Elizabeth May wants your vote...

Elizabeth May and the Green Party want your vote...

...particularly if you come from a Progressive Conservative background. I asked May to explain the difference between her and Jack (Layton). She said the economic policy of the Green Party is not left leaning - "we are more fiscally responsible". Of course this prompted the question as to why - outside the environmental similarities - the Green Party also supports leftist policies such as universal health care - affordable housing and education. May responded by saying these are not issues solely owned by the left - "I call them core Canadian values". I buy that response - however they were developed under left leaning leadership and have been adopted by Canadians as good policy. She recognizes "Tommy Douglas was chosen by the people as the Greatest Canadian of all time", and therefore some significant Canadian values are from the left.

I continued to seek the differences between the New Democrats and the Green Party and May explained that they support revenue neutral tax changes - a decrease in income tax and the introduction of a carbon tax. She believes the average taxpayer needs a break and the carbon producers - those who generate pollution and release cancer causing agents into our environment need to be taxed. May seems more inclined to offer incentives to promote and generate the environment as an industry than through the use of direct grants from taxpayer dollars.

It may be that the leader and her vision for the party is more aligned to the Progressive Conservative model than the established party policy. "We will avoid deficits and not spend our way out of things." May did comment that Hugh Segal - a well known PC - supports a guaranteed income for Canadians - a position that May would like to see her party adopt. There was however no indication how this policy would be achieved from a financial point of view and therefore sounded similar to the stated goals of the NDP. Further - all federal parties with elected MP's have stated their opposition to running deficits.

When it comes to Prime Minister Stephen Harper - May is clear "...we have never been closer to an American Republican style of government." She says this is not a good position for Canada and seems prepared to fight hard against this new "conservatism". She has concerns with NAFTA and the environment relative to the United States especially under the current Harper administration and blames the New Democrats for what she calls their role in this. May says, "they should have used the power they had during Paul Martin's Liberal minority to push environment and social and environmental issues further - instead of - for political reasons and the possibility of a few more seats - buckled". May believes this was a big mistake that left us with a neoconservative Bush loving government.

We discussed the plight of rural Canada and the draw of people from many of these communities - especially in Atlantic Canada - to Alberta for work. I gave May the example of a fishing community on the South Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador - Burgeo - which has seen 300 people in a population of 1500 leave since Christmas. I asked her for her gut reaction. On this issue May came across as very genuine with a single word reaction - "tragedy". A Nova Scotian native from Cape Breton - this story appeared to hit her hard and the leader was direct with her complete response. May believes the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for the catastrophic devastation of the Atlantic fish stocks and as such people and communities should be compensated. May compared it to the savings and trusts scandals in the States where investors (people) did receive financial relief. "The scientists were wrong on the biomass" - and May believes that decisions made based on incorrect data coupled with bad politics respecting the East Coast fishery the quota's and processing facilities along with dragger technology have effectively destroyed certain fisheries. May laments, "I am unsure if the Northern Cod will ever recover." She adds, "Companies like National Sea and FPI were the managers while the fish union and communities were and are left to clean up the mess without a real voice."

As with the environment - May views rural Canada as a great potential with measurable value. "It should not be lost and I do not believe - as Harper does - that its okay for rural Canadians to just up and move to where the jobs are because their home communities are suffering from job loss." She adds, " It must go back to community economic development plans with co-ops, credit unions, and adult education." The leader believes the federal government needs to play a leading role here by directing more tax revenues directly to the municipalities both rural and urban. Once again - I do not immediately see the difference between the NDP and the Green's.

Perhaps it is the emergence of a leader with a new vision - where party policy does not exactly reflect where she would like to go. May is certain the Green's will have a broader base of support than the NDP - nurtured by economic policy that would attract PC's who will not go to the NDP and are wary of the rebuilding Liberals. The Green's leader is also certain that "green and the environment are atop the agenda of the people". It is fair to say that all party leaders are pressured more on this issue since May has taken the reins of the party - and it does represent another voice - with the NDP - on global warming - greenhouse gas emissions - and clean air. The difference is May has paid real dues in this policy area and will be tough to debate or catch off-guard. She enjoys the support of nature's visionaries such as David Suzuki and is a friend of Bill Clinton. These connections do and will matter to a significant number of voters.

Elizabeth May is the only female leader on the national scene and she is concerned about the disproportionate representation of men to women in parliament. This is one very important reason she believes she should be in any political national debate - "women in positions of government and business must be visible to provide a positive role model for young women." She says it comes down to fundamental human development and we need to move in that direction.

The fiscal imbalance is something May believes is a problem and one she wants to jump into - and best I could ascertain the central mentality of the feds causes her further concern. As to what specifically she would do to correct the problems between the provinces and the Ottawa - we did not have an opportunity to discuss.

Our interview was not as long as I would have liked - but to be fair was the duration I agreed to. The tenor of this discussion was casual with a more human approach wherein time was spent with to and fro comments and as a result many key issues were not discussed. This was the leaders call - and I believe her decision to end the conversation on time was unfortunate - particularly since she was 25 minutes late starting the interview. This is a pet peeve of mine - leaders that are perceived to be over-managed. I think this was in part the downfall of Paul Martin. You see the Green Management was kind enough to let an ordinary Canadian get an interview with the boss - albeit not the Globe and Mail or the CBC. What the Green office cartel needs to remember is that the Green's were and are an extremely small fish in the political ocean - as this blog is in the sea of Canadian media.

On that note I will add that the inclusion of Elizabeth May in all debates is essential. She is an articulate intelligent addition to the political leadership in Canada and we need to see what she says when challenged directly by her opponents.

Canadians deserve to see the real choices they have - and the Green Party is one of those choices. May is a Canadian who is comfortable speaking about all regions - no doubt resulting from her extensive travel and communication engagements throughout the country and globally. I thank Elizabeth for her time and look forward to our next discussion.