The Green Party has posted and distributed a rebuttal of my Globe and Mail article entitled "The Greens are right, right?"

I have decided to spend a bit of time responding, in part because they imply (and others state outright) that I am an NDP member or employee which I am not. I have never been a member of the NDP and indeed spent much of my activism in Saskatchewan criticizing NDP governments. My response to the party is in bold lettering.

---

It is intriguing to watch the coverage of the Green Party in the federal election because the conventional wisdom -- that it will take votes from the NDP -- is confounded by the party's actual policies.

Reply: Meanwhile, the NDP are borrowing planks from our platform, while calling us "right wing" at the same time.

While the analysis is likely correct, a look at Green policies reveals that this party is really a Conservative alternative, not a social democratic one.

Reply: The terms "Social Democratic" and "Grassroots Democracy" are not the same thing, by most people's definition - so we agree with this statement.

THE AUTHOR OF THE REBUTTAL DOES NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF PROGRESSIVE PUBLIC POLICY. ANY PARTY, INCLUDING FASCIST PARTIES, CAN BE GRASS ROOTS. INDEED, THE NAZI PARTY WAS DECIDEDLY GRASS ROOTS, ATTRACTING MILLIONS OF MEMBERS. IT'S WHAT THE GRASS ROOTS STAND FOR THAT COUNTS. SOCIAL DEMOCRACY SIMPLY REFERS TO THAT SET OF IDEAS THAT WORK TOWARDS SOCIAL EQUALITY AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE. IF THE GREENS DO NOT WANT TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THESE SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES THEN THEY ARE SIMPLY CONFIRMING WHAT I SAID IN MY OP ED -- THEY ARE CONSERVATIVE, NOT PROGRESSIVE.

Its fiscal, economic and even environmental policies would be a near perfect fit for the old Progressive Conservative party.

Reply: We might like to think so, but truthfully, our policies on democratic reform, gay marriage, and foreign policy are probably too progressive for Joe Clark, not to mention Brian Mulroney.

I DIDN'T COMMENT ON THESE POLICIES - I SAID THAT THE GREEN PARTY'S FISCAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES ARE A PERFECT FIT FOR THE OLD TORY PARTY. THE GREEN PARTY DECIDED, FOR WHATEVER REASON, NOT TO RESPOND TO MY CRITICISM BUT TO REFER TO OTHER POLICIES WHICH I NEVER TALKED ABOUT. CLEVER, BUT NOT VERY HONEST.

In fact, the Greens are led by a former Tory, Jim Harris, and under his direction have become the quintessential small government, pro-market party.

Reply: Actually, in the Green Party, unlike the other parties, the leader does not control what goes in the platform - the members do. This is called "democracy". Volunteers from across the country submitted the policies and decided what issues should be at the forefront of our campaign. Jim submitted his leader's message but received the rest of the platform "as is" from the platform team.

THIS STATEMENT IS PATENTLY FALSE. MICHAEL PILLING, THE PLATFORM CHAIR, WROTE THE POLICIES OF THE PARTY AND HE WAS APPOINTED TO DO SO BY THE PARTY'S LEADER, JIM HARRIS. THERE WAS NO PARTY CONVENTION WHERE THESE THINGS ARE NORMALLY DISCUSSED, DEBATED, FOUGHT OVER - AND THEN DECIDED BY A VOTE. THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE FACT THAT SOMEONE HAD TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE POLICIES SENT IN BY VOLUNTEERS. TO SUGGEST THAT THIS IS DEMOCRATIC IS NONSENSE. WHO ARE THE PLATFORM TEAM? WERE THEY ELECTED? NO THEY WERE NOT - THEY WERE APPOINTED BY HARRIS. AND HOW DID THEY DECIDE WHICH VOLUNTEER'S IDEAS GOT REJECTED AND WHICH ACCEPTED? THIS IS THE MOST HIERARCHAICAL APPROACH OF ANY OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES.

ACCORDING TO THE FORMER PLATFORM CHAIR, JULIAN WEST, MR. PILLING HAS ALSO NEVER BEEN DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED TO HIS POSITION. HE WAS APPOINTED BY HARRIS AND UNTIL SIX MONTHS AGO WAS VIRTUALLY UNKNOWN WITHIN THE GREEN PARTY OF CANADA. MR PILLING ALSO HAPPENS TO WORK FOR MR. HARRIS'S PRIVATE SECTOR CONSULTING COMPANY. THIS IS DEMOCRACY? SOUNDS LIKE PATRONAGE TO ME.

Their social analysis says virtually nothing about the structural causes of poverty, and their solutions borrow from both the former PCs and the Alliance.

Reply: It is hard to imagine how anyone who has actually read our platform could truthfully say this. Greens always think back to "root causes," and perhaps further back than leftists do.

Page 9 of our 2004 Election Platform states:

Health care costs are rising rapidly. What is making people sick?

THIS IS NOT A POLICY - IT IS SIMPLY A QUESTION. HOW DOES THIS GET TO THE ROOTS OF POVERTY UNLESS YOU ACTUALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION?

Most of a child's intellectual development happens before the age of six. Why are we spending most of our education dollars only after they turn eighteen?

THIS IS SIMPLY WRONG. THE MONEY SPENT PUBLICLY ON K-12 FAR OUTSTRIPS UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE SPENDING. IN ANY CASE THERE IS NO POLICY HERE, NO PROMISE OF MORE MONEY FOR K-12 (THE LOGICAL RESPONSE TO THEIR QUESTION WOULD BE TO REVERSE THE SITUATION THEY CLAIM TO BE AT THE "ROOT" OF THE PROBLEM).

Families are increasingly dealing with both parents working outside of the home. What are the long-term consequences if mothers and fathers don't have enough time to spend with their children?

AGAIN, WHERE IS THE BEEF? THERE IS NO POLICY HERE - JUST A LAMENT ABOUT WORKING CONDITIONS. I AGREE, AND SO DO MOST ANALYSTS, THAT WORKING CONDITIONS HAVE DETERIORATED OVER THE PAST 15 YEARS. BUT WHAT WOULD THE GREENS DO ABOUT IT?? SURELY THAT IS WHY PARTIES RUN IN ELECTIONS - THEY PROPOSE SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS. THE GREEN PARTY HAS NONE.

Page 12 of our 2004 Election Platform states:

The Green Party is committed to addressing the issues that determine good health - such as safe housing, nutritious food, rewarding jobs, a clean environment and a healthy self-image.

ADDRESSING THEM HOW? NO ANSWERS HERE. THIS IS REALLY QUITE STUNNING - DOES MR PILLING REALLY BELIEVE THAT THIS STATEMENT IS SOMEHOW CREDIBLE - THERE IS NO MONEY FOR SAFE HOUSING, NO PLAN FOR PROVIDING NUTRITIOUS FOOD, NO STRONG REGULATIONS (WITH THE MILLION DOLLAR FINES THAT MAKE THEM WORK). AND JUST WHAT ON EARTH ARE WE TO MAKE OF A "HEALTHY SELF-IMAGE."?

The Green Party is "Socially Progressive" and "Fiscally Conservative" because we think long term and enact policies for problems before they become expensive problems. Compare our policies on the all-important issue of health care, and the difference is clear.

WHAT POLICIES? HAVEN'T SEEN A SINGLE SUBSTANTIVE POLICY OUTLINED SO FAR IN THIS REBUTTAL. NOT ONE.

They talk about how a Green government would "enhance the existing network of . . . school nutrition . . . and food-bank programs . . ." to eliminate hunger in Canada. Those who study poverty with a view to ending it see food banks not as a solution, but as a symbol of everything that is wrong with the way governments approach poverty.

Reply: Page 22 of our 2004 Election Platform states one of our boldest promises: Ensure - within five years - that no Canadian will suffer from hunger or malnutrition.

THIS IS ALL VERY NICE BUT A SERIOUS POLITICAL PARTY HAS TO SAY HOW THEY WILL DO THIS. I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT MR. PILLING WOULD THINK THIS IS ADEQUATE. THIS IS A HUGELY TALL ORDER - THERE HAS TO BE A PLAN ATTACHED TO IT OR IT IS TOTALLY MEANINGLESS. OR DOES HE HAVE A MAGIC WAND?

We're not just talking about food banks. We're talking about a nationwide strategy to get healthy food on our tables, as a fundamental right of being Canadian. Food banks are certainly a part of the strategy, but so are grocery rebates, farmers' markets and community gardens. The NDP is softer on this issue than the Green Party. The Green Party is also highly aware of how important empowerment is in fighting poverty. Government should "do less, help more" by creating empowerment, rather than dependence.

AGAIN - NOTHING SPECIFIC. JUST WHAT IS THEIR "nationwide strategy to get healthy food on our tables?" SURELY WE DESERVE TO KNOW WHAT THE STRATEGY IS? WHAT ARE GROCERY REBATES? THERE IS NO TALK OF INCREASING MINIMUM WAGES, NO TALK OF ELIMINATING INCOME TAXES FOR THOSE EARNING LESS THAN $15,000 (LIKE THE NDP DOES). AND WHAT DOES CREATING "EMPOWERMENT" MEAN? IF IT MEANS ANYTHING, THEN TELL US.

I SUPPORT "farmers' markets and community gardens" BUT THE GREEN PARTY SAYS NOTHING ABOUT HOW THEY WOULD PROMOTE AND SUPPORT THESE. IS THERE MONEY TO HELP WITH THESE? AND IN ANY CASE THEY ARE A SMALL PART OF ANY SERIOUS, COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION. THE BIGGEST CAUSE OF POVERTY IS LOW WAGES - AND THE LIBERALS HAD A POLICY OF DRIVING WAGES DOWN TO BE COMPETITVE RE: GLOBALIZATIONS AND FREE TRADE. THE GREENS HAVE NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT THIS.

THE REAL STORY IS IN THE PHRASE "do less, help more" - THIS IS A CLEAR STATEMENT THAT THE GREENS WOULD CUT BACK ON PROGRAMS OF INCOME REDISTRIBUTION - THE ONE AREA OF GOVERNMENT THAT ACTUALLY DOES DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF POVERTY AND HUNGER. THIS PHRASE IS IDENTICAL TO THE HARPER CONSERVATIVES AND BORROWS A CONCEPT FROM THE RIGHT-WING FRASER INSTITUTE.

The party is committed to smaller government in a way that no other party is, except the new Conservatives.

Reply: This is obviously not true. Smaller government, by definition, is less revenues and less spending. The Green Party's platform clearly increases both. We are committed to smarter government, and a more democratic government. In our first press conference, aired nation-wide, we said that we would hold a referendum to see if Canadians wanted bigger government. We are committed to decentralization - most people agree that it is a good idea.

NOW THIS IS GETTING QUITE AMUSING - A REFERENDUM ON WHETHER OR NOT CANADIANS WANT BIGGER GOVERNMENT? WOULD THAT BE THE QUESTION? THIS SHOULD EMBARRASS THE PARTY BUT APPARENTLY NOT. CANADIANS MAKE IT CLEAR IN DOZENS OF SURVEYS, POLLS AND FOCUS GROUPS EVERY YEAR THAT THEY WANT: A NATIONAL CHILD CARE PROGRAM, A NATIONAL PHARMACARE PROGRAM AND A UNIVERSAL HOME CARE PROGRAM. WHY HAVE A REFERENDUM - WHY NOT JUST PROVIDE LEADERSHIP AND RESPOND TO WHAT CANADIANS SAY THEY WANT? THE REASON IS SIMPLE - THE GREEN PARTY DOES NOT SUPPORT THESE PROGRAMS OR THEY WOULD SAY SO.

DECENTRALIZATION IS THE POLICY OF THE LIBERALS AND THE HARPER CONSERVATIVES - THEY DO NOT WANT NATIONAL PROGRAMS. WE WOULD NOT HAVE MEDICARE OR UI OR PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES IF IT HAD BEEN LEFT UP TO THE PROVINCES.

With respect to the devastated federal public service -- characterized by massive downsizing, unprecedented stress levels, completely inadequate staffing to carry out department mandates and years without real increases in pay -- the Green Party has a single response, and it sounds a lot like Stephen Harper's: "Reform the public sector to be more responsive and accountable." This is union busting by another name, and seems to promise the continuation of the right-wing assault on government employees. If you want the public service to be "responsive," the logical solution is to return it to functional staffing levels.

Reply: Our platform on governance states that we would "flatten hierarchies and empower front line civil servants" because we know they are stressed and deal with far too much bureaucracy and frustrating political flip-flops. The federal government probably has the most talented workforce in Canada, sadly paired with some of the worst management. Real civil servants working in the federal government helped to conceive our governance policies. Our intention is to give more freedom and responsibility to the civil service in finding the creative approaches to achieve the results Canadians want to see.

I AM ALL FOR FATTENING HIERARCHIES BUT THERE IS NOTHING HERE ABOUT WHAT THE GREENS WOULD DO VIS A VIS BARGAINING WITH GOVERNMENT WORKERS OR ROLLING BACK SALARIES, ETC. WOULD THEY OR WOULD THEY NOT DO THIS? ALSO NO MENTION OF WHETHER THEY WOULD RESTORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE TO STAFFING LEVELS (SUCH AS IN THE ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, CUT BY 45% BY PAUL MARTIN) TO LEVELS COMMENSURATE WITH BEING ABLE TO CARRY OUT THE GOVERNMENT'S MANDATE.

The Greens' fiscal policies are among their most reactionary and problematic. They toe the Bay Street line by promising to "lower taxes on income, profit and investment, to promote increased productivity and job creation."

Reply: This quote is grossly out of context. The rest of the sentence reads: "while raising taxes on pollution, waste and inefficiency" (page 38 of our 2004 Election Platform). When read in its entirety, the full statement takes on a completely different meaning. The NDP does not understand much about Green Economics, and launch attacks based on their misunderstanding, but meanwhile include a small mention of "tax shifting" (page 21 of the NDP platform) - just in case they needed to borrow that idea too.

I DIDN'T OBJECT TO GREEN TAXES - THOUGH THEY DO HAVE SOME PROBLEMS - I OBJECTED TO THE FACT THAT THE GREENS WOULD LOWER CORPORATE INCOME TAXES. RIGHT NOW OUR FEDERAL CORP INCOME TAX RATE IS 21% COMPARED TO 35% IN THE US. HOW LOW WOULD THE GREEN PARTY TAKE CORPORATE TAXES? AND WHAT EXCUSE IS THERE FOR LOWERING THEM? THIS IS NOT GOOD PUBLIC POLICY AND IT SEEMS THE GREENS DO NOT EVEN REALIZE HOW LOW CORPORATE TAXES ARE ALREADY.

As for addressing the problem of chronically high unemployment, the party takes a page out of Paul Martin's book of maintaining extremely low inflation -- Greens will still fight inflation by putting people out of work unless unemployment rises above 10 per cent. These policies have been notable failures for the past 15 years -- lowering wages, increasing the productivity gap with the United States and creating mostly low-wage jobs -- and certainly have no place in the platform of a party that pitches its appeals to social democrats.

Reply: This is fuzzy economic thinking, and another distortion of what we actually say. The economic reality is that slowing inflation hurts - accelerating it is fun, but continued acceleration leads to hyperinflation, which precipitates total economic disaster. Keeping inflation stable means a healthy environment for investment and jobs, which is what we've had in Canada since 1994. Saying that we would trade higher inflation for lower unemployment would bar us from any Monetarist convention. It is interesting that Dobbin chose to ignore the information that immediately preceded the quote he selected:

THE GREENS ECONOMIC POLICIES ARE THEIR WEAKEST AND TO SIMPLY DISMISS MY ARGUMENT AS FUZZY THINKING DOES NOTHING TO REBUT WHAT I SAY. ALLOWING UNEMPLOYMENT TO REACH 10% BEFORE LETTING INFLATION TO RISE A BIT IS TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE. EVEN THE IMF SAYS THAT ANY INFLATION BELOW 8% IS NOT THAT HARMFUL TO AN ECONOMY AND CAN ACTUALLY BE HELPFUL.

WHY WILL THE GREEN PARTY NOT DEDICATE ITSELF TO FULL EMPLOYMENT? BECAUSE IT IS A RIGHT WING PARTY.

Price stability is good for the economy, but not the only good thing. Lowering unemployment will also have positive long-term consequences; they are not as easily measured but fundamentally more important for the well being of real Canadians. The Green Party will advise the governors of the Bank of Canada to walk a mile with the homeless and unemployed before making their next important decision.

THIS SOUNDS GOOD BUT IS TOTALLY CONTRADICTED BY THE ACTUAL POLICY (FIRST I HAVE SEEN SO FAR) OF ALLOWING UNEMPLOYMENT TO RISE TO 10% BEFORE HELPING WORKING FAMILIES.

This statement could easily have come from Linda McQuaig, Canada's foremost lefty critic of monetary policy.

INDEED IT COULD HAVE. BUT LINDA MCQUAIG HAS CRITICIZED THE BANK OF CANADA FOR ITS OBSESSION WITH EXTREMELY LOW INFLATION - SHE WOULD DO THE SAME FOR THE GREEN POLICY WHICH IS IDENTICAL.

Any increase in revenue from promised Green taxes on "harmful activities" would be neutralized by lowering income taxes, the most progressive and fair taxes we have. The Greens also call for an increase in property taxes, a regressive tax. They are committed to using surpluses to ". . . reduce the national debt." In other words, the party is to the right of all the major parties, which are now committing billions for spending on social programs that Canadians say they want.

Reply: Dobbin contradicts what he said earlier by actually looking at both sides of the tax shift - and he's still wrong. A tax on gasoline is likely more progressive than our current income tax system because wealthy people tend to drive bigger cars, own more cars, and commute longer distances. Our commitment to lower only the lowest bracket means that this tax cut will be shared fairly evenly across the board - unless your income is so low that you pay no taxes at all, in which case you probably can't afford to drive a car.

I KNOW OF NOT A SINGLE ECONOMIST WHO WOULD CLAIM THAT A CONSUMPTION TAX IS PROGRESSIVE. NOT ONE. IF THE GREENS CAN FIND ONE, I WILL DONATE A $100 TO THEIR PARTY. TALK ABOUT FUZZY THINKING.

THE AUTHOR DOES NOT SEEM TO GRASP THE DEFINITION OF REGRESSIVE TAX. GAS TAXES ARE REGRESSIVE BECAUSE THE AMOUNT PAID BY A POOR PERSON IS A LARGER PERCENTAGE OF THEIR SMALL INCOME THAN IT WOULD BE FOR A WEALTHY PERSON.

FOR EXAMPLE: IF MY TOTAL GAS TAX IS $1000 AND I EARN $20,000 THAT TAX REPRESENTS 5% OF MY INCOME. IF I PAY $2000 IN GAS TAX (BECAUSE I DRIVE A HUMMER) AND MAKE $200,000 THE PERCENTAGE IS JUST 1% OF MY INCOME.

IF THE GREENS WANT TO DEBATE TAXES THEY HAD BETTER AT LEAST LEARN THE CONCEPTS USED TO DISCUSS THEM.

THE PARTY DOES NOT ANSWER MY CHARGE THAT THEY REFUSE TO RESPOND TO CANADIANS DESIRE FOR GREATER SOCIAL SPENDING. INSTEAD THEY WILL HAVE REFERENDA ON CHILD CARE AND PHARMACARE. THIS IS A TOTAL COP-OUT AND THEY KNOW IT.

One of the most remarkable aspects of the Green platform is the lack of any commitment to using government legislation or regulation to accomplish core environmental goals.

Reply: Our industry policy clearly states that we will legislate regulatory measures to "close the door" on ecologically outdated or socially disruptive practices. (Industry Policy - GPC Platform 2004 website). However, the whole point of Green economics is that you don't need to regulate if you collect the full cost of a product through taxes.

THIS IS UNSUPPORTABLE. CORPORATIONS ARE NOW SO LARGE AND THERE ARE SO FEW COMPETING IN EACH SECTOR THEY CAN SIMPLY PASS THE COST OF THE TAX ONTO THE CONSUMER AND KEEP POLLUTING. BACK TO SQUARE ONE. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE WAY TO STOP POLLUTING - THEY DID THIS IN THE 1970S - IS TO HAVE STRONG REGULATIONS, VIGOROUSLY ENFORCED AND PUNISHED BY HUGE FINES.

Here are just a few examples: "The Green Party will: Empower [bioregional] stewards to seek intervener status in legal actions that impact the health of the ecosystem; . . . work with local environmental groups to reduce pollution levels in the air, water and soil; promote sustainability through education; and monitor the diversity of species, the levels of pollution and the health of the ecosystem." These are not the actions of a government committed to using its mandated power to actually protect the environment.

Reply: These are the actions of a citizens' movement that knows how the right tools will enable citizens to do more for the environment - more than government (even a Green one) ever will.

ENABLING CITIZENS TO DO WHAT? IDENTIFY AND CRITICIZE CORPORATIONS? WE DO THAT ALREADY AND IT DOESN'T STOP THEM FROM POLLUTING. ONLY STRONG LAWS AND REGULATIONS AND AN ARMY OF PEOPLE MONITORING AND ENFORCING THOSE LAWS WILL DO THAT.

The party also supports the corporate sector's position on self-regulation: "The Green Party will assist and encourage Canadian companies to attain ISO 14000 certification, the international standard for management." The ISO 14000 has been almost universally condemned by the international environmental movement as ineffective and unreliable.

Reply: In general, the only problem with voluntary measures is the way governments use them to excuse a lack of regulation, rather than treat them as steps to a stronger and smarter set of regulatory standards. If the government makes a credible threat to regulate, industries will likely take steps to self-regulate, finding the most economical means of achieving the target required, and saving the government's time and money.

THIS IS SO NAIVE IT IS LAUGHABLE. WHY WOULD THE GOVERNMENT THREATEN TO REGULATE AND THEN NOT DO IT? IS THE GREEN PARTY SERIOUSLY SUGGESTING THAT CORPORATIONS WILL VOLUNTARILY SPEND BILLIONS PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE GOVERNMENTS MAKE NOISES ABOUT REGULATION? THIS GOES AGAINST ALL THE EVIDENCE GATHERED IN ALL THE COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD.

Those Canadians thinking of voting Green because they believe it is progressive had better do their homework. There is more to this party than the user-friendly name would suggest.

Reply: There is nothing we would welcome more. People who do their homework love the Green Party platform. The feedback in our rank-a-plank system gives "A" grades to about 80% of our ideas, and only one idea in over a hundred has less than 50% support.

GREENPEACE AND THE SIERRA CLUB BOTH RATE THE NDP HIGHER THAN THE GREEN PARTY RE: ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES. THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME.

Murray Dobbin is author of Paul Martin: CEO for Canada?

Hopefully, Dobbin's next book will not be a guide to ethical journalism.

NO, MY NEXT BOOK WILL BE ON HOW THE RIGHT HAS TAKEN OVER THE GREEN PARTY. WATCH FOR IT.

 

Subject Headings

• Green Parties