We’re Number One! Ok, now what?
The environment tops the polls, and Canada’s environmental movement has a choice to make.


By now, just about everybody in Canada’s environmental movement will have come to the same conclusion that I have: the next federal election in Canada will be fought, in part, over the environment.

Those who have been engaged in Canada’s environmental movement, and for those citizens who have made the environment a priority, can take some of the credit for pushing the environment to the fore, positioning the issue as one that will finally be a factor in an election. Give yourself a quick pat on the back. We’ve been trying to do this for a long time. For every federal election in the last ten years (or longer!) we’ve tried to foist the environment onto the ballot. Instead, we’ve had to settle for hitching our issue to the dominant question of the day – national unity, health care, the economy, taxes.

Ok, you can stop patting yourself. Now that our wish has come true, a serious question remains: will Canada’s environmental community choose to capitalize on this green wave in a meaningful way?

An election is the single most important time for people who care about the environment to show up, to make a difference. The people who will be making decisions for the next, well, at least the next year or two, will be chosen by the public. Canadian environmental leaders have an unprecedented opportunity to help guide Canadians to make choices that will serve the cause of toxins, climate change, pollution and species protection.

We need to throw out much of what we’ve done in the past. That means no medals for environmental platforms. It means that if we grade the various parties platforms, lets make the rankings meaningful for voters. It means not, as a colleague told me during the 2000 federal election, viewing the writ period as a good time to get caught up on emails, or maybe head to Mexico for a little R&R.

So what might we do?

This is but one strategy to move forward:

1) First we have to decide how far we’re willing to go. How much success are we willing to have? How much can we handle? Part of this question is about how much risk we’re willing to take, and my guess is that we’re not ready to take a really big risk (i.e. fully endorsing one party or another). As a community, and as individuals, we’ve got to decide the extent to which we’ll be involved. There is no hiding that an electoral strategy is a risk.

2) Next we must come to agreement on our priorities. Leaders from ENGO’s have been meeting to decide on these priorities. The list should be short (three or four at most, otherwise it’s a shopping list, not a priority list), easy for both the public and decision makers to understand, with a clear set of “asks” attached to each priority (no clear ask, no way to evaluate a candidate, or hold her accountable).

3) Pending the outcome of my first point, organizations who are able could begin to work together on a national adaptation of Conservation Voters of BC has done:

a) Create a national framework to house such an initiative. Conservation Voters of Canada anyone?

b) Develop a set of criteria for determining which candidates could be supported based on their record and platform on the environment, and on whether they stand a chance of winning the riding they are contesting. Evidence from BC, and from the US shows that the only way to sway voters with an environmental message is to talk with them face to face, and have a clear endorsement when you do.

c) In my opinion, we might endorse candidates in 5-10 ridings across Canada as a starting point, choosing candidates from each major political party – yes, that includes the Bloc and the Conservatives. We should support at least one Green Party Candidate in a riding where they stand the best chance to win. There is no sense endorsing a Green Party candidate in Fort McMurray or a Conservative Candidate in Toronto Centre – they won’t win. (If David Suzuki ran for the Greens in Fort Mac, I wouldn’t endorse him.) This isn’t about just doing something to appear as though we’re players. Its about being players – its about helping elect people, and that means making tough, and sometimes unpopular, decisions. Because with a few rare exceptions, elected decision makers only pay attention to you if you are a hindrance or a help to there electablility.

d) Put bodies on the ground in those ridings. Work independently of the candidates campaign to identify voters who are sympathetic to our issues, and convince them to voice for our endorsed candidate. Follow up with these people in advance of the election to ensure they vote.

e) In the days before the election, and on E-Day, volunteer for the candidate. Pull vote. Walk little old ladies to the poll. Convince a collage student to make his/her mark. Work our asses off. Deliver the election.

4) hold those who we have endorsed, and who win their seats, accountable for the next year or two or five to the commitments they have made to win our endorsement.

But we’re a charity…

Now, many will say, we are charitable organizations, and can’t do political work. That’s OK. We need some folks who can do the analysis of platforms and talk about the issues at the national and provincial level. The national media are taking our issues seriously – we’ll need folks to continue to frame the issues. We’ll need to have clarity between people working on an electoral strategy and those who choose not to around roles, and respecting each other’s boundaries. We can’t be sniping at each other if this is going to work.

Those whose organizations are constrained by charity law can always take some time off and volunteer for campaigns directly. Make sure that when you walk in the door of the campaign office that you state clearly that the reason you are there is because of the candidates environmental platform, or because of the endorsement given by a group like Conservation Voters.

Two scenarios post 2007 election

Scenerio One: We choose to sit the election out. If we choose this path because we’re afraid of making a mistake, because we’re uncertain of our own power, or if we’re simply over-worked and burnt out, then we’ll miss the opportunity at real influence. If we sit out the environment will still be the number one (or maybe two, depending on what happens in Afghanistan over the next few months) issue if the election is called this spring. Each party will claim the superior platform and track record on the environment. The Canadian public will do their best to interpret the rhetoric. After the election is over, whoever wins will no doubt attempt to make good on promises, and as we have for decades, the environmental community show up on the Hill and try to influence the direction of the government.

Scenerio Two: We show up in a meaningful, coordinated way. We make the tough choices, support candidates, work out butts off to elect them, and when Parliament reconvenes, hold those candidates and their parties accountable. We’ll have a quality of access here-to-for reserved for only a few very influential individuals, and for those in industry, with wealth or status who have opposed progress on environmental protection.

Is Canada’s environmental community ready to actually exercise direct influence? If we’re not, we’re going to miss the best opportunity in a generation to direct how decisions get made on the environment. Lets not let this chance pass us by.


Stephen Legault has been active in Canada’s environmental community since 1988. He has volunteered on five municipal, provincial and federal election campaigns. He is a writer, activist and strategy and communications consultant living in Victoria, BC. Visit www.highwatermark.ca.