When the next election is called, this issue will be used to portray the Tories as the protectors of the environment, and the Liberals as detractors of all that is right in Gaia-land. For if the Tories came out with new environmental legislation, and the Grits blocked it, then surely the casual voter can be conveniently fooled into thinking that it is the Conservatives who care most about the environment.

How deliciously ironic. But just how stupid do the Tories think the average voter actually is?

But enough about my cynical musings. Let’s look at this piece of legislation in greater detail.

First, isn’t “Clean Air Act” a bit of a presumptuous name for a mere bill, considering there’s no hope in hell that it will actually be passed by parliament? If the opposition were able to win Kyoto Protocol and Kelowna According votes in the House of Commons recently, why would any sensible Tory expect their “Clean Air Act” to even make it past the first hurdle?

Second, this bill brushes off numerous short-term environmental commitments, and condemns any such actions into the distant future:

• Over 3 more years before regulations in place
• Over 13 more years until targets for cutting pollutants are set
• Over 43 more years to get to ~50% reduction in emissions, from 2003 levels.

Or, put another way:

• no regulations until 2010
• no targets for cutting pollutants until 2020
• the softest target yet for cutting greenhouse gases – which won’t be achieved until 2050

One may come to the conclusion that targets are soft, when those who set them will be dead by the time such targets are achieved. By the time 2050 rolls around, Harper and Ambrose will have contributed more to the environment by returning their personal nutrients to the soil. I feel a rather dark “carbon tax” joke coming on.

Don’t get me wrong. Long-term planning is rare within Western democracy – our political system generally only produces small, short-term gains, as incumbent politicians selfishly plot to get themselves re-elected, often putting their individual interests above the long-term needs of society. And thus whenever a politician creates legislation that may bring more praise to his or her successors (potentially of an opposing political stripe), and possibly harms their own chances of being re-elected, I generally lavish such rare occurrences with considerable praise.

But as the British love to say, Harper’s government is taking the piss. This is not strategic long-term planning, putting the interests of future generations at heart; instead, this is a government selfishly and irresponsibly brushing off its commitments, dumping them onto future generations to worry about. Democracy at its absolute finest. This is the equivalent of a family on a tight budget going out and buying a new car when the foundations of their home are rotting, and the building is verging on collapsing. But the real scenario involves 6 billion people, not a nuclear family of 4.2 individuals.

Meanwhile, Conservative Environment minister (now there’s an oxymoron) Rona Ambrose makes speeches saying that the technology isn’t yet evolved enough to make the switch to alternative energy – and therefore we should ignore it completely, and not give any money to its development. Let’s pass the financial onus on to the rest of the world to come up with the technology. (Oh, and let’s also let them reap the financial rewards when they hold all the patents to Green technology. So much for Harper’s recent speeches referring to Canada as an emerging energy superpower.)

The much-derided bill even hopes to re-classify many “toxic” substances as mere “air pollutants”. Many people are predicting this will lead to long and costly constitutional challenges.

And there’s also the small detail of using intensity-based targets, rather than absolute targets. While each “widget” produced by factories will have to emit less pollutions, there’s nothing stopping such factories from pumping out 10 times as many widgets, thus pumping out far more overall pollution, despite the small reduction for each individual widget produced. In other words, there are no absolute targets, which is what the Kyoto Protocol is based upon.

Speaking of Kyoto… this bill doesn’t. Not even once.

Ideological governance at its finest. We don’t like it, despite that Canada has signed on as a signatory to what is now international law… so we’ll simply ignore it. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. I would expect more upfront and responsible behaviour from a child.

Clearly, this bill is a massive waste of time and money. It is regressive, its targets and commitments are laughable, and it does nothing to stop the continued growth of net pollution and greenhouse gases. And then there’s the little footnote that there isn’t a chance in hell this bill will pass a vote in the House.

So after all the rhetoric we heard from the Conservatives about the need for government accountability and spending Canadian tax dollars wisely, just how should we perceive this “Clean Air Act”? As a waste of millions of dollars? As a waste of months of bureaucrats’ time in the environment ministry? As a government playing politics with an issue that Canadians consider to be the second most important, only behind health care in terms of importance?

Ambrose and four staffers flew out to Vancouver for a conference, to a bill of $14,345. And the devil is in the detail – Ambrose stayed for one day, while her staffers stayed out in Lotusland for three days, according to expense records on Environment Canada’s website.

Even if the four staffers came and went with Ambrose, and only stayed in Vancouver for the single day – why the heck would anyone require four staffers simply to attend a conference? Perhaps this is some sort of perverse Harper method ofnoblesse oblige.

So – here’s Rona Ambrose’s record as Environment Minister thus far:

1.) Ignoring Canada’s Kyoto Protocol commitments
2.) Ignoring urgent action needed to preserve at least one species on the brink of extinction
3.) Using public funds for what appear to be rather dubious purposes.

And fairly soon we’ll be treated to number four – the Conservative “made-in-Canada” environmental plan, which sounds promising in terms of matters such as smog, but will do little to address climate change.

No wonder so many former Progressive Conservatives now call the Green Party their new home.

If we as a society not only permit the eating of animals (chicken, cows, pigs, sheep, goat, lamb, fish, etc), but also permit the large-scale breeding of such animals for the sole purpose to become food for us, then why should seals be any different?

I agree that slaughterhouses are often quite rightly named – many put animals through barbaric cruelty and needless suffering, in the name of efficiency and mass production. Animals are often subjected to horrible conditions, as if they were plants rather than animals that feel pain.

But if we can conveniently ignore such details for a moment, my point is that we as a society permit the large-scale breeding and consumption of animals as an acceptable practice. And if a chicken can be conceived for the sole purpose of ultimately becoming breaded chicken fingers in the frozen foods section of a supermarket, then why differentiate between chicken and seals?

Consider these points:

• Argument – Seals are particularly cute (especially the pups), therefore should not be killed.
• Reality – The babies of all animals are cute – chicken, pigs, and even cows.
• Argument – Seals are defenceless, they have never hurt humans, and thus killing them is barbaric.
• Reality – When was the last time a chicken went on a rampage and killed dozens of humans? They’re equally defenceless. They’re just as (if not even more) frail.
• Argument – The method used to kill seals during the seal hunt (i.e. clubbing a seal to death) is a lengthy process which causes severe pain and trauma – to a fellow mammal, no less!
• Reality – Have you ever seen the conditions and practices that take place in the average slaughterhouse? Such an experience would likely put you off conventional meat for a long, long time. And cows, pigs, goat and lamb are all fellow mammals – yet we happily put them through such conditions in order to consume them.

I hope you can see where my argument is going. I’m not necessarily in favour of the seal hunt – instead, what makes me mad is the hypocrisy of those who decry the seal hunt, but then head to their local fast food outlet to tuck into the flesh of an animal that arguably went through much less humane conditions than any hunted seal.

Having said that, I will admit that I am not a vegetarian – nor is the majority of society.

I can fully appreciate if a protest group (such as Greenpeace) or an advocacy group (such as the Sierra Club) cries out while our televisions relay images of seals being bludgeoned to death, their warm blood steaming in contact with the ice.

But the Green Party of Canada is not a protest group, nor an advocacy group. We’re a political party. And as such, we should be differentiating ourselves from the others. Not because we’re better than them, but because we’re different. If protest groups, advocacy groups and political parties all share the same opposition to something, they should each oppose it by their own unique methods. Such would be much more effective than if protest groups and political parties were to behave in identical ways.

We as Greens should not be protesting the seal hunt. Instead, we should be making coherent and over-arching policies that relate to the cruelty and suffering that humans inflict upon animals – not just seals, but all animals that we consume.

So my point is – why all the outrage against the seal hunt? Surely those who condemn cruelty to seals but permit the same practices against other animals (even fellow mammals) are hypocrites.

The Green Party of Canada should either adopt policies relating to the humane practice and treatment of all animals, or we should keep our noses out of this area altogether. But to single out a single species for special consideration smacks not only of hypocrisy, but of merely adopting policies to suit the demands of trendy and celebrity-endorsed causes.

No coherent government would operate in such a manner – so why should the Green Party of Canada? We’re a political party, and as such, we need to be presenting a different and thorough vision of how we would operate the country if we were to assume government. Basing our policies around single causes isn’t going to win us Greens many recruits come the next election.

If we’re going to support the chicken hunt, then surely we should also support the seal hunt.

(N.B. Please note that this post does not mean to deride such protest groups nor advocacy groups. Instead, I feel that they and political parties each have their own unique niche roles to play, and should work in unison to form a more coherent and resounding umbrella network of opinion, which both society and the media would give more attention to, and thus would cause greater practical change.)

Without trying to sound too politically correct, all three candidates have many valuable skills. Elizabeth May has a wealth of personal connections across all sorts of social circles, has proved herself as an activist who gets results, can speak French, and has an ability to win over people from all walks of life. Jim Fannon speaks with a commanding presence, and is an excellent orator and motivator with a tremendous amount of passion.

But David Chernushenko seems like the best candidate – for a variety of reasons.

1.) I believe David is the best candidate to heal current divisions within the party – divisions that are once again rearing their ugly head, and threatening to become a long-term problem for the Green Party of Canada. From listening to and reading David, it is obvious that he understands the rifts that exist within the party, and that he appreciates that no single side is “right” or “wrong” – that everyone has key priorities that they want to see promoted and realized, and that we should all work together in order to achieve common goals.

I must stress that neither side of the division is without fault – both sides in this split have good intentions, yet are resorting to tactics in order to realize their vision that are seriously damaging the party and its internal unity, and its public image and reputation – and possibly even the party’s future electoral success.

There is a rift, it is significant, and it has the potential to halt the Green Party’s increasing support amongst Canadians. It needs to end – and now. Not by force – but by a collective decision that compromise and unison are far superior to division and pettiness. There must be a willingness to accept that not all members will find agreement on all issues – but that it is better to build consensus and move forward together, and that is it best to “agree to disagree” and accept the majority’s decision, rather than to plot the other side’s downfall when one does not win their own way.

Having been in the Green Party for many years, and yet also being very progressive and wanting to see the Greens evolve and raise more support while staying true to its crucial founding purposes, David Chernushenko has significant knowledge of the internal split. He wishes to see the Green Party progress to become a majority player in Canadian politics, and to have a thorough policy agenda covering all issues that appeals to most Canadians – without watering it down so much as to alienate party originators and environmentalists.

Ultimately, David Chernushenko seems to want progress, yet is crucially supportive of compromise, rather than division as the means to furthering the GPC’s success, so that the vast majority Greens will be satisfied with the party’s evolution over the next few years. He speaks in a conciliatory tone, and is inclusive of the diverse variety of opinions within the party.

I want a leader who will heal the current internal divide – someone who has the ability to inspire us all to put a firm end to any and all pettiness, and to encourage us all to work together – whether “dark” or “light” green, whether a long-term member or a new convert, whether young or old in age, etc. I want a leader who will make us all realize that cliques, slates, and internal divides are obstacles to the party’s success, and that we all need to work together, and be willing to tolerate diversity and differences of opinion.

While Elizabeth May is very inspirational, and would give lots of media attention to the Greens if she became leader, I am not convinced as to her ability to end internal division. She has a background as an incredibly successful activist, which many “old school” GPC members, “dark” greens and one-issue environmentalists will love. However, I fear that she will inevitably favour the party originators and “activists” over those who wish to see the party evolve into an effective political machine, much like how many people allege that current leader Jim Harris has preferred fresh blood with new ideas over those who have helped build up the party since its founding. A true leader must inspire the trust and dedication of everyone in the party – not just one particular element of the membership.

I believe that Elizabeth May would likely be a more uniting leader than Jim Harris has been. However, David Chernushenko is the only person who has clearly articulated the need for increasing co-operation, tolerance and respect within the GPC. For example, in David’s recently released Plan for Green Growth, he says that as leader, he would:

• [create] a culture based on mutual trust and respect, where internal disputes can be reasonably discussed without tension or animosity.
• [establish] clear guidelines with a ‘Code of Conduct’ to which all members are expected to subscribe.

There is a large diversity of interests and goals within the GPC – but none are likely to reach fruition if we’re all too busy stabbing each other in the back, instead of moving forward towards common goals. I feel that David Chernushenko is the best-equipped leadership candidate to end the internal division and re-energize the party towards achieving common goals that we all hold.

2.) David has noted the importance of making the Green Party more transparent and accountable. Part of re-uniting the party membership will be about developing a culture of tolerance and mutual respect of internal diversity, as mentioned above. But, perhaps an equally important role for the new leader will be to ensure that party rules are both improved, and perhaps more importantly, enforced.

Without trying to take sides in the current internal divide, there have been many accusations of party procedures not being followed, or that internal rules are simply not being up to scratch to ensure the smooth operation of the GPC. This must change.

We need to prevent and discourage internal political struggles, conflicts of interest, and secrecy. We need to ensure that ALL party decisions are recorded and made available for the entire party membership to read and scrutinize, with very few exceptions. While we constantly portray ourselves as being the most democratic and “grassroots” political entity in Canada, fewer and fewer party decisions are made public to the membership. This is a worrying trend, and should be not only halted, butreversed. Why should even council or shadow cabinet decisions be private? Some strategic decisions may need to be kept hush-hush, to prevent other parties from foiling our ideas for elections – but if decisions are related to policy, all membership deserve to be informed.

3.) David has clear, realistic and achievable plans for increasing Green support and ultimately electing Green MPs to parliament. His ideas are well thought out, contain small steps that logically compliment each other, and use methodical planning and carefully-nurtured growth to achieve realistic targets. David’s path for the GPC to popularity and representation in parliament is not based upon one or two “landmark” situations that the Greens have no direct control over, such as inclusion in leader debates. Instead, he admits that there is no “silver bullet”, but instead that a clear plan towards building the party up step by step is what willeventually bring electoral results.

For example, David is not foolishly pinning his entire reputation to the next election’s results – and why should he, seeing as he doesn’t control when the election will take place, what the main issues are likely to be, whether the media will be more accepting of the party, etc. Instead, he admits that it will likely take two more general elections before Greens elect an MP to parliament, and that it’s about a gradual build up, not just about flash election results.

He also stressed that it is absolutely crucial that the Greens get to work in building up their reputations between elections, not just during election campaigns. This makes sense for a variety of reasons:

• The media have gone on record as saying that Green parties across Canada seem to disappear between election campaigns, are do not regularly express opinions on key policy issues while parliament is in session.
• Election campaigns generally last one month, while governments usually last four years. If we go out and sell ourselves to Canadians who don’t know us well solely during election campaigns, we minimize our impact and ability to convey out message to Canadians – whereas if we’re always out selling ourselves as a legitimate political force, we’ll have roughly 4700% more impact. A staggering difference, surely.

4.) David has expressed the need for the “creation a culture of knowledge and education” within the GPC. By this, he means:

• developing infrastructure and processes that nurture ‘progression’ within the Green Party so that members can benefit from the knowledge, experience and skills of others at all levels of the organization.
• inviting Canadians to contribute, share, educate and help the Green Party build a coalition driven by the need to protect the planet and make Canada a world leader in climate change abatement, health promotion and ecological economics.
• positioning the GPC as the Party of innovative thinkers, problem solvers and positive contributors.
• introducing a more timely process for policy development between General Meetings.
• continually refining our policies, strengthening our messages, and communicating in a clear, comprehensive and professional manner.

I fully agree. We need to use the varied skills and talents of our members/volunteers/supporters more effectively. Instead of just assigning people odd jobs, we need to find our what their particular abilities are, and to maximize those. We need to invite all Canadians to contribute to our policies, not just GPC volunteers. The Living Platform is a good first step, but we could do so much more.

We also need to share internal learning better – do we have logs of “do’s and don’ts” that EDAs have learned in the past, that we pass on to new EDAs? Or do we simply let them fend for themselves, and repeat the past mistakes of others? A knowledge bank would be a wonderful asset as the party plants firm roots across the country.

5.) Perhaps most impressive of all, David has challenged all Green Party members to go beyond their “comfort zones” in terms of promoting the GPC. When attempting to sell the party to new Canadians, what’s the point of focusing on environmentalists and others who likely already support us? That’s not to say that we don’t need regular dialogue with those who agree with us – but why don’t we approach people from backgrounds and organizations that we have never attempted to “convert” in the past?

This makes sense – isn’t it futile to watch election returns, with fingers crossed and hopes high, if we haven’t spoken with many people who may not seem to be “natural” Green supporters? We need to get out and sell our message to Canadians of all walks of life, from all parts of the country, of all genders/ages/ethnicities/religions/languages/etc. The more, the merrier.

These are the reasons why I think David Chernushenko would make the best leader for the Green Party of Canada.

If we as Greens are going to make a thorough breakthrough and become a major player in Canadian politics in the near future, we need to not just encourage more people to volunteer – but also to seek volunteers with creative energy and passion, able to contribute to the Greens in innovative ways that would help the Greens to genuinely stand out from the opposition – and ensure that such talent is channeled to maximum benefit (rather than just chucking such individuals into answering phones).

Instead of just waiting for the Green Party to contact us for help, let’s be pro-active in offering up our services as interested volunteers. The head office is already over-stretched with the current program of training courses being conducted across the country – so let’s make their jobs easier, by taking the initiative to contact them and let them know what our particular skills and passions are, and how we could each help take the party forward.

For example, I like to think that I have an eye for eye-catching and original design. Not that I create such design myself, mind you – but I’m pretty darn good at spotting new talent. Hence, I attended various graduatation design exhibitions here in London, England, and contacted several of the new grads regarding doing some volunteer work designing adverts for the Green Parties of Canada and British Columbia (my home province).

I’ve had a tremendous response thus far, and am pleased that my efforts will result in innovative adverts that will help sway more Canadians over to the Greens.

So – don’t wait for the Greens to call you. Don’t just volunteer to do the usual stuff (i.e. knocking on doors, sign/pamphlet distribution, etc – although these are crucial bread-n-butter activities too). And, for heavens sake, don’t wait for an election. Do something creative and original to help the Greens, and do it NOW!

What particular skills do you have that could help the Green Party? What personal circumstances (i.e. myself being in London at the moment) could allow you to do something for the Greens that others couldn’t? What is your unique niche that could help the Greens position themselves as a fresh political force to more Canadians?

Consider this your challenge!

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?

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?