Every election threatened to destroy them. “We had to find 50 people willing to pay a thousand bucks they’d never get back,” says Chris Lea, leader of the Green Party of Canada (GPC) from 1990-96. “Every election there was a worry whether we’d survive it.” Money was scarce. Meetings were limited because of sky-high travel costs; even paying long-distance telephone bills wasn’t guaranteed.

The early years were rough. The novelty of establishing the party in 1984 wore off, and many grew disillusioned with the slog of building a brand between elections. Former insiders walked away while others questioned whether working within the existing political framework was the best way to effect change, rather than cajoling from the outside.

Lea, now partner of Allen & Lea Architecture Design in Toronto, came to politics through activism at the gay magazine the Body Politic. In the early 1980s, Lea helped organize the box office at dance party fundraisers, splitting thousands in proceeds between dozens of LGBT groups throughout the city. One night Lea came across material left behind at a party venue by the Ontario Green Party who had thrown a fundraiser the week before. “I had heard of the Green Party in Europe,” Lea says, “but I didn’t know there was one in Canada.”

He wanted something bigger in his life. Intrigued by the party and spurred by an interest in the environment stemming back to his teenage years in a Toronto suburb, Lea attended a party meeting soon after. After befriending future Ontario Green leader Frank de Jong, Lea was on a path to party leadership. By the time he took over, the Greens were in disarray. No one talked to each other, Lea says. He soon started an internal newspaper just so members could know what the party was doing.

They weren’t winning seats, but the Greens were gaining ground. Beyond the ballot box, Lea says, two early victories came against unexpected goliaths. The Greens joined a lobby against McDonald’s to phase out styrofoam packaging in 1990. And in Ontario, they took a stand against nuclear power’s exorbitant costs, helping ensure no new plants were built after the Darlington nuclear generating station came online between 1990–93.

The Greens cracked 100,000 votes in the fifth election. Eight years after Lea stepped down, Jim Harris assumed command with a promise to run candidates in every riding. Their percentage of the popular vote quadrupled to 4.32 percent, an upward trend that continued in 2008 when Elizabeth May secured 6.8 percent of all votes cast, an all-time high. But the good times didn’t last. The Green vote dipped in 2015 to its lowest mark since 2000. People are afraid of voting Green because they worry their vote won’t matter, says University of Western Ontario political scientist Laura Stephenson. The Greens, she says, remain a minor party.

Perception is tricky. Alex Marland, a political scientist at Memorial University who studies political branding, says voters see the Greens exclusively as an environmental party. Their name makes it difficult not to make that connection. Everybody associates green with environmentalism. This isn’t a bad thing. “Their brand is really easy to communicate,” Marland says, an attribute that may have helped catapult them from the lower tier of also-rans into the political upper crust.

This disconnect between how insiders see themselves and how voters see the Greens causes headaches. “We’re not an environmental party,” Harris says.“This is a bias that you have.” Harris rejected my question when I asked how the GPC could showcase their full platform. “The Greens have a holistic policy,” he countered, one looking beyond environmental matters. And yet, if our air and food and water are contaminated, he says, “it doesn’t matter how our economy is performing.” It’s part of a different mindset, a sentiment echoed by Lea. “We’re trying to figure out a new way forward,” he says, where sustainability and social justice determine everything government does.

So, who are the Greens? Are they the greatest single-issue party in Canadian electoral history, or the weakest elected party to ever compete for government? In a political landscape where carbon taxes and mass transit investments are routinely stumped for on the hustings, are the Greens still relevant? Not for the reasons you think.

***

Not all political parties in Canada exist on the same plane. Some compete and win government; fringe groups rabble-rouse but typically change little; and then there are single-issue parties, those striving to get one topic or range of related-topics onto the mainstream agenda. The Greens straddle this divide, Marland says. They’re more than a fringe party (having elected an MP), not focused on a single issue (regardless of what their name implies), yet are nowhere close to winning government.

There are two areas where Green advocacy stands out. The first is evident in how May and B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver approach their parliamentary duties. “They’ve been the conscience of the legislature,” says University of British Columbia political scientist Kathryn Harrison. Acting almost as non-partisans, both have prioritized policy above politics and done their homework to strengthen legislation. May has also taken on heckling in the House as a personal bugaboo. She’s won the Order of Canada. Her colleagues, meanwhile, crowned her “Parliamentarian of the Year,” and “Hardest Working MP.”

Ultimately it would be ideal if all MPs were conscientious of the House like May is, Harrison says. Absent that, it’s hard to overstate how valuable these small efforts are at improving the decorum of Canada’s democratic institutions. What’s more, Marland says, May’s presence as a female party leader is, in itself, valuable in making Canada’s political parties reflective of the public.

Beyond these intangible actions towards civility, Harrison points to the Greens’ relentless drive for Canada to aggressively curb climate change as their raison d’être. Weaver and May are “truth-sayers” when it comes to this, she says, advocating for science by calling out other parties who try to win votes by pretending climate adaptation will be simple.

May drew Justin Trudeau’s ire in 2016 by linking the wildfires that devastated Fort McMurray to climate change. She courted conservative wrath in urging then-U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to reject Keystone XL. Meanwhile, May vowed arrest in blocking B.C.’s Trans Mountain pipeline, a Harper-era resource project Trudeau defends. “As long as there’s breath in my body,” she swore in 2016, “I’ll fight this damn thing.”

Even here, where May’s voice represents environmentalists’ best hopes for injecting science into climate politics, the Greens remain marginalized by their diminutive, one-MP size. Consequently, says UWO’s Stephenson, “their views are somewhat inconsequential.”

***

But the party experienced a seismic shift this year in British Columbia. Under Andrew Weaver, the B.C. Greens tripled their seat count in this May’s election, capturing three of the legislature’s 87 seats. It wouldn’t have been a huge power swing unless the NDP and Liberals fought to a virtual draw, which they did. With promises of electoral reform, removing corporate and union money from politics, and halting the Trans Mountain pipeline and Site C dam, the NDP, with 41 seats, wooed the Greens to prop up their minority government.

Weaver has a chance to steer the national conversation about what the Greens stand for, Chris Lea says, highlighting that Green politicians aren’t “purple unicorn idealists” but representatives of practical proposals. Moreover, Weaver’s success could spread throughout Canada, a rising tide lifting other provincial party boats and the biggest ship of all—Elizabeth May’s. The federal Greens will want to capitalize on B.C.’s success to argue that voting Green is viable, says Kathryn Harrison: “That it’s legitimate, that you shouldn’t be shamed out of voting Green, and that your candidate can actually win.”

Since 2001, British Columbia, home of Greenpeace, has awarded the B.C. Greens between eight and 17 percent of the vote. Yet the power Weaver now holds came through an anomaly, Stephenson says. He’ll have a bigger stage and an opportunity to legitimize the party in the public eye, she says, but unless Weaver outshines NDP leader John Horgan or syphons votes from the Liberals the odds are slim the Greens will orchestrate a three-way race next time.

Competing for government is difficult for any small party when the country’s voting system is designed to shut them out. There’s nothing more important for the Greens than implementing electoral reform, says Harrison from UBC; it determines their ability to have any impact whatsoever. In places where proportional representation rules, Jim Harris says, Greens are a vital part of the democratic fabric. The United Kingdom uses proportional representation to elect members to the European Parliament, as do the Aussies in deciding their Senate (where Greens control nine of 76 seats). But in Canada, he says, the Greens have been “severely curtailed” by firstpast-the-post. And in February, Trudeau reneged on a campaign pledge to implement electoral reforms.

Even in B.C. the victory is plagued by what-ifs. Days after the election, Chris Lea’s Facebook feed lit up with friends lamenting how a Liberal government was avoidable if only Green seats had gone New Democratic. Yet seven seats captured by the NDP would have gone Green under proportional representation, he feels. (The B.C. Greens placed second to the NDP in five ridings.) Should the NDP get seats they don’t deserve? Lea asks. Or should we design a system reflective of what people want?

***

The Greens have matured under May, yet she won’t lead them forever. After 11 years, she’s their longest-serving leader. Conservative pundits have recently called for her to step down, and May herself concedes she isn’t a career politician. In 2016, she told the Globe and Mail her first commitment was to her Saanich-Gulf Islands riding. “I love being a member of Parliament,” she said, “I don’t love being leader of the Green Party.”

Perhaps it shows. There’s a disconnect between May’s gravitas and the support her party receives from voters, says Laura Stephenson from UWO. You would expect as the Greens established themselves that their message would resonate widely. “We don’t see that,” she says. Their vote tally has traditionally been low—now it’s inching downward. Despite running a near full slate of candidates in 2015, May secured just 3.45 percent of the vote. It all comes down to what voters believe Greens offer that others don’t, Stephenson says. It’s hard to think May is best suited to govern on pipeline approvals or fisheries protection when the Liberals and NDP have incorporated similar ideas into their platforms. As an environmental voter, she asks, should you vote Green? Or for a comparable party with greater chances of wielding power?

There’s no objective answer. Debating the party’s future reflects more about who’s asking than who’s answering. The Greens matter as long as the environment does, says Alex Marland, ensuring environmental issues stay prevalent. Even if they fail to garner votes, other parties are coerced into acting on climate change. It’s a powerful tool. Or, Stephenson says, May could join the NDP or Liberals, allowing Green ideas to more easily become law.

Relying on the Liberals can be environmentally treacherous. Behind Trudeau’s “sunny ways” lies a leader trading planetary stability for fossil fuel extraction, pipelines, and hydro dams. Trudeau talks more about climate change than Stephen Harper did, says Kathryn Harrison, and he committed to national carbon pricing. Yet, she adds, the Liberals have no plan for meeting Canada’s Paris Agreement targets. Their economic strategy is reliant on fossil fuels, inconsistent with commitments to keep temperatures from rising above 2 C.

Holding the government accountable on initiatives to keep Earth habitable has been the Green’s greatest contribution to Canada’s political dialogue. Keeping that pressure on policymakers, especially now that America will pull out of the Paris Agreement, should keep the Greens busy on behalf of Canadians (and the planet) for decades. It’s a small part of their platform, but unquestionably the biggest responsibility the party has taken on. And they may never be rewarded electorally for this climate advocacy.

Putting people ahead of winning seats isn’t an abdication of party responsibility. For Chris Lea, it’s an acknowledgement of reality and opportunity. It’s a long-game they’re playing. When Green candidates lose a race, he says, bringing likeminded people together on the campaign increases citizen activism and helps identify and tackle local concerns.Young Greens chair Cherie Wong says, “We don’t have to be in government to push for change.”

Perhaps electoral recognition isn’t the objective. “We’re not in it for this election,” Jim Harris says. Given the state of the world, “we’re in it because we have no choice.”

Last night’s election was extraordinary in more ways than we would have thought possible a few weeks ago. Canadian politics has been shaken up in a serious, permanent way, and this election will be studied for years to come. As we start to digest the result and its consequences, there are some clearly identifiable changes and trends at work:

1. A Majority Conservative Government

This is crashingly obvious, but the 166-seat showing for the Conservative Party last night was more decisive than anyone expected five weeks, or even 24 hours, in advance of the polls. A Harper majority represents a true departure from any Canadian politics of the past; we are in uncharted territory. The loss of the moderating influence of a majority opposition gives the Harper conservatives truly free rein for the first time, and given this government’s conduct as a minority, we should expect a swift and substantial turn to the right. Need an example? Last night, with results still trickling in, Heritage Minister James Moore told the CBC that the government would move right away to abolish public funding for political campaigns. The Conservatives now have both hands firmly on the levers of power, and they are going to move. Fast.

2. The NDP Ascendance

The pollsters predicted a good showing for the NDP, but again, the idea that the New Democrats could take more than 100 seats would have been laughable as recently as a week ago. Yet here we are, Jack Layton bound for Stornoway with 101 NDP MPs at his back. Layton will make a skilled and energetic opposition leader, and will undoubtedly use his bully pulpit to solidify the NDP’s newfound national base. The “Orange Wave” phenomenon is, for many progressives, a silver lining of this election, but the grim irony, as every pundit observed last night, is that Layton has less leverage now as leader of the opposition than he had as leader of the third party in a minority government. This election has to be counted the NDP’s greatest success to date — but still a qualified one.

3. Twilight of the Liberals

There were plenty of factors that led to yesterday’s electoral result, but if you were looking for one doorstep to lay it at, the Liberal Party’s would be the one. Their unprecedentedly poor showing in the polls echoes, in sentiment if not in absolute numbers, the trouncing the Progressive Conservatives received in 1993; the added humiliation of Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff losing his own riding, and then failing to resign before resigning anyway, has shaken the party to its roots. Speculation about merging with the NDP is probably premature but no longer an outright joke. Rumours of the Liberal Party’s death are exaggerated; still, even contemplating such a thing would have been unthinkable a year ago. The Liberals pulled the trigger on this election — though, having found the government in contempt of parliament, it’s not clear they could have reasonably chosen otherwise — and their strategists must have felt there was a reason to do so. The fact that they were so terribly wrong is going to prompt plenty of Grit soul-searching.

4. The Smashing of the Bloc

The apocalyptic showing of the Bloc Québécois spells the end of the separatist movement at the federal level; it’s hard to see how it can be otherwise. Reduced from 47 to just four MPs, with their leader defeated in his own riding, and swamped by the NDP in Quebec, the Bloc is over as a parliamentary force. That’s important because the party since 1993 had been a spoiler, changing the electoral calculus necessary to take the House of Commons. That fourth party, wielding many more seats than its popular vote would indicate, had been a keystone of the minority government structure that has prevailed since 2004. Their decimation will change the math for every election to come. What this means for the sovereigntist movement in general is unclear, too — will it dampen the appetite for another referendum, or embolden the Parti Québécois provincially? Again, who knows? We’re off the map here.

5. The Greens Take the Field

As special-interest party the Bloc exits stage left, the election of Elizabeth May as the first Green Party MP ushers in a new parliamentary voice. This was an important symbolic win for May and for the Greens, and perhaps an important substantive win, too. Being the only Green in the house of commons will hardly make May a power broker, but it’s a foothold, and May is known for being an articulate rhetoritician; she’ll make hay from even the sliver of Question Period time this seat grants her. Whether that translates to growth for the Greens remains to be seen, but if that federal election campaign per-vote subsidy is taken away — now a near-certainty — the Greens stand to lose a big chunk of the funding that helped put May in her seat. Have they built a big enough party machine in the last few years (and can they continue to build it for the next four or five) to do it on their own?

6. The Pollsters Are Jokes

The 2008 election was bad enough for the pollsters, who saw their accuracy deteriorate markedly. This time around was even worse. While they all saw the Orange Wave coming, no major pollster predicted the Conservative majority; none grasped the extent of the Liberals’ crashing fortunes, and the utter collapse of the Bloc was barely on their radar. And the media, hungry for numbers, babbled every poll projection regardless. Susan Delacourt of the Toronto Star predicted that way back at the beginning of the campaign when she provided a lesson learned from previous campaigns: “All media will declare that they’re going to not report on polls in the same old way and will break that promise by Day 2.” Bingo.

7. Voters Still Aren’t Voting

Turnout increased a bit this election, bobbing back above 60 percent. But electoral participation remains at distressing lows. Some blame our antiquated first-past-the-post system; others disillusionment with partisan incivility; or perhaps it’s that Kids Today don’t vote in elections. Whatever the reason, it’s a discouraging trend, and more discouraging is that there is no indication that most of these factors will improve. Electoral reform is off the table; a Conservative government has no interest in proportional representation. The U.S.-style attack politics that has metastisized in Ottawa will continue; the Conservatives slathered it on thick and were rewarded with a majority, and that lesson will stick. Perhaps younger people can be enticed to the ballot box by a resurgent NDP, which has traditionally enjoyed their support. Yesterday’s slight uptick in turnout could be the start of an upward trend — or it could be a bump on the long slide downhill.

In any case, it looks like we have four to five years of a Conservative government during which we can contemplate all these questions — and many more besides.

This year’s debate will include a new format, with six-minute one-on-one debates, followed by a 12-minute round for all four leaders.

There’s been much ado over the decision to exclude Elizabeth May from the debate. Debate reform has since taken over our country’s editorial pages. The inconsistency of including May in 2008 but shutting her out this time has angered people even beyond the Greens’ voter base. There just doesn’t seem to be much rhyme or reason to how the Canadian debates are structured or who participates. But there has been some serious study of the debates, and some recommendations worth reading.

During her time at as a research assistant at Queen’s University’s Centre for the Study of Democracy, Michelle Rogers authored a 60-page report on the Canadian federal election debates.

It’s well worth a read. The study, also embedded below, examines the history of TV debates, compares policies worldwide and tackles the tough questions of ensuring debates that are both democratic and realistic. It details the Lortie Commission (an ill-fated attempt to solve these question 20 years ago) and dives into questions like if the Bloc should be included in English-language debates.

Rogers comes up with some interesting recommendations, though you may not like them all. A sampling:

• Televised leaders debates should be entrenched in both the Canada Elections Act and Broadcasting Act.
• Federal party funding for election campaigns should be contingent upon full participation in leaders debates.
• Party inclusion criteria should be three of these four: 5 percent support in national polls; a sitting MP; a full roster of candidates across the nation; and federal funding.
• A series of debates should take place on national and regional themes, broadcast on local channels.
• There should be two debates in the final weeks of the campaign: one with all qualifying party leaders, the other featuring the Prime Minister and the party leader from the highest polling opposition party.
• The use of social networking platforms should be exploited to broaden the reach and appeal of election debates.

Whether you agree with her recommendations or not, Roger’s report makes for an interesting read and may help you reach an informed opinion on what’s become a key part of our elections.

Part of Barack Obama’s victory came on the back of a grassroots campaign that effectively used the internet to collect supporters and funds. Among social-media-savvy politicians, the president is The Man. While Obama might be down with the kids today, have any Canadian leaders managed to cash in on the social-media cachet? Or is Twitter anathema to politicians raised on lawn signs and pancake breakfasts?

[some figures have been updated since November 2008 publication]

Stephen Harper

Presence: Harper has accounts on Flickr, Twitter, YouTube, FriendFeed, Facebook, and even MySpace. Besting the other leaders, he has over 42,600 Twitter followers and 29,300 Facebook fans, where his third-person profile proclaims he is a curling fan. The Conservatives have even ventured into an attempt at viral marketing with their Ignatieff.me attack website.

FAIL or FTW? Harper’s tweets, which typically begin with words like “Statement,” “Visited,” and “Announced,” sound like stodgy, third-person press releases. Is Harper a man? Is he a machine? Are his tweets being written by a Communications dropout from Laurier? All we know is that they are vaguely reminiscent of headlines that appear on the fronts of government-owned newspapers in tinpot dictatorships.

Typical Tweet: Visited construction site of Queenston-Lewiston Bridge project.

Michael Ignatieff

Presence: More than 28,700 Facebook fans are privy to Ignatieff’s reading habits, which include Dostoyevsky’s The Possessed, the poetry of Czeslaw Milosz, and the essays of Isaiah Berlin, and he has over 34,300 Twitter followers. IggyTube, his YouTube channel, features dozens of videos—though most have fewer than 1,000 views.

FAIL or FTW? Although more comfortable with bandying “I” than Harper, Ignatieff’s self-conscious use of “we” to denote his real, actual Canadianness undermines the effort. His Twitter feed is also short on interaction with real, actual Canadians.

Typical Tweet: In the birthplace of our nation’: It was in Gaspe that we first became Canadian #lpc

Jack Layton

Presence: Layton has adopted Flickr and FriendFeed accounts and has over 32,600 followers on Twitter, despite the background being that eye-burning hue of NDP orange. His Facebook page has more than 27,700 supporters. There, he says his favourite movie is Star Wars.

FAIL or FTW? Layton’s Twitter account is the office equivalent of the chirpy guy who comes in on a hungover Monday morning, praising the latest sales targets and joshing with the boss while trying to steal his job. The leader’s over-caffeinated updates often include Twitpics of him posing with the common folk.

Typical Tweet: Obama got it … New Democrats get it; working together we can win from the ground up.

Elizabeth May

Presence: May can be found on YouTube, Flickr, Twitter with 6,100 followers, and Facebook with 6,400 supporters. She uses Facebook Notes to blog about topics like media speculation on the upcoming election.

FAIL or FTW? If you ask May a question on Twitter, she will probably respond to you.

Typical Tweet: @intuitiveartist aside from storing it in the garage … trying to reduce the amount of packaged goods you purchase is a good way to go.

Gilles Duceppe

Presence: In addition to maintaining a “blogue” at blogue. blocquebecois.org, Duceppe can be found on Twitter and Facebook, where he’s acquired a following of around 23,000 followers and 3,900 fans, respectively.

FAIL or FTW? While most leaders make an effort to use French and English, Duceppe is French-only, perhaps explaining why he has a social media following on par with an infrequently updating English-Canadian blogger.

Typical Tweet: Au Delta à Trois-Rivières ce matin pour une nouvelle journée de tournée en Mauricie

Canada has been a hotspot for international climate activists this week. We’ve got Al Gore in Toronto, warning among other things that using tar sands oil takes away any advantages of greening our vehicle fleet. Then there’s Britain’s George Monbiot speaking this Saturday at the University of Toronto (2-4PM) on the “Countdown to Copenhagen: Who in Canada is Killing the International Climate Treaty?” Possibly even more interesting will be Tuesday night’s Munk Debate with Monbiot, Elizabeth May, and on the pro-climate change side, Bjorn Lomborg and Lord Nigel Lawson.

Lots of potential inspiration to elicit further action.

With the announcement that Barack Obama will be attending the Copenhagen talks and bringing hard carbon reduction targets with him, and that Canada’s Parliament passed a resolution that we too must bring strong targets, allow me to provide two more suggestions for action this week, in hopes of putting the political pressure on Harper to make him do it.

Rebecca noted Tuesday that Prime Ministerial phone lines were blocked by Mississauga students calling for climate action. They politely refrained when someone from the office apparently asked them to stop calling, but by then the point was made.

To add to actions to be taken by supporters of the Canadian Youth Delegation and others, how about we all do the same? Organize an event and call: (613) 992-4211. Already hosting a talk? Get everyone’s cell phones out. How about a school democracy project like the one in Mississauga?

My last columns have suggested action by getting religious, rural and other groups on board to achieve climate results in the political realm. There are many high-profile folks who could be encouraged to write open letters to the Prime Minister or to newspapers for action. Since religious organizations are good places to get support, how about starting with the United Church of Canada and move right from there? Their national leader has called for climate action before.

Municipal leaders in Tory ridings, agricultural organizations and service clubs like Rotary could go a long way in lending their hand—but they likely need a nudge from you. I challenge some folks to start writing and posting their letters here, giving each other a hand in getting the work done.

Further action in the West may be starting, as both Environment Minister Jim Prentice and former Environment Minister Rona Ambrose both had their offices occupied this week by climate activists, including by a 70-something professor emeritus.

And contrary to some recent comments I’ve received to my column — I don’t worship the alter of former American President uh, Vice-President Al Gore. But I do think, if we don’t succeed in getting the Conservatives on board, we might do ourselves a favour and try acting a little crazy.

The almost-bare shelves of Toronto's Pages Bookstore in its final days. Daniel Tencer writes about the plight of independent booksellers in the November-December issue of This Magazine.

The November-December 2009 issue of This Magazine is now snaking its way through the postal system, and subscribers should find it in their mailboxes any day now. We expect it to be available on newsstands next week, probably. (Remember, subscribers always get the magazine early, and you can too.) We’ll start posting articles from the issue online next week. We suggest subscribing to our RSS feed to ensure you never miss a new article going online, following us on Twitter or becoming a fan on Facebook for updates, new articles and other sweet, sweet This action.

This issue is our annual mega-hyper-awesome edition (64 pages instead of 48!), as we bring you a special supplement with the winners of the 2009 Great Canadian Literary Hunt.The winners this year were:

On the cover this month is a special package of articles we call Legalize Everything! — five writers tackle five things that should be legalized, and the activists who are fighting to make that a reality. Katie Addleman witnesses the madness of the drug trade, and the misbegotten “war on drugs” that criminalizes the mentally ill, funnels billions of black-market dollars into the pockets of narcoterrorists, and never actually reduces drug use. Tim Falconer asks our politicians to legalize physician-assisted suicide and allow Canadians to die on their own terms. Jordan Heath Rawlings meets the artists who believe that online music sharing may actually be the future of their industry, not its end. Laura Kusisto says criminalizing hate speech erodes Canadian democracy and offers no meaningful protection for minorities. And Rosemary Counter hunts down the outlaw milk farmer who wants all Canadians to have the right to enjoy unpasteurized milk, even if he has to go all the way to the supreme court to do it.

Elsewhere in the magazine, Meena Nallainathan surveys the state of Canada’s Tamil community following the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam last spring, and meets four Tamil activists who may hold some answers for rebuilding a Sri Lankan nation tormented by decades of civil war.

All that, plus James Loney on the Canadian government’s attitudes towards its citizens trapped abroad; Bruce M. Hicks on what Canada’s new Mexican and Czech visa restrictions are really about; Paul McLaughlin interviews B.C.’s Prince of Pot, Marc Emery, on the eve of his American incarceration; Dorothy Woodend on a new crop of documentaries that dissect the workings of our capitalist world; Darryl Whetter gives his picks for the must-reads of the first decade of the 21st century; Navneet Alang warns that when it comes to online charity, sometimes clicking isn’t enough; Lisa Charleyboy profiles Nadya Kwandibens and her photographic exploration of the urban Aboriginal experience, “Concrete Indians”; Aaron Cain sends a postcard from San Salvador, after a chilling meeting with some right-wing politicians on the verge of a losing election; and Jen Gerson ranks Canada’s political leaders on their Facebook and Twitter savvy.

PLUS: Daniel Tencer on the plight of independent bookstores; Sukaina Hirji on Vancouver’s Insite safe injection clinic; Lindsay Kneteman on Alberta’s Democratic Renewal Project; Melissa Wilson on getting the flu shot; Graham F. Scott on Canada’s losing war in Afghanistan; Jorge Antonio Vallejos on a remembrance campaign for Canada’s missing Aboriginal women; Jennifer Moore on an Ecuadorian village that’s suing the Toronto Stock Exchange; Cameron Tulk on Night, a new play about Canada’s far north; Andrea Grassi reviews Dr. Bonnie Henry’s Soap and Water & Common Sense; and Ellen Russell on Canadian workers’ shrinking wages.