Elizabeth May in a tweet just now responded to my query last week about travel expenses for a recent coast to coast trip May took to attend a memorial.

First of all, I'd like to sincerely thank May for responding to my question which was seriously put. I wasn't merely trying to be a disturber of the post-election peace nor was I attempting to besmirch her integrity.

So why ask the question? First I wanted Ms. May to be subject to the same light of scrutiny other political figures come under, and second I do have an agenda and that is to stamp out the meaningless use of the fluff-phrase do politics differently.

During the recent federal election I'd joined others in questioning why Harper government Finance Minister Jim Flaherty spent an estimated $22,000 flying with his wife on a government jet to attend a gala evening celebrating the 25th anniversary of Brian Mulroney's 1984 majority government electoral win. To my knowledge Flaherty never responded to the allegations during the election or since, and as such this apparent serious misuse of public funds remains an open issue that should be investigated.

May's trip, hot on the heels of the election, seemed like an ideal opportunity to raise the same question albeit party members should really be doing the asking, not the public. May: 1, Flaherty: 0.

Expense reporting is a pretty mundane topic the very nature of which is likely to generate a yawn at best from most, but like MP's or government spending the public's money, party members should expect a high level of transparency from party officials.

To its credit early on in its first mandate the Harper government enacted something called proactive disclosure which makes it possible to see on-line MP expenses. The system is far from perfect, but it's a start. Perhaps the Green Party could do one better and enact a similar system that leaves no details out such as Jim Flaherty's $22,000 return trip one evening from Ottawa to Montreal for an evening out with Brian Mulroney.

As I argued in my opening entry on this subject, wouldn't it be both useful and demonstrate respect to those who fund political organizations if the leaders, executive council, and other officers of ^insert your favorite political party here^ were required to document in an almost real time fashion how they are spending party funds? A party that can stand that level of scrutiny by its members is likely to be able to stand up to as much or more scrutiny by Canadians once in power. That sort of party and behavior might indeed be worth voting for.

Do politics differently, a trite phrase that holds no meaning in the minds of the electorate, can only become meaningful if those championing the objective walk the walk.

So far there is little evidence of that lofty goal being delivered by Greens or any party, but maybe Canada's first Green member of parliament might change that.

Noted on Twitter just now, a tweet from Elizabeth May via her mobile device:

Within two minutes I replied:

And added another query:

The one-sided exchange above was followed a few minutes later by another tweet from May which noted she'd spoken at the Green Party of B.C. Annual General Meeting this weekend. I found this otherwise innocuous update ironic as such meetings are all about accountability and my as yet unanswered question is all about accountability.

Having not heard back from Elizabeth May on either of my two questions, the first of which could at the very least be substantially answered with a simple yes/no response, I have to conclude from May's silence that:

1. The Green Party of Canada or its fund paid for party leader Elizabeth May's recent trip to Cape Breton to attend a memorial service, and,
2. the trip was of a personal nature not related to the discharge of her duties as leader of the Green Party of Canada and as such is a wholly inappropriate expenditure of party funds.

Ms. May is free to correct me on either or both assertions but until then I will operate on the basis that monies were spent incorrectly and contrary to party policy. One assumes party policy prohibits party funds being spent on personal trips across the continent.

Lack of transparency isn't an issue for only the Green Party and in fact I am primarily using Elizabeth May's tweet as a spring board to discussion of the topic in a broader sense. The Green Party like all Canadian political parties need to be better players in our democracy.

That said, do the Green's need to be held to a higher standard? Is that fair? May herself has said "We have to rescue democracy from political parties" yet I've seen little difference between other parties and how the Green Party conducts its affairs. If Ms. May wishes to "address the democracy deficit" where better to start than by nettoyer leur maison or cleaning up their own house? Why not publish, proactively, spending by the leader and party?

Instead of waiting for the leadership of their party to enact change, Green Party members themselves could take matters into their own hands and cite their own constitution which in particular references the Global Green Charter:

1.5 Uphold the right of citizens to have access to official information and to free and independent media.

Green citizens, challenge your own party. Find out if Elizabeth May is using funds appropriately or not. Make an example of your party for the betterment of politics in Canada. New Democrats, why don't you do the same?

Any party which adopts real transparency in the government of its own affairs might face justifiable criticism from time to time, but equally likely such a party may find that the public rewards their openness with increased trust.

Possibly with visions of a long walk off a short pier, the press have been summoned to witness the spectacle of the recently renamed Liz Party of Canada's first ever elected MP, Liz, holding a post-election presser.

Green Party leader Elizabeth May to hold press conference on Tuesday morning : Elizabeth May, Green Party leader and Canada's first elected Green MP, will hold a press conference on Tuesday morning. Ms. May will discuss her landslide victory in Saanich-Gulf Islands and the results of the federal election.

When: 11:00 am, Tuesday, May 3

Where: Sidney Pier (end of Beacon Avenue, near the bandshell), Sidney, BC

Her story is hot now, and she'll get some deserved attention after parliament reconvenes and again after the government submits its budget, but after that? It is hard to imagine how much media attention, let alone public attention, can be consistently and usefully garnered by a lone member representing the smallest party in Canada.

Update: 10 minutes before May's press conference was to start, breaking news from the United States: Whitehouse press conference to discuss Bin Laden killing at 11:00 am PT. Which do you think our national news ran with? Not even CPAC broke to May's presser. And so it begins.

BREAKING NEWS

In wake of Elizabeth May's historic win, party changes name to Liz Party of Canada (LPC) to reflect its singular focus.

Related: Greens need more green -- Prime Minister Harper vows to eliminate per-vote subsidy as soon as the 41st parliament reconvenes.

BREAKING: Latest internal polling commissioned by the Vancouver-Centre Liberal campaign shows Hedy Fry and Deputy Leader of the Green Party Adriane Carr are running in a neck and neck race to the finish.

A second round of internal polling done for the Vancouver-Centre Liberal campaign shows six-time electoral winner Hedy Fry is in danger of being voted off the island by constituents in favour of Deputy Leader of the Green Party, Adriane Carr.

Captain Fry is sailing a seriously leaky ship. This is the second internal poll to have been leaked in as many weeks. Last Friday, too late for media to properly run with the story, Paul Nixey -- Fry's campaign manager -- issued a statement:

I find the Green Party candidate's claim to have received a "leaked poll" ridiculous. My campaign has not conducted any polling; I am focussed on continuing to deliver results for my constituents, connecting with voters, and stopping Stephen Harper. No one in our team could leak a poll; it doesn't exist. Hedy Fry

Fry's denial came in response to an article published in Common Ground magazine (Are the tables about to turn on Hedy Fry?) which cited internal polling done on behalf of her campaign. Survey results showed voter intentions supporting Carr had lept from fourth place to a close second just behind Fry, the incumbent.

There's just one problem here: the first poll does exist, and in following up on this story I've just become aware of the details contained in a second internal poll. Is Fry not aware of what her own campaign is up to?

Reliable sources -- sources other than Common Ground magazine -- confirm a second round of internal polling done on behalf of Fry's campaign show voter intentions for Green Party candidate Adriane Carr now virtually tied -- within the margin of error -- with incumbent candidate Hedy Fry.

This may be a bad news story for Fry personally but for progressive voters, for Green voters, for voters that want change which doesn't involve Stephen Harper, and for the anybody but Harper crowd -- the battle for the riding is already won. The Conservative candidate - missing in action - will not win the race. It seems very unlikely that the NDP candidate between now and Monday can move voter support above fourth place, therefore on May 2 a Green or Liberal candidate will represent the riding in Ottawa.

Carr's campaign has the momentum in this race. If Vancouver-Centre constituents are truly in a mood to choose change, based on the Liberal's own polls, it seems electors there could easily make history on Monday and elect the first, or second, Green Party Member of Parliament in Canadian history.

Vancouver-Centre voters will have the final say in just over two days.

There is no longer ANY prospect of a Conservative majority. Elizabeth May, April 21, 2011

In today's missive to the faithful, Elizabeth May asserts that there is no chance Stephen Harper will achieve his long sought after majority in the House of Commons. May bases her confident prognosis on the strength of data from a single pollster.

There is only one response I can craft that does full justice to my opinion of Elizabeth May's claim.

Bullshit.

Per-vote subsidies for political party funding were brought in by former Prime Minister Jean Chretien in conjunction with tough new limits on corporate and personal political donations. The idea was to make political funding less of an impediment for a flourishing democracy. Stephen LeDrew, a former president of the Liberal Party, back then called the idea "dumb as a bag of hammers", yet since that infamous comment was made we've seen elections partly fought on this funding formula and here we are again. Stephen Harper has vowed to eliminate this funding formula.

Elizabeth May's Green Party are likely more reliant on the vote subsidy than any other party. Maybe this particular challenge should be a focus for her rather than participation in the leader's debates. Did the Green Party arrange its 2 million dollar line of credit for this election campaign in part on the promise or assumption that the vote subsidy will be there afterwards to help pay the debt?

Lest someone paint me as a carbon loving dinosaur, I'm a "green" voter through and through but these days can't bring myself to waste my vote on a local Green candidate because my vote truly is wasted here in my home riding of Vancouver-Kingsway. Truth be told I'm also of like mind with David Suzuki who once said, paraphrased, that he wished the Green Party would completely disappear because green politics needs to be a fixture of every party, not seen as a special issue for a special issue party. Our current political system is not friendly to parties seen as single issue focussed; maybe in some future Canada I'd change my mind altogether but not now.

One assessment we can make with certainty is that Stephen Harper's Conservative Party and government are the least green option out there. If you want to see carbon-loving dinosaurs walking the earth today, look toward the dark blue political signs.

Harper vows to end party subsidies (April 1, 2011 - CBC News) Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is still committed to scrapping party subsidies but says it would be impossible unless he formed a majority government.

Tired of constant campaigns, Harper says he'll scrap per-vote subsidy (April 1, 2011 - The Globe and Mail) Stephen Harper is blaming per-vote taxpayer subsidies for causing frequent elections and is promising to cut this assistance if he wins a majority government.

Green leader allowed into debates, networks confirm (Sept. 10 2008, CBC)

Green Leader Elizabeth May will be allowed into the federal leaders' debates, Canada's main broadcast networks confirmed on Wednesday. The news came after Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and NDP Leader Jack Layton indicated earlier on Wednesday that they no longer oppose May's participation in the debates on Oct. 1 and Oct. 2.

This election just got interesting.

Winners: Canadians, your voices were heard for a change. Well done. Losers: Jack Layton and Stephen Harper. Duceppe too but he barely counts any more.

From non-broadcast media there appears to be a fairly broad consensus: The Green Party leader should be allowed to participate in the leaders debates.

Networks have lost their journalistic backbone (Chantel Hébert, The Star)

The Green party had a better case for participating in the televised debates of the 2008 campaign than the Bloc Québécois and the Reform party in 1993. Having opened the door 15 years ago to parties that were blatantly not in the running for power, why did the networks not stand up for Elizabeth May in this campaign?

In the 1993 election, the established parties were just as opposed to the addition of new debate players as the NDP and the Conservatives are today. They brought at least one solid objection to the fore and it was the fact that neither the Reform party, nor the Bloc Québécois, could claim to be national parties.

Reform had not yet extended its wings east of Manitoba. Moreover, Preston Manning was not bilingual. In the end, it was decided he would limit himself to an opening statement in French. Lucien Bouchard, on the hand, was granted full participation rights in both debates, a privilege his successor enjoys to this day.

The Green party runs candidates in every province and May is fluently bilingual. Over the past 12 months, the Green score in the national polls has ranged from 7 per cent to 13 per cent. Support for the Bloc Québécois over the same period has never exceeded 9 per cent.

Dion emerges smelling like a rose (Don Martin, National Post)

But as the only party leader to endorse the Green leader's participation, Mr. Dion claims the moral high ground as free-speech defender and polishes his credentials for women voters, even though a stellar Elizabeth May performance risks draining support away from the Liberals.

Let Elizabeth May speak (Former Prime Minister Joe Clark, The Globe and Mail)

Jason MacDonald, a spokesman for the network consortium, is quoted as saying that three parties - those led by Stephen Harper, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe - all opposed the participation of Ms. May in the so-called leaders debate, "and it became clear that if the Green Party were included, there would be no leaders debates."

That's blackmail. If these three men want to boycott a genuine debate, let them have the courage to do so openly. Let them also explain why, in a year when U.S. party establishments could not shut out an Obama or a McCain, it is appropriate for the Canadian party establishments to muzzle a significant voice for change.

I am not a supporter of any of the existing federal parties, including the Greens. But I am alarmed, and surprised, by how tightly the government now controls Parliament, how easily parties put their own interest ahead of the public interest, and how mean our public debate has become. We have to break that pattern, and one way to begin would be with a more inclusive leaders debate. I urge more Canadians to press these three leaders, and the broadcasting consortium they hide behind, to reconsider their exclusionary decision.

I am not a Green party member, nor a member of any party at this time. Even if I were affiliated elsewhere I'm confident that in the interest of a more wholesome democracy, I would call upon every Canadian, regardless of political affiliation, to demand Green Party leader Elizabeth May included in this election's Leader debates. This country needs more democracy and its the right thing to do.

If you want to take action, sign this on-line petition.

Here's a party that ran candidates in every riding in the country and received almost 700,000 votes in the last election. Including Quebeckers, who have the regional Bloc to mess up statistics, one of every twenty-two voters voted green in the last election. Excluding la belle province that ratio is even higher. They came closer to winning seats than they ever have. The Green Party jumped over a significant hurdle, earning sufficient votes to earn them a spot among the other large parties whereby they receive public funding based on the number of votes received. Climate change and environmentalism clearly is in the public eye in a way that it has never been before, and they have always been there to champion the issue.

I think their case for inclusion was more than strong enough on its own, and didn't require the stunt (which I do not support) leader Elizabeth May pulled last week in convincing ousted former Liberal West Vancouver Sunshine Coast MP Blair Wilson (who hasn't a hope of being re-elected) to become the Green Party's "first" MP on the eve of an election.

Media reports indicate that the broadcast consortium which runs the debate decided against including May because of threats from Stephen Harper and Jack Layton that they'd pull out. Broadcasters claim they bowed to pressure from the Conservatives and NDP as they didn't want to air a debate between only May and Dion.

"There's been no new party elected to the House of Commons since the last election, and one of the people who wanted to participate in the debate is supporting one of the others for prime minister," said Layton, referring to May's endorsement of Dion. "The networks decided they will stick with the old rules and we support that, had they not so decided we would have had to go back and think about what all that means." Jack Layton

"We said we would not accept the invitation to participate because the Greens did not have an elected member of Parliament", said Brad Lavigne, NDP spokesperson.

Duceppe was happy with the outcome, claiming "the rules are the rules". Only there are no rules - the consortium makes its own rules up. Harper claimed May could not participate because she was in effect another Liberal candidate, which is rubbish. The Liberals have as much to fear from May and the Greens as any party. Even if it were true, in past years we did in fact see two "conservative" parties in debates. The Reform and Progressive Conservatives both had leaders in debate; the Canadian Alliance and PC's likewise. Reform had Preston Manning in debate when they had only one MP, Deborah Gray, which is all the more galling because like the Bloc at the time Reform was a regional party that did not run across the country.

Whether one agrees with the Blair Wilson floor crossing or not, he was still an elected MP when he joined the Greens. The Bloc earned their first invite to the debate in exactly the same way.

Imagine that, the media being pushed around by Harper and Layton. Ridiculous! The media have sufficient influence and power to make sure that Harper and Layton's non-attendance is a non-starter. With every reporter in the country hounding Harper and Layton "what are you afraid of" there is no way either would be able to take a pass on the debate without serious risk to their campaigns.

An election should expose Canadians to the broadest diversity of ideas. Greens have paid their dues. We, the public, are paying them to exist, like we pay all major parties. Lets see what they have to say.

Public backlash could make this undemocratic exclusion from the debates go away. Start your non-polluting alternative-energy engines... go!

PS: My sense is that public backlash might hurt some parties electorally if they don't allow May into the debates. Times seem to be changing.