Crap Canada Day celebration in London, UK

Well, the supposedly "Canadian" Maple Leaf Pub in Covent Garden, the site of the annual Canada Day celebration of expats living in London, UK, has let us all down this year.

In past years they have sponsored a Canada Day event each and every July 1st, cordoning off Maiden Lane (the street of the pub) to allow Canucks from across Ol' Blighty to congregate and let their hair down.

This year, however, the Maple Leaf have decided not to sponsor the event; and the Metropolitan Police, fearing some sort of three-way brawl between drunk Canadians, pissed off English football supporters, and Gay Pride celebrators, have sent out stern warnings that Canadians are NOT to head to Maiden Lane this Canada Day.

But it seemed that not all was lost - "Canada Day 06" celebrations were announced to take place in Trafalgar Square on Friday 30 June (as Gay Pride had already booked the Square for the 1st). In fact, I was initially quite please - I had always disliked the cramped atmosphere of the Covent Garden event, with thousands are Canucks crammed into a single city block. An event in Trafalgar Square would give us the chance to stretch out and not have to walk on a sea of broken glass and elbow our way through hot and hostile crowds.

Unfortunately, the Trafalgar Square event was hardly a replacement - rather than being a party for Canadian expats, it was a commercial/tourist fair for Brits and Europeans. Booths included provincial tourism organizations trying to outdue each other with leaflets and metal pins, and commercial entities such as Air Transat and NASN (North American Sports Network) trying to hawk their wares. If there was any confusion who the event was geared towards, there were also booths entitled "Emigrate Canada" and "Study Canada".

Well! We Canadian expats have been thoroughly let down - but unlike typical Canucks, we're not just going to take it on the chin! Oh no, we're going to stage our own damn Canada Day event - and if the councils don't like it, they can get stuffed!

Canadians will be meeting in Hyde Park in London, just north of the Joy of Life Fountain (click here for a map). We'll be nearby a concert stage where Roger Waters will be performing Pink Floyd's "The Dark Side of the Moon", so there will be free music to boot! Many people will be watching the England vs. Portugal match from 4-6pm, so while the masses are expected to arrive initially in the afternoon, the numbers will start growing large around 7pm.

See all you expats there!

When: Saturday 1 July 2006, early afternoon and onwards (numbers likely to pick up at 7pm)
Where: Hyde Park (London, UK), just north of the Joy of Life Fountain (map)
Why: celebrate Canada Day!

The Green Party must decentralize media communications to be taken seriously

[ aka Making the Green Party a respected political player in Canada: a prescription (II) ]

In my previous post on making the Green Party a more respected political party here in Canada, I argued that the Greens' policies are more thorough and multi-disciplinary than ever before - but that a perceptive move away from fringe party status still needs to be effectively conveyed to society.

While I would say that the full utilization of the media is the best method to achieve this, I also argued in my previous post that the media views the Greens as active during elections but dormant in between, and thus not deserving of the same attention and focus as a "proper" political party. Why should a newspaper cover Green ideas, regardless of how good they are, if they come from an entity that only seems interested in elections, but doesn't speak up enough with thoughtful criticism during the actual governing of this country?

Thus, the present situation is - we're a party of innovative and thorough policies, but don't do an effective enough job of communicating these ideas, and the "fringe" image that our operations (rather than ideas) continue to exacerbate prevents the media from taking the Green policy ideas seriously.

So the solution would seem to be - professionalize operations, particularly communication with media. When important, challenging issues arise in Canadian political debate, the Greens should promptly be on the scene with innovative perspectives and solutions to such topical problems. We should operate as if we were a party deserving of seats in parliament, and ready to seamlessly assume them come the next federal election.

But how easy (or realistic) will it be for the Green Party of Canada to professionalize their operations?

We know that the Greens receive more than a million dollars of electoral funding each year, due to the popular support we now garner at federal elections. We also know the central GPC office has a paid staff of at least 10, likely supported by a much larger number of volunteers and interns. But are these financial and human resources enough for the party to operate in a more professional way?

I noted in myprevious post that helping to set up Electoral District Associations (EDAs) across the country was currently a high priority for the GPC central office - and fair enough, as the Greens need to have significant pockets of support across Canada, especially at the local level. But add to this the need to arrange the upcoming policy/leadership convention in August, and various other bits and bobs, and suddenly the paid staff of 10 has its hands full.

I won't argue whether EDA creation or the need to professionalize party operations and media communication should be the higher prioritiy for the GPC - that could be an entirely different topic. But seeing as the GPC has apparently already chosen its main short-term goals, and dedicated most of its resources to those, how could we also add the tasks of improving operations and communications - without stretching current resources to breaking point?

To me, the solution seems simple - tap into an army of largely under-utilized supporters.

By this, I don't mean the Conservative tactic of annoying call centres and direct mailing to beg for money. Instead of asking for money, the Greens need to convince supporters (and the vast number of potential supporters) to donate their time, energy and expertise. Divert a minimal percentage of central resources to organize a sea of national volunteers, and let these people scattered across the country do the brunt work.

There are potentially thousands (or even tens of thousands) of people with an interest in Green ideas, who would be thrilled if their voices could not only be heard, but translated into substantive policy. Whether these be people interested in the environment (preferably skilled individuals within Environment Canada or The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, economics, health care, aboriginal issues, federal renewal, or whatever else - these individuals with passion and interest (and hopefully even expertise) could be brought into the party fold as volunteers to communicate their ideas under the Green banner, helping to "professionalize" and diversify the Green Party's operations.

Greens already do a good job of capturing such ideas from the public and converting them into policy creation - the Living Platform is perhaps the best example of grassroots ideas translated into actual policy. But are the people who come up with such policy ideas also used effectively within the party's communications arm? Do they play a role in writing press releases, and for conveying the Greens' innovative policy ideas to the media?

Judging from the lack of Green press releases, and comments from the media about the Greens seeming to be largely dormant between elections, the answer must be a resounding "no". While we Greens may be coming up with some truly brilliant ideas for tackling Canada's numerous problems, we're not communicating these ideas to the media when they're topical issues under debate. It is apparently acceptable practice to open up policy formation to people outside the central GPC offices, but the Greens (perhaps ironically) are not taking the same approach with communications - as this is putting a muzzle on the Green Party's ability to get their message out regularly and punctually.

So what's the answer to this need for decentralized policy communication? Send out Green Party of Canada letterhead to every single GPC member, and adopt an anarchistic form of communication where anyone can officially speak on behalf of the party? Surely not. But perhaps the system we have at present, of press releases being thought up and crafted solely within central offices Ottawa, is just as extreme and hurtful to the Greens.

I've mentioned that the central offices are over-stretched, thus the lack of GPC press releases. I've also mentioned the grassroots policy creation, and the potential for the Greens to attract more informed and expert voices. What could the GPC do with such a scenario?

In my opinion, as I've already briefly mentioned, the Greens could to divert a minimal percentage of central resources to help organize a potential army of supporters for writing press releases. These writers could be the same people who help create new and innovative party policy - but they could also be asked to help write media releases that detail these policies whenever such related debates pop up in parliament or within Canadian political circles.

Let's start from the top. PM Harper has 26 people in his "streamlined" cabinet, excluding himself. That's 26 portfolios. The Greens need to appoint a shadow cabinet with "ministers" for all 26 portfolios. The present GPC shadow cabinet only has 22 portfolios - and five of those are directly related to the environment (environment, climate change, deep ecology, energy, environmental economics). While there's no real problem in having several environment-related portfolios, surely we should be shadowing all of the other portfolios covered by Harper's real cabinet before we start creating numerous environmental portfolios - as this will simply execerbate the perception that the Greens are a one-issue, environmentalist-only party. A quick visit to the government website's cabinet page shows a significant number of portfolios that the Green shadow cabinet doesn't cover.

Once we have all portfolios covered in our cabinet, each shadow minister needs to either assume high-level communications responsibility themself within their portfolio, or appoint another person as communications leader for their portfolio. The shadow minister and portfolio communications head (potentially but preferably not the same person) must then become thoroughly knowledgable regarding Green policies on the issues, to prevent people from going off on personal rants not reflective of the overall policy position of the Green Party. This point may prove slightly tricky, as policy is partially created decentrally in the GPC, especially at the local level (within EDAs) - but overall the Green Party does have official party positions (after all, it does have policy conventions, like the upcoming event in August in Ottawa; and it also published policy platforms during election campaigns), and these must be adhered to if the GPC are to effectively decentralize some elements of official media communication.

Each shadow portfolio then needs to attract volunteers who are passionate (and preferably also an expert) in that particular area, teach them the "party line", and have them available (at relatively short notice) to write a press release when portfolio topics are debated under parliament and/or hit the news. Such volunteers wouldn't be paid, and would have proper jobs and other commitments outside of their Green volunteer work - so perhaps only one or two out of 10 would be available at any giving time. That would work out perfectly. They could be quickly contacted, get to work, and have a press release written and ready for distribution while the issue is still topical to the media.

The finished press release would then be sent from the volunteer back to the shadow portfolio's communications head, to ensure it accurately reflected Green policy, and to possibly edit it for grammar, house style, etc. It could then be directly distributed to the press without ever having to go to the GPC head office in Ottawa. The head office might wish to add a second level of screening to the process, by having the portfolio communications heads send all press releases to the head office to screen/edit as well - but that would take up resources of the head office, and could potentially be reserved for "crucial" policy areas, or for portfolios with shadow ministers/communications heads who were still new to the job and needed a "training" period before they could be trusted to engage directly with the media.

Why would this relatively decentralized media communications strategy work? It would:

• ensure that topical issues in Canadian politics are regularly addressed by the Green Party
  
• raise the profile of the Green Party within Canadian media via regular press releases, garnering us more respect and attention
  
• help convey the appearance of a professionalized shadow cabinet and media communications
  
• move closer towards the demands of backroom party operations for when Greens became MPs
  
• take up minimal resources of the (already busy) head office in Ottawa
  
• encourage more party members to play a larger role within the party, and volunteer more of their time
  
• encourage potential party members to join and volunteer, knowing that their voice could be heard much more loudly via the Greens than with "old line" parties
  
• give members a more profound feeling of party "ownership" (not just membership), and encourage more pro-active and innovative participation

So that's my humble proposition for the Green Party of Canada to "professionalize" and yet also decentralize its media communications.

What do you think?

Chernushenko slams Ontario's nuclear expansion plans

Green Party of Canada leadership candidate David Chernushenko appeared on AM 640 Toronto's John Oakley Show on Wednesday morning, criticizing the McGuinty Liberals for announcing a $40-billion plan for the expansion of nuclear power in Ontario. David attacked the plan for primarily economic reasons, arguing that initial cost estimates for nuclear power plant construction are almost always too low, and that the announced $40-billion price tag does not take into consideration the costs of disposing of nuclear waste.

Streaming audio of the interview (approximately 5.5 minutes) can be heard here.

For those of you who missed last night's Green Party leadership debate, streaming video of the event can be seen here in English and here in French.

Green Party polls at 9% again

A June 9th poll by the Strategic Council (released by CTV and the Globe and Mail) has once again placed the Green Party at 9% of the national popular vote.

The Greens, who won approximately 4.5% of the vote in the 2006 January federal election, polled at 7% in April, and an all-time high of 9% in May. Many scoffed at the result, but the latest Strategic Council confirms last month's impressive result.

Full details of the poll can be found in this PDF document.

Meanwhile, a recent SES poll shows the Green Party of Ontario has now reached 5% in Canada's most populous province.

(Hat tip: The Dan Report)

Reaction to Green leadership debate on CPAC tonight

Former Green Party of Canada leader Jim Harris and former leadership candidate Tom Manley will provide their assessments of yesterday's Green Party leadership debate in Montreal, tonight on CPAC's Revue Politique.

The program will air at 7pm ET / 4pm PT, and will repeat at 10pm ET / 7pm PT.

Apologies for the lack of posts recently (and especially for the lack of substantial posts). May I blame the World Cup?

Green Party's French leadership debate on CPAC tonight

CPAC will broadcast the Green Party's "official" French-language leadership debate live tonight at 7:30pm EDT / 4:30pm PDT, and will last for two hours. It will be re-broadcast later tonight at 11:00pm EDT / 8:00pm PDT.

Candidates are David Chernushenko, Elizabeth May and Jim Fannon.

Nick Wright interview on Halifax's 95.7 FM on Monday morning

Green Party of Nova Scotia leader Nick Wright will be interviewed on Halifax's News 95.7FM on Monday morning. He'll speak between 11am-12noon on the Maritime Morning program tomorrow, one day before Nova Scotians head to the polls on Tuesday.

The Nova Scotian Greens have also launched their first advertisement campaign, which included newspaper adverts and radio spots across Halifax media. A downloadable version of the ad can be found here.

Meanwhile, back to the federal Green leadership campaign, Elizabeth May's blog has downloadable mp3s of her speaking about Canada's vision and failure on climate policy, and the Tar Sands in Nova Scotia.

There will be an "unofficial" federal Green leadership debate in Ottawa on Monday night, and then two "official" debates: Wednesday the 14th in Montreal (in French) and Wednesday the 21st in Calgary (in English).

Making the Green Party a respected political player in Canada: a prescription (I)

The Green Party today enjoys greater support and media coverage than ever before here in Canada, both federally and provincially. And yet, its popularity is not quite enough for the media nor most of society to perceive the Greens as a party of the same stature as the Liberals, Conservatives or the NDP.

This is arguably the greatest challenge for the Greens at present - to become perceived as a significant player in Canadian politics, enough to be consistently awarded the same unofficial rights and substantial privileges as the "big three" (such as participation at leader debates during elections, be they federal or provincial).

So just what is the prescription for making the Green Party a respected player in Canadian politics?

First of all, the connotation of the Green Party as a fringe, environmentalist collective has to be clearly disputed. Such an image of the Greens as a one-issue party that garners less than one percent of the vote during elections must be disproved.

Some of those who have been Green Party members for years, if not decades, might take offence to the previous sentence, and even dispute it - but regardless of its accuracy, such a negative and patronizing connotation of the Greens is still held by many Canadians, and must be addressed.

The good news is that this first objective has already seen considerable success - the Green Party of Canada has a thorough and innovative policy platform that touches on all areas that should concern "mainstream" federal political parties. Foreign policy, education, aboriginal welfare, federal relations - it's all there in the platform. "Triple bottom-line accounting" has been loudly trumpeted by the Greens - fiscal prudence, social justice and environmental conservatism. No other party addresses economics, society and the environment with the same balance as the Green Party - not even the Liberals.

While the main policy area that separates us from the "big three" parties is indeed environmental conservatism, the Green Party is by no means a one issue party - and those who claim otherwise (such as Liberal leadership candidate Stephane Dion) are either being intentionally inaccurate due to concern over our rapid growth, or they can't be bothered to research their political opponents sufficiently.

Right, that's the "fringe" connotation addressed with substantive policy. So what else is impeding the acceptance of the Green Party?

I would argue that the main problem now is communicating the Greens' innovative and thorough policy agenda - the actual act of convincing media and society that the Green Party is not a fringe entity. It's one thing to have clever ideas on various topics - it's another to inspire and enthuse society with them. An ingenious policy platform will remain but mere paper unless it is transformed into action and realized in practice.

As a relatively new force in Canadian politics, the Green Party naturally attracts less media attention and focus than the Liberals, Tories or NDP. But rather than positively and progressively tackling this barrier to acceptance by exciting the media and society with innovative ideas that naturally bring increased coverage and excitement, the Green Party is crying foul over relative media apathy, and especially against exclusion from leader debates during elections. This new and exciting political party, which could be inspiring Canadians with policy ideas that remain outside the "old line" thinking of the established parties, is instead resorting to relatively negative tactics - demanding equal attention from the media, and assuming that such coverage would lead to an overnight panacea of new-found support.

While additional media coverage wouldn't hurt the Green cause here in Canada, we should perhaps ask - are the Greens currently doing enough to deserve such increased attention by the media? They're a registered party, both federally and in the majority of Canada's provinces, and their support is witnessing rapid growth - but is this enough to lead the media to perceive the Green Party as a major player, rather than just a fringe element? Are the Green Party's operations today more resembling of a major player like the Liberal Party of Canada, or of a fringe element like the Canadian Action Party?

To begin to tackle this question, I present two similar media voices:

Evasive Rodney and the Green Showboats
Halifax Live.com
Written by Alex J.Walling
Saturday, 03 June 2006

I want to learn more about the Greens but all I see and hear about them is around election time.

In fact their platform comes out in a few days. The election will be over in around a week and these Green birds haven’t got their platform yet!

...and...

Green Party needs to raise its profile
Penticton Western News
May 17 2006

In the media, we can tell you that groups with political interests have learned that to keep their issues and thoughts at the forefront, they need to promote themselves. Of course, the ruling party has massive government resources at its disposal to get their word out. But even when the NDP were left with a mere two seats in the provincial legislature, we could count on regular e-mails letting us know what they thought about what was happening.

Even quasi-political groups — the B.C. Federation of Labour, the BCTF and others — send a deluge of press releases to our fax machine daily.

Many times these releases end up in the circular file. But we certainly know where these groups stand and when and where to reach them.

We can tell you the same cannot be said of the Green Party. Between election cycles, federal or provincial, the party seems not to exist. A few days into an election, a often unknown candidate (who may not even be that informed about Green Party policy) appears on the scene to wave the Green flag for a few weeks. Once the election is over, the party appears to go dark.

This paper stands proudly behind its record of going out of its way to include Green party members in its election coverage. But between elections, when we hear nothing from them we must only assume its because they have nothing to say.

Yes, it is a relatively small party with likely fewer resources in terms of money and people at its disposal. Yes, it can be argued that our current electoral system and media bias works against them getting a seat.

But to be taken seriously not just by the media, but by voters, the Greens must be seen to have a presence that extends beyond the election. Otherwise the Greens stand little chance of growing their support.

So is the Green Party only operational during election campaigns, at least in the eyes of the media and the electorate? And do the Greens even realize that they're portraying this "active during elections, but dormant between" image?

I was recently in contact with the Green Party of Canada (GPC), and one response that I received from a volunteer may have been indicative:

"...[Since the January 2006 federal election] there hasn’t been a dull moment, from tax receipts, to EDA organizing and creation, to the upcoming policy convention, the 10 staff members here at the party are constantly working."

While I won't assume that two newspaper articles and one GPC volunteer quote paint a complete picture of media versus GPC viewpoints, they are a telling snapshot of current opinion held by the two differing camps, and their vastly opposed perceptions of the Green Party's day-to-day operations (or lack thereof).

I've rambled long enough for today. I've addressed the need for the Greens to communicate their innovative vision and policies, and their apparent failure to position themselves as a serious (and constant) political force in the eyes of the media.

In the second part of this article (due later this week), I shall attempt to argue, in more detail, how the Green Party could do a much better job of convincing Canadian media and society that it is a serious political entity worth taking note of on a regular basis.

Green Party leadership news digest

David Chernushenko officially launched his national leadership campaign on Tuesday, which included a speech at the National Press Club in Ottawa. You can watch some brief video highlights here, as recorded by Pie Palace. Chernushenko's campaign website has also had a significant facelift and has much more content than before - and thankfully now allows supporters to easily sign up to volunteer for the campaign.

David will be spending Friday in Nova Scotia, meeting with GSNS leader Nick Wright and two other candidates, as well as holding a general meet-and-greet event.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth May appeared on CBC Radio One's BC Almanac on Tuesday, in a 30-minute interview that included phone calls from the public. The clip can be heard here, via Real Player.

Additionally, Jim Fannon's leadership bid has been confirmed by the GPC. After Sudden Sage posted speculation on Monday that Jim's bid has been approved, the GPC's website launched a leadership page featuring all three candidates, confirming Jim's entry. Jim's website has been adapted for his leadership bid, and contains four mp3s of him speaking, for those of you who would like to hear his oratory abilities and policy stances (see the four small images near the bottom of the main page). Still no word from Jim as to whether he'll be attending the two official leadership debates (in Montreal and Calgary), nor whether he is bilingual (as the other two candidates are).

Good news on the media front, as CPAC will be televising both of the two Green leadership debates - the French debate in Montreal on Wed 14 June, as well as the English debate on Wed 21 June. If you would like to submit a question for the debates, please visit this page of the GPC website.


(hat-tip: Pie Palace, Sudden Sage, York West Greens)

Globe and Mail's "Toxic Shock" article series

Today saw the fifth in a five-part series in the Globe and Mail about the increasing toxicity that Canadians are facing in their daily lives.

All five articles, in their entirety, can currently be read on the Globe and Mail website:

* Toxic shock, Part 1: Canada’s chemical reaction
* Toxic shock, Part 2: Coming to terms with perils of non-stick products
* Toxic shock, Part 3: Ottawa plans to snuff out flame retardants
* Toxic Shock, Part 4: Are plastic products coated in peril?
* Toxic Shock, Part 5: Want a full-time job? Live chemical-free

(hat-tip: Parkdale-High Park Greens)

Test shows pollutants in Canadian kids' blood, urine

I don't usually dump stories onto my blog without comment, but I'm not sure the following story requires any additional analysis:


Test shows pollutants in kids' blood, urine
CBC News
Thursday 01 Jun 2006 13:14:29 EDT

http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2006/06/01/toxic-bodies.html

Toxic chemicals such as stain repellents, flame retardants, lead and PCBs are showing up in the bodies of Canadians as young as 10, a new study suggests.

The group Environmental Defence tested the blood and urine of six adults and seven children. The families lived in Vancouver, Toronto, Sarnia, Montreal and Quispamsis, N.B.

Many of the chemicals found are neurotoxins, hormone disrupters or are associated with cancer.

In some cases, the children had higher levels of contaminants than their parents, the group said in its report, "Polluted Children, Toxic Nation: A Report on Pollution in Canadian Families," released Thursday.

"Our children are being poisoned every day by toxic chemicals that surround them at home, school and play," said Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence in a release.

Adults showed higher levels of older chemicals such as DDT and PCBs that are no longer in use.

But children tended to test higher for newer chemicals such as brominated flame retardants (PBDEs) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), used in stain repellents and non-stick coatings.

The finding of fewer banned chemicals in children suggest bans can work, though the effects of the chemical can linger for years, the report said.

Vivian Maraghi, a study volunteer from Montreal, said she was astounded to find she had 36 industrial chemicals in her body.

"But when I saw the toxic chemicals in my son's body, I was angry. Our children deserve better protection."

The group is calling on the federal government to:

* Establish timelines to eliminate toxic chemicals, starting with PBDEs and PFCs.
* Make industry accountable for its chemicals.
* Regulate chemicals in consumer products.
* Reduce pollution in the Great Lakes Basin.

A spokesperson for Health Canada said the department would launch a national study next year to check the levels of toxic chemicals in our bodies.

UPDATE:

CPAC's PrimeTime Politics will tonight feature environmentalist Rick Smith, who will discuss the results of the study conducted by his group Environmental Defence. The program airs at 8pm ET / 5pm PT, and 11pm ET / 8pm PT.

Additionally, a .PDF copy of the report ("Polluted Children, Toxic Nation: A Report on Pollution in Canadian Families") can be found here.