The very opening statement frames the entire document very well. "The Green Party of Canada plan for a sustainable future grounded in fiscal responsibility, ecological sanity and social justice is set out in its policies and in its 2006 federal election platform." It is not the whole nine yards of Green theory. It is a simple statement that there are three areas that must be considered together and without which no government can govern.
Still, on the first page, they signal the fact that they are willing to work with other parties on items of mutual interest.
The Green Party is committed to supporting other political parties who put forward substantial measures to improve environmental health, reducing health threats to our children and other vulnerable members of society – pregnant women, the unborn, the elderly, the sick and the poor – while averting global crises, particularly increasing climatic instability caused by rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Both of these seem to be anti-thetical to the rhetoric that dominates the discourse from some Greens including the top of our ticket, Peter Camejo. The rhetoric that says there is no difference between the two parties is only partly accurate. Yes, it is true in the political sense that they are both dependent on corporate money. It is not true in terms of policies. Greens, especially here in California, must learn that they can play a role as the difference maker, supporting some Democratic proposals, even supporting some Republican proposals and holding out for that which we all know is right when no one else gets it.
Read the Canadian Plan and tell me if I am wrong. As the Green Party of CA (California, not Canada) sturggles to put together a two year plan, they could not go very wrong in using the Canadian plan as a model.