News

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May is challenging other party leaders to state publicly what they have supposedly said privately: That they would rather boycott the televised federal election campaign debates than share a stage with her.

"This is anti-democratic, closed-door, backroom decision-making by four national party leaders who are all men and five television executives — who are all men — to keep out the one woman leader of a federal party," Ms. May told reporters on Parliament Hill, where she responded Monday to the announcement that she will not be invited to the debates.

"And I don't think many Canadians will think that was fair."

What do you think? Should the other party leaders have the power to keep Ms. May out the leaders' debate? What does Ms. May believe she can bring to it? What will the public miss by not having the Green Party Leader join the others?

We're pleased that Ms. May joins us online today to take questions from the readers of globeandmail.com on the leaders' debate and the federal election.

Your questions and Ms. May's answers will appear at the bottom of this page as the discussion unfolds.

Elizabeth May is an environmentalist, writer, activist and lawyer. She has been active in the environmental movement since 1970.

Ms. May is a graduate of Dalhousie Law School and was admitted to the Bar in both Nova Scotia and Ontario. She has held the position of Associate General Counsel for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, representing consumer, poverty and environment groups in her work.

She is the author of five books, Budworm Battles (1982), Paradise Won: The Struggle to Save South Moresby (1990), At the Cutting Edge: The Crisis in Canada's Forests (Key Porter Books, 1998 and 2004), co-authored with Maude Barlow, Frederick Street: Life and Death on Canada's Love Canal (Harper Collins, 2000), and most recently, How to Save the World in Your Spare Time (Key Porter Books, 2006).

Frederick Street focused on the Sydney Tar Ponds, and the health threats to children in the community — the issue that led her to stage a 17-day hunger strike in front of Parliament Hill in May 2001.

In March 2006, Ms. May stepped down as Executive Director of the Sierra Club of Canada, a post she had held since 1989, to run for the leadership of the Green Party of Canada. She was successful in her bid, was elected the Green Party's ninth leader at their national convention in August 2006 with a clear majority of the votes.

Ms. May is an Officer of the Order of Canada since 2005, and is the mother of 15-year-old Victoria Cate.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Welcome, Ms. May, and thanks for joining us today to take questions from the readers of globeandmail.com on the federal election campaign. Let's start by asking why you think Canadians should vote for you and your party's candidates?

Elizabeth May: Canadians will be excited by the fresh approach of the Green Party. Our document, Vision Green, (on our website, www.greenparty.ca) contains a comprehensive and integrated set of policies, each of which reinforces the other. We look at all policies to ensure they support a sustainable world, protect a strong economy, work for the needs of Canadian children and reinforce human rights. as such, we do not have a series of incompatible promises which then require "trade offs." Our philosophy is based on values of honesty and co-operation, compassion and integrity. As such, we are a new voice that Canadians want to hear. To pursue these goals we need to have MPs working to change the climate in Parliament.

Philip Manders from Nanaimo Canada writes: What is your position on subsidies and requirements for the use of biofuels made from food (for example corn)?

Elizabeth May: All bio-fuels are not the same. The Green Party believes that corn and grain ethanol do not offer substantial reductions in Greenhouse gases, will and have distorted world food prices and should not be subsidized. On the other hand, cellulosic ethanol has real advantages, does reduce GHG and is a valuable way to achieve fuel switching. The same is true for Bio-Diesel. Used corn oil from fast food outlets could power our tractors and trucks, cutting GHG, other pollutants.

Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Ms. May, I am sorry that you will not be included in the leader's debate. I also think that Mr. Harper is wrong and undemocratic with his tactic. Mr. Harper made the accusation that you would be a Liberal at the end of the campaign. Is there any foundation to his accusation?

Elizabeth May: Thanks for your question. This accusation is truly bizarre. I cannot recall any politician saying he is confident another leader "will" do something in the future. What are his sources? A crystal ball? I will not be "endorsing" anyone other than Green Party. I do believe democracy would be healthier if there was more respect shown in politics. I happen to have worked with Mr. Dion when he was Environment Minister and I was Executive Director of the Sierra Club of Canada. I respect him as a man of principle and intelligence. He knows that I have not "endorsed" him. I am my first choice for Prime Minister. But when people ask, what would be the better result for the Green agenda between Mr. Dion and Mr. Harper? In answering that I honestly say the best result for the Greens would be enough Green MPs (and NDP MPs for that matter) working in a Parliament with a Liberal Minority. But Greens are committed to working effectively in Parliament with whatever party forms government. The issues are more important than partisanship.

Mat Savellii from Hamilton Canada writes: Hi Elizabeth. The Green Party needs more resources and the ability to run 308 candidates. The NDP could use some rebranding and some new energy. Everyone needs the left be less fractured. Any chance we could see some kind of 'Green Democrat' coalition in the future?

Elizabeth May:Actually we ran 308 candidates in 2004 and in 2006. In fact, we are the only federal political party that has ever run a full slate and not been included in the debates. At the moment, Jack Layton has confirmed that he threatened to boycott the debates if I was included. Doesn't look like he wants to merge. :)

Derek Lambert from Edmonton: Simply: how do the Greens differ ideologically from the Liberals? Where is the common ground. From what I can see there is a lot of common ground between the Greens, Liberals and NDP ideologically and between the three parties hold more than a majority of Canada's votes. As someone who sees Harper as the worst choice for the country, how does voting Green ensure he does not get re-elected? Is there a chance for further co-operation between the Greens and Liberals to reduce vote splitting?

Elizabeth May:The Greens really do fall outside the old political boxes. We are not left or right. In fact, we attract a lot of votes from previous Progressive Conservatives. We also attract votes from Reform supporters who are so disillusioned with Mr. Harper and his top down style of leadership. His decisions to replace democratically nominated Conservative candidates with appointed candidates has turned a lot of Reformers Green. As far a common ground with the Liberals, they have partially adopted our policies, particularly Green Tax Shifting. You are correct that all the Opposition parties have important things in common -- support for action on the climate crisis being one. But there are also many areas of disagreement. Greens believe in fiscal responsibility. We are the only party favouring income splitting (often seen as a right wing measure) and we are also the only party arguing for a Guaranteed Livable Income to end poverty (often seen as a left wing measure.) The truth is we want to do politics differently. We want people to forget politics and join a vast experiment in democracy.

annick aubert from toronto Canada writes: Where does Ms. May stand on Mental health reform?

Elizabeth May:The Green Party has strong policies for improved mental health services. The following excerpts are from our Vision Green document: Attain Better Health through Addressing Social and Mental Needs * increase transfer funding for non-institutionalized mental health patients including children and youth to provide adequate community-based support and outpatient and inpatient care by mental health practitioners, including in rural Canada where lack of facilities and trained professionals is acute * support a public health initiative to reduce the use of psychoactive drugs through better rehabilitation and prevention programs especially for children. * require greater involvement of people dealing with personal mental health problems in research planning, policy development, program evaluation and other decisions that affect their lives and communities. Let us know if you want more details!!

farron blanc from Canada writes: How do you plan on building the party's financial base (either through an internet fundraising movement, or high network individual/corporate donations) so that the Green's can hire professional staff to conduct its' campaign?

Elizabeth May: Thanks so much. As you may know, we are a federally funded party. Thanks to the votes of the 660,000+ Canadians, the party receives $1-million a year in financial support. We also have a successful fundraising effort on internet. I agree we do not have anywhere near the resources of the other parties. We do, however, have the resources for a strong team. Thanks for your concern!

N Hudson from Brampton Canada writes: What role, if any, do you think Elections Canada should play in the governing of debate procedure?

Elizabeth May: The debacle of the last 24 hours makes the case very clearly that the televised leaders' debate cannot be the private domain of the old boys club behind closed doors. Ideally there would be clear rules, fair and open processes and predictability about the thresholds to participate. The threats of boycotts from Jack Layton and Stephen Harper led to the media consortium caving on this issue. With clear rules that would not have been possible. Rules through Elections Canada or through the CRTC would be beneficial.

SG from Calgary Canada writes: Two questions: Do you and your party believe in creating new taxes, like a carbon tax will actually protect the environment, or just fill government coffers and harm the ordinary Canadian who still has to struggle to buy food that is shipped by truck/plane/ship? What is your parties plan to reduce taxes and the cost of living for the middle class Canadian?

Elizabeth May: Thanks. This is a critical question. We believe in reforming the tax system. We believe in changing the way we collect taxes. Why is it we tax the things we say we want in society -- good incomes and well-paying jobs -- and give a tax holiday to things we don't want -- like pollution and greenhouse gases. Greens in Parliaments around the world have brought in tax shifting measures. These have reduced greenhouse gases and cut taxes. The approach is favoured by leading Canadian economists like Prof Marc Jaccard and Senior TD Bank economist Don Drummond. A carbon tax is a policy response to two rapidly accelerating crises: higher energy prices brought on by declining reserves of conventional, accessible oil and the gathering storm of climate instability. Before plunging into the rationale for carbon taxes, one thing needs to be clear: doing nothing is not an option. Energy prices will continue to climb if we do nothing. And the ultimate costs of the climate crisis, as estimated by Sir Nicholas Stern, former senior economist to the World Bank, will be in the trillions. Failure is also not an option when faced with the catastrophic threats to our children's future represented by growing greenhouse gas emissions. Our approach will reduce taxes, increase money in peoples' pockets and ease the pain of higher energy prices. You can find the specifics of how the Green Party tax shifting will impact your particular situation on our website. We will not tax anyone earning $20,000 or less. We will cut student debt (past and new) in half. We will increase the Guaranteed Income Supplement for Seniors by 25 per cent. We will cut the payroll taxes -- both the employers' costs and the employees' withdrawals for CPP and EI. We will bring in Income splitting reducing the tax burden on middle class couples. Due to the lack of good mass transit for rural Canadians (until our municipal infrastructure money kicks in to improve transit across Canada.)

Carolyn Rayfield from Canada writes: It appears that the world is entering a recessive period economically. What aspects of the Green Party platform, other than environmental (e.g. supporting the creation of jobs in the alternative energy sector), support job maintenance or creation? What about the auto industry, farming, manufacturing, the service sector, tourism, etc.?

Elizabeth May: Our economic policies are extensive and can be found on our website in Vision Green . We are facing an enormous economic opportunity in moving to a low carbon economy, Thanks to Green policies favouring renewables in Germany, nearly 400,000 new jobs have been created. The potential for renewable energy, energy conservation and new technologies are enormous. Our policies are based on being fiscally responsible, but committed to a sustainable economy.

The high dollar has hurt the manufacturing sector and tourism and pulp and paper. As the OECD report to Canada noted, Prime Minister Harper's policies are unbalanced, primarily geared to expansion of the oil patch in northern Alberta. As such, other sectors of the economy have suffered. We need to move to stimulate the economy.

Our cuts to the payroll taxes will be of real and immediate benefit to employers and small business. We favour a major investment in Via Rail and rebuilding the freight rail system. We want to restore the Department of Tourism, and help that sector recover. The auto industry needs the help to make the shift to fuel efficient vehicles.

Farming needs real help. the majority of farmers cannot make a living from their farm income and have to work off-farm to make ends meet. We have a very progressive policy in support of the family farm. The promotion of local food and local food production is a priority for the Green Party.

Please forgive how brief this is. We have pages and pages of documentation and specifics of how we will create new jobs in a new Green economy! please check the website.

Daniel Bida from Toronto writes: What is your opinion of the Liberal Green Shift plan and its robustness?

Elizabeth May:The Liberal Party has partially adopted the Green shift first proposed by the Green Party. We applaud their support for the concept, but feel their plan lacks the full and effective implementation we require. That is one reason I must be in the debates: to explain and highlight the similarities and differences.

Ismail Hirji from Guelph Canada writes: What can Canadians do to ensure you get into the debates? I have already signed the online petitions and called all the media consortium representatives as well as Parliament Hill - only to get answering machines.

Elizabeth May:The support from Canadians, by the thousands, has been overwhelming. I am deeply grateful. If you have already sent messages to CTV, CBC, Global, Radio Canada and TVA, you might consider asking Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton to stop their boycott threats and agree to participate in a full fair and democratic discussion.

Globeandmail.com: That's all the time we have. Thank you, Ms. May, for talking with us today.