Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Earlier discussion

Green Party Leader takes questions

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 9:24 AM EDT 08/06/07

With Elizabeth May ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. George Hall from Canada writes: I want to see a more comprehensive plan from the Green Party. I think they need to show real leadership on environmental issues. There is no way on this earth that the Conservatives can be trusted in this regard.
    Also business and industrial leaders need to come out from hiding and start talking, taking responsibility and resolving these issues.
  2. b mac from Canada writes: Ms May has taken a position that is just anti Canadian. We contribute only 2% of the worlds green house gasses. We have the largest land and water mass in the world and we need transportation to allow our economy to fully funtion. MS May should be at least a little honest, I know this would be hard for a lawyer, and support Mr Harpers plan to get the US, China, India and Brazil on side in order to get real reductions in green house gasses. A carbon tax is just a tax and spend and give to your friends policy which garners absolutely no real reductions in green house gasses. Ms May and Mr Dion as well have nothing positive to contribute to the discussion and should move on to other things.
  3. Irene Cornwell from Morinville, Canada writes: I am somehwere in the middle on this energy use versus the well being of the economy. We recently had to seriously curtail a small business (a wonderful little family enterprise) because of energy costs associated with travel and shipping. If energy (gas consumption) led to even higher costs at the pump, how would any enterprise see the light of day.
  4. Derek Holtom from Swan River, Canada writes: Raising gasoline tax by that much will simply cripple rural Canada. We have to travel for everything, and we also need rugged vehicles. We have no mass transit. You plan might be OK with some in cities, but the retired woman who needs to travel five hours for eye surgery is going to get punished.
    Not to mention the massive increases in food and other items due to increased transportation costs.
    To say nothing about farmers and their input costs.
    Yet another political party more worried about voters in the cities than in rural Canada.
  5. Glenn Brown from TO, Canada writes: Our only hope is the green party, remember our PM only found out about global warming 6 month ago, and his environment minister mentions NOTHING about the environment in his Bio.
    Can you imagine how much they have to learn, Our PM has no place at the G8 with his lack of knowledge. And we deserve better, I will gladly pay the carbon tax for the love of my family and my country, it's the right thing to do.
  6. David Shelton from Victoria, Canada writes: As most of the Globe's readers know - being aware of economics and how a free economy works, and the benefits of same, it's really tough to correct a market failure - particularly one that's long established and one that benefits a large group of people. I know I hate to have to pay for something that used to be free. Moving to the city and now having to pay for garbage removal (I used to just toss the stuff) or pay the taxes that keep the potholes filled (we used to just get in the hummer and plow through the mud) - it's a tough adjustment - seems unfair somehow. It was all free and for some reason having to pay my fair share now actually makes me feel a bit indignant. Interesting.

    So I guess we're finally going to have to pay for the damage that carbon is doing - partly we are already - have you tried to insure anything lately? - it hurts, but giving folks a free ride on someone else's back is just like a welfare scam - and if someone's accumulating costs it sure bugs me to have someone else paying. I guess the sooner we can stop the damage the better - the bills look to be getting a lot bigger the farther we go, and a carbon tax is (believe it or not) the cheaper way to go.
  7. Harold Smith from Toronto, Canada writes: I agree that gas prices are too low and should be raised to help discourage gasoline useage and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Conservatives have demonstrated that they don't get it and are not prepared to take the necessary measures to deal with the environment.
  8. Joey Tavares from Toronto, Canada writes: STOP IT. The planet is dying. There will be NO economy if there is NO BIOSPHERE. We need to stop acting like a teenaged species, and start CLEANING UP OUR ACT. Rural shmural, a carbon tax will force us to redesign our transport methods, A TECHNOLOGY WITHIN OUR GRASP. Our species (and economy) survived war and the Great Depression - hmmm, methinks it will survive the pooper-scooper too...
  9. JR Helman from montreal, Canada writes: raising prices and forcing new products on the consumer has got to be some of the laziest and ineffective initiatives made so far on this issue. it's nothing but bumbling preservation of the status quo and a shameless
    money grab.
  10. Joel Parkes from Peterborough, Canada writes: People want to do something about the environment. What should change look like? Is change that allows continuation of GHG emissions change at all? This proposal is a revenue neutral financial solution. It's not a placebo. It's great to see the environmental crisis being dealt with FINALLY by someone with a workable plan. I think opponents to this will be of the usual partisan nature but I think that most people will see this as intelligent and vital.
  11. felicity June from somewhere in Canada, Canada writes: In order to reduce our footprint on the earth, all of us would have to go back to pioneer days - living off the land, using outhouses, burning candles, chopping wood to heat our houses and using horse/buggies to get around. We would have to grow our own food and limit our consumption of just about everything. But then again, our population has increased so dramatically in the world, that this would be virtually impossible. Not enough arable land mass for all.

    I know many Canadians are environmentally conscious but the don't walk the talk. They drive more then ever. They consume more then ever. Very little gets recycled. Appliances are not fixed, but tossed into landfill (its cheaper to buy another than fix) I can't envision too many Canadians sacrificing their lifestyles for the environment.

    I don't believe in carbon taxes.. They miss the mark. The need is to reduce consumption and reduce the human footprint, not implement a 'guilt' tax.
  12. Geoffrey Haynes from Canada writes: The argument that 'Canada only contributes 2% of greenhouse emissions' is completely meaningless. Canada also has less than 1% of the population. So why not reduce our share of GHG? Why assume that since we are a relatively few of us, we have no international responsibility? We are a G8 country, and have an enormous potential to lead by example.

    I welcome the Greens' input into the debate. What is feasible remains to be seen, but it's certainly worth discussing. Twelve cents a litre may not be so much when compared to the fluctuations due to an unstable supply. I'd rather pay 12 cents knowing that significant action is being taken. Also what do we have to protect us against dwindling supplies in the years to come? We need to diversify our energy sources.

    I can see where the concern comes from with transportation companies and other small businesses, but there are always options to explore. What about grants for retrofitting, etc, or converting to hybrids?
  13. Eric Walton from Kingston, Canada writes: It is not surprising that there is confusion on the economic and personal implications of the proposed Carbon Tax when none other than the Conservative Environment Minister John Baird himself spins it as 'the Mother of all tax increases'. So much for protecting the environment and addressing the severe consequences of rapid Climate Change.

    John Baird knows full well that what is being proposed is a tax 'shift' and not a tax increase on the average consumer of energy/fuel. Under the Green Tax Shift both income and payroll taxes would be simultaneously reduced to offset the new Carbon Tax and for low-income Canadians, who pay no income or payroll tax, a rebate would be provided similar to the GST rebate.

    We know that the demand/supply shortfall for oil will worsen as China and India further increase consumption and developed countries continue to use energy inefficiently. If we do nothing to address this reality then the price of gasoline will inevitably creep upwards over time to double or triple the current price as demand and supply re-adjust.

    Without accurate market price signals we will continue to use energy inefficiently and we will be increasingly vulnerable to higher and higher energy costs. Without revenues from a Carbon Tax (the same revenues would have gone to the oil companies instead) our government will not have the financial room to offset higher energy costs with an income/payroll tax cut, support serious funding for alternative transportation options and energy efficiency projects, or, assist low income Canadians (and Rural/Remote residents who drive more) with the transition costs to a low-carbon, high energy efficient economy.

    The irony of this debate is that it is the Green Party proposal to introduce a revenue-neutral Carbon Tax that will stabilize transportation costs over time and protect the disposable income of Canadians through a tax shift.
  14. T K from Phoenix, United States writes: Why the coverage of this single issue party? When the greens become more than an also-rans I may start to care about their policies. But porbably not.
  15. Gerald Olchowy from Ottawa, Canada writes: Devil's Advocate mode ON:

    Isn't the Kyoto treaty really just the latest form of Western imperialism designed to keep China, India, and the developing world down?

    If North Americans stopped using automobiles tomorrow, our per capita usage of fossil fuels would still be twice that of China and four times that of India. China and India still have a billion people more people to move from subsistence poverty to the Asian middle class. While we are still driving cars, how can the West possibly justify telling China and India that it is tough luck for those billion people still in subsistence poverty.

    The enviornmental movement also has not condemned agricultural biofuels, whereby we are using up our topsoil in our SUV's and creating a future world food security crisis.

    Isn't the policy of offsets or 'paying indulgences', whereby individuals and companies are able to pay carbon brokers (like Al Gore's company) for their (carbon) sins and the just continue on with the 'carbon lifestyle' just as fraudulent a concept now as it was when the Catholic Church invented it 500 years ago. i.e. Are not offsets just carbon 'protection racketeering' or carbon 'indulgences'?
  16. art in calgary from Calgary, Canada writes: Miss May,

    You really missed the boat.
    Coulda had Garth Turner as the first Green MP!
    Shoulda run in a non-PC held riding
    Woulda had my vote....
  17. David J. Parker from Edmontarsands, Canada writes: Ony two years ago oil prices were around 1/3 of what they are today.
    There has been a lot of gnashing of the teeth and general whining but the economy has continued to grow, uninterrupted.
    There has been some reaction - more purchasing of high efficiency furnaces, less purchasing of SUVs, increased bike sales, hieghtened consciousness of the really important issues facing the world, etc.
    That has happened without any of the increased revenues being returned back to consumers, as recommended in the Greens policy platform.
    Economies grow and diversify through the introduction and adoption of new technologies, not keeping old ones alive well beyong their best before date.
    The next economic revolution will be green or there will be no next growth spurt.
    Anyone who thinks humanity can continue on the same path of mindless expansion of GDP is really self delusional an in need of a reality check.
  18. James Kennedy from Saint John, Canada writes: Where the Full Moderation?
    Where the questions for Elizabeth May?
    Where the Reason?
  19. Marc Kobayashi from Markham, Canada writes: I'm very much in favour of a 12 cent per litre gas tax.

    As a G8 country who's economy is thriving, Canada can afford this tax. Our current economic direction is headed into very volatile waters. We are placing all our priority on oil production, when there is global momentum of rejecting the use of fossil fuels: California boycott of gasoline produced from Alberta's oilsands, import taxes for countries that defy Kyoto, renewable electric power sources, the pending large-scale rollout of hybrid/plugin hybrid/electric vehicles (may save the North American automotive industry).

    Ironically, the gas companies are likely to raise the price well beyond 12 cents over the next few years anyway. We might use it to help curb GHG emissions, and restore Canadian pride and diplomacy on the international stage.
  20. Peter Bojkov from Vaughan ON, writes: Ms May and all proponents of gas/carbon tax: PLEASE REVISIT ECONOMICS 101.

    Any gas/carbon tax imposed on businesses and/or consumers will inevitably raise the core inflation/CPI

    which will inevitably spur Bank of Canada to increase the overnight rate

    which will inevitably force all lending institutions to raise the price of borrowing

    which will inevitably halt/slow down business investment/consumer spending

    which will inevitably cause the shrinking of the economy in terms of output/loss of employment

    which will inevitably diminish the tax base (and govnt spending on enviro programs)

    which will inevitably lead to a full-blown recession

    IS THAT YOUR PLAN, MS. MAY?
  21. carl mctavish from Canada writes: Nothing will make the environmental movement happy unless both gasoline and electricity is outright banned in this country, and we turn back the clock back to the 19th century and get around town with horses and heat with wood. The only thing that would be different is that they would then likely force the population to become vegan and eat organic food (Like Ms. May does) through laws, since animal farming would become the new evil thing once electricity and fossil fuels are abolished. Then, despite abolishing all of the above, the ice caps will melt and global warming will continue, since no other country in the world would commit economic suicide like the Green Party proposes us to do.
  22. Toxic Issue from Canada writes: If I hear, one more time that China will follow our example, I think I'll burst into flames spontaneously! China is NOT following Canada's example of a free people, are they? They won't follow our economic suicide either; though they'd love to witness it. I know taxes are a necessary evil but at this point we pay 52% of our incomes to the taxman and I'm fed up already; enough is enough! What the lefties think is 100% taxation is Nirvana! The market price IS going up, all on its own - don't worry. The Govt already rakes in a HUGE portion of gas taxes; they don't have to tax even more under the presumption they'll actually reduce the temperature of the EARTH! Are we living a Monty Python skit? That's hilarious! China is building 500-600 NEW coal-fired power plants! So we are going to do what exactly; how do we offset that? What a JOKE! We should move to another form of energy, but to use Kyoto to do it is utter non-sense!
  23. Mervin Hollingsworth from Saskatoon, Sk., Canada writes: I don't want taxes increased by one dime for so called environmental improvement. I don't trust any government to use the money for the purpose intended. The history is there. Governments say they will spend money doing this thing or that but in the end the problem is never fixed. The additional money whether called a carbon tax or something else will be used for other purposes and will fall into the black hole of government. At least Ms. May is prepared to talk about some of the costs but she is being disengenuous when she does not say that virtually every aspect of the economy will be impacted and consumer prices will skyrocket. That will impact all segments of society. I want to see the Liberal costing for their environmental plan. At least the Conservatives have said their plan will cost $8 billion.
  24. ALASTAIR JAMES BERRY from Nanaimo BC CANADA, Canada writes: There are only three ways by which CO2 emissions caused by human civilization can be reduced.

    (1) Go massively Atomic Energy and ignore the costs and radio-active pollution dangers.
    (2) Drive the economy backwards to a Stone Age Level, by taxes on energy ,carbon and prohibitions and rationing of energy use,(soon reflected in the price of everything required to survive)
    (3) Continue as we are but reduce the population of the world to 1/1000 th of today's and by strict birth control keep it down at that level.

    Fooling around with Alternate energy sources like windmills, solar panels,hydrogen and alcohol gives the IMPRESSION of being with it..but in actual fact these will be lucky to provide even 5% of the world's energy requirements..As the UK, covered with wind mills, is finding out the hard way!!
  25. Anti- Greed Steed from Hamilton, Canada writes: I have two concerns about your new Climate Plan:

    (1) Apart from a commitment to provide incentives to encourage the production of electric and plug-in hybrid cars in Canada, there is no mention of how the Canadian manufacturing sector will be protected from unfair trade, i.e. globalization, a high Canadian dollar due to a resource driven economy and currency speculation. What will be done to protect Canadian jobs from unfair trade in the transition to a green economy. More specifically, what will be done to encourage the production of wind turbines, solar panels, CFL and LED lights, and other green technologies in Canada since it is cheaper to do it in most of the rest of the world.

    (2) Many of your new policies will increase the cost of energy and therefore other products. How does your program protect the millions of Canadians that are living pay cheque to pay cheque.
  26. Albin Forone from Toronto, Canada writes: When Ms. May decided to run against Peter McKay, my suspicion was that she didn't really want a win but wanted a visible platform from which to build her party. Then the Liberals withdrew from competing for the seat. Now the distinguished Maritimes Tory Bill Casey has been sacrificed by his party, and Peter McKay has a lot of questions to answer for constituents. Ms. May may be a real contender for the riding, after all. Hope she really wants it.
  27. Richard F from Duncan, Canada writes: Well May just skewered any hope of the Greens becoming a 'mainstream' party with her announcement of the proposed 12% green tax on fuel. Already we are paying ripoff prices at the behest of big oil... so yet another tax to go straight into the Receiver Generals black hole of 'General Revenues'? ...gimme a break!

    Instead of taxes, why not big tax breaks and perks for going green? Remove all taxes on green products... dump the GST, in fact all taxes on green products like solar panels, fuel efficient cars that get over 60mpg like the smartcar or some of the hybrids? Make them cheap to buy and cheap to run and yes people will buy them. Instead tax the hell outa the recreational gas guzzlers on a sliding scale based on their fuel economy.

    Tax the monster recreational 4X4 trucks that never leave the pavement. SUV's, 8mpg/Class A motor-homes; fifth wheels are still flying out the showrooms...all purchases based on purely on lifestyle and conspicuous consumption.

    Allow fuel efficient cars in the HOV lanes.. as San Francisco does... LA even has 'Electric Car Recharging Stations' along the 405 freeway. I was there just last week.

  28. joseph pigeon from Summerside, Canada writes: Will May be ready to pay for the travel expenses of the poor and senior citizens who have no means of transportation to and from medical services and grocery shopping. Maybe it would be a surprise to her to learn that there are still towns and cities here in Canada who don't have bus service or other means of public transportation for these people. Maybe she would be ready to pay the cost of taxi fares that provide the only means of transportation.Instead of going after a 12 cent hike in gasoline prices why not go after all the airlines and private jets who cause more pollution then any motorist's do.May should look outside of the cities to see for herself how private transportation is the only means of transport for these people. If she wants to impose tax hikes then do it in the cities where there are other means of transportation for the people other then their automobiles. So why not place a ban on all automobiles within city limits, that way there will be a reduction in smog and an improvement in health for everybody.Another way would be for her to go after the factories like the ones in Hamilton and others across Canada like the oil sands etc. that are more to blame then automobile owners. In other words Miss May, I think you're barking up the wrong tree and losing a lot of support from people who were supporting your platform prior to this incident.
  29. Mai Larebilaton from ELIZABETH MAY'S WORST FRICKEN NIGHTMARE, Canada writes: Anthropogenic (man-made) so-called 'Global Warming' is a complete and utter fallacy. In fact, the same Vostok Ice Core Timescale showed that during the Bronze Age (long before the invention of the internal combustion engine), the Earth's average temperature was much warmer than it is now and during the 13th century now referred to as the Medieval Warm Period, it was so warm in Northern England (where it is otherwise dank now) that vineyards flourished. 400 years later, the same region was plunged into what is now referred to as the Little Ice Age for 200 years. The Vostok Ice Core Timescale also shows that the Earth has endured no less than 7 distinct ice ages and warming periods over the last 650,000 years. An increasing number of the worlds leading Climatologists support the scientific theory that so-called Global Warming is the result of increased solar wind activity originating from the Sun which pushes cosmic rays away from the Earth. The cosmic rays originate from exploding stars (supernovae) in deep space and are responsible for regulating the Earth's temperature by facilitating cloud formation in the Earth's troposphere which has a cooling affect on the Earth's climate. However, during a period of increased solar wind activity (as was the case for 400 years during the Medieval Warm Period) fewer clouds form in the Earth's troposphere and the result is so-called Global Warming.
  30. Mai Larebilaton from AL GORE'S WORST FRICKEN NIGHTMARE, Canada writes:

    In his so-called documentary: An ‘Inconsistent&8217; Truth, Al Gore hauls out a line graph of average world temperatures and average C02 levels collected from the NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Vostok Ice Core Timescales. He then purports that as the world&8217;s CO2 levels increase or decrease, the world&8217;s temperature increases or decreases.

    The only minor detail that Gore and his leftist producers forgot to mention in his film is that this contradicts the underlying data of the Vostok Ice Core Timescale. The fact of the matter is that as temperature increases or decreases, 800 years later, C02 increases or decreases. C02 lags temperature not the other way around as Gore purports in his fraud of a film.
  31. John Stewart from Hamilton, Canada writes: I was delighted to see that Ms. May presented an economically sound and pragmatic approach. (as compared to the preaching that the NDP equates with environmental policy.) (Peter: Maybe a second year economics course would help) If you believe that the price of oil will rise in the future at a pace significantly greater than inflation, then the decision becomes simple. The world economies that are the early adapters of approaches that maximize their energy use efficiency will become dominant. Those that wait will find it very expensive. We saw this with off-shore steel production, automotive manufacturing and many other industries. In all cases, the North American industries said investing in the new technologies would cripple us and cost jobs. So they stood still while others passed them and now there are really no jobs (at least not many) of these types in Canada. (Actually Toyota and others have been fairly decent about throwing some assembly jobs back to Canada.) Rural Canada is not going to be destroyed by this tax. In 2 years the price will be at that level anyway. Rural Canada like the rest of the world is going to have to adapt to very expensive energy costs, sooner is easier than later. So the argument in favour of this tax is economics (and very sound economics at that). Saving the planet is just a bonus!
  32. Durward Saar from Canada writes: Irene Cornwell from Morinville, you have actually stumbled on the real reason for this CO2 tax nonsense....the death of the wealthy western free nations by economic collapse.
  33. george carlin from United States writes: Human-created global warming is, of course, purest nonsense.
  34. Big Silver from Canada writes: I'm not too concerned about the environment - by the time it's screwed, I'll be dead!
  35. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: May is nothing more than a deranged leftist. She is in the same league as Joey Tavares from Toronto who says 'STOP IT. The planet is dying. There will be NO economy if there is NO BIOSPHERE. We need to stop acting like a teenaged species, and start CLEANING UP OUR ACT.'

    Oh good God.....cut the histrionics. 'The planet is dying'....what unmitigated BS. Joey, you sound like a grade 8 student fresh out of a brain washing session from the Suzuki Foundation. You might want to consider how you gain some critical thinking skills because it is absolutely clear you possess none.
  36. Peter Bojkov from Vaughan ON, writes: John Stewart: the price of oil is a major DETERMINANT of inflation (so back to Economics 101, please). The rest of your post does not make much sense, as the competitive advantage shift in manufacturing is based on low LABOUR COSTS, and not on TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANTAGES in countries like China and India (PLEASE STUDY A PRODUCT'S LIFE CYCLE, AND SEE WHERE ITS PRODUCTION MOVES TO WHEN A TECH PRODUCT BECOMES A COMMODITY).

    'I was delighted to see that Ms. May presented an economically sound and pragmatic approach'.

    I have not seen a single NUMBER from Ms May on any macroeconimic indicator, resulting from the proposed 12 cents (and that's a magic number: why not five or 25 cents) increase of a litre of gas. How will GDR, inflation, employment, business investment, consumer spending (new housing starts, car sales, etc) be affected as a result of Ms May's porposal? Do YOU have any idea, John?
  37. James Kennedy from Saint John, Canada writes:
    How many useful idiots does it take to screw in a light bulb?
    We have got to stop dragging our knuckles on these issues.
  38. j.r ewing from vancouver, Canada writes: Thanks Ms. May for your generalized answers and your tip toeing around the issues. Very clever how you diverted your answers to your website too, that way you don't really have to answer the question at all. I like your use of exclamation points too, just to confirm you are completely incompetent.
  39. Chris M from Vancouver, writes: The environment, like any other issue, is a double-edged sword. To get anyone to take GW seriously, you have to use fear tactics and get people emotionally involved. The problem is, the more emotionally involved you and others get, the easier it is to abandon reason in the name of hysteria, rendering everyone incapable of finding practical solutions to serious problems. It's assumed that Conservatives are too practical and Liberals too idealistic and unrealistic - so together they should balance each other out right? Well, that's assuming these guys are working together for the good of all of us, and when it comes to everyone from Stephane Dion to Harper to Elizabeth May, that's simply too much to ask. I'm not going to advocate proportional representation, but there's a serious problem when a good 60 percent of voters every year vote against the government that ultimately wins the election. If these guys really cared, they'd listen to each other. Canada is not all things to all people, and if our politicians continue to impose their will on each other and us and refuse to listen, how are we any different from any other dictatorship out there? If these issues are so important to these people, lose the name calling, get in a room, show a little respect and humility and work it out. What exactly do we pay these people for? The bottom line is, say what you want about climate change and its threat to humanity and the planet itself - but if we can't talk to each other, how long will it be before we start settling our differences not with words but with deadly weapons? climate change won't matter if our narcissism exterminates us first!
  40. John Stewart from Hamilton, Canada writes: Peter, dah, I was not talking about the low-cost jobs. It is Japan that has the largest car maker and Europe that runs the steel industry. (note to Pete: not low cost regions)
  41. Hugh McNeil from toronto, Canada writes: Except for vacations, I can easily switch to bicycle for most of my Toronto jaunts. We already will walk 2 miles to go to movies, bird watching, etc . We live where we, well, live. Susan needs the car to go to work, and that isn't going to change regardless of the cost of gas. The reduction in income tax should offset some of that, but our overall tax burden will go down solidly because we will be reducing our car mileage. If this is a choice I am being given, I have to see it as a positive. As an aside, for those who think that smog is different from CO2 associated Global Warming, just remember, smog is what we do to ourselves, Global Warming is what you inflict on your grandchildren.
  42. Kathleen Degelder from Toronto, Canada writes: Mai: I remember learning about the little 'Ice Age' in grade four school! Good teacher. I can't understand why people don't remember this course! What happened to the teaching criteria since the last 20 years! Must be Hollywood!
    Also in economics the way MS.May purports is just shifting taxes. Also if the gas companies did not receive subsidies would the gas even cost more to the consumer? Even lumber companies receive subsidies! Raising tax on gas would just affect small businesses,transportation of trade onto consumers. Like middle class and low income earners.
  43. Ranald Walton from Hamilton, Canada writes: Ms May is the Greens' Trojan horse. Masquerading as a Green she won the leadership, and then once in, signed the deal with Dion and started singing the Liberal praises. I submit, if in the remote chance she ever won, she would cross the floor to sit with the Liberal opposition. If I were a Green member, I would be mad at this betrayal. We expect these backroom dealings from the Liberal Party of Canada, but it is disappointing to find that the Greens are no different.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top