;
eliminate vehicle tailpipe inspections; and ease pollution standards for cars, sports
utility
vehicles and diesel-powered big trucks and heavy
equipment.
That wants a new international audit law to allow
corporations to keep certain information about environmental problems secret from the public.
That wants to drop all its new-source review
suits against polluting coal-fired power plans and weaken consent
decrees reached earlier with coal companies.
That wants to open the Arctic [National] Wildlife
Refuge to drilling and increase drilling in Padre Island
National Seashore, the longest stretch of undeveloped barrier island in the
world and the last great coastal wild land in America.
I read the news just this week and learned how
the Environmental Protection Agency had planned to spend nine million dollars – two million
of it from the administration's friends at the American Chemistry Council –
to pay poor families to continue to use pesticides in their homes. These pesticides have been linked to neurological damage in children, but
instead of ordering an end to their use, the government and the industry were going
to offer the families $970 each, as well as a camcorder and children's clothing, to serve as guinea pigs for the study.
I read all this in the news.
I read the news just last night and learned that
the administration's friends at the international policy network, which is supported by ExxonMobil and others of like mind, have issued a new report that climate change is "a myth, sea levels are not rising," [and]
scientists who believe catastrophe is possible are "an
embarrassment."
I not only read the news but the fine print of
the recent appropriations bill passed by Congress, with the
obscure (and obscene) riders attached to it: a clause removing all endangered
species protections from pesticides; language prohibiting judicial review
for a forest in Oregon; a waiver of environmental review for grazing
permits on public lands; a rider pressed by
developers to weaken protection for crucial habitats in California.
I read all this and look up at the pictures on my
desk, next to the computer – pictures of my grandchildren: Henry,
age 12; of Thomas, age 10; of Nancy, 7; Jassie, 3; Sara Jane, 9 months. I
see the future looking back at
me from those photographs and I say,
"Father, forgive us, for we know not what we do." And then I am stopped short by the
thought: "That's not right. We do know what we are
doing. We are stealing their future. Betraying their trust. Despoiling their world."
And I ask myself: Why? Is it because we don't
care? Because we are greedy? Because we have lost our capacity for
outrage, our ability to sustain indignation at injustice?
What has happened to our moral imagination?
On the heath Lear asks Gloucester: "How do
you see the world?" And Gloucester, who is blind, answers: "I see it
feelingly.'"
I see it feelingly.
The news is not good these days. I can tell you,
though, that as a journalist I know the news is never the end of the story. The news can be the truth that sets us free – not only to feel but to fight for the future we want. And the will to fight is the antidote to despair, the cure for cynicism, and the answer to those faces looking back at me from those photographs on
my desk. What we need to match the science of human health is what the
ancient
Israelites called "hochma" – the
science of the heart ... the capacity to see ... to feel ... and then to act ... as if the future depended on you.
Believe me, it does.
Bill Moyers is the host of the weekly public
affairs series NOW with Bill Moyers, which airs Friday nights on
PBS.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Frugal, Efficient (And Apparently
Popular!) Green Campaigns
- from Andy Shadrack, BC Organizer, Green Party of Canada
Some members and supporters have been critical of
the amount of money spent
in the 2004 federal election by the Green Party
of Canada. Below please find
a factual comparison of what the GPC spent in
relation to the other five
federal parties who obtained seats in the House
of Commons.
1. Overall Election Expenditures
|
Party |
Amount |
Amount
per seat |
Comparison |
|
Green
Party: |
$498,179 |
$1,617.46 |
|
|
NDP: |
$12,018,931 |
$39,022.50 |
24.1
times more |
|
Liberal: |
$16,604,528 |
$53,910.80 |
33.1
times more |
|
Conservative: |
17,284,257 |
$56,117.71 |
34.7
times more |
|
Bloc: |
$4,507,531* |
$60,100.41 |
9
times more* |
*only 75 seats contested
Please note that the GPC spent 9.6% of the
$50,913,427 spent by the top
five Parties in the 2004 federal election.
2. Amount Spent Per Vote Received
|
Green
Party: |
$0.86 |
|
|
Bloc: |
$2.68 |
3.14
times more |
|
Liberal: |
$3.33 |
3.9
times more |
|
Conservative: |
$4.30 |
5.03
times more |
|
NDP: |
$5.65 |
6.60
times more |
Please note that the average spent by the top
five parties was $3.80 per voter.
3. Cost per Seat in House of Commons
Bloc Quebecois: $83,473
Liberal $122,997
Conservative: $174,588
NDP: 632,575
Thus the NDP spent more for each of the 19 seats
they have in the House of
Commons than the GPC spent on their entire
federal campaign.
Good News from Youbou Timberless Society!
- Ken James, Youbou TimberLess Society
It has been over 4 years since the closure of the
Youbou Sawmill. During that time the
Youbou TimberLess Society has worked non stop to see that Social Justice would
be carried out. We endured 2 years of
legal action by the IWA that was suddenly dropped. We found Joe Arvay of Victoria's well known
Arvay/Finley and he took on the fight.
In May of 2004 we were certified to move forward
with our class action against the government.
It was appealed by the Liberals and argued before the Court of Appeals
on October 1, 2004. Today after a
further 5+ months of waiting I got the phone call I had long hoped for. The Court of Appeal has upheld the first
decision that we are certified to move forward as a class action.
This is great news and pays tribute to the long
hours the Youbou TimberLess Society has donated to the former workers. I do not have the court document yet so I can
not comment much further than to say.... We have WON this round!!! Now on to the next!!!!
Ken James
Youbou TimberLess Society
[250] 746-8684
or 701-1682
Editor’s
Note: Joe Arvay does countless work “pro
bono” (free) for the BC Civil Liberties Society
in preserving our civil liberties as citizens.
I can think of no more worthwhile organization to join to protect these across
Canada. Check out the website, and
find out just how many challenges are carried out by governments,
intentionally and unintentionally, and consider joining this highly effective,
frugal organization!
Student
rates available.
FAIR VOTE CANADA NEWSLETTER - MARCH
2005
www.fairvote.ca/ info@fairvotecanada.org
In this issue:
a.. Fair Vote Canada assesses PR voting
proposals in four provinces
b.. Ontario democratic renewal process must
improve the citizens'
assembly
model
c.. Fair Vote Canada extremely disappointed
with federal Democratic
Reform
Minister's speech
d.. First poll on BC voting reform referendum
shows low voter awareness
e.. PEI commission appointed to draft
referendum question
FAIR
VOTE CANADA ASSESSES PR VOTING PROPOSALS IN FOUR PROVINCES (March 16, 2005)
Fair
Vote Canada (FVC) released the first detailed comparative analysis of
the
proportional representation (PR) systems being proposed for adoption in
British
Columbia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec. At least
two
of these provinces will hold referendums this year.
"Our
assessments run the gamut from very positive to very negative," said
Fair
Vote Canada president Wayne Smith. "We focused our analysis on two
simple
principles: that all voters are equal and every vote should count. We
also
considered the systems' likely effect on fair representation for women,
minorities
and Aboriginals, accountable government, geographic
representation,
and real voter choice. The complete 18-page assessment
report
is available on request.
British
Columbia: BC voters will decide by referendum on May 17, 2005
whether
to adopt the BC-STV system, a form of proportional representation
recommended
by the BC Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. Fair Vote
Canada
recommends a "yes" vote, rather than continue with the grossly unfair
first-past-the-post
voting system. However, FVC also recommends British
Columbians
consider this the first step in a reform process and continue to
press
for further improvements to increase proportionality and enhance
diversity
in the legislature.
New
Brunswick: Fair Vote Canada believes the mixed member proportional (MMP)
system
recently proposed by the province's Commission on Legislative
Democracy
would perform reasonably well. If presented in a referendum, Fair
Vote
Canada would encourage a "yes" vote. However, further improvements
are
still
possible and recommended. Fair Vote Canada supports the Commission's
proposal
to Premier Lord for a referendum no later than the 2007 provincial
election.
Prince
Edward Island: Islanders will vote on a proposed MMP system in late
2005.
While important decisions on the proposed system have yet to be made,
Fair
Vote Canada believes that the process is generally on track. The final
version
of the proposed MMP system, if well designed by the new Commission
in
a citizen-driven process, could be a major improvement over
first-past-the-post
voting.
Quebec:
Fair Vote Canada is disappointed with the voting system model
released
in December 2004 by the Minister for the Reform of Democratic
Institutions.
The MMP framework provides a very good foundation on which to
build
a fair voting system, but the current proposal must be greatly
improved.
We urge the Minister to establish a citizen-driven process to
improve
the proposal, and then allow voters to make the final decision in a
referendum,
perhaps in the spring of 2006.
ONTARIO
DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL PROCESS MUST IMPROVE THE CITIZENS' ASSEMBLY MODEL (March 8,
2005)
Yesterday
the McGuinty government tabled legislation to support formation of
an
Ontario citizens' assembly on electoral reform, but Fair Vote Ontario
warns
that the Ontario process must be improved over that recently used in
British
Columbia. "We commend the Premier for moving forward on a
citizen-driven
process with a citizens' assembly and a referendum," said Joe
Murray,
chair of the Fair Vote Ontario campaign. "But Ontario must improve
the
model pioneered in BC over the past year."
Among
10 specific improvements recommended by Fair Vote Ontario, Murray
highlighted
the following.
·
Access to a variety of experts: The assembly should have
presentations from and ongoing access to a variety of voting system experts,
including those with differing opinions. The assembly must be protected from
being deliberately or inadvertently steered by staff experts.
·
Flexibility on recommendations: Given the recent reduction of
seats in the Ontario legislature, the assembly should be allowed to consider
models that involve an increase in the number of MPPs. In addition, if the
assembly cannot reach a general consensus on the single best alternative voting
system, they should be allowed to present two alternatives, with voters using a
preference ballot in the referendum to choose among the alternatives and the
status quo.
·
No super-majority required for adoption: Unlike the BC
government, the Ontario government and political parties should not impose a
super-majority referendum result for adoption of a new voting system. If the
Government claims the right to make binding and far-reaching policy decisions
based on simple majority rule, the same standard should apply to citizens.
FAIR
VOTE CANADA EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED WITH DEMOCRATIC REFORM MINISTER'S SPEECH
(March 1, 2005)
Fair
Vote Canada President Wayne Smith expressed great disappointment with
Mauril
Bélanger's February 16 speech at the University of Ottawa. In a
letter
to Bélanger, the federal Minister Responsible for Democratic Reform,
Smith
said his "seven-point program of seemingly endless discussions and
largely
redundant studies stands in stark contrast to the commitments and
actions
undertaken by both Liberal and Conservative governments in five
provinces."
The
letter bluntly stated that "the time for avoidance, foot-dragging and
endless
studies is over". Smith called on the Minister to come forward with
a
"simple, clear commitment by the federal government and all federal
parties
to implement a citizen-driven and citizen-controlled electoral
reform
process with a specific deadline for a national referendum."
FIRST
POLL ON BC VOTING REFORM REFERENDUM SHOWS LOW VOTER AWARENESS (Feb. 21, 2005)
On
May 17, British Columbians will become the first Canadians to vote on
adoption
of a proportional representation voting system, but an Ipsos-Reid
poll
shows half are not yet aware of either the referendum or the proposed
system.
Of those who are aware, nearly two-thirds say they know "very
little"
or "nothing" about the proposed BC-STV voting system.
While
51% of those aware expressed support for the new system, compared to
23%
opposed, Ipsos-Reid said "these early returns are unlikely to be a good
predictor
of the final outcome."
"It's
about education at this point," said Kyle Braid of Ipsos-Reid, "With
awareness
and knowledge so low, both sides still have a real opportunity to
frame
the debate to their advantage."
PEI
COMMISSION APPOINTED TO DRAFT REFERENDUM QUESTION (Feb. 17, 2005)
The
Speaker of the Legislative Assembly in PEI announced the appointment of
an
eight-persion Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future. The
eight
appointees include one representative from each political party, one
citizen
from each of the four federal electoral districts, and the chair.
The
Commission has been directed to: 1) develop and conduct a public
education
campaign on the current voting system and the proposed mixed
member
proportional system; 2) write a referendum question; and 3) recommend
the
date of the referendum. The Commission will hold its first meeting on
March
1.
FVC
RELEASES 2004-2005 ELECTORAL REFORM CALENDAR (Feb. 2, 2005)
Canadians
witnessed an unprecedented series of voting reform developments
across
the country over the past year. This trend will likely continue and
even
accelerate in the next several years. Fair Vote Canada has summarized
developments
of the past year and expected developments in the 2004-2005
Electoral
Reform Calendar (available on request).
Lloyd Axworthy's Letter To Condi Rice
Tells It Like It Is
Missile Counter-Attack
By Lloyd Axworthy
The Winnipeg Free Press
Thursday 03 March 2005
Axworthy
fires back at U.S. - and Canadian - critics of our BMD decision in An Open
Letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Dear Condi,
I'm glad you've decided to get over your
fit of pique and venture north to visit your closest neighbour. It's a chance
to learn a thing or two. Maybe more.
I know it seems improbable to your divinely
guided master in the White House that mere mortals might disagree with participating
in a missile-defence system that has failed in its last three tests, even
though the tests themselves were carefully rigged to show results.
But, gosh, we folks above the 49th parallel
are somewhat cautious types who can't quite see laying down billions of dollars
in a three-dud poker game.
As our erstwhile Prairie-born and bred (and
therefore prudent) finance minister pointed out in presenting his recent
budget, we've had eight years of balanced or surplus financial accounts. If we're
going to spend money, Mr. Goodale added, it will be on day-care and health
programs, and even on more foreign aid and improved defence.
Sure, that doesn't match the gargantuan,
multi-billion-dollar deficits that your government blithely runs up fighting a
"liberation war" in Iraq, laying out more than half of all weapons
expenditures in the world, and giving massive tax breaks to the top one per
cent of your population while cutting food programs for poor children.
Just chalk that up to a different sense of
priorities about what a national government's role should be when there isn't a
prevailing mood of manifest destiny. Coming to Ottawa might also expose you to
a parliamentary system that has a thing called question period every day, where
those in the executive are held accountable by an opposition for their actions,
and where demands for public debate on important topics such a missile defence
can be made openly.
You might also notice that it's a system in
which the governing party's caucus members are not afraid to tell their leader
that their constituents don't want to follow the ideological, perhaps
teleological, fantasies of Canada's continental co-inhabitant. And that this
leader actually listens to such representations.
Your boss did not avail himself of a
similar opportunity to visit our House of Commons during his visit, fearing, it
seems, that there might be some signs of dissent. He preferred to issue his
diktat on missile defence in front of a highly controlled, pre-selected
audience.
Such control-freak antics may work in the
virtual one-party state that now prevails in Washington. But in Canada we have
a residual belief that politicians should be subject to a few checks and
balances, an idea that your country once espoused before the days of empire.
If you want to have us consider your
proposals and positions, present them in a proper way, through serious
discussion across the table in our cabinet room, as your previous president did
when he visited Ottawa. And don't embarrass our prime minister by lobbing a
verbal missile at him while he sits on a public stage, with no chance to
respond.
Now, I understand that there may have been
some miscalculations in Washington based on faulty advice from your resident
governor of the "northern territories," Ambassador Cellucci. But you
should know by now that he hasn't really won the hearts and minds of most
Canadians through his attempts to browbeat and command our allegiance to U.S.
policies. Sadly, Mr. Cellucci has been far too closeted with exclusive groups
of 'experts' from Calgary think-tanks and neo-con lobbyists at cross-border
conferences to remotely grasp a cross-section of Canadian attitudes (nor
American ones, for that matter).
I invite you to expand the narrow
perspective that seems to inform your opinions of Canada by ranging far wider
in your reach of contacts and discussions. You would find that what is rising
in Canada is not so much anti-Americanism, as claimed by your and our
right-wing commentators, but fundamental disagreements with certain policies of
your government. You would see that rather than just reacting to events by
drawing on old conventional wisdoms, many Canadians are trying to think our way
through to some ideas that can be helpful in building a more secure world.
These Canadians believe that security can
be achieved through well-modulated efforts to protect the rights of people, not
just nation-states.
To encourage and advance international
co-operation on managing the risk of climate change, they believe that we need
agreements like Kyoto.
To protect people against international
crimes like genocide and ethnic cleansing, they support new institutions like
the International Criminal Court - which, by the way, you might strongly
consider using to hold accountable those committing atrocities today in Darfur,
Sudan.
And these Canadians believe that the United
Nations should indeed be reformed - beginning with an agreement to get rid of the
veto held by the major powers over humanitarian interventions to stop violence
and predatory practices.
On this score, you might want to explore
the concept of the 'Responsibility to Protect' while you're in Ottawa. It's a
Canadian idea born out of the recent experience of Kosovo and informed by the
many horrific examples of inhumanity over the last half-century. Many Canadians
feel it has a lot more relevance to providing real human security in the world
than missile defence ever will.
This is not just some quirky notion
concocted in our long winter nights, by the way. It seems to have appeal for
many in your own country, if not the editorialists at the Wall Street Journal
or Rush Limbaugh. As I discovered recently while giving a series of lectures in
southern California, there is keen interest in how the U.S. can offer real
leadership in managing global challenges of disease, natural calamities and
conflict, other than by military means.
There is also a very strong awareness on
both sides of the border of how vital Canada is to the U.S. as a partner in
North America. We supply copious amounts of oil and natural gas to your
country, our respective trade is the world's largest in volume, and we are
increasingly bound together by common concerns over depletion of resources,
especially very scarce fresh water. Why not discuss these issues with Canadians
who understand them, and seek out ways to better cooperate in areas where we
agree - and agree to respect each other's views when we disagree.
Above all, ignore the Cassandras who deride
the state of our relations because of one missile-defence decision. Accept
that, as a friend on your border, we will offer a different, independent point
of view. And that there are times when truth must speak to power.
In friendship,
Lloyd Axworthy
Campbell weathers attack from NDP and Greens in B.C. leaders' debate
AMY CARMICHAEL
From: http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20050504/ca_pr_on_na/elxn_bc_debate
VANCOUVER (CP) - Premier Gordon Campbell faced a
tag-team attack Tuesday in a
televised leaders' debate, accused by the NDP and
the Green party of hurting
the most vulnerable British Columbians by
breaking promises on the economy and
health care.
"I thought the premier was very
defensive," said political commentator Norman
Ruff, who said Campbell's performance likely
won't get him any new support when
British Columbians vote May 17.
"(NDP Leader) Carole James really plugged
into what became the underlying theme
of the evening, the issue of trust," Ruff
said.
James asked if people could trust the premier
after he broke promises to open
5,000 long-term care beds and keep B.C. Rail in
public hands.
Campbell said voters could trust in the B.C. economy, a key
theme of the
Liberal re-election campaign.
James, who observers say had the most to gain
from the debate, asked
if he planned to sell B.C.'s government-owned
auto insurance company and B.C.
Hydro, reminding him that he promised not to sell
B.C. Rail.
Campbell's response that he didn't intend to sell them didn't
convince the NDP
leader.
"Should we believe you now, should we have
believed you then," she said.
Ruff said James solidified NDP support and buoyed
her camp with her showing in
the debate.
But he gave the most points to Green Leader
Adriane Carr.
"I actually would give her a slight edge
over Carole James, not a significant
one, but of the three she explained her position
extremely well, turning her
message into a critique of both the Campbell
administration and the previous
NDP government."
Ruff had been predicting the Green vote would
implode on election day.
"Now I'm really rethinking that."
Carr was quick to jump in when James was running
over Campbell's
answers and
demanding that he answer her question, putting
both back in their corners.
"She's right!" Carr told Campbell when James
said he has downloaded too many
costs onto school boards.
The inexperienced Carr, who is fighting to win
the first Green seat in the
legislature, criticized the NDP record on raw log
exports and broken promises
to support the mentally ill.
She actually praised the premier for taking up
her cause for electoral reform
and calling a referendum on whether B.C. should
adopt a new voting system.
In a news conference after the debate, Campbell took a
moment to thank Carr for
her good ideas, possibly trying to prop up the
Greens at the NDP's expense.
"Adriane Carr had some good ideas and
handled herself extremely well as we went
through the debate," he said.
But Campbell said James interrupted the other leaders and
failed to go beyond
what she doesn't like to present a vision for the
future.
James said British Columbians are worse off in
the area of health care then
they were four years ago.
"You made a fundamental promise to the
seniors of British Columbia and you
broke that promise."
Campbell said his government is in the process of opening
long-term care beds,
but when it reviewed the state of senior care in
2002, it had to first upgrade
facilities that had fallen below standards,
including those that no longer met
the fire code.
"We found that a number of seniors were
living in facilities that just frankly
you wouldn't want to have your parents live
in," he said.
And B.C. Rail hasn't been sold, Campbell pointed
out. It has been leased.
"A 999-year lease!" said James, who
remained level and calm during the hour-
long debate.
"That amounts to a sale, none of us will be
here to see it return to the
public."
Polls have indicated Campbell is more popular among
male than female voters.
In the face-off against two women, Campbell said his
strategy was to remain
polite.
"It was important for us to listen to what
others had to say. Not to interfere
or interrupt their comments. I think that's the
kind of civil discourse people
expect. I don't think I interrupted people,
certainly not like they did."
Ruff said Campbell was in a tough
position, having to debate two women when he
is unpopular with that demographic.
"The optics of a male-know-it-all premier
lording it over two female leaders
would have backfired on him very quickly.
"An attack response really wasn't a viable
option for him. He wasn't able to
fully adjust to the situation and became more and
more defensive."
Carr's appearance in the debate was something of
a breakthrough for the Greens,
who were invited to participate after the party
received more than 12 per cent
of the vote in 2001, but have yet to win a seat
in the legislature.
The debate was also a first for James, who has
been NDP leader for two years
after serving as chairwoman of Victoria's school
board.
In this campaign, she is trying to rebuild a
party that was effectively wiped
out in the last election when Campbell led the
Liberals to power with the
largest majority government in the province's
history, capturing 77 seats and
reducing the NDP to two. At dissolution, the
Liberals held 72 seats and the NDP
three.
May 2, 2005 Message from Green Party of Canada Leader Jim Harris
(Awesome
Polls!!!)
Dear fellow Green Party of Canada member,
If you haven't
yet heard, this week two national polls showed the Green Party of Canada rising
substantially in voter support, with one sample giving us 8% of the vote and
the other an impressive 10% nationwide for an election likely to be called this
spring. That's more than double the 4.3% of votes we received in the 2004
election.
More
Canadians view the Green Party of Canada as a credible alternative.
This is
great news. It is heartening that our hard work is beginning to pay off and I
thank you sincerely.
More and
more Canadians are responding to our message of government accountability,
fiscal responsibility, social progress and environmental sustainability.
Perhaps more importantly, Canadians from coast-to-coast-to-coast are viewing
the Green Party as a credible alternative to the country's three old-line
parties.
For the
first time in generations, Canadians have the opportunity to break the outdated
mold of left versus right and vote for a party that's out in front with a
positive vision for all Canadians and fresh ideas for the 21st century.
The Green
Party of Canada is ready to make a difference.
In fact, all
over the country, at water coolers and at family get-togethers, Canadians are
asking one another about the election and our future. And the emerging
consensus appears to be that the old-line parties' way of doing things isn't
working.
From
corruption to the unfair tax burden, from the failure to adequately protect our
family farms, our communities and our environment, from addressing the challenges
facing health care and post-secondary education, the old-line parties no longer
seem to have the answers.
I believe
more and more Canadians are ready for a different approach, and I know the
Green Party has the integrity, the ideals and the fresh ideas to take on the
challenge.
Let's focus
our energy and redouble our efforts.
These are
certainly exciting times for our party, but I should offer some words of
caution here as well. Polls are notorious for fluctuating week to week and
survey to survey. And over the course of the next few months, Green Party
numbers will no doubt see many ups and downs. This is to be expected. And as
encouraging as this week's poll results are, let's not be swept up by the
rollercoaster ride of disappointment and euphoria in the coming months.
Instead,
let's focus our energy and redouble our efforts to ensure that our message
continues to reach all Canadians yearning for a true political alternative.
We've only
just begun and we still need your help.
So what's
next? Pat yourself on the back for all the hard work you've done to get us all
to this point. But let's take nothing for granted. Right now in communities
across Canada hundreds of Green Party members, concerned citizens like you, are
preparing for the upcoming Election. And there's still so much work to do.
JOIN: If
friends and members of your family are not yet members of the Green Party of
Canada, ask them to join. Visit www.greenparty.ca to find out how.
DONATE: Volunteer
your time or make a tax-deductible financial contribution. Every minute and
dollar helps! Our website makes it easy.
RUN: Last
election, the Green Party of Canada fielded candidates in all 308 ridings
across the country. As a credible national party, we intend to do so again. If
you're interested in running, please contact us as soon as possible.
Make no
mistake. The Green Party of Canada's moment has arrived but we need your help.
Let's change politics, let's change our country and let's change our world for
the better!
Yours truly,
Jim Harris
Leader, The
Green Party of
P.S. Please
visit the Green Party website at www.greenparty.ca to find out more about how
you can help.