2010 GPC BGM Resolutions FREE VOTE POLICY - REQUEST FOR SPONSORS

This post did not meet the terms of service for the site and has been removed.

Paul, I don’t believe that anyone is suggesting that policy is to be equated with doctrine, and that the best way to achieve policy goals is for a caucus to shout as loudly as possible with a single voice. In reality, this rarely happens. Even with a stage-managed caucus such as the Conservatives currently have, there are always voices which are "outside of the box" on many issues (witness what’s been going on lately with opening up MP’s expenses to the auditor, or even the discussions framed around abortion). 

No, policy isn’t doctrine. Doctrine is relatively inflexible; it’s the lens which we hold up to policy for our consideration, or if you prefer, the filter through which we view the world and what’s in it, including the decisions which we make. Policy is more directive than doctrine, and it can be more flexible in that it is subject to change after careful consideration. Usually, changes are not holus-bolus; instead, they are incremental, and often tend, over time, to evolve in a certain direction (informed by one’s belief system, which you refer to as doctrine). 

Policy, though, should be considered a public promise made by those who are in a position to make decisions pertinent to achieving certain outcomes. An organization will set its policy direction through strategic processes. For example, a municipality will adopt various plans which set out policies which can be reached through goals and objectives. These plans are often informed by the wishes of the public, tempered by the legislative and economic realities of the organization. In short, decision-makers must exercise many responsibilities when making policy decisions. There are always larger interests in play. When decision-makers fail to follow through with implementation of specific policies, they are often held accountable by those with interests in the policies, including many who helped formulate those policies. 

The Green Party too, makes policy decisions based on the input of its members through a largely public process. Policies may need to be tempered by other realities, but the expectation remains by those involved in the process that ultimately decision-makers will act towards the implementation of those policies. This isn’t acting in accordance with doctrine; instead, it’s acting in accordance with the expressed will of the grassroots, which has been stated through the policy-creation process (an often onerous process, I might add). 

There is an expectation for follow-through. I strongly believe in the notion that Policy equates to a publicly stated promise. Yes, it’s true: promises can be broken. But doing so will carry certain risks, and I believe that if you break a public promise, you really will need to justify your rationale for doing so. 

I disagree that this approach to promise-keeping somehow presents an opportunity lost for our Party. While I concur that the approach itself is somewhat in keeping with that used by the other parties (and only somewhat, for members of other parties are free to adopt policies which decision-makers are free to disregard; witness Ignatieff’s outright rejection of a carbon tax, which is Liberal Party policy), that alone does not mean we should abandon the approach. 

If Party Members can’t have faith that our decision-makers will keep the promises developed by the Party through its policies, how will that benefit the Party at election time? If the general public is left with the impression that the Green Party’s MP’s, despite having really wonderful policies, ultimately won’t work towards their implementation, what might the public conclude from that circumstance? 

This is not to suggest that there might not come a time when elected MP’s may have to break a policy promise. When that happens, I expect that Party Members will be presented with a good explanation as to why this is happening. Politics and policy don’t always mix, that’s a reality. However, clearly those circumstances should be the clear exception, and not the rule. 

I believe that the Green Party is a values-based Party.  Our values inform the decisions we make with regards to policies.  If anything, sometimes we get into a little trouble with ourselves when values and politics come into conflice (often leading to navel-gazing); to me, that demonstrates the relative health of our values, which we seem to not want to compromise in the name of something else (such as politicking).

This doesn't mean that we should feel the need to remain silent on issues which are outside of our policy experiences, or perhaps even contrary to them.  If one feels strongly that a particular policy approach is problematic, seek to the change the policies from the inside using all of the available tools in that tool-box.  Should that approach fail, look for other opportunities to compromise.  An outright rejection of the Party's public promise should never be the starting point.

What is being proposed here is to enshrine in policy the direction that MP’s, if elected, should feel free to disregard policies of the Party which they do not agree with. Essentially, this would allow public promises to be broken with little or no need for justification, beyond "we have a policy which lets us behave this way". A certain B.C. MP is getting himself in hot water over flying his family to and from Ottawa on the tax-payers dime. His response so far has been to justify his actions with the "I’m allowed by the rules to do this", rather than providing a better explanation regarding the need to have taken the actions he took. His rules-based approach isn’t working out too well for him at the present time. 

If we give our elected MP's an "out" in policy to vote against other Green Party policies when the time comes, what we will in effect be doing is providing MP's with the "starting point" which then frames the discussion about policy.  That starting point is Rejection, rather than negotiation.  And if we establish the opportunity for the starting point to be the possibility of outright rejection, what does that say about our own values as a Party?

Please treat our Member-approved policies as promises made to the grassroots, and to Canadian voters.  Our policies are representative of our values, or if you prefer, of our doctrine (if one could call the hodge-podge beliefs of our members "doctrine"; I certainly wouldn't).  If we can’t stand on policies, approved by Members subject to the approval process filled with discussion, negotiation and compromise, what shall we stand on?

Policies, ideally, become positions and should (imho) form the sole basis for the Platform (i.e. no plank without policy). 

Yes - MP's are forced to fly by the seat of their pants sometimes, to respond without much time for thought in debate. In those cases, I would think that it would be good to have MP's who are deeply familiar with and supportive of the Party Policies. If they were to start picking and choosing, then the party would be quickly into making Policy on-the-fly, brokering deals to please those who were in front of us at the moment.

Our Policy Document is one of our most important resources - nearly as important as the Constitution & Bylaws. Policies are the expression of goals and aspirations agreed upon by the majority of the membership in a process that is far more open to the membership than processes in place in other parties. If you respect the members, you must respect Policy.

Sure - other parties have environmental policies. I'm an ex-Liberal and ex-NDP supporter; both parties lost me b/c they always, in practice (their "revealed values"), found something (e.g. jobs) of more value.

I believe that the Green Party has the only coherent set of policies, founded on the six Principles, and the only coherent platform. We toy with that at our peril.

Anyone who disagrees with a particular policy should put forth resolutions to change those policies, not provide a way to cop out.