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.
Amend the definition of Leader (Article 7.1.2) as follows:
7.1.2 Leader: Chief co-spokespersons for the Green Party of Canada.
Add the following to Bylaw 2.1.3:
2.1.3.3 Two Chief co-spokespersons, one woman and one male or gender non-conforming, shall be elected separately.
2.1.3.4 The two Chief co-spokespersons shall share one vote on Federal Council and on the Executive Council.
2.1.3.5 Candidates for Chief co-spokespersons must have been Members of the Party in good standing for at least three (3) months prior to the start of the Chief co-spokesperson Contest.
Amend Bylaw 2.1.5.5 to replace “unless our leader becomes prime minister” with “unless the Party forms or is part of the government of Canada” and to replace “Leader” with “Chief co-spokespersons”, such that it reads as follows:
2.1.5.5 Within six months of a Federal General Election, unless the Party forms or is part of the government of Canada, a Chief co-spokespersons Review, where all Members in good standing may vote, shall be held. The date of the Chief co-spokespersons Review vote will be set by Federal Council and may coincide with a General Meeting. The Chief co-spokespersons' terms shall end if Members in good standing do not pass a resolution endorsing each Chief co-spokesperson by at least sixty percent (60%).
Add the following to Bylaw 2.6:
2.6.2 The President is the member filed Leader pursuant to the Canada Elections Act (all decisions taken in this context must emanate from Federal Council).
In the Constitution & Bylaws, replace every other instance of ‘Leader’ by ‘Chief co-spokesperson’ or ‘Chief co-spokespersons’, whichever applies to the context.
In the Constitution & Bylaws, replace ‘Leadership Contest’ with ‘Chief co-spokesperson Contest’.
Type of Proposal
A constitutional amendment to change the constitution or bylaws
Objective / Benefit
Instead of having a single ‘Leader’, the Green Party of Canada would have two Chief co-spokespersons elected in separate membership votes.
Some benefits would be to leverage the distinctive strengths of the two Chief co-spokespersons, to widen the appeal of the Green Party amongst different demographics and to share the workload associated with this role.
If your proposal replaces an existing policy or policies, which one does it replace?
N/A
List any supporting evidence for your proposal
The Co-spokespersons model already exists for Québec Solidaire and it's a great success (12 seats provincially). It also exists in many Green parties around the world that have much more electoral success than the GPC.
Does this proposal affect any particular group and what efforts have been made to consult with the group or groups?
A new co-spokesperson election would be required for the male or gender non-conforming Co-spokesperson within 6 months of the approval of this proposal in an all member vote.
It is important to state that this proposal does NOT add new responsibilities and powers to the Co-spokespersons.
Jurisdiction: Is this proposal under federal jurisdiction?
No
Please indicate the language the proposal is being submitted in.
English
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
Related images
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Comment details
You are seeing a single comment
View all comments
Conversation with Sarah Gabrielle Baron
Does this proposer agree to withdraw and collaborate for synthesis with the other 3 proposers? Without that, I think I'll vote all four such motions down, here's why:
In 2021 members voted for a member-led Constitution Renewal Commission. Everyone who's proposed these massive changes to our leadership systems has ignored that. 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.
What if we start a Constitution Renewal Commission right here on wedecide? Give it one year to talk it out, consulting memɓers and experts often, transparently. Only the proposers could ensure such a thing happens. Instead, now we're locked into this process, which is terribly messy, politicized, and text-heavy for members. We'll see how it goes!
As someone who has spent hundreds of hours on this, I find this message incredibly offensive and depressing. Why do you not simply ask questions of people before making such statements? How is it beneficial to anyone - to the party, to volunteers, to proposers? You say "Everyone who's proposed these massive changes to our leadership systems has ignored." the CRC. A lot of us are talking about the impact of CRC on such motions. That is why one of the proposals on co-leadership asks for a committee on this very issue. Some of us have submitted these motions precisely because we don't think that such important decisions should be taken lightly, and that if there are co-leaders, the process should be fully democratic.
Which part of the current process is not transparent? Where are the shadows? Some volunteers have spent hundreds of hours crafting this site so that people can exchange publicly, like you are doing now, and then people like you just decide to criticize it for lack of transparency, when that has been our objective all along, and when you are actually able to make every comment you want in the most public way, which was never the case before.
It's such a shame greens like you don't see how hurtful it is to those of us who work hard in trying to make our principles a reality. It's really depressing.
And to answer your question: yes, there is an attempt from those who have submitted something on co-leadership to collaborate. Everyone except our current deputy leader Jonathan Pednault is open to modifying their proposal. We have communicated on the issue this week. My proposal is only aimed at making sure that it is only by being elected that a person can become co-leader, since I want maximum member input. Some of us do hope to be able to merge proposals, as that is the spirit of proposal submission and green collaboration, but it is clear that our deputy leader's proposal will not be merged, unfortunately.
I am very attracted to the principle of co leadership. ( and I think it is a better term than co spokesperson) . I find our politics are unreasonably honing in on leaders, badgering them with expectations and identifying a party solely with the leader. Growing up in Germany with the history of "the Führer", I find that heavy lean on a leader dangerous. Also democracy demands not buy in, but participation. I like the idea of having a leadership contest where pairs of leaders or individuals may run and leaving it up to the membership to choose. I am a bit confused about who represents then in Parliament , when we have 2 people- who sits ? are they alternating? Also I " within 6 months of a Federal Election... don't understand the proposal 2.15.5 . Do you mean before or after the election? Unfortunately although I believe in participation , I am not available in November for delving into the differences of the 4 proposals. My head is very occupied with my business and provincial green work.
Dear Jean-Charles. Thank you for your years of dedicated, 100% volunteered work on Federal Council! Please accept my apologies for having offended you so. By "in the shadows" I simply mean that members just don't know what groups have worked on these, for how long, to what ends / towards which ultimate goals, and in what capacity within the Party structure. You describe, I think, that you've acted alone here, in response to Jonathan Pedneault's proposal. Thank you for this amount of transparency so far!
I do think that I was pretty clear in my original statement, that the 2021 directive to strike a member-led Constitutional Renewal Commission would be a better way to go about this. And yes, I agree, that this wedecide platfrom is a wonderful way for us to see each other and hash out such very important issues! As a keen supporter of the evolution of our policy process, I think it's amazing!
Is there any platform wherein the three interested promoters ARE collaborating without Jonathan Pedneault, seeing as you say he's the only one not interested in finding common ground?
Loading comments ...