By Leanne Clare, Communications Specialist

Unfortunately, there were no big surprises in last night's English language debate, including that not a single question was asked about where the parties stand on the environment. This was made all the easier by the exclusion of Green Party leader Elizabeth May.

Shame on the broadcast consortium that organized the debate and chose the questions.

A year ago, 80 percent of Canadians told the Public Policy Forum they want to see federal leadership on climate change.

On Tuesday, April 12, however, this consortium ensured that no leader was challenged on this burning issue, or other equally important ones: guaranteeing clean air and water for all Canadians and protecting natural ecosystems, for example.

But don't let the media's failure stop you from finding out what your candidates' positions are on these basic challenges. We've come up with three questions that should have been asked during the first debate.

You have the power to change the political indifference to environmental issues by asking all the candidates who knock on your door the following questions:

  1. What is your party's plan to help Canada transition to a low-carbon future, where Canadians use less fossil fuel and strive to become carbon neutral?
  2. How will your party ensure that our natural ecosystems, (oceans, forests, wetlands, and the species these support), continue to survive and thrive?
  3. How will your party ensure Canadians can enjoy a healthy environment with clean air, clean water and non-toxic products?

If you love the environment, encourage your friends and family — and everyone you know — to ask their candidates these three simple questions and on May 2nd, cast a vote for the one with the best answers.

April 13, 2011

Read more

Post a comment


Apr 14, 2011
6:06 PM

Should we vote green party ? That would be great but I haven’t heard much of anything as to how they will run our Country ? Don’t get me wrong we need really fine leaders to run our country but I also worry about the animals, our waters, and pollutants. ie: I have a green team at work now but at the same time Gov’t is still using areosol spray cans in the washrooms and they spray every 14 minutes to stink up the washroom both men and ladies. Certain companys get a contract with building management which is not owned by the governement. On the other hand government has the great influence since they are the tenant as to weather these products are used in the washrooms or they don’t say anything to building management even though some people have complained to them that they are alergic to the toxins or perfumes used.

Apr 14, 2011
4:28 PM

It’s just not enough to vote on a single issue, Mr. Suzuki. As important as sustainability is, it is irresponsible to vote for the candidate who answers these three questions to the best of your liking. They might have huge hearts for rivers, lakes and oceans, but be completely in over their heads when it comes to managing massive issues that are also important. Honestly, the public won’t care a bit about alternative fuel or endangered species if they’re having trouble feeding their families.

Apr 14, 2011
10:18 AM

Economy, jobs, wars, energy, deficit, money. Where are hidden human beings who cares for honesty and truth? We are an addicted society and we need real leaders not promoters.

Apr 14, 2011
5:38 AM

Let’s be frank about the environmental questions: No one in politics has a real plan to deal with the environmental issues because everyone has too much stake in the current economic model. The solution to the growing crisis is so formidible that no one can wrap their head around it. Oil, consumption, obesity, travel, and materialistic lifestyles are so entrenched in our psyche that it is just easier to stick our heads in the sand, eat ourselves stupid, and wait for the apocalypse.

The end of historical eras have always worked themselves out this way, and I see no reason why this one won’t be any different.

I want to be optimistic and think that as a species we are smarter, we are working on solutions, we do understand we are living in a closed system where everything effects everything. I just see no substantial evidence (yet) that we can get to the tipping point before Mother Nature kicks us all in the cajonnes…

Apr 13, 2011
4:11 PM

Even bigger elephant in the room in my opinion.

All the parties are for the present figure of immigration, around 280,000 people a year. I agree the three questions posed should be asked, but a bigger question is how can the economy function in a zero population growth scenerio? We will have to get to that point some day and what will the economy do then.

I remember when I was young being told Canada needed more people for economies of scale for manufacturing jobs. Now the manufacturing jobs are being done overseas, smog, traffic, crime, enviromental degradation all come with increased populations. Farm land turned into housing, rivers dammed for more electricity. Stop the insanity.

There is not one political party willing to tackle this problem. Am I the only one who feels population growth is the main problem?

The David Suzuki Foundation does not necessarily endorse the comments or views posted within this forum. All contributors acknowledge DSF's right to remove product/service endorsements and refuse publication of comments deemed to be offensive or that contravene our operating principles as a charitable organization. Please note that all comments are pre-moderated. Privacy Policy »