Green Party of Canada obtains its first MP in bittersweet triumph

I am beginning to wonder who is advising the NDP in this election.

On paper, the party hasn't enjoyed such political and financial success since Ed Broadbent was leader in the 1980s: the New Democrats have more than doubled their seats from 14 under Alexa McDonough to 30 under Jack Layton; the party is awash in cash and plans to spend the maximum allowed amount ($19 million) in this election; and polls show that the NDP is nearing 20 percent in popular support among Canadians.

And yet, right off the bat, Mr. Layton has made two horrible decisions. First, he has refused to incorporate a carbon tax with off-setting tax credits for the poor in the NDP's platform - a move that has been widely criticized by environmentalists as well as groups like the Sierra Club. Second, Layton immediately condemned Ms. May's involvement in the leaders' debates even though polls show that two-thirds of Canadians think she should be included. Now he has had to backtrack by grudgingly accepting that May will be allowed to debate. Morally, Layton shouldn't have opposed her inclusion in the first place. Image-wise, he will now be perceived by voters as the leader who failed to prevent May from debating.

I partly understand why Layton does not want May in the debates. Although the media doesn't seem to be paying attention, the NDP is trying to capitalize on the Liberals' weak leader, absence from Parliament, and disarray on policy by arguing that the New Democrats are the real governing alternative to the Conservatives. Hence why Layton is trying to present himself as a "prime-ministerial" leader (though the move to exclude May will do nothing to advance this image). But the Greens - who are closest to the NDP in terms of policy and who most NDP voters prefer as their 'second choice' - will probably take votes away from Layton's party, especially if May performs strongly in the debates. Thus the Greens may jeopardize the NDP's move to become Official Opposition (however unrealistic this may be).

My own opinion is that the emergence of the Green Party, which continues to garner over 600,000 votes, further illustrates the need for a proportional representation electoral system at the federal level. If such a system fails to materialize any time soon, the Greens and NDP may want to look at some type of merger. The GPC would likely have to accept the union financing and slightly more interventionist policies of the New Democrats while the NDP would probably have to adopt the participatory structure and ecological principles of the Greens. Most other matters would invovle "ironing out" minor differences over policy. Currently this type of idea seems unlikely or even impossible, but I'm sure the Canadian Alliance never thought it would merge with the Progressive Conservatives when it first formed in 1997.

I agree with your assessment Mike. Although it was done somewhat cheaply, the Greens have achieved what previously seemed impossible: transforming Canada's parliamentary democracy into a five-party system even though the country still adopts an archaic, first-past-the-post (FPP) electoral process. This has happened before, such as when the Progressive Conservatives and Canadian Alliance had yet to merge with one another. But the five-party system that existed at the time came as a result of the Reform/Alliance 'breaking away' from the PC party, whereas the Greens emerged independently in the 1980s.  

As well, the GPC is the only party that uses a participatory policy formation and decision-making process, which would make any merger with another party extremely difficult and unlikely. The Greens therefore represent a legitimately "new" niche on the Canadian political spectrum as an ecological, participatory, and decentralized party.

You are correct in saying that any attempt to paint the Greens and Liberals as 'one-in-the-same' is ridiculous. The only similarities that exist between the two parties are the income brackets of their members (generally middle to high incomes) and - directly related to this - the percentage of members who possess university degrees (GPC and Liberal party members are more educated than members of other parties).

Other than that, the differences between the two parties are glaring. Liberals support free trade, 'public-private partnerships' (PPPs), government downsizing, development and expansion at the cost of human health and the environment, and tax cuts before public investment. The GPC supports fair trade, opposes privatization and downsizing, champions the environment, proposes a host of new regulations governing several aspects of social and economic life, advocates new public spending in health care, education, child care, renewable energy, organic farming, and a guaranteed income scheme, and calls for tax cuts only in the form of income-splitting and eliminating taxes on Canada's poorest. If the two parties are "the same" then I must be missing something.