Thanks to NDP poster Devin Johnston on Facebook, we have this interesting comment from The Understory, the magazine for the Green Party of Canada Young Greens ("Sprouts"?), with regards to deal-making of the kind we saw between Elizabeth May of the Green Party and Stephane Dion of the Liberal Party:
At the 2006 Green Party Convention last August, a resolution came forward that sought to allow the leadership of the Party to make deals with the other parties. This resolution suggested giving the Green Party leadership the power to withdraw a candidate regardless of wishes of the local membership. I am happy to say that this resolution was defeated and that the Green Party membership demonstrated its commitment to the value of political diversity in representative democracy. However, I am sad to say that this continues to be a debate within our Party.
So it is the official position of the Young Greens that Elizabeth May could not strike a deal with Stephane Dion that guaranteed no Green candidate would run in Stephane Dion's riding.
However, this position seems to be a matter of some confusion. Erich Jacoby-Hawkins explains on his blog at the official Green Party of Canada website. Jacoby-Hawkins is an activist and a Green Party candidate:
In a couple of posts, references have been made to resolutions passed at our last convention concerning deal-making with other parties. However, I believe their meaning has been misconstrued.
For one thing, we did not pass any resolutions stating that we would run a full slate.
Instead, there was a resolution put forward (G06-d08) that would allow the leader, with support of 2/3 of council, to unilaterally withdraw candidacy in at most 2% of ridings (i.e. up to 6 ridings). This resolution failed.
The general understanding was that this resolution would open the door to such deal-making - but in fact, it would have limited it. It would have meant that no more than 6 ridings could be sacrificed, and that the leader would need 2/3 support of council behind any such deal. It also specified the compensation required for any ridings whose candidacy was withheld.
Failing to pass the resolution has not had the effect of prohibiting deal-making. In fact, it has left the door wide open. The leader could refuse to endorse any number of candidates as per by-law 5.2. Although this by-law is probably intended to override an EDA which chooses an odious candidate, it can also be used in a deal-making context. 2/3 council support is required, but there is no limit on the number of such withholdings, nor any requirement for compensation. The only rule is that a riding gets to choose their candidate - whom the leader must endorse unless invoking 5.2. (This differs from other parties, where the leadership has full & unilateral rights of refusal).
But to confuse things further, a comment on the blog makes it clear that the resolution was voted down not to allow Elizabeth May to make deals, but because the delegates didn't want any deals being made:
Erich, You are quite right in saying that the Central Party could choose to not run a full slate by either not helping to organize under-developed EDA's or by the Leader simply not endorsing some candidates for tactical reasons.
This however would be going against the clear intention of the membership in the debate around the Resolution in question. It was voted down after much debate (before and during the Convention) because a large majority of members did not want deal-making and anything less than a full slate.
This was the context and it had even played out in the Leadership race itself. It would be re-writing history to say that the membership voted down this Resolution because they wanted to give "Carte Blanche" to deal-making of the type that involved not running a full slate.
I think this goes to show that Elizabeth May is not likely to be enjoying universal support within her party for the deal she made with Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion. Not only are a lot of Greens feeling uncomfortable to watch Elizabeth May endorse Stephane Dion, who as environment minister oversaw a huge increase in Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, but now it seems that Elizabeth May went against the wishes many delegates had expressed about the way the Green Party would deal with other parties.
