Prominent environmentalist Elizabeth May plans to continue doing speaking tours funded by non-governmental organizations, even if she becomes leader of the federal Greens. Responding to a series of questions posed by Wayne Crookes, the party's 2004 campaign manager, Ms. May stated in a July 24 email that she sees "no conflict" between the two activities. According to the former Sierra Club of Canada executive director, "The fact that other groups will pay my expenses to travel and speak to their organizations will help the party, by reducing the costs of reaching cities and allowing me (if I become leader) to reduce financial costs on the Green Party for me to conduct media training with local volunteers and to participate in Green Party events."

When asked for comment and further clarification, May campaign national communications director Chris Bernett said "If you're going to start reporting on emails that go on between (private) parties, I think we're definitely scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to news." Last week, Public Eye confirmed Ms. May would be including a portion of the costs of a cross-country climate change tour as part of her leadership campaign expenses. Earlier, the candidate had said that tour didn't need to be counted as a campaign expense. Ms. May had intended to finance that tour with a grant from a charitable foundation. Mr. Crookes, who is also one of the Green's principal financial backers, hasn't yet disclosed who he's going to support in the leadership race. The following is a complete copy of Ms. May's response to Mr. Crookes.

***

No, there is no conflict. The leader is a spokesperson. Job #1 is communications. I fully intend to give speeches, write books and conduct tours if I am leader of the Green Party, so long as the views expressed are consistent with the policies of the Green Party. Certainly, Jim Harris maintained his speaking and writing activities while also Green Party leader.

The fact that other groups will pay my expenses to travel and speak to their organizations will help the party, by reducing the costs of reaching cities and allowing me (if I become leader) to reduce financial costs on the Green Party for me to conduct media training with local volunteers and to participate in Green Party events. As long as these events fall outside a federal election campaign, the Elections Act has no bearing. I am not sure where one could find a downside in having a leader who has a high public profile and is in demand for conferences. This fall I am already committed to speaking to the Parkland Institute, a Real Property Convention, the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, participating in a round table with the Mining Association of Canada, the Canadian Organic Growers, and an Earth Charter meeting in Amsterdam. How on earth could anyone in the Green Party object to us having a more visible leader??