Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Miguel Xavier discusses the need for social democrats to stop limiting their goals to preserving the status quo, and instead make the case for transformative change of an unfair economic system. And Dale Smith comments on the need to build grassroots democracy as a necessary precondition to sustainable social and policy gains. 

- Patrick Lennox warns that the separatist movement being stoked by the UCP and the Sask Party represents a threat to Canada's national security. Matthew Mendelsohn writes about the changes Canada's public service needs to make to strengthen our defences against the U.S.' aggression, while Paris Marx highlights the need to ban X in particular as both a peddler of CSAM and a threat to democracy. And Paul Stewart points out how reliance on P3 schemes and outsourcing as a substitute for a dedicated civil service only makes the delivery of necessities more expensive and less effective. 

- IndustriALL examines how social dialogue mechanisms have led to improved wages and working conditions in Kyrgyzstan. 

- Finally, Laura Semenzato et al. study the effects of COVID-19 vaccines, and find a substantial reduction in COVID-related deaths without tradeoffs in all-cause mortality. 

New column day

Last week, I wrote that the NDP should be careful about assuming that changes in leadership would necessarily help in a needed process of party renewal.

Obviously, both elected to seek out new leadership. And so in this week's column, I point out that leadership races shouldn't put on hold any answer to the broader questions about the proper structure and role of a political party. And in fact, the absence of any single person to direct a party from the top down should offer an opportunity to build grassroots involvement.

On evaluations

I've written previously about my view as to how NDP members should approach the review of Thomas Mulcair's leadership at the upcoming federal convention. And in the face of a blizzard of commentary which does little but to echo knee-jerk election post-mortems, I'll offer a couple of questions for discussion (before providing my own answers in a later post).

First, what should members expect and hope to see from Mulcair as leader of the third party?

And second, how have his actions since the 2015 election compared to those expectations?

While I'm interested in readers' views on those points, they can also be applied as a filter to expose punditry which doesn't deserve much attention. After all, anybody unwilling to think about what the NDP should be doing as a party - or to pay attention to what it's actually done - should probably be treated with skepticism in pronouncing judgment on either side as to Mulcair's leadership.

New column day

Here, with my take on the factors NDP members should take into account in evaluating Tom Mulcair's leadership.

For further reading...
- I've written numerous previous posts on the future of Mulcair and the NDP which expand on the points made in the column.
- Michael den Tandt offers his view of Mulcair. Chantal Hebert and Tim Harper serve as examples of the knee-jerk "dump the leader!" reaction which I see as calling for pushback. And while Justin Ling is somewhat alarmist about the NDP's past actions, his analysis deserves a serious look for the future. 
- Finally, I'll reiterate my view that the NDP's long-term focus needs to be grassroots-driven and inclusive rather than relying on yet more central control - meaning that limiting a review to the party's executive (or putting MPs alone in charge of assessing Mulcair's future) doesn't look to be a useful response.

On organization

Given some of the odd twists and turns in Paul Wells' latest piece on Tom Mulcair's future, I'm hesitant to give too much credence to his unnamed sources. But to the extent it's accurate, Wells' take on the lack of much organization on any side of a leadership vote seems fairly important:

Back to my first anonymous source. “There are a few angry, angry, angry people,” this person said, “who I would say are concentrated among the MPs. They’re pinning everything on Mulcair.” This person thinks it’s harsh to blame Mulcair entirely for the loss of 51 seats last October. Justin Trudeau also had something to do with it.

“But I would say there’s a growing consensus that Mulcair needs to step aside,” this person continued. “But there’s no organizing or campaigning going on.”

The constitutionally mandated leadership review after an election is a simple matter. Delegates to a national convention vote on whether there should be a new leadership convention. In any party, dissatisfaction with the leader is unlikely to crystallize unless there’s a present and available alternative.
...
Maybe Mulcair will launch his charm offensive when the House returns at the end of January. Maybe he has no need to charm anyone. With no credible replacement, his opponents may well fold their tents. That’s not an ideal campaign slogan for 2019, but you make do with what you’ve got.

Now, I'd disagree with the theory that any new leadership vote would be predicated on there being some obvious successor waiting in the wings. But even if any leadership campaign could wait until later, the "organizing" side is rather important.

If there were indeed a broad consensus as to the need for a new leadership contest, we'd expect it to be relatively easy for somebody to build some structure around that position. Conversely, if it's true that no substantial organizing is happening around the leadership vote, that would tend to signal that complaints about Mulcair are better classified as meaningless backseat driving, rather than a significant rallying point.

Of course, I've pointed out that some of the most important questions about Mulcair himself revolve around his fit to lead a movement-based party rather than a government-in-waiting. And I'm certainly hoping we'll see some more visible steps in that direction in the near future - whether or not they're seen as responding to a leadership challenge.

But if the most important potential weakness on Mulcair's part applies even more strongly to anybody trying to oust him, that hardly serves as an impetus for change.

On open questions

I've previously criticized the attempts of outside commentators to push Thomas Mulcair out the door as NDP leader. By the same token, though, I'll note that it's equally inappropriate to try to immediately declare that there won't be any review of Mulcair's leadership before the next federal election - which seems to be the spin some people are putting on the aftermath of this fall's election (if not exactly the party's own message).

To be clear, it's fine for Mulcair to make a personal commitment to run given the opportunity to do so. But it's ultimately up to NDP members to decide. And the party's ability to hold the Libs to account and win progressive policies in the new Parliament - reflecting its adaptation to a new political environment under Mulcair - figure to be the decisive factors in that choice.

On statements of values

It's true that a party's policy book is not the same as its election platform.

But it's also true that there is more to a party than a single campaign or platform. And considering that the difference between a policy book and a platform can be pointed out in a single sentence, I'm hard-pressed to see what the NDP stands to gain by limiting access to the policy goals developed by its members.

Trampled

Elizabeth May tells us that her idea of a grassroots movement is a finely manicured lawn carefully maintained to suit the aesthetic preferences of its owners:

May said she didn’t want to thwart local efforts towards co-operation with other parties, but that she thinks she, Liberal Party Leader Justin Trudeau and NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair should be the ones to discuss how grassroots co-operation should work.

To be clear, there were plenty of problems with the Kelowna red-green pact which May seems to have nixed: it didn't make a lick of sense in terms of either reciprocity (since the Liberals were offering nothing in return for a Green candidate's withdrawal) or anticipated outcomes (since the NDP is in a far better position than the Libs to challenge the Cons in the seat). And so it's entirely justifiable that the deal itself would come under scrutiny.

But it's one thing for May to highlight where a specific arrangement has gone awry, and quite another for her to say generally that the plebes should be quiet until party leaders have decided how their activity should be channelled. And if anybody harboured any illusions that the Greens saw their own grassroots activists as significant political agents rather than easily-controlled minions, May seems to have decisively shattered them.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Andrew Coyne sees the powerful impact of local forces on nomination contests as evidence that grassroots democracy is still alive and well in Canada - no matter how much the Cons and Libs may wish otherwise:

What’s common to both of these stories is not only the willingness of local candidates and riding associations to defy the powers that be but their obstinate insistence that these races should be what party leaders claim they are: open nominations. With any luck, this obstreperousness will spread. Thanks to redistricting, there will be other ridings where incumbents face off against incumbents; in others, the promise of open nominations will run into the reality that leaders have favourites. Ridings that resist the inevitable attempts to stage-manage these races will do their parties a favour. Tilted nominations are not open nominations. They’re not even nominations, really.

The tendency, when these fights break out, is to view them as signs of weakness and division, if not anarchy. The tone of news coverage is often disapproving, as if party leaders were indulgent parents who neglected to discipline their children. Reporters pepper their stories with words like “messy,” “ugly,” even “vicious.” This is what you get, they seem to say, when you leave it to ridings to decide these matters. Yes, it is. Isn’t it glorious?

- But of course, we should be hoping for greater democratic participation (and yes, influence over results) within the broader electorate as well. And PressProgress notes that the Cons' Unfair Elections Act looks to benefit Pierre Poutine and his fraudster ilk at the expense of actual voters - while Alison points out the risk that any report on Robocon may be pushed past the next federal election due to the Cons' blindside attacks against Elections Canada.

- Thomas Walkom writes that Canada has received good value - if perhaps something less than the greatest possible return - from the long-term health care accord which the Cons chose to scrap.

- John Geddes highlights the stark gap between the Cons' lip service paid to climate change (based mostly on taking credit for the actions of others), and their utter negligence in reality. And the Edmonton Journal's editorial board makes it clear that even Alberta recognizes the need for real action to replace the current strategy of using misleading PR campaigns to greenwash dirty oil production.

- Finally, Christina Patterson writes that the economic forces which have already undermined wages at the bottom of the income scale may soon do similar damage to the middle class.

On lasting influence

Murray Dobbin continues his quest to push for more big ideas from the federal NDP here. But it's worth dividing his take into one theory well worth applying, and one which would be entirely counterproductive.

At the outset, I'll agree with Dobbin's take that a number of the NDP's current policy themes reflect defensive positions or basic oppositional choices rather than a bold push into new political space:

Megan Leslie lists a number of NDP policies which she describes as "bold," but with all due respect, most are defensive, involve resisting Stephen Harper's anti-democratic agenda, or are long-standing policies that have also been supported by the Liberals -- such as child care. Returning to pre-Harper corporate tax levels is a start -- but Thomas Mulcair's absolute refusal to consider increasing personal income taxes even on the wealthy shows timidity, not boldness. And without reclaiming lost revenue, promises of child care and a national housing program ring hollow.

Leading "the charge against Stephen Harper's attempt to import voter suppression tactics" is what any opposition party should be doing, and opposing the outrageous subsidies given to oil companies is good policy but hardly a "big idea."

And while there's room for debate in both the elements included in Dobbin's list of "big ideas" and some obvious exclusions, they're certainly some possibilities which deserve further discussion:

If the pathologically destructive nature of finance capitalism is to be addressed, there needs to be a political party that can do so by expanding the window of acceptable policies. And that means promoting bold ideas that directly challenge the policies that are creating the crises. Some examples: make advertising to children illegal and begin to address the obesity epidemic; instead of capping credit card fees, establish a public national bank to compete directly with the private banks; get out of NAFTA; use the Bank of Canada's mandated power to lend to governments at near-zero interest rates and pay down the debt; challenge the outrageous behaviour of pharmaceutical companies by establishing a public company actually dedicated to people's health and not shareholder profit, and ban the use of antibiotics in animal feed before they become useless and people start dying again from a scraped knee.

But having made the case for policies which may deserve greater attention, Dobbin also argues that the NDP shouldn't care whether it's ever in a position to implement those policies:

(I)f you want to see a big, bold idea accepted as government policy you have to expand that window to include the new idea. Overton described the evolution to broad public acceptance as a process that develops by degrees: "Unthinkable; Radical; Acceptable; Sensible; Popular; Policy." The right used this model and stuck with it for 30 years to achieve its current dominance. Ideas like slashing unemployment insurance and welfare, privatizing crown corporations, gutting taxes on the wealthy, making huge cuts to social programs and signing "trade" deals that give corporations more power, were all "unthinkable" or "radical" in the beginning. But after 30 years of relentless promotion and the courting of politicians, all of these ideas are now public policy. The advent of medicare in Saskatchewan followed precisely this road to fruition.

And any party wishing to actually deal with the crises we face will need to accept that it will take time to make the necessary bold policies sensible and popular. But so long as the NDP clings to the fantasy of winning a majority it will avoid big ideas for this reason. Contrast that with the NDP in the 1960s, when it took the big idea of medicare to the national stage and forced the Liberal government to implement it. That is the NDP's historic role in progressive social policy: not winning elections but promoting bold ideas until they become popular.

The dramatic shift in strategy -- seriously going for a majority -- has been disastrous for the NDP. It led them to opportunistically defeat the Liberal government and give power to Stephen Harper. Inexorably, the NDP is becoming another liberal party in order to be competitive. Federally, they're badly trailing a Liberal Party with a pretty face and no policies. The tragic irony in this is, of course, that even if the NDP did win, it would have a mandate limited to liberal policies.

Of course, this analysis conspicuously omits any explanation as to why the NDP ought to be limited to some "historical role", or how winning elections is somehow something to be avoided.

In fact, it can hardly escape notice that the NDP's greatest historical influence was linked to the perception that it could plausibly form the government in the relatively near future. The era of big policy wins in the 1960s and 1970s arose in no small part out of the Libs' concern about the growth potential of the NDP (which had of course come together precisely for the purpose of challenging for government where the CCF had failed). In contrast, the perception that the NDP was a minor political force forced Jack Layton to keep his requests modest and focused on short-term gains in recent minority Parliaments.

Which means that Dobbin's own limited focus contains its own tragic irony: a party which rules out a serious attempt to build toward government is far less likely to earn enough influence to be able to shape public policy. (And it certainly won't be able to set the example as to how progressive policies can work in practice - as Saskatchewan's CCF did as a precursor to the national adoption of Medicare.)

Moreover, Dobbin seems to miss some of the most important value in the NDP's recent organizing efforts. Greater outreach to a wider range of people can only help build both the NDP's credibility in making policy suggestions and public awareness of the NDP's own proposals - not to mention providing a mechanism to reach the public directly in assessing what policies might prove both popular and desirable without being unduly constrained by the Ottawa conventional wisdom. 

In sum, Dobbin is right to highlight the need for the NDP to champion policies which meaningfully counter the Con/Lib corporate consensus. But he's wrong to assume that represents a reason to abandon any effort to win a place in government - especially if that means perpetually ceding power to exactly those parties.

Instead, big ideas and political strength are each necessary elements of a meaningful effort to build a more progressive society. And the NDP will do best for itself and for Canada if it works on developing both.

New column day

Here, on how Michael Chong's Reform Act privileges members of Parliament over party members and supporters - and how there's far more reason for concern about a lack of genuine grassroots input as matters stand now than about the influence of MPs.

For further reading...
- I'll point to Andrew Coyne passim as the main cheerleader for the Reform Act. I refer in the column to some of the points made by Alice Funke and Don Lenihan. And Aaron Wherry surveys a few more responses - including Jeff Jedras' proposal for a standardized primary system (which would seem to set up exactly the neutrally-administered party membership lists needed to support a membership-based review mechanism).
- And on the question of how our federal parties handle leadership reviews by membership, the NDP, Conservative and Liberal constitutions are available in PDF form. And while the former provides for a leadership review vote "(a)t every convention that is not a leadership convention" (section 3(a)(v)), the latter two each rule out any leadership reviews except after a general election (sections 10.7 and 71(1), respectively).

[Edit: added link.]

#mtlqc13 - Day 2 Review

Aaron Wherry has been documenting the resolutions passed at the NDP's convention in Montreal - and so I haven't seen much need to comment on them in detail. But the most noteworthy development in today's policy debates came from a resolution which wasn't passed - but which nonetheless signalled the NDP's willingness to tackle difficult but important social issues based on members' input.

The following resolution was pushed up the priority list in the resolution panel, and came to the floor for debate this afternoon:

6-31-13
Resolution on Upholding Sex Workers’ Rights to Life, Liberty, Security, and Equality Submitted by Vancouver East
WHEREAS Canadian values include respect for human and labour rights of all persons, including the right to life, liberty, security, equality and freedom of expression and association as set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;
WHEREAS Canadian courts, the Parliamentary Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws and the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry concluded that criminalization of sex workers increases the violence perpetrated against them and decreases their access to police and other legal and social protections.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT we, the NDP, support the repeal of sections 210, 211, 212(1), 212(3), and 213 of the Criminal Code of Canada in order to improve the health, safety, equality and social citizenship of sex workers.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT we, the NDP, do not support the enactment of legislation that prohibits the purchase or sale of sexual services or sex workers’ ability to work with others.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT while the prostitution laws remain in force, we, the NDP, call on all Canadian police departments to immediately halt enforcement of ss. 211, 212(1), 212(3), and 213 and, instead, ensure sex workers have equal access to police protection and the justice system when they are the victims of crime.

Now, the resolution didn't pass. But that wasn't a matter of it lacking support on the convention floor: instead, after one strong speech favouring the resolution, Libby Davies moved that it be referred to federal council with instructions that it return a formal policy later this year. And that motion, combined with the obvious support of the convention for the cause of ensuring that sex workers are recognized as citizens rather than stigmatized, looks to ensure that the NDP will present an unprecedentedly inclusive policy in the years to come.

The other major development today was Tom Mulcair's speech to members following a successful leadership evaluation. And while I raised some questions about his past speech-making in yesterday's review (based in large part on an address to Saskatchewan's leadership convention which was generally strong on content, but rushed and wordy), he hit the mark today - combining his characteristic intelligence with a far better connection to the audience than I've seen from him in the past. And both that and the review vote bode extremely well for his prospects in holding and building on the NDP's current coalition in the face of a new Liberal leader.

#mtlqc13 - Day 1 Review

Based on my posts leading up to the NDP's federal convention, it shouldn't come as much surprise that my main focus is on the substantive policy debates. And the first day saw some positive developments on that front.

Rather than sticking to the party's chosen list of topics for discussion, members intervened in the resolution panel on the economy to push resolutions on employment insurance (1-53-13) and pay equity (1-17-13) into the mix for approval in this afternoon's plenary session. And while those might not have come first among my own priorities on the economy, they certainly reflect both an injection of strong progressive values, and a demonstration that membership participation still has a substantive effect on the NDP's policy discussions.

The other noteworthy development on the day was Tom Mulcair's evening town hall. For all the talk of an attempt to bolster Mulcair's image by telling more of his personal story, that effort would have fallen flat if he hadn't lived up to the introduction in the subsequent question-and-answer session. But Mulcair reminded us that he's at his best offering well-thought-out responses to a wide range of questions - and it particularly helped for an NDP crowd that the questions themselves led to a more focused articulation of progressive values than Mulcair seems to default toward on his own.

Tomorrow will see plenty more plenary sessions along with a speech by Mulcair. But the first convention test for Mulcair and his party looks to be off to a good start.

#mtlqc13 - Preamble Ramble

Over the past few days, I've highlighted a few policy resolutions I'd like to see promoted and discussed at the NDP's federal convention this weekend in Montreal. But I'll take a few minutes to discuss the topic that's receiving the most media attention in advance of the convention - even if I see its significance as largely overstated.

Aaron Wherry compares the text of the NDP's proposed constitutional preamble to the existing wording here. And the trend to be seen in the existing language, the 2011 proposal and the new draft looks primarily to involve the use of lengthier and weaker wording to describe much the same set of concepts.

That means I'm not hugely excited to see the amendment pushed forward. If nothing else, I'd hope there's room for some editing - in part to cut down on the preamble's length, and in part to reinstate a few concepts (such as social ownership) which don't appear the current version, but remain consistent with the overarching vision of government as a force for the common good. 

That said, I also don't consider it a major problem if the new wording passes as is. Again, the general principles included in the new version leave plenty of room for all the progressive policy one could possibly hope to see - that is, so long as the role of government in pursuing the common good is defined through more detailed policy.

Which brings me back to my broader view of this weekend's convention. I don't see the constitutional issue as carrying too much weight one way or the other, but the treatment of policy resolutions which haven't been treated as party priorities (both in the ability of delegates to change the agenda to suit members' concerns, and in the party's response to resolutions that pass as a result) will be the most important test for the NDP. And if party loyalists manage to block any change to the preamble while being unable to substantially shape current party policy, that doesn't strike me as a positive outcome for anybody.

#mtlqc13 Priority Resolution - Human Rights

The final panel on policy resolutions at the NDP's Montreal convention will deal with human rights issues. And the Young New Democrats of Quebec have proposed a resolution which covers a number of issues worth including in that discussion:

6-26-13
Resolution on Rights in the Digital Age
Submitted by the Young New Democrats of Quebec
WHEREAS protecting digital rights is necessary to develop a sustainable economy in the 21st century;
BE IT RESOLVED that a new subsection (6.10) be added to the Policy Book:
6.10 Rights in the digital age
New Democrats believe in:
(a) Ensuring all Canadians have affordable high-speed Internet access.
(b) Updating the notion of copyright for the 21st century, while protecting creators.
(c) Preventing malicious prosecutions for copyright infringement.
(d) Putting an end to the legal protection for “digital locks,” to enable Canadians to transfer their digital content from one medium to another.
(e) Protecting the right to privacy and free expression on the Internet.
(f) Reforming the patent system with such measures as patent lifespan that varies by sector and measures to limit malicious prosecutions.
(g) Making government more transparent by adopting open government principles.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Subsection 6.7 g be struck from the Policy Book.

Of course, the open government theme is addressed in a number of other resolutions (including two I've mentioned before). But the NDP will be well served to also embrace the combination of intellectual property policy oriented toward creativity rather than rent-seeking, a commitment to Internet accessibility, and protections for both privacy and free expression online. And in each case, the party has the opportunity to stand alone in taking the side of Canadian citizens in dealing with rapacious (and deservedly unpopular) corporate interests.

#mtlqc13 Priority Resolution - Governance

One of the most obvious sources of cynicism in politics - which the NDP should be seeking to combat at every turn - is the presence of issues where opposition promises turn into government inaction or even abuse. And the Cons have sadly offered a case in point when it comes to accountability and transparency.

That means it's particularly important for the NDP to establish a strong message on accountable government which fits into the party's grassroots values. And luckily, there's just such a resolution up for discussion:

5-28-13
Resolution on Open Government Submitted by Terrebonne-Blainville
WHEREAS new information technologies enable citizens to interact more directly with government and participate more directly in government decision-making;
BE IT RESOLVED that Subsection 5.8 of the Policy Book be amended as follows:
New Democrats believe in:
f. Promoting an open government strategy with the objective of encouraging public participation, facilitating communication between government and citizens, and making information accessible to citizens while tracking which information is most sought after by the public with a view to gradually making this government information accessible to the public in a user-friendly, modifiable form.

Once again, another, higher-ranking resolution deals with much the same subject matter (5-14-13). But the difference between the two lies in the distinction between transparency merely as a way of peering in on goverment activity, and two-way communication which facilitates citizen participation. And the NDP should be seeking to emphasize its commitment to the latter ideal.

#mtlqc13 Priority Resolution - International Affairs

The NDP's position on trade policy has of course been a hot-button issue both inside and outside the party - making it the area I'd see needing some discussion in Montreal. And while a number of other resolutions deal with the issue, one offers a particularly neat means to add an explicit commitment to the bigger picture while allowing for the approval of reasonable trade agreements (and avoiding unnecessary modifications to what's already a well-worded section of the policy book).

4-21-13
Resolution on Unfair Trade Practices Submitted by Beaches-East York
BE IT RESOLVED the following clause be added to Section 4.5 of the policy book, after clause b, and that subsequent items be reordered accordingly:
[4.5 New Democrats believe in] c) Classifying wage suppression, union suppression and lax environmental regulation as prohibited "unfair trade practices“ in international trade agreements.

Of course, there's room to import some other principles as well - such as ensuring that "unfair trade practices" aren't merely enforceable by corporate interests or measured in terms of lost profits. And if the resolution can be further strengthened to account for those types of considerations, then all the better.

But the starting point in addressing trade should be a concrete commitment to ensuring that social values are strengthened rather than undermined by international trade. And the resolution from Beaches-East York fits that goal.

#mtlqc13 Priority Resolutions - Social Policy

Not surprisingly, the social policy resolutions up for discussion this weekend include a wide range of issues - and I'll avoid highlighting the resolutions dealing with either familiar topics of discussion like gun control, marijuana decriminalization/legalization and housing.

Instead, I'll point out three resolutions which look to deserve particular attention:

3-39-13
Resolution on the Impact of Economic, Social, and Environmental Factors on Individual Health Care Submitted by the Quebec Section
BE IT RESOLVED that the following clauses be added to Subsection 3.1(r) of the Policy Book:
• Acknowledging that economic, social, and environmental factors impact individual, public, and community health and must be considered as social determinants of health; and
• Taking economic, social, and environmental factors into account when drafting economic, social, and environmental policy.

It shouldn't come as much surprise that I'd consider it a major plus to include some recognition of the social determinants of health as part of the NDP's official party policy. And while I'd like to see the wording strengthened and the issue promoted from a sub-point to a major theme in the longer term, this resolution offers a valuable starting point.

3-47-13
Resolution on Federal Funding for University Research Submitted by Hull-Aylmer
BE IT RESOLVED THAT a new clause be added to Subsection 3.2 of the Policy Book:
Ensuring that federal funding for university research is allocated primarily on a basis of public and/or scientific interest rather than commercialization potential or the interests of private business.

The federal government's influence over Canadian universities is of course restrained by provincial jurisdiction. But this resolution offers a means of expanding both the range of academic study carried out in Canada, and the public benefits we can expect to see flowing from federal research money.

3-52-13
Resolution on Guaranteed Annual Income Submitted by Fundy Royal
WHEREAS experiments with systems for Guaranteed Annual Income have shown positive results in terms of health and happiness, and economic stimulation, and
WHEREAS many low income Canadians are now forced to wait until the age of 65 (or 67) before they can afford to live with a minimal level of dignity, and (sic)
BE IT RESOLVED that the following clause be added to Section 3.4 of the Policy Book:
3.4
Fighting Poverty
New Democrats believe in:
e) supporting the implementation of a Guaranteed Annual Income system.

I'll note that a number of other resolutions - some higher in the current resolution list - also mention a guaranteed annual income. But those tend to fall short on one or both of two of my criteria by either focusing on small studies rather than broad principles, or failing to include the concept within the NDP's policy book.

I take it as implied that support for a guaranteed annual income or any other policy includes a desire to ensure its effective implementation, and think the NDP would be well served featuring a guaranteed annual income as part of its long-term policy menu. And so, I'd ideally want to see the Fundy Royal resolution (with the extra "and" deleted) moved to the top of the list.

#mtlqc13 Priority Resolution - Environment

On the environmental side, I'll limit my focus to one priority resolution. That's in part because the NDP's existing policy book looks to largely cover the most important aspects of the environment, and because the resolutions submitted for the Montreal convention largely have a fairly narrow focus (which takes it outside my goals in assembling the priority resolutions list).

But one resolution does offer some important new material to define the NDP's direction, even if it looks fairly familiar based on the party's current policy:

2-51-13
Resolution on Energy and Pipelines
Submitted by Toronto-Danforth
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the following
clause be added to Section 2.4 of the policy book:
i. Opposing the shipment of unrefined oil-sands bitumen through pipelines (new or old) over long distances, and only supporting the shipment of refined bitumen in the context of (1) the refining taking place close to the source of extraction, (2) the end product being intended for consumption within Canada, and (3) a broader strategy that includes a move towards renewable energy sources and a just transition for the workers employed in oil-sands related industries.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT subsequent clauses in Section 2.4 be reordered as necessary.

This resolution can be seen largely as a specific application of existing party policy, including the following:

2.4 Energy
New Democrats believe in:
...
h Discouraging bulk exports of our unprocessed natural resources and fossil fuels and providing incentives for value-added, responsible upgrading, refining and petrochemical manufacturing in Canada to maximize the economic benefits and jobs for Canadians.

However, the new resolution provides significantly more clarity as to the standards applied by the NDP in limiting our reliance on the wholesale export of unrefined bitumen - along with needed recognition that the our policy dealing with the oil sands should be directly linked to a long-term shift toward more sustainable resources.

Because the above resolution doesn't focus quite as narrowly on hot-button issues as related resolutions (particularly those dealing with individual pipelines), I won't be surprised if it ends up getting lost in the shuffle. But I'll hope to see some effort put into an overarching set of principles as well - and even if there's ample room for debate about the specific of the Toronto-Danforth resolution, it offers an important starting point on that front.

#mtlqc13 Priority Resolutions - Economy

Following up on my earlier post, let's start taking a look at a few of the resolutions which I hope to see discussed and passed at this weekend's federal NDP convention in Montreal.

In addition to the criteria mentioned in my earlier post, I also won't spend too much time highlighting resolutions which already close enough to the front of the line to be likely to pass (or which largely duplicate such resolutions). Instead, I'll focus on resolutions which will need to be promoted in the order of precedence to have a chance of being discussed and passed.

For those not familiar with the convention process, amendments to the resolutions submitted as well as the order of discussion for the plenary sessions will be determined at Friday morning's resolution panels. Unfortunately, I personally won't be arriving at the convention until that afternoon - and I'll encourage readers who will be around for the Friday morning resolution panels to discuss how to move the resolutions forward.

Without any further ado, here are the two resolutions I'd like to see promoted out of the first resolution panel (Innovating and Prospering in the New Energy Economy):

1-26-13
Resolution on Consumers’ Rights Submitted by Winnipeg Centre
WHEREAS the public good is threatened when the independence of inspection agencies are compromised; and
WHEREAS the responsibility for ensuring that all industries in Canada are properly regulated rightfully rests with the government not the private sector;
Therefore be it resolved that the following clause be added to Section 1.13 of the policy book:
1.13 New Democrats believe in:
k. Ending self-regulation in all industries and ensuring that government inspection agencies are robust, scientific and independent of political and market influence.

Since I've written a recent enough column on much the same subject, I won't go into a lot of detail on the importance of an independent public service which avoids industry capture. But the above resolution nicely captures the concern about non-regulation and self-regulation - while neatly distinguishing the NDP from its main federal competitors who are all too happy to let industry write its own rules.

1-93-13
Resolution on Progressive and Fair Taxation Submitted by Halifax
Changes to read:
1.7 Progressive and fair taxation
New Democrats believe in:
a. A progressive tax system.
b. A tax system that is robust enough to support expanded, effective public services and programs.
c. Taxing capital gains and stock options at the same rate as salaries or wages.
d. An aggressive response to tax evasion, including the use of tax havens.
e. Converting deductions from taxable income to tax credits to simplify the tax system and make it more progressive.
f. Making tax credits refundable to assist very low income Canadians
g. Ensuring that profitable corporations pay a fair share of taxes.
h. Restoring estate taxes on estates over $1 million as an element of a progressive tax system.
i. Targeting tax reductions to help low and modest income Canadians.
j. Introducing a Financial Transactions (Tobin) Tax
k. Eliminating Tax Free Savings Accounts as a means of tax avoidance

A number of other resolutions (including some higher in the current priority list) deal with some of the issues included in this complete rewrite of the NDP's existing tax policy. But none comes close to hitting all the points included in the Halifax resolution - which commits the NDP to a highly progressive set of tax policies while leaving open the question of which ones to pursue immediately. And so I'd prefer to see this resolution passed in Montreal, with future discussion to be based on the above principles.

I'll note that the panel including these resolutions also features a number of issues surrounding labour, privatization and industrial policy - and I fully expect there to be strong advocates wanting to see those dealt with as well. But ideally, we'd see the above resolutions make it to the front of the line.