The actual emailed letter sent by Sylvie Lemieux to Candidates and EDA execs
Here is the actual text of a pdf of a letter I received from Sylvie Lemieux today. It is honest and straightforward, so simply read it for yourself, if you did not already recieve a copy:
Attention Green Party CEO's and Candidates,
My name is Sylvie Lemieux. I am a member of the Green Party of Canada and the nominated candidate for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell in Eastern Ontario.
Last weekend in Guelph Ontario I announced my intention to seek the leadership of the Green Party of Canada because I believe Canadians want a new vision for Canada. A vision that is based on honesty and transparency and that is anchored in our government’s responsibility to the land, all our peoples and the world.
I believe our country is stronger when it is just and equitable, when benefits flow to the many, not just the few. I have a vision of a strong Canada connected by its pluralities, a Canada that is proud to share this land with our First Nations.
A few weeks ago, the Green Party of Canada sent every member in the party an email entitled “A Note from Elizabeth May”. In her note Ms. May ‘targeted for defeat’ a number of motions and resolutions from Green Party members. One of these motions is from me. Motion G10-d11 is a resolution directing Federal Council to call a leadership race this year in 2010 as the Green Party constitution stipulates.
As part of her reasoning to defeat it, Ms. May suggested that my resolution would force her to resign immediately as leader of the Green Party of Canada. I am writing today to assure you that this is not the case. There is nothing in the Elections Act requiring a leader to step down before running in a leadership contest.
I have put forward this resolution to ensure that the ‘will of the membership’ to have regular leadership contests, not leadership reviews, as it is laid out in our constitution, is respected because I would like the opportunity to share my vision of Canada with you and with Canadians across the country. I believe regular leadership contests are a necessary growth opportunity that we cannot afford to stop doing at this stage in our young party’s evolution.
Let’s debate it on the convention floor.
I would like the opportunity to debate the merits of a leadership contest vs. a leadership review with Green Party members on the convention floor in Toronto this August. We have an opportunity now to shape our Vision for Canada ahead of the next election and to expand our members and our electors’ base at the same time.
If you agree with me that this is too important an issue to be decided through an online vote, please support my resolution by voting GREEN to help ensure it makes it to the convention floor.
Please help us inform GPC members.
Because I have been refused equal access to the Green Party membership email list so that I may address every member in the party as Elizabeth May did, in her note to members, I ask that you please forward this email to your Green Party EDA members list so that every member has the chance to properly consider the merits of my resolution.
Thank you,
Sylvie Lemieux
Green Party member
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell
The explanation below has been prepared to help clarify any misunderstanding you might have regarding the leadership motions currently before the membership.
Dear fellow Green Party Members:
On the weekend of August 20 – 22, the Trinity-Spadina GPC EDA, in co-operation with the Toronto Greens, will be hosting the Green Party of Canada’s BGM and Convention at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre. There are many policy resolutions, constitutional and by-law amendment resolutions, and directive resolutions on the table awaiting the decisions of the membership.
This explanation has been written to help clear up some of the controversy surrounding the competing leadership resolutions which the membership is being asked to vote on.
As they stand now, The Constitution, and By-Laws of the Green Party envision a Leadership Contest culminating on the convention floor. These provisions were approved by the membership at the 2006, and 2008 BGM’s, and the intention of the membership was to ensure regular contests for the leadership, with all the attendant publicity, membership growth, and internal debate that goes hand in hand with a leadership race.
The implementation of these constitutional requirements led to a series of debates on Federal Council, marked by a number of resignations from members of Federal council. Ultimately, Federal Council (not unanimously) decided to draft a motion to indefinitely postpone a leadership race, and submit this motion to the membership for ratification at the BGM this August in Toronto.
The motion presented by Federal council specifically eliminates the requirement for a leadership race, and instead substitutes a periodic confirmation review vote of the Leadership. The language implementing this motion allows, in my opinion, for a wide interpretation by Federal Council.
http://greenparty.ca/motion/g10-c29
A leadership review vote is a poor substitute for an actual leadership contest. The motion is modelled on the practices of the Green Party of Ontario over the past two decades. The experience of the GPO is that in the absence of a formal choice, there is a very low turnout in leadership review votes, which inevitably results in a confirmation of the leader in his or her role. As a result, the Green Party of Ontario has not had a publicly contested Leadership contest for more than a decade. Most importantly though, a leadership review process prevents discussion from occurring on policy, a party’s added value and on what makes it different. In doing so, it limits its growth potential.
This is very much at odds with past Green Party of Canada practice, and we need look no further than the vigorous GPC Leadership contest of 2006, with all the attendant publicity and growth in membership to judge which model better serves the Party’s interests.
Accordingly, a directive motion has been presented to the membership that calls for the Constitution to be honoured as it now stands. A simple majority is required to bring this motion into effect. To read the motion in its entirety, click on the following link:
http://greenparty.ca/motion/g10-d11
Make no mistake. The future of the Green Party of Canada will be fundamentally altered if the amendment proposed by Federal Council is passed by the membership. As a member, you will have received your ‘Time to E-vote!’ emails, with your username and password. Make a note of them, and follow the online voting instructions starting by clicking on the following link:
https://elect2.everyonecounts.com/app/142/250
The motion directing council to enforce the current constitutional requirement for a Leadership race is Directive Motion G10-D11. Please vote YELLOW or GREEN to help ensure that this motion is debated on the convention floor and not defeated online before any debate can take place.
Federal council’s motion is a Constitutional Motion G10-C29 . Please either vote YELLOW or RED to help ensure that this motion is debated on the convention floor rather than passing online before any debate can take place.
www.sylvielemieux.ca
Unsubscribe to the Sylvie Lemieux email list
This email is being sent only to Green Party email addresses of CEOs and Candidates that are in the public domain.
- Matthew Day's blog
- Login to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Search
Recent Comments
- Paul Maillet |
- Sarah Hutchinson |
- Stephen LaFrenie |
- Gary Brown |
- Stephen LaFrenie |
- 1 of 2019
- ››
Email Updates:
Comments
So far the media has picked
So far the media has picked up on three things, that Sylvie was in the military, that she thinks we're a single issue party and that we thinks we're outside of the mainstream.
Great now the media and opposition get to say that we're a single issue, fringe party and can point to Sylvie's comments to back up the claim.
With friends like these...
Prompted by councils attempt to steal the Party
Dave, your bias in favour of the incumbent is well known. Your enthusiasm is appreciated, even if misplaced. Now we must all bend our knees to the Leader, because people might notice that we do NOT do politics differently?
The simple fact is that if the council had not tried to ram a Leader for Life review process down the throats of the membership, we would never have come to this pass.
If the fact of the motion was not compounded by using the membership lists WITHOUT PERMISSION of the party sending out emails from Elizabeth May distorting the facts (She actually had the nerve to claim an attempt to force her to resign!!!) then the Party would not be facing open division and conflict. The possibility of a fundamental change in the nature of our Party rammed through by 60% of a misinformed online E-Vote was GUARANTEED to bring the pot to a boil, and anybody paying the slightest attention to the GPC would have known that.
These were sleazy tricks of the highest (read lowest) order, and are NOT the acts of a Party that 'does politics differently'. Your insistence that Elizabeth May is your leader, wrong or right does you no credit. You must be starting to suffer from internal doubts about the legitimacy of these actions?
Certainly Huguette Allen resignation from Federal council raised some red flags with you? I know the leadership tried to suppress the fact of her resignation. She is very well respected for her integrity and honesty across all of the Party, left or right, east or west. She did not go gently into the night, so even you must smell a rat?
That's a nice stump speech
That's a nice stump speech but you forgot to address how Sylvie publicly calling the Green Party a single issue, fringe party helps us.
Also, you sent out a nice
Also, you sent out a nice long email on her behalf to a list of Green Party of Canada members. Where did you get that list?
I don't know for sure but I would suspect that privacy laws were broken in your latest mail-out.
That is very close to slander.
Dave, dance carefully when you make implications of illegal acts.The implication is both false, and sleazy.
1) The Privacy Act does not apply to political communications. If it did, the Elizabeth May's abuse of the membership lists, without permission of the Party or the recipients would be illegal.
2) Read the letter. It states clearly that the list was compiled of publicly available EDA executives, candidates, and other people whose email addresses and contact information are in the public domain.
3) It is not my mail out, and I did not 'Get' the list.
Making sure privacy laws are
Making sure privacy laws are followed isn't sleazy, however your brand of politics certainly is.
The privacy act does apply to political communications that's why there is a check box on our membership form where members can decide whether or not their information should be shared with the provincial Green party in the riding.
And you sent a mail out to GPC members from the email address: bluegreen1965@live.com with the subject: The Future of the Green Party of Canada may be decided over this weekend
Haha, you are joking right?
I assume you are joking right? I sent an email this morning to an even two dozen of my personal contacts, all of whom I have exchanged correspondence with in the past. That is somehow a breach? haha... If you were thinking of giving up your day job to practice law, DON'T DO IT!!, lol
The Party can put checkboxes anywhere they like. It has everything to do with common courtesy, but if they think it is a legal obligation, they are mistaken. If you think this is how legality is established, you are wrong.
IF you were correct, and you are not, but IF you were, then Elizabeth May would be guilty of something far more serious than a venal infraction of Party rules when she sent that 'message from Elizabeth May' to the Party membership lists. I would not accuse her of that though, because it would be a falsehood. I do not accuse her of an illegal act,not for one second. She is merely guilty of misappropriating Party resources. Had she done so in a period when there was a declared Leadership contest on, it would be a breach of the Elections Act not to provide otther contestants with equal and timely access. Since there is no race under way, it was merely improper, not illegal, for the simple reason that political communications ARE exempted from the Privacy act.
If you think it through, it is perfectly logical that anybody should be permitted to communicate their political thoughts, postitions, etc etc. For the same reason that Canvassers cannot be denied access to apartment buildings during an election, that being, there is a greater public good served by allowing open, free, and untrammelled speech in an open society like Canada's.
The same public good is not served by allowing Insurance companies for example unfettered access to private communications. That is why the Privacy act exists.
You're spinning like a top
You're spinning like a top Matthew.
The Green Party of Canada sending out an email to the membership (even if the content of that email is a letter from Elizabeth May) is completely different than Sylvie Lemieux campaign taking private GPC data and using it outside of the GPC or a GPC campaign.
If you honestly believe that their are no restrictions on how you use party information then you should not be given access to party information.
Evidence?
Dave, there are a number of email addresses made public on this website to publicize contact information for candidates and EDA officers. You are making an accusation here for which evidence of wrongdoing is likely impossible. Before making accusations of this nature, you need to be prepared to back up your statements with actual facts. It appears some statements border on libel, so I suggest we take it down a notch.
Also, what Ms. May did was self-serving, and so whether or not what she did was permitted by the GPC, it was certainly unethical.
I need to back up things with
I need to back up things with facts, unlike Matthew who you take on face value? Matthew's campaign has been pushing federal council to give them a full copy of the membership list. Asking them to back up where they obtained their contact information is appropriate, I haven't been the only one asking.
Ms. May didn't do anything, while Elizabeth is good with computers she lacks experience with PHP Mailer. She didn't send out an email the GPC sent out an email, she provided the content. I don't think there was anything unethical about it and speaking of unethical Steve May has put forward a couple great arguments that would indicate that Matthew and Sylvie don't hold the ethical high ground.
Your source?
How would you know about what is being requested of Federal Council?
The last time I checked, there was a Federal Council meeting slated back in July and another should be coming up here in August. I don't recall seeing anything of a request for email lists on agendas or in minutes.
Is there a Federal Councilor breeching Council confidence to share this information with you?
Mark Taylor (Cypress Hills - Grasslands)
http://ReportonGreens.blogspot.com
This statement is purely my own opinion and no way is to be mistaken for the viewpoints of the party
My source is James O'Grady
My source is James O'Grady someone who has been working on the Sylvie Lemieux campaign. He freely admitted that this is what they are trying to do.
Another ill considered personal attack
You implied that I, or Sylvie Lemieux team, or somebody somewhere may have committed a criminal act, and a breach of privacy laws. I responded that was poppycock, and you were clueless about the provisions of the act. Now you pretend that you really meant to discuss party rules about non-disclosure, and imply that I do not think there are any rules about using Party information.
Huh? I thought I made it clear that party information should be used with the permission of council, and that Elizabeth May breached those rules when she sent out a personal email without the permission of council. Then I mentioned that Huguette Allen resigned from council because this was a breach of the rules about using party information.
It is clear that you are simply attacking me, without reason or logic, and your only purpose is to say nasty things about me. I do not much care if you want to say nasty things, I am an adult, and I know the worth of your comments. Why do you not instead find something productive to do with your time?
First I'd like to
First I'd like to congratulate you on the use of the word poppycock.
Second, the Green Party of Canada sent out an email Elizabeth May did not send out an email. I know for a fact that Matthew Clarke is not Elizabeth May. Also I'm certain that Craig Cantin is not Elizabeth May. The party sent out an email. Stop acting like she through our email addresses in to Outlook.
I'm not the only one who is upset by you and the spin and misinformation you have been pushing. Steve May has pointed out some holes in your campaign's logic.
As for doing something productive with my time. I signed up seven new GPO members last night what party building did you do? The sum total of your recent involvement seems to be promoting a leadership coup to get back at May.
Dave, you came just short of accusing me of a crime
Dave, you came just short of accusing me of a crime. Now you are pretending like you did not, and trying to change the channel. Now you say that Matthew Clarke, and Craig Cantin are the guilty ones, and Elizabeth had nothing to do with any improper emails.
The email was entitled 'A message from Elizabeth May', not a message from Matt and Craig. Elizabeth doesn't know how to send an email, so it wasn't her fault? What tortuous chains you construct rather than admit a mistake, and say 'sorry, I guess you did not break any laws'. Or 'Yes, Elizabeth sent an email without the authority to do so'.
I guess you are a hero for signingup GPO members. Well guess what? I have signed over 500 memberships to the GPC over the years. Not to mention about 200 GPO membership sales and renewals in 2004-5 alone, so spare me your holier than thou homilies. Be a good lad now, and go sign up another 7, ok?
I'm not trying the change the
I'm not trying the change the channel. When one of the goals of your campaign is to get access to the current membership list it is only fair to question whether you will wait for permission or just ask for forgiveness.
I'm not saying Matthew Clarke and Craig Cantin are guilty of anything. You mislead people by suggesting that Elizabeth May sent out an email. She did not. The Green Party of Canada sent out an email. That email was written by Elizabeth May but most likely a staff member (I'm guessing Craig or Matt) hit send.
Does Federal Council approve of every email that is sent to party members? Is approving individual emails the job of a governance body? I don't think so. I don't think there was anything wrong with the Green Party email written by Elizabeth.
I never claimed to be a hero. I just wanted to point out that you take up very little of my time and I do work productively in my riding to build both the federal and provincial parties.
As for holier than though, that's just funny. Each email from Sylvie's campaign is a great example of acting holier than though. I'll stress acting, since Steve May already shot your rationalizations full of holes.
Time to change the Channel
I'll suggest it since reading about the two of you sniping, insulting and bickering at each other, repeating the same things over and over, is neither productive or interesting, if this is politics done differently I can't see it!
Absolutely correct Ron
You are right Ron. I have documented about 40 public accusations of lies by Bagler, but I generally yank his chain a little, and ignore him. This time, I should simply have rebutted his claim that Sylvie Lemieux stole copies of the membership list, and moved on. As I recently found out, these Blogs are publicly accessible, and I would rather not engage in mud-slinging, in a public venue. Thanks for the 'reality check'
The Boogy man in the closet
Well now that's the boogy man(no idea if I spelled that right) in the closet isn't it? One of the main reasons I joined the greens was that I support the party and its ideas and that I felt our messaging was all wrong. I have been saying forever that the PUBLIC perceives us as a single issue party, and to that I get an indignant no we are NOT! and they point to all our wonderful policies on human rights, education, healthcare, etc. but what is it that we message ALL the time? Global warming, Hug a tree, down with Nuclear and how many windmills and leaves can we cram into a message!
Right or wrong the FACT is the public DOES perceive us as a single issue party and that has to change, and that change is fundamental, it's not a shirt we put on tomorrow it's a culture shift within the party. Too many of our leaders appear to be focused too narrowly on the Environment and that carries through to the public. Simply saying we are not a single issue party and creating some policies that we don't really care about does not change the fact that when the public encounters our leaders, our candidates, or our messaging they keep getting the environment nine times out of ten.(with some few exceptions)
Before you say it I know we are the "Green" Party, and don't say this is "selling out" either, those are getting very tired very fast. My view is that other then our Environmental policy "Green" is a subtext that runs through the party, much like social justice is for the NDP, or liberalisim is for the Liberals, or conservative small govt ideals are for the Conservatives, "Green" informs our take on all things but is not the ONLY thing that affects our decision making.
Sylvie has come out as a leadership contender, and it matters not if there is a race on given that it is an "intention" to run and nothing else. It may be a little crass to do it in the way she did however the constitution is fairly clear on the issue of a race in 2010 and that the leadership is attempting an end around does not negate the fact that we are almost at the end of the window of possibility to kick off a race that would conclude in 2010.
Sylvie coming out and saying that we are a single issue party may be damaging to our very half hearted efforts to inform the public otherwise but as a person who has been advocating for two years on this issue I don't see it that way. I think a leadership race conducted where this is a central issue could only raise the profile of the party and offer the contestants(however many) every opportunity to refute this claim and propose solutions to the perception problem, a heated debate can only help us if the winner is seen as a Full Platform leader, capable of attracting talented quality candidates and active supporters.
I don't know Sylvie and I don't know if she would be the best leader but as I have said before lets get a leadership contest under way ASAP, deal with the concurrent election risk and let the membership decide which vision of the Green party should guide us into the future.
G10-d11 violates our by-laws
It's unfortunate that in her exuberance to want to be a champion of following the Rules of the Party, Lemiuex has offered Party Members a directive motion to vote on which would direct our Federal Council to contravene the existing Constitution.
To wit, the by-laws are clear: a leader shall be elected in 2010. Lemiuex wants more time to build her own profile amongst Greens who, for the most part, still don't know she exists. Her motion calls for a leadership contest to conclude no later than April 30, 2011. The motion goes onto reference that these timelines can not be altered unless a general election is called.
This is political cynicism at its worst. Saying one thing while doing another. I'm not sure this is the sort of "new direction" the Party needs.
Good catch
Good catch. I suspect Ms Lemieux simply is unaware the contest needs to conclude before the end of 2010 under the most liberal reading of our constitution. In any event, a 6 month leadership contest is patently ridiculous, so I can't possibly go along with that.
Regardless, if the leadership contest must conclude in 2010, a resolution that states the contest must end prior to the end of April is technically not in violation of our constitution, since December 31st, 2010 will be before April 30th, 2011. As far as I can tell, it does not explicitly state the contest may end between January and April, it just says it must end prior to April -- and December satistfies that requirement.
I am sure Sylvie Lemieux is fully aware of the Constitution
I am sure Sylvvie is fully aware of the constitutional provisions for a leadrship contest. I am equally sure that her resolution honours the spirit of the Constitution, while allowing for some room to adjust the specific timing.
I am equally sure EVERYBODY is aware that the leadership contest preperations were abruptly stopped, and a new council will be elected that will be tasked with preparing the rules and conditions of the contest. This will take a little time, and directing council to prepare and launch the contest within a specified time frame is within the remit of the members asembled at a BGM, even should circumstances dictate it go beyond the strictest interpretation of the Constitutional term limits of a leader.
Sounds like a practical compromise to me, that will cause no offense to anybody at all. But please, feel free to raise these points in workshop at the BGM. That is how the process works.