Collaborative Proposal Creation
Create, improve and sponsor proposals in a respectful, fully bilingual environment. Grow proposals in the "Hothouse", for promotion to the "Workshop", to become official GPC policy.
Proposal text
Article 9 - Co-Leaders
Preamble:
In the 2022 leadership race, the membership had a choice between two co-leadership teams as well as two individual leadership candidates. The members voted for Elizabeth May as Leader with the platform commitment to appoint Jonathan Pedneault Deputy Leader while working toward a constitutional amendment to move the GPC to co-leadership, in preparation for the next federal election. If this constitutional amendment for co-leadership is approved, then the membership will be asked to both confirm and ratify that change and to approved Elizabeth May and Jonathan Pedneault as the party's first Co-Leaders as part of the transition. Following the next federal election, and when the next leadership contest occurs, the leadership race will be for Co-Leaders to run as slates.
9.1 There shall be two spokespeople for the Green Party of Canada, known as Co-Leaders.
9.2. Purpose
9.2.1 The Co-Leaders will follow the principles of “servant Leadership". They shall be the primary public faces of the party, responsible for presenting Green Party policy and promoting its electoral activity and campaigns to the public on a daily basis.
9.2.3 They will be called to inspire, motivate, mobilize and help grow the Green movement and to influence public opinion and decision-making in the Parliament of Canada. The Co-Leaders are expected to run in federal elections.
9.2.4 Prior to an election, the Co-Leaders will jointly decide on a primary spokesperson - filed as ‘Leader’ pursuant to the Canada Elections Act - tasked with attending the National Party Leaders’ debates.
9.3 Duties and Powers
9.3.1 The Co-Leaders shall:
9.3.1.1 Act in accordance with the Constitution, Bylaws and Principles of the Green Party of Canada;
9.3.1.2 Speak for the Party concerning political issues and be guided in so doing by the Party’s member-made policies and platform;
9.3.1.3 Share one vote on Federal Council and the Executive Committee;
9.3.1.4 Chair the Caucus and Shadow Cabinet;
9.3.1.5 Appoint or remove a Deputy Leader as needed;
9.3.1.6 Appoint or remove members of the Shadow Cabinet;
9.3.1.7 Attend to any other duties and responsibilities pursuant to the Canada Elections Act;
9.3.1.8 Be an integral part of discussions and decision-making about the Party’s Electoral Strategy.
9.3.1.9 Report to the Party membership at every General Assembly
9.4 Election of Co-Leaders
9.4.1 The Party Co-Leaders shall be elected in accordance with the Bylaws and shall always include:
9.4.1.1 At least one woman; and one person of any gender;
9.4.1.2 Both co-leaders shall demonstrate functional proficiency in both official languages upon their election or appointment. Indigenous co leaders are exempt from this requirement.
9.4.2 Co-Leadership candidates must have been Members of the Party in good standing at least 3 months prior to an election;
9.4.3 Co-leadership candidates shall run as a team.
9.4.4 Two hundred (200) Members of the Party in good standing shall be required to nominate a Co-Leadership slate;
9.4.5 Voting shall be exercised using a form of the single transferable vote (STV) requiring a majority of votes cast for election.
9.5 Vacancies
9.5.1 Should one or both Co-Leaders resign or their positions becoming vacant, Federal Council is to proceed as highlighted in Bylaw 2.1.8
9.6. Accountability and Leadership Review
9.6.1 Co-Leaders are accountable to the Members assembled as General Meeting.
9.6.2 A Co-Leadership review where all Members in good standing may vote, shall be held:
9.6.2.1 Within six months after a Federal Election, unless one of the Co-Leaders becomes Prime Minister or is appointed to Cabinet as part of a Coalition Government;
9.6.2.2. Should at least 50% of the Membership petition Federal Council to hold a Co-Leadership Review;
9.6.2.3 Should a resolution approved by at least the two-thirds (2/3) of Federal Council and the two-thirds (2/3) of Caucus at an extraordinary Federal Council meeting calls for a Co-Leadership Review.
9.6.3 The date of the Leadership Review vote will be set by Federal Council and may coincide with a General Meeting.
9.6.4 The Co-Leaders’ terms shall end if Members in good standing do not pass a resolution endorsing the Co-Leaders by at least sixty percent (60%).
9.7 Dispute Resolution
9.7.1 Candidates to Co-Leadership and Co-Leaders will commit to:
9.7.1.1 Flagging any apparent disagreements early and openly to one another;
9.7.1.2 Keeping any disagreements or dispute private and confidential between until resolved;
9.7.1.3 Attempting compromise and the search for consensus if and where disagreements exist;
9.7.1.4 Pursuing mediation from a mutually agreed upon mediator skilled in dispute resolution should one of them feel the disagreement requires it;
9.7.1.5 Avoiding adversarial, legalistic solutions at all costs.
9.8 Consistency
9.8.1 This Constitution and Bylaws, as well as all other existing internal and external literature will be amended to reflect Article 9 and refer to Co-Leaders instead of Leader.
Transitional Provisions
1. If this amendment is adopted, it must be ratified by the membership. That ratification ballot will include a second vote to ratify that the current Leader and Deputy Leader shall serve as the party's first Co-Leaders.
2. Following this transitional period, in recognition that the leadership race of 2022 elected a Leader, whose campaign presented a partnership with the current Deputy Leader, with a joint platform that set out the process for the transition, the next race for co-leadership will proceed as per the amended Constitution.
Bylaw 2.1.8 Where one or both of the Co-Leaders’ terms end or become vacant:
2.1.8.1 If one Co-Leader position becomes vacant within two years of a Federal Election, the remaining co-leader will nominate, and Federal Council shall appoint an interim co-leader until after the Federal Election. Within six months after the federal election, baring one or both Co-Leaders joining Cabinet, a co-leadership contest takes place in which both the Co-Leader and interim Co-Leader are allowed to run.
2.1.8.2 If one Co-Leader position becomes vacant more than two years from a Federal Election, a co-leadership contest takes place within six months of the vacancy, in accordance with the bylaws. In the interim, the remaining Co-Leader continues as interim Leader and is allowed to run as a slate in the co-leadership contest.
2.1.8.3 If the two Co-Leader positions become vacant, Federal Council, in consultation with the legislative caucus, will appoint an interim Leader until a co-leadership contest is held in accordance within six months of the vacancies, as per the constitution and bylaws. If the appointment takes place less than one year from a Federal Election, Federal Council may decide to organize the co-leadership contest after the election.
Type of Proposal
A constitutional amendment to change the constitution or bylaws
Objective / Benefit
The 2022 Leadership Contest saw four candidates running on a Co-Leadership platform. Together, they gathered more than 88% of the vote at the first round.
As we prepare for the next elections - which could take place sooner than 2025 - this party needs to move fast on this promise to members and Canadians and institute co-leadership.
If your proposal replaces an existing policy or policies, which one does it replace?
The following proposal would amend the GPC Constitution to add a new Article - right above the one referring to Federal Council - to move on the promise of Co-Leadership and define the purposes, duties, powers and election of the Co-Leaders as well as the measures to ensure they remain accountable to the party membership.
It also modifies all Articles and bylaws that refer to the « Leader".
List any supporting evidence for your proposal
The Green Parties of New Zealand, Germany, England & Wales have espoused co-leadership years ago and succeeded in building strong political movements that challenge status quo in their respective nations. At home, Québec Solidaire also operates with a dual leadership that has shifted the conversation about leadership in the province and allowed them to make significant gains.
Does this proposal affect any particular group and what efforts have been made to consult with the group or groups?
Members have had a chance to interact with two pairs of candidates proposing co-leadership throughout the 2022 leadership campaign and have since November had the opportunity to observe the collaboration between Elizabeth and I, as well as to share supportive feedback and comments during numerous town halls and community events throughout the country.
Jurisdiction: Is this proposal under federal jurisdiction?
Unsure or Not applicable (e.g. directives and constitutional changes)
Please indicate the language the proposal is being submitted in.
English
Amendments (1)
-
Created at
22/02/2024 -
- 0
We're building a new kind of politics. One that is open, participatory, and people-powered
If you believe in what we're doing, please consider making a small donation to help us build it
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Comment details
You are seeing a single comment
View all comments
Conversation with Sarah Gabrielle Baron
There is this thing called democracy. In democracy, people wanting the power of leadership talk about why they're the best, everyone listens for a while, and then everyone votes. The idea is, the folks running therefore represent the wishes of the voters. Democracy.
When a person seeking the power of leadership makes an elaborate plan (like this motion) to gain leadership by avoiding election, that's a huge red flag.
As for the four co-leader motions proposing fundamental changes to our constitution, in 2021 members voted for a member-led Constitution Renewal Commission. Everyone who's proposed massive changes has ignored that. Reminder: Participatory Democracy calls for power to be invested in localized, non-hierarchical groups as much as possible. In a member-led, year-long mandated Constitution Renewal Commission, stuff like this (how we elect a leader/s) is considered, everything is 100% transparent throughout the process, experts are invited to consult, members are polled and consulted often (Citizen Assemblies style), and when a plan is finally proposed by said Constitution Renewal Commission there are loads of opportunities to revise based on inter-member workshops. Then a vote. This whole thing is too rushed, and the proposers and their collaborators are all operating in shadows and at cross purposes. At least we have this platform, wedecide, which is pretty awesome for the policy proposals. But sweeping changes to our Constitution needs a Constitution Renewal Commission (as per member directive 2021). If we can't even follow our own previous decisions, this year's decisions run the same risk of being totally ignored.
《Il existe une chose que l'on appelle la démocratie. Dans la démocratie, les personnes qui veulent accéder au pouvoir expliquent pourquoi elles sont les meilleures, tout le monde les écoute pendant un certain temps, puis tout le monde vote. L'idée est que les personnes qui se présentent représentent les souhaits des électeurs. La démocratie.
Lorsqu'une personne souhaitant accéder au pouvoir élabore un plan complexe (comme cette motion) pour obtenir le pouvoir en évitant l'élection, il s'agit d'un signal d'alarme important.》
Si je ne me trompe, la Chef élue a clairement, ouvertement et publiquement anoncée son intention de nommé le-dit co-chef en cas de victoire électorale. Ce fut de même pour trois autres candidats et candidates aux dernières élections du PVC. Une proposition est proposée pour rendre obligatoire le processus d'élection d'une co-direction. Les candidats étant tout de même restreint à un seul vote, ce pouvoir que vous évoqué concerne la responsabilité partagée avec un ou une porte-parole supplémentaire mais en n'est point d'avantage au sein du Conseil Fédéral.
《En ce qui concerne les quatre motions de codirigeants proposant des changements fondamentaux à notre constitution, les membres ont voté en 2021 en faveur d'une commission de renouvellement de la constitution dirigée par les membres. Tous ceux qui ont proposé des changements massifs n'en ont pas tenu compte. Rappel : La démocratie participative exige que le pouvoir soit investi dans des groupes localisés et non hiérarchiques autant que possible. Au sein d'une commission de renouvellement de la constitution dirigée par les membres et mandatée pour une durée d'un an, des questions comme celle-ci (comment nous élisons un/des dirigeant(s)) sont examinées, tout est transparent à 100 % tout au long du processus, des experts sont invités à consulter, les membres sont interrogés et consultés souvent (à la manière des assemblées de citoyens), et lorsqu'un plan est finalement proposé par ladite commission de renouvellement de la constitution, il y a de nombreuses possibilités de le réviser sur la base d'ateliers inter-membres. Ensuite, il y a un vote. Tout cela est trop précipité, et les auteurs de la proposition et leurs collaborateurs travaillent tous dans l'ombre et à contre-courant. Au moins, nous avons cette plateforme, wedecide, qui est assez géniale pour les propositions politiques. Mais les changements radicaux de notre Constitution nécessitent une Commission de rénovation de la Constitution (conformément à la directive 2021 des membres). Si nous ne pouvons même pas suivre nos propres décisions antérieures, les décisions de cette année courent le même risque d'être totalement ignorées.》Merci du rappel mais est-ce qu'une commission n'est pas plutôt centralisé le débat alors que les membres et les experts peuvent tout simplement consulter, commenter et fournir des changements à la proposition ici-même, maintenant et ce jusqu'à ce que la proposition soit prête à être voté? 🤔
Loading comments ...