May to stay as Green leader, party to revisit Israeli boycott issue

May has been debating whether she wants to keep her position after the Greens passed a controversial resolution supporting a movement boycotting Israel – Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) – which Parliament voted to reject in February.

May spent the last several days pondering her future during a vacation in Cape Breton.

The policy has caused a rift within the Green movement, and May has been outspoken over her opposition to it.

“I was overwhelmed to read so many letters of support from members of the green party, and supporters who are not members from across Canada”.

UVic political scientist Michael Prince says if May were to step down now, it could throw the Greens into a deeper crisis.

In an interview earlier this month, May told the Globe and Mail she doesn’t love the job, but on Monday, she said she loved the Green Party’s grassroots engagement, and that “the leader of the party is not the boss”.

The Green Party won’t be needing a new leader, at least for now. “I don’t know that I could do anything else to be more effective on the issues that matter than by staying on as leader of the Green Party”.

“A very compelling reason for leaving was that I felt in the work on the electoral reform committee, would I not have more credibility with the Canadian public in saying we need to get rid of first past the post, if it wasn’t constantly mentioned that my party or me personally stood to gain the most”.

Before this year’s convention, the party decided it no longer needed to send policy proposals back to members across Canada for an online ratification vote. However, those rules leave little room or time for consensus-based decision making.

“Canadian democracy will be healthier when the minority of voters can not elect a majority government, when we have a system that encourages people to vote, that elects more women and minorities”, May said in the interview.

The council adopted a motion approving a special meeting of party members – details to be announced later – where “improved processes for policy-making” are to be adopted. “So that means speculation may swirl, but that’s the honest answer so I’m kind of stuck with it”, she said. She said three or four parties agreeing would be substantial consensus-but she suggested even two parties agreeing might be enough.