Green Party of Quebec Leader Alex Tyrrell Criticizes Elizabeth May’s Decision to Reappoint Jonathan Pedneault as Co-Leader
In a scathing critique of the Green Party of Canada’s leadership decisions, Alex Tyrrell, leader of the Green Party of Quebec, has called out Elizabeth May for her decision to bring Jonathan Pedneault back as co-leader, describing it as a step backward for the party and a missed opportunity for renewal.
Tyrrell’s comments come amid growing frustration with May’s leadership style and her insistence on maintaining control over the party’s direction. “Elizabeth ‘in the way’ May should have resigned and passed the torch rather than making a second attempt at co-leadership with a co-leader who walked away from the job just months ago,” Tyrrell stated, earning chuckles for his clever new nickname for the longtime federal leader.
Pedneault’s initial resignation in 2024 was marked by a public airing of grievances. In an open letter published in Le Devoir, Pedneault questioned the very existence of the Green Party of Canada, urging progressives to unite and move beyond partisan politics. He criticized the party’s federal council and called on Greens to “stop drinking their partisan Kool-Aid.” His departure was seen as a clear rejection of the party’s direction and a loss of confidence in its future.
“Consistency is very important in politics, and Jonathan Pedneault has shown that he is not consistent with his commitment to the Green Party, its purpose, or its values,” Tyrrell emphasized. He pointed to Pedneault’s shifting stance on the war in Ukraine as evidence of this inconsistency. Despite the Green Party’s long-standing commitment to peace and non-intervention, Pedneault has recently supported the escalation of the conflict—a stark departure from both party policy and his own previous positions.
Tyrrell also criticized Pedneault’s attempt to rewrite the narrative surrounding his resignation. “Today, Pedneault claims that health problems were the reason for his departure last year—yet another statement inconsistent with the reasons he gave at the time,” Tyrrell noted. “This lack of transparency and accountability is exactly what the Green Party doesn’t need.”
Under May’s leadership, the Green Party of Canada has struggled to maintain its relevance in federal politics. Tyrrell argued that May’s support for NATO and her alignment with U.S. military agendas have alienated many within the party’s base. “Elizabeth ‘Bombs Away’ May’s enthusiasm for Canada’s role as a U.S. ally undermines the Green Party’s founding principles of peace and environmental stewardship,” he said, delivering another zinger that’s sure to stick.
Tyrrell called for a complete overhaul of the party’s leadership, urging May to step aside and allow a new generation of leaders to take the reins. “Instead of making a second attempt at failed co-leadership, Elizabeth ‘in the way’ May should resign, step aside, and make way for a new generation of leadership chosen by the membership—without her calling the shots from behind the scenes,” he said.
The reappointment of Pedneault, Tyrrell argued, is a sign that the party is unwilling to confront its challenges head-on. “Jonathan Pedneault’s return to co-leadership will set the party back. If gains are to be made in the next election, big changes need to happen—including a complete change in leadership,” he concluded.
As the Green Party of Canada prepares for the next federal election, Tyrrell’s critique highlights the growing divide within the party and raises questions about its ability to remain a viable political force. For many Greens, the path forward lies not in revisiting past failures but in embracing a bold new vision for the future—one that prioritizes peace, consistency, and genuine grassroots leadership.
And while the nicknames “Elizabeth in the way” and “Bombs Away May” might bring a smirk to readers’ faces, the underlying message is very serious: the Green Party must reject militarism and return to its roots as a champion of peace. If the party continues to align itself with war and militarism, it risks losing not just seats in Parliament but the very principles that define it.