• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CAN Has It's First Green Party MP

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,587
Points
1,260
I wonder if a new rule will be used to keep the Green Party off the debate platform?  Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

May elbows into election picture by poaching first Green MP
Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press, 30 Aug 08
Article link

It was supposed to be Jack Layton's day to act prime ministerial and frame the New Democratic Party's coming election pitch.

But the NDP leader's moment of political theatre was upstaged Saturday by the rival Greens, who elbowed their way into the pre-campaign manoeuvring by naming the first-ever Green party member of Parliament.

Blair Wilson, the Independent Vancouver MP elected as a Liberal in 2006, joined Green Leader Elizabeth May at a morning news conference to announce he will carry the party's standard into the House of Commons - in the unlikely event Parliament resumes as scheduled Sept. 15.

Wilson, who resigned from the Liberal caucus last fall under a cloud of controversy over his 2006 election expenses, was cleared this summer by Elections Canada of wrongdoing.

He approached the Greens just a week ago.

"It felt like coming home," Wilson said Saturday.

May characterized the move as an historic moment for Canada.

"We've established ourselves as a party that cannot be described as fringe."

For Layton's NDP, which has battled the Liberals for centre-left voters for decades, the Green party intrusion is an unwelcome reality.

Layton met Saturday with Prime Minister Stephen Harper at 24 Sussex Drive in a set piece of political gamesmanship that served the purposes of both Tories and New Democrats.

Harper has summoned all three opposition party leaders for one-on-one talks before the resumption of Parliament, ostensibly to see whether there's agreement on the Conservative minority's fall legislative agenda.

Layton called the meeting "a charade" in advance and emerged to say it lived up to advance billing.

"He seems intent on quitting his job," said Layton, who immediately offered up his resume to Canadians on the issues of the economy, health care, the environment, food security and the listeriosis outbreak.

"As prime minister, I told (Harper) I would have been convening the leaders to figure out how we work on these key issues," Layton said.

"I got no sense the prime minister is prepared to do what I would do if I were prime minister."

It's a far cry from Layton's "lend me your vote" pitch in the 2006 campaign, when a progressive counterweight to the surging Harper Conservatives was his best hope.

This time around, May and the Greens hope to steal that role.

The party's 1.5 million votes in the 2006 election, combined with continued strong national polling numbers near 10 per cent and federal byelection results that have placed Green candidates ahead of other mainstream party contenders, all point to a legitimate political entity, says May.

She argued having Wilson on the parliamentary roll call as a Green MP is the final piece in moving her party into the mainstream.

"With a Green MP sitting in the House of Commons, it will now be impossible to exclude the Green party from the televised leaders' debates in the next election," said May.

She cited the precedent of Reform's Preston Manning in 1993, who was one of five party leaders in the televisied election debates that year, despite having only a single MP - Deb Grey - in the Commons.

Not so fast, was the immediate response from the Conservatives.

"Our view is there should only be one Liberal candidate in the leaders' debate," said Kory Teneycke, Harper's communications director, citing the agreement between Dion and May last year not to contest one another's ridings in the next election.

"You can't have two candidates from essentially the same party in the debate."

Another PMO spokesman, Dimitri Soudas, perhaps came closer to the real Tory concern when he said Dion "can't bring in a ringer to boost him during the debate."

May, a lawyer and environmentalist with theological training, displayed formidable rhetorical skill Saturday in attacking Harper's apparent rush to the polls.

She suggested Harper's own fixed election date law could conceivably spur a court challenge to stop him from dissolving Parliament without cause.

"I like to think Canadians notice when someone breaks their word in such spectacular fashion."

She decried Harper's "extraordinarily ruthless and surprising move" of raising a fall general election after calling federal byelections less than a month ago.

"Something spooked him and he changed his mind. It's contemptible," she said.

And if given a spot in the televised election debates, May promised to hold Harper's feet to the fire on climate change policy.

"So far, all he does is throw mud at other parties' ideas while the greenhouse gas levels from the Athabaska tar sands go through the roof."


 
Several points come to mind:

1. While the Green Party may now have a seat, the member will never actually occupy it during this parliament as the PM will dissolve the house and take us to an election.

2. The Green Party has done exactly the same thing they chastised the other parties for doing... accepting a "floor crosser".

3. Having one seat in the House does not make you an official party, ergo no participation in the leader's debates. Only parties with official status get to debate, unless the PM and others extend an invitation. I don't know that this will happen in this case as it leaves the door open for every party with at least one seat to make the same claim.

4. Opportunism.

5. Until the Green Party rescinds its incestuous agreement with the Liberals, neither party can be seen as champions of democracy.
 
All true, ModMike, and I can't say I endorse the party per se, either. 

My only point was that in the last televised debates, the Greens were left out (and I stand to be corrected here) because they didn't have a member sitting when Parliament was dissolved.  Now, even though it'll be a newbie, they will, so it'll be interesting to see if Big Media will come up with another reason to keep the debate to "the usual suspects".

Now, if the Greens make it to the podium, how'll they do?  It'll be up to them, but I think they'll get lost in anything other than environmental issues.  Will they convince people to vote for them?  Who knows?  Should they get a crack on the stage?  I say yes.
 
They took a candidate that even the Liberals regarded as too crooked to remain in their caucus.  Way to go Green Party!  ^-^
 
I'm not a fan of May and her squad but upstaging BinLayton is something i can get behind.
 
Infanteer said:
They took a candidate that even the Liberals regarded as too crooked to remain in their caucus.  Way to go Green Party!   ^-^

I wonder how her buddy Stephane sees that, after all he is not running anybody in her riding (well Peter MacKay's riding). Looks like a little bit of backstabbing going on.
 
Given their performance in the popular vote, I think they ought to be included in the debate... Not because I agree with their positions, necessarily, but apparently enough Canadians back them that I think they've earned the chance to take part. Opening the debate up certainly won't harm the democratic process, and their platform does certainly coincide with matters that are becoming increasingly prominent in the social consciousness...
 
Ex-Dragoon said:
I wonder how her buddy Stephane sees that, after all he is not running anybody in her riding (well Peter MacKay's riding). Looks like a little bit of backstabbing going on.

Looks like the plusses of having their first MP on the floor trumped the option of staying buddies with Stephane "He Who Won't Be Penned Into a Decision" Dion.
 
The only reason I would oppose the Greens in the debates is because, IMHO, 4 or 5 people participating turn it into a gong show.

I think this is a very cynical move on the Greens' part.  They accepted a "floor crosser" accused of financial irregularities by his own family (he has been cleared, but Citoyen Dion still won't let him back into caucus), who was probably not going to get re-elected as a Liberal nor as an Independent.

I would think many, if not most, Green supporters supported the party because they thought that the party was above this kind of thing?
 
Personally, I think the Greens deserve to be in the Leaders debate based on the fact that they've run candidates in every riding for the past two elections and have had close to 5% of the popular vote.
The bloc on the other hand is a regional party and should be excluded from the Leaders debate, but of course that will never happen. 
 
I still maintain that the best course is to only allow those leaders who have official party status in the house. If we allow the Greens to attend based on their vote tally, then we open the door to every fringe party out there that gets a similar level of support. On the surface, it may not sound fair, but it is... you earn your way into the debate by electing members to parliament, not by getting "x" number of votes and no seats.

The foregoing notwithstanding, it may be to the Conservative's advantage to have Ms May at the debate.
 
ModlrMike said:
I still maintain that the best course is to only allow those leaders who have official party status in the house. If we allow the Greens to attend based on their vote tally, then we open the door to every fringe party out there that gets a similar level of support. On the surface, it may not sound fair, but it is... you earn your way into the debate by electing members to parliament, not by getting "x" number of votes and no seats.

What do you consider the Bloc?
 
CDN Aviator said:
A party with official party status.

A "Regional" party, not a National Party. 

I would say that we can go one of two ways:

a.  Only the "National" Parties debate (Liberals, Conservatives and NDP); or

b.  Every "Registered" Party (Not including Independents).

We have only three Parties debating their platform, or make like the Italian Parliament and have fifteen or twenty and fisticuffs.  >:D  King of the Hill wins.
 
I suspect "Justice" isn't a principle in deciding who gets to go on the Leader's debates. The Parties will vie for partisan advantage (and it is an open question if Elizabeth May will help or hinder the Liberals; the CPC might want her aboard to split the Left wing vote even further), while the MSM and networks are hoping for a good "fireworks" display for ratings (but not an incomprehensible gabfest with the Communist party leader trying to shout down the leader of the Marxist Leninist party  :eek:)

Message and content is secondary (and I know this from personal experience, my friends!), so unless Winston Churchill shows up to the debates as well, the end result will be pretty bland as all the leaders try to avoid mistakes and gaffes on air.
 
George Wallace said:
A "Regional" party, not a National Party. 

I would say that we can go one of two ways:

a.  Only the "National" Parties debate (Liberals, Conservatives and NDP); or

b.  Every "Registered" Party (Not including Independents).

What do you define as a National Party?  Remember that article that Edward put up about rural/urban divide.  The Conservatives didn't get elected in one riding in Vancouver, Toronto, or Montreal, the three largest cities in Canada and almost half the population.  Now, considering the Bloc has representatives from both urban centers and rural areas, I'd say they're fairly well distributed.

Anyways, the point is moot as Aviator pointed out, legally they're an official party.
 
Infanteer said:
What do you define as a National Party?  Remember that article that Edward put up about rural/urban divide.  The Conservatives didn't get elected in one riding in Vancouver, Toronto, or Montreal, the three largest cities in Canada and almost half the population.  Now, considering the Bloc has representatives from both urban centers and rural areas, I'd say they're fairly well distributed.

Anyways, the point is moot as Aviator pointed out, legally they're an official party.

In that they don't have Party members running in all Provinces.  Any Bloc members in Vancouver?  Halifax?  That is what I call "Regional".  Also, a party that really doesn't have the interests of bettering Canada, only an agenda to destroy it and create their own Sovereign State.  All the other major Parties (Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP) have representatives running in all Provinces and Territories of Canada.  The Bloc, and many of the other Parties, do not.
 
George Wallace said:
In that they don't have Party members running in all Provinces.  Any Bloc members in Vancouver?  Halifax?  That is what I call "Regional".  Also, a party that really doesn't have the interests of bettering Canada, only an agenda to destroy it and create their own Sovereign State.  All the other major Parties (Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP) have representatives running in all Provinces and Territories of Canada.  The Bloc, and many of the other Parties, do not.

If that was the only criteria, there is nothing to stop the BQ from establishing riding associations anywhere and running candidates in Calgary, Burnaby, the Annapolis Valley....of course there is nothing to suggest these riding associations and candidates will have more than a shoestring to run on. In one sense, the BQ can be compared to smaller parties which don't have the financial resources to run nationally, they *could* make the argument they don't have the resources to run BQ candidates outside the province.

(note; I do know what the BQ stands for, I am suggesting they could escape from the accusation they are a regional party fairly easily with some transparent tricks).
 
It looks like slim chances that Elizabeth May will be at the televised debates. Personally, I would have preferred the networks to chose not to host the debates if the parties excluded her.

From CTV.ca

Networks exclude Elizabeth May from TV debates
Updated Mon. Sep. 8 2008 4:52 PM ET

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- Canada's broadcast networks have denied Green party Leader Elizabeth May a chance to debate the other party leaders on television.

Network officials said that one or more of the other party leaders would refuse to participate in the debates on Oct. 1 and Oct. 2 if May took part.

"The consortium (of television networks) approached the parties to explore the possibility of including the Green party in all or part of the leaders' debates," spokesman Jason MacDonald said in a release.

"However, three parties opposed its inclusion and it became clear that if the Green party were included, there would be no leaders' debates.

"In the interest of Canadians, the consortium has determined that it is better to broadcast the debates with the four major party leaders, rather than not at all."

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has said he would welcome the chance to debate May on television.

But Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Monday that letting May into the debate would be in essence allowing a second Liberal candidate to participate.

He said it would be fundamentally unfair to have two candidates who are essentially running on the same platform in the debate.

The prime minister says May will ultimately endorse the Liberals.

May called that suggestion "nonsense" and accused Harper of being anti-feminist.

The Green leader has been putting pressure on the networks to let her into the debate ever since an Independent MP recently joined the party, giving the Greens a temporary toehold in the House of Commons.

 
Back
Top