WHEREAS historically The Liberal Party of Canada has proudly and successfully reformed itself to ensure the full participation of its membership;
WHEREAS the last full and thorough reform process with broad membership engagement occurred over 25 years ago in the early 1980’s with the Reform Commission created by former Liberal Party President, Iona Campagnolo during the leadership tenure of the late Rt. Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau;
WHEREAS the Liberal Party of Canada remains committed to the full democratic participation of its membership in all internal party processes and practices;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT a Renewal Commission be immediately created and that this Commission be charged with the responsibility to engage all Party members in a review and assessment of the current degree of democratic participation practiced within the Party and recommend changes to the Constitution of the Liberal Party of Canada that would ensure the Party deepen its commitment to internal democracy by maximizing the democratic participation of its membership;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that two members from each province and territory be elected by the full membership of their respective provincial and territorial Liberal associations within one year of the national Biennial Convention in 2011, and that these members elect a Chair from among themselves;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that once all commissioners have been elected that this Commission be given up to two years to complete its mandate and present constitutional amendments to the first national convention following this two year period and that said convention vote to adopt or reject all constitutional amendments presented by this Commission for approval.
Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario)
This resolution is an example of what is wrong with the process of amending the constitution. Instead of dealing with the issues that have been raised we get a commitee that will get back to us in about four years to let us know their version of what needs to be done.
This resolution does not actually call for a constitutional amendment per se. It advocates the creation of a Renewal Commission that would essentially audit the practices/processes of the party to determine whether those practices/processes are democratic. The outcome of that audit might, indeed, lead to constitutional amendments in the future. With regard to the timing, John-Frederick mentioned in his response that this aspect of the resolution is open to discussion.
Why give the commission 2 years to complete its mandate? You all know that the Quebec “Arm” of the Liberal Party – illegally shut out the English speaking population of Quebeck for well over 20 years. And I don’t believe the Party is going to go anywhere until its leaders start accepting responsibility in plain English. Also why is this section listed under Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario)? The problem is Quebeck, has always been Quebeck and unless this language law crime being endorsed by Our Party – is discussed without ‘mincing words’ or treading on eggs so the separatists aren’t offended – it will remain Quebeck. And the Party will remain in third place status. The people have had more than ENOUGH of BEING SHUT OUT OF THE PROCESS in Quebeck – in particular in the Greater Montreal area! The Party has DEEPLY offended – this crucial vote segment – it took for granted was a ‘captive vote’. Let’s see if this makes it past the moderator, for starters.
Agreed. We need action not elected committees. Should have just had a membership referendum to determine changes to the constitution. Wouldn’t that be a more democratic approach?
NEO-CONSERVATIVE are occpying the OCCUPY MOVEMENT. Just had an e-mail from one of the NEO-CONNSERVATIVE organizations that some how got my e-mail address. We seem to be missing the wave. These groups are continually trolling for people. We are sitting around what color garbage cans we are going to have, so the back room boys can file our comments.
I’d like to respond to the posts from Jim W and Jonathan L. First, this resolution is listed as coming from LPC (O) because it was adopted as a Priority Resolution from Ontario. The resolution was first drafted and passed in my Riding of Oakville.
I invite you to visit the website we created to advocate and promote this resolution. It provides our rationale and may give you a better sense of our reasoning. Please visit, http://lpcrenewal.ca .
On the issue of the time allotted, we agree that a two- year timeline could be shortened and I know as the ‘movers’ of the resolution we would be open to a friendly amendment specific to that issue. However, we wanted this process to be managed by members of the Party who are ‘elected’ by the membership and not simply ‘appointed’ so that this Commission is responsible solely to the full membership.
We believe now is the time for the membership ‘to take our Party back’. Over the course of many years the role of the ‘member’ in our Party has been diluted to an almost insignificant level and used only for fundraising purposes. But the process of de-constructing all of the ‘undemocratic’ clauses within our Constitution (which I would argue has occurred over the last 20 years almost under the radar of the full membership), is an enormous one…and one that I do not believe we should do ‘in a rush’ and especially without taking the time to engage the full membership in that discussion. That said, we agree, the faster the better. But in order to allow for the election of Commissioners at the provincial level, we suggested a two-year timeline so that the Commission could complete its work and present amendments to the Constitution to ‘re-democratize’ our Party at the next Biennial following its passage.
Regarding the suggestion that votes for constitutional change be done via the Internet, this would be terrific assuming proper security could be achieved. However, how we vote is not the same as what we vote on. We would still need some group to come up with a coherent set of constitutional amendments to be voted on, irrespective of the voting method.
If this resolution passes and constitutional amendments are put to a vote will it be a single vote to accept or reject all of the amendments?
Hi Jim,
I’ll do my best to answer your question. If this resolution passes the online process – that it gathers enough online votes to be deemed the priority resolution of this category – it will join the other priority resolutions at the convention “policy” plenary where it will be put to a vote by convention delegates. We will only know then whether or not it is fully adopted.
Constitutional amendments have their own specific plenary and each proposed amendment is voted on individually. Consequently, there is not a single vote to accept or reject all of the amendments.
Thank you Andre. That did answer my question. I was asking about the constitutional amendments that would be presented by the commission.
Thank goodness this motion has been put forward. My riding has been very quiet when it comes to “getting involved”. I’d love to get more involved but hear very little. Things must change. Full participation of everyone is vital.
Something like this is essential for renewal of the party. However, two years is too long – 12 months would have been sufficient time given all the ideas floating around in the past decade or so!
Also, I would hope the committee recommended a permanent reform group be formed within the party, which reports each and every year to members and to the convention on changes needed to actually achieve these laudable objectives.
Such a permanent reform body would ensure we don’t start lagging behind and that our party does not become ossified.
In the 2011 federal election 4 in 10 Canadians did not vote, and only about 1 in 8 Canadians voted for the Liberal Party.
Clearly something is wrong.
Many years ago Martin Luther King electrified America with a few words. History was changed when he spoke.
His words were simple: I have a dream.
Yet so compelling were his words that hundreds of thousands of people marched when they heard them.
Today, for the Liberal Party to become attractive to more Canadians again, we need to be able to say to Canadians that we are the party with dreams.
One of the dreams we should have is to become the political party that can say to Canadians:
We commit ourselves to strive each and every day to improve your democratic rights.
We will do this at all levels of government – local, provincial and federal.
We will strenthen your democratic rights, not diminish them.
We will give you the most advanced democratic tools that any political party in any modern democracy can provide.
That last sentence is the general principle of this dream of democracy – if we adopt it, then all our policies and initiatives can be measured against it.
Give Canada’s democracy back to its citizens; be the party that stands for their rights. This will give voters a compelling reason to flock to the polls to vote Liberal so as to empower themselves.
# renewal #ottawa2012
Glenn, your words stir me to say ‘yes’, that is our role. It is core to being liberal and it should be core to being LIBERAL as well. As Jennifer Ross has mentioned and I think you allude to in your comments about “We (the LPC) will give you the most advanced democratic tools that any political party in any modern democracy can provide.”, is the need for speed in the 21st century.
In a multitasking, hyper media, hyper connected world, the need to make sure our ‘tent’ is member and ‘net’ driven is obvious to me.
I like your dream invitation. We will incorporate it in the lostliberals@shaw.ca process discussing party renewal. I hope you add your thoughts to our conversation.
John-Frederick Cameron, I am thrilled that the originators are open to a friendly amendment cutting the time. This was my number one policy, but reading it now (after May 2) it seems glacial in terms of moving (and that’s before global warming!)
I see no reason why this work couldn’t be done in say, three months, here, on the community discussion boards. We can make specific proposals, talk about them, then have a voting period where Rob Jamieson or somebody sends all Liberal members the link with voting on each proposal being open for a week or two. How does that sound?
Has nobody seen the Change Commission Report and the 2 following update reports??
We have gone through this already…..
See:
- Change Commission Report
- Change Commission Implementation Final Report (Jan 20) (updated report from National Board)
- Change Commission Implementation Gaps Report (May 2011)(updated report from people who wrote the original report)
All 3 reports are posted here https://vancouverquadra.liberal.ca/documents/
And if you read the 2 update reports the conclusions are vastly different…
- the National Board claims – ‘total completed’ and ‘completed and ongoing’ – 78.7%
- While the people who wrote the report claim – ‘total completed’ and ‘completed and ongoing and completed with reservations’ – 17%
In short – the current National Board says ‘Mission Accomplished’ we implemented most of the changes – while the people who wrote the original report say on 17% of the change recommendations are completed.
There is a complete disconnect between the 2 realities of the National Board and people who wrote the original report.
I highly recommend you read over the reports….
Make your own conclusions!
My questions would be – do we really need yet another commission to tell us what we already know – or should we waste yet another 2 years?
Cheers.
Phil
I agree Phil.
While I haven’t yet read the Gap Analysis (it’s on my list for this evening), I did feel as though the report submitted by the National Board was overly generous in what constituted a “completed” rating.
I agree Phil.
While I haven’t yet read the Gap Analysis (it’s on my list for this evening, I did feel as though the report submitted by the National Board was overly generous in what constituted a “completed” rating.
This resolution is entirely inadequate. We don’t need a committee to take two years to come back and report.
The first thing that needs to be done is to eliminate the federated structure of the LPC. No other federal party is hamstrung with 13 PTAs acting as intermediaries between the federal party and its riding associations and members.
Every organization in the world is trying to get flatter because that is both more efficient and cost effective. Maybe that didn’t matter when the LPC was in government for decades but it sure matters when we are in third and money is tight.
I can speak to my experience with the late lamented Progressive Conservative Party of Canada which was in dire financial and political straits from 1993 thru 2003, when Harper and the Alliance finally engineered its takeover.
We had were no PTAs. The central party provided organizational support to the EDAs with respect to memberships, meetings and receipts. The EDAS were organized in Regional Cuncils that met typically four times a year for a few hours in a central location. Ontario for instance had councils for southwest, Hamilton-Niagara, Metro, eastern Ontario and northern Ontario.
Costs of Regional Council meetings were substantially less than our current LPCO meetings for which we are taxed whether we attend or not. In addition to registration fees, all but the host EDAs incur substantial travel and hotel costs for each quarterly LPCO meeting.
In contrast my old PCPC Regional Councils involved no more than the cost of a lunch and gas for perhaps two hours worth of driving. Further those meetings were far more effective in dealing with regional concerns as well as gaps in attendance to the extent that those gaps reflected EDAs that needed help..
Where we had organizers, they actually lived in the region as opposed to LPCO organizers who live and work in Toronto, venturing out into the hinterlands only occasionally. Those organizers actually attended EDA executive meetings in every riding at least once a year and knew what was going on.
There is a reason no other party is organized on a federated basis. I don’t need or want two years to tell me that we need to change and we need to do it now!
Great, establishing another commission with an unclear process of appointments, whereby two thirds of the pop and most of the members and riding associations would be rep’d by only four delegates (ON and PQ, which is almost funny as the resolution comes from Ontario) AND the commission would report back until after the next biennial, and right before the next election, when it would be too late to do anything.
The fact that selecting a commission of elites to make decisions and not make any changes for several years is appealing to some explains a lot about the present mindset of the party.
In response to the last two posts, we could not disagree more. First, as I understand it the Change Commission was made up of ‘appointed’ individuals and not elected by the membership of the Party. Any Commission that is un-elected can essentially be ignored since it is not accountable to the full membership of the Party. Having said that, we actually like many of the recommendations and appreciate and recognize the tremendous work of that Commission. However, as you accurately point out, many of the recommendations have been ignored, and because of the fact that the Commission was not put in place by the membership, but rather by the Leader, the membership has no power to enforce said recommendations. Further, our proposed Commission would be focused not on ‘operational changes’ but rather on the democratic deficit within our Party structure. So, a very clearly different focus to many aspects of the Change Commission.
We all want effective and efficient ‘democratic renewal’. We all agree that the Party has become a ‘top – down’ Institution and is not member driven. This must change. But in order to achieve this, it must be accomplished by way of fundamental changes to the governing document of the Party, our Party’s Constitution. Please review the powers for instance of the National Campaign Committee and their Co-Chairs. These are appointed positions and therefore not accountable to the membership. Yet they yield tremendous power.
As members, we want our Party back. And we can only take it back, by creating an open, accessible, democratic Institution governed by a Constitution that enshrines democratic principles and practises.
A democratically ‘elected’ Commission (as is proposed by this resolution) is hardly a ‘Commission of Elites’.
In fact, it is quite the opposite. Further, as we have stated in previous posts, we welcome any friendly amendments on the floor of the Convention that would shorten the timeframe of the work of this Commission.
For more information, please visit http://www.lpcrenewal.ca .
At present I am neutral on this resolution. The need for democratic renewal in the LPC is so obvious it is a motherhood issue. However I agree with some of the comments concerning another bureaucratic layer. The fact that the Change Commission was appointed by a Party Leader in no way negates the work of the Commission. The product is the important thing in this case. (i.e. poor process, satisfactory outcome) Had the recommendations of the CC been fully implemented we would be much closer to the kind of organisation that we need. It is important that the Convention focuses on these issues but I am not sure that I want another commission. I would rather work to ensure that we elect a Party President who has similar views and trust that person to work with us to these ends. Hopefully within a quite short time we will have a completely different policy process, democratised by use of the internet, so that most resolutions will have been refined to the point that by the time they are put to a vote of a convention there will be wide general support.
I think I will vote for the resolution here because renewal is not front and centre in the list of resolutions but I am unsure of my position at the Convention.
Bruck Easton has hit the proverbial nail on the head – we don’t need two more years of navel gazing and report writing. I totally agree that we need to seriously examine some of our “scared cows” and the federated system is one of them – we will never move forward while we have a patch work of organizations across the country – it doesn’t make sense. I really hope that we don’t have to drop down to 2 seats before we will get serious about structural reforms. When Bob Rae spoke to the Caucus this summer he mentioned the need for us to have an clear and understandable organizational chart – let’s get on with it.
Today’s town hall was a success, but we need to connect more frequently using the technological tools available. WebEx and Adobe Connect are good multi OS platforms for collaborative and interactive meetings, especially in the rural ridings.
I agree with all of Bruck Easton’s points.
1. Eliminate the PTA’s, they are costly and inefficient.
Centralize services from one office. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.
Example:a. I renewed my membership by telephone – This was with the LPC in Ottawa.
The Ontario – Toronto, LPCO, office mailed a membership renewal form!
b. I’m still waiting for a tax receipt for a June 27 donation.
I’ll with hold further donations until there is a system that works.
2. Adopt the national EDA system used by the Conservative Party of Canada. Less costly and more efficient.
I will have more confidence in this party when it moves into the 21st. century
And I want to have more confidence in the Liberal Party of Canada!!
The federal Liberal Party built this country.
Merina
I am heartened to see that so many fellow Liberals recognize the need for a thorough examination of the Party’s structure, operations and accountability to its membership. A lot of good leads are being proposed. The appeal of this resolution (for me at least) is that it tries to establish a democratically based forum in which all these good ideas can be gathered, reviewed and converted into constitutional amendments. It is not a resolution that favours any one idea, it simply provides a process through which the party can be reconstituted into a bottom up rather than a top down structure. Bear in mind that this resolution was created and passed by Ontario BEFORE our recent electoral thrashing and I know that the resolution’s authors would be open to friendly amendments intended to speed up its process. It seems to me that from a practical stand point, those of us seeking change can either go through the lengthy and risky process of attempting to pass a whole series of one-off resolutions which in combination might achieve the overall structure we seek (but is more likely to result in a hodge-podge of inconsistent changes), OR we go for a resolution like this one which establishes a process which if done right, could allow us to usher in a whole new constitution within a relatively short period of time. My experience with increment reform tells me that I’ll be dead long before the party is meaningfully reformed (or more likely the Party will be dead)!
Well, I’m glad we’re talking about it. The Liberal Party constitution is a mess. Far too much detail, far too explicit. From what I’ve been reading, a constitution sets out limits and boundaries but leaves the details to other documents such as by-laws which can be efficiently amended when necessary.
Certainly we have to re-write this one. But two years is much too long. I think we have to get busy right after the Ottawa convention and have it done before the leadership race gets underway. There is no reason why we have to dawdle over this thing. I can work at least five hours a day on this thing, every day.
All aspects of party structure has to be on on the table. Do we want PTA’s? It has to be decided. However, as more general goals I think the constitution has to put accountability, responsibility, and consequence back into the party. It has to provide for the establishment of an org. chart.
If we are to keep PTA’s then it has to specify a means by which power is delegated to the PTA. It has to be neat, tidy, and elegant. One of our competitors has a constitution that is 19 pages long. They do every thing, it seems, by committee. Ours by comparison is 75 pages of groaning detail. Canada’s Constitution Act is a shadow of ours. What is so complicated about running our Party that our constitution dwarfs our country’s?
There are other ways, just as efficient and we have to find them and assess them. But that won’t take two years.
This resolution seems to me to not do the trick. I think there should be a body set up at the Ottawa convention charged with the task of producing a new, workable, efficient constitution for our consideration, and have the new model ready for viewing on, oh let’s say, July 1, 2012.
And here I thought that this new website would get us closer to fixin’ what needs fixin’ than a committee to report back in two years.
I’ll support this resolution but I am deeply disappointed in it.
Nasty little things keep popping up that disturb me. In last week’s phone dialogue with Bob Rae one member commented about some very undemocratic stuff happening in Thunder Bay. In this section Didi mentions an issue concerning English-speaking Liberals in Quebec. Let’s get all this stuff out and dealt with sooner than two years, or renewal will start to smell like same-old same-old.
I think it’s important to remember that a large problem doesn’t necessarily exist just because one person – or even a group of members – are complaining in one particular riding.
This resolution is something that should be put to every presidential candidate. The policy process should be about policies that we want the caucus representing on our behalf in Parliament.
We’re pleased and thrilled to announce support for this resolution from The Hon. Iona Campagnolo.
” Twenty seven years ago, the Party reformed its Constitution. It was a serious and difficult process but it put the Party back in the hands of its Members/Militants. Now the process must be done again if Canadian liberalism is to truly reflect the needs of the 21st Century. ”
The Hon. Iona Campagnolo.
Please visit, http://lpcrenewal.ca/testimonials/
I’m generally supportive of this resolution, but I have two points to add:
1. Perhaps we should make such a committee a permanent part of the party to keep us in constant renewal, rather than waiting for such a disaster to force us to change.
2. IMHO it would be best to elect these two members per Province by single transferable vote, as this ensures that at least two thirds of the membership of the party would have someone they voted for on the committee.
and after hell freezes over maybe it will just be too late.
Establish a Commission immediately…sounds good; elect members within a year, bit slow, report 2 years after that, obviously no one thinks anything needs to be done on a timely basis; then consider the report at a convetion after that.
Get on with reform, including establishing a unitary party w/o PTAs, get focussed on devotong your limited resources to impacting at the riding level, and drive from a central operation, not the multitude of fiefdoms which exist between the national office and EDAs ( PTAs and regional operators.
The LPC has too little not to consolidate and act like a federal party.
There is no reason this proposal can not be completed and acted upon within a year. Appointing an interim leader was done by a virtual vote. Get on with it before its too late !
The increasing disparity between the haves and have-nots is not addressed in any of the resolutions. What about doing something reasonable – forget the legalese of all the wheeases and do something about introducing progressive taxation.
I agree with this resolution. All mebers should have a say in our process which should be open and transparent.
I agree with this resolution. We as members and voters need to be fully informed of all recommended processes and practices so that we truly get democratic renewal of our party.
It seems to be a major observation in Peter Newman’s new book. If the party doesn’t heed it and stop wasting money on endless committees that should be meeting on LinkedIn or the like, then perhaps it really is doomed to destruction.
In addition to the support announced earlier from The Hon. Iona Campagnolo, we thank Patrick Gossage for lending his voice in support of this resolution:
“I fully support the Democratic Renewal Commission to open a real dialogue with members on the Constitution and revitalization of our party. We desperately need structure to re-involve the grassroots and let ideas bubble up. We have the luxury of time and such a process should, in my view precede a leadership race. I attended the Montreal conference and was impressed by its use of the Internet and social media to involve party members. I would assume the Commission would adopt such a process.”
Patrick Gossage
Former Press Secretary to Prime Minister Trudeau.
Please visit, http://lpcrenewal.ca/testimonials/
Those of you who call for an end to the PTAs, commissions and committees should be careful what you wish for. Without the elected party structure, you would left with nothing but an Ottawa rump, complaining about all the ridings out there over whom they have no control or real understanding. We need the elected party apparatus because, without it, there will be no true volunteers or base of new blood.
I’ll give you an example. The work association group I belong to (CAAMP) is currently holding it’s annual convention. It, like the Liberal conventions moves form place to place.
For the second year, all presentations are being streamed live, and all those like me who are attending in the virtual world have an opportunity to ask questions as they happen.
Attendance was dropping, and this was ‘something different’ that worked.
A wise man once said ‘I what you’re doing isn’t working, do something different! I may not be the right thing, but at least it won’t be more of the same wrong thing’.
What we’re doing isn’t working.
Those of you calling for an end to the PTAs, commissions and committees should be careful what you wish you. Without the elected Party apparatus, LPC would be nothing but a rump in Ottawa complaining about all the ridings out there who they cannot control and do not understand. We need the elected party apparatus to ensure that there is real accountability, real volunteers and a real potential for new blood to emerge who want more than a job.
We need the party apparatus but we need one that listens to the grassroots and works to build that grassroots support. Our opponents did that for several years while in opposition and built allegiances across the west that are currently unassainable by other parties. We need a lot of that effort across the Country.
We need the party apparatus but we need one that listens to the grassroots and works to build that grassroots support. Our opponents did that for several years while in opposition and built allegiances across the west that are currently unassainable by other parties. We need a lot of that effort.
Many good points. I just think it’s important to do a proper analysis of the problem. What is it that changed from 2000 to 2011 in party structure? Did it make things worse or better? My view is that centralization has been ongoing since about 2000 and that this is the real root of our problems (at least in an organizational sense). Open nominations. Democratise election readiness. Get rid of the accounting industrial complex. Those are the solutions I propose.
If we are to have a productive discussion about the structure of the Liberal Party and if we’re to make tangible strides towards fixing what ails this party then we have to go to the very roots of the party and that is the constitution.
Also, we should be in agreement that everything and anything is on the table. Someone said that PTA’s have to be excluded from our deliberations. Nonsense. Everything is on the table.
Consider our poor little member on Battle St. in Kamloops. On top of him/her is an EDA executive, then a PTA executive, then another provincial oversight board, a national executive, and finally the national Board of Directors.
That seems like a lot. And if they’re all so important how come we’ve done so badly for over five years now? Why are we such a mess organizationally? All components of the party are open for discussion. If we’re wise we’ll re-design a sleek, efficient party that features accountability, responsibility, and consequence. And in my opinion the place to begin is at the beginning, which is our constitution. Here is a resolution Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo has passed and would like to see presented to the Ottawa convention:
Constitution Resolution
Whereas:
- the current Liberal Party of Canada national constitution is unworkable; and
- the constitution provides an inadequate framework for developing a modern
organizational structure; and
- the constitution is silent on accountability, responsibility, and consequence for non-
performance by Provincial and Territorial Associations, Electoral District Associations, commissions, and other mandated bodies such as boards of directors, members in elected positions, and paid party officials;
Therefore be it resolved that:
- a committee be established of members from EDA’s, 13 in number representing the 13 PTA’s and charged with:
- establishing representative working groups in each PTA to ensure the broadest possible member consultation; and
- analyzing our current constitution, assessing its strengths and weaknesses; and, if necessary
- recommending a new national constitution which includes proper channels of responsibility and accountability; and
- allows for the development of clear areas of authority for those bodies, national and provincial/territorial as the constitution anticipates; and
- allows for the development of a process including a reasoned, progressive, and supportive system of consequence for those entities which do not fulfill their obligations.
- an interim draft version of a new national constitution shall be available to members by Tuesday, May 1, 2012 with a final version produced by July 1, 2012 which shall be voted on by all members Wednesday, Sept. 5, 2012.
Let’s see – my work organization has roughly the same number of members as the Liberal Party. Our governance is composed of 6 members of the executive committee and 13 Directors representing the provinces and territories. All are elected by 14,000 members.
That’s what’s wrong with the Liberal Party.
That doesn’t make sense. We have far more than 14,000 members and our role requires us to try to appeal to a majority of Canadians. We cannot be satisfied being anything less than Coke or Pepsi, and that requires a full national structure.
We also have a rather diverse group; many with different interests yet we manage to get along with a tiny fraction of the oversight of the Liberal party.
I’m not saying that 19 total executives will be right for our party, but each and every one of them should be examined as to it’s ROI (Return On Investment) as we don’t have the money to waste ANYWHERE.
I think our disagreement stems from your use of the “oversight”. I don’t see the party structure as oversight. I see it as providing resources, support and representation.
Here’s an example. Other than tradition, what is the point of a ‘past president’? In business, the old president is shown the door faster than a tie-less person at Arnaud’s.
In view of the decline and fall of the past 10 years, everything has to be examined in plain sight of all the members; new and old.
We call that ‘semantics’. Either way, just look at the long, long lists of people running all these committees, and try and guess how much money is being spent.
I do not approve of waste. It could be my personal motto ;).
It is not semantics at all. You seem to view the structure as something akin to people who need to be appeased by members. That just isn’t the case. Without the party structure, you would have nothing other than staff telling everybody what to do. You can read my view more fully here: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=hp#!/notes/jason-cherniak/the-liberal-party-needs-its-institutions/10150369108150047
It’s not so much the $$$$ to resource all the groups and individuals( albeit that too is important ), its moreso the time and energy of all these individuals not being driven to where we get the best return, and rather expending energy operating too many unnecesary fiefdoms. Streamline the LPC, please. Focus on the EDAs
Speaking of reforming the party: where on this site are the LPC presidential candidates listed (as well as candidates for all other positions.)? I’ll be participating in the “townhall” debate in 90 minutes and am still trying to get some background on folks other than Ms Copps.
Greg, you can find that info at http://convention.liberal.ca/elections/candidates/
My comment refers to the form and not the substance of discussion. I would suggest:
1) Combine all the LPC Governance Resolutions into one constituting document – Party Renewal Manifesto.
2) Mandating Renewal Commission to review and assess the current situation and practices, as well as recommend any changes is not sufficient – the Manifesto should outline and acclaim in a thesis statement form the principles and directions of the party modernization.
A lot of comments here. Not sure if I’m repeating what someone else has said. But if we want to be competitive in the next federal election, we can’t be setting these timelines so deep into the election term. We can’t be talking in terms of years to get policy initiatives up and running. We’re going to need those years to sell our positions to Canada.
“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that once all commissioners have been elected that this Commission be given up to two years to complete its mandate and present constitutional amendments to the first national convention following this two year period and that said convention vote to adopt or reject all constitutional amendments presented by this Commission for approval.”
Two years could end up giving us a year (maybe two depending on Harper) to get our message out to Canada. To make that work we are going to have to raise funds like never before. We will have to dwarf the opposition’s fundraising totals.
I fear that by setting these lengthy deadlines, we are just setting ourselves up for defeat come the next election.
Matt, as the authors of this Resolution we have addressed this concern in a number of posts, but perhaps you did not see these. As we said in the post on October 30th, “Further, as we have stated in previous posts, we welcome any friendly amendments on the floor of the Convention that would shorten the time frame of the work of this Commission.”
Is there a detailed plan of execution for this commission? I would like to see the itinerary to try and wrap my head around why it will take 2 years. Not sure if being from a younger generation (and my propensity for instant gratification) is the issue here. 2 years seems like an eternity for something that seems so obvious to me.
I’m probably coming off as a little full of myself, but time is of essence. Harper is in a big rush to execute his hidden agenda. We don’t have a lot of time to get this sorted out.
Hi John. Thank you for the reply. I attended an EDA meeting last Nov. 17th that was outlining these lengthy timelines. At the meeting, several members stood to voice their concern over these timelines. And as I see the same in the proposal posted here, I just wanted to voice my concern. I am posting this comment now and going to follow your link from your oct. 30 post. I’ll apologize ahead of time if I am being redundant.
The Cambridge Proposal For The Renewal Of The Liberal Party Of Canada
To read the full proposal, please visit our website: http://www.cambridgeliberals.ca/CFLA/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46:proposal-for-the-renewal-of-the-liberal-party-of-canada&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=50
In order to move forward, the Liberal Party of Canada must:
-Redefine modern Liberal Values and create a new constitution with those values at its core.
-Nurture and support all 308 Electoral District Associations (EDAs) as the primary unit of organization of the Party.
-Identify what to look for in a Leader.
-Create a new voting system for electing The Leader.
-Implement a Strong system of recruiting, nominating and supporting Candidates
-Create a new policy structure that fully engages the talents, skills, and experiences of the general membership.
-Become the party synonymous with 21st century innovation with bold new policies in health-care development, intellectual property, environmental sustainability, high technology manufacturing, and worker retraining.
-Comprehensively re-structure the Governance & Administrative branches into a streamlined and cost-effective “lean” organization with fewer layers and more accountability.
The renewal of the Liberal Party must start immediately and driven from the Electoral District Associations (EDAs). Our renewal proposal is only the very beginning of the process. Effective renewal will take time and half-measures will not suffice. These are the essential steps that the Liberal Party of Canada must undertake to become financially and politically competitive in time for the next election.
Totally agree. Redefining Liberal Values is the key. To become a decisive factor in the political arena, you shoul not only change your organizational principles and modalities, but most importantly reformulate your ideas. And convey them to the electorate.
Addressing it through the modified constitution may realistically take a little bit more time than anticipated. Therefore, I was suggesting to have at least the highlights streamlined at the Convention in a form of Manifesto. I don’t think that the ideas shall be necessarily shaped withing and tested by the Renewal Commission. They have to be discussed on a wider forum, such as the Convention. Then only, the Commission could spend a certain amount of time on the operationalization of the newly developed or updated ideas/values.
Rory, though we may be very supportive of many of your proposals, I would not want anyone to be confused by these two proposals. This Resolution, Democratic Renewal was approved as an Ontario priority Resolution at the LPC(O) Plenary session last February. For further info please visit http://www.lpcrenewal.ca . I’m not sure if the Resolution from Cambridge is being debated at the Biennial, but if our Resolution here is approved at the Biennial, we would be happy to review your proposals.
I am sorry to be so blunt, I am not part of the Liberal Establishment and have no vested interests, just a long time Liberal supporter, member since 2006, got involved because of drift in the Party and Failed voter confidence with declining popular votes and MP’s. We have lost many Liberals or supporters to other parties these past 8 years. But the Liberal Party of Canada needs another commission to debate Democratic reform for 2 more years like a hole in the head. The PTA’s and Commissions should be ABOLISHED as they have never elected one MP to this day and never will. EDA’s are the issue, we have 100 now defunct out of 308, EDA’s are what help get MP’s elected. EDA’s are where we need to develop,encourage, empower and energize grassroot support and membership and re-engaging Liberal Supporters of the past back to voting Liberal. This party has spent so much time on titles, entitlements, structures that it forgot the Ridings and the grassroots outreach to voters. Liberals must collectively realize that Top Down was always upside down and doomed to failure and that only a bottom up approach will succeed. Empower the EDA’s, give the grassroots a reason to participate or more Ridings will become defunct, It’s that simple folks.
kevin Desjardins,
while your statement about almost defunct riding associations may be correct we cannot renew the party with top down management. Getting grass roots involvement through democratic renewal will help revive some or hopefully all of these ridings.
The bienniel is not a one shot effort but hopefully a start to ensure Liberal values reach out everyone in this Country.
Harer has built up a propoganda machine like no other this Country has ever seen. We need to build the tools that counter act that machine.
We’re pleased to remind those of you who have recently joined this blog that it thrills us to have the support for this resolution from The Hon. Iona Campagnolo.
” Twenty seven years ago, the Party reformed its Constitution. It was a serious and difficult process but it put the Party back in the hands of its Members/Militants. Now the process must be done again if Canadian liberalism is to truly reflect the needs of the 21st Century. ”
The Hon. Iona Campagnolo.
Please visit, http://lpcrenewal.ca/testimonials/
Who needs another commission? There are too many already.
To meinzer.pmp@bell.net may I say with due respect, we have not had a ‘democratically’ elected Commission of this nature since 1982…it is indeed long overdue…the timeframe for the work of this Commission can be shortened by way of a friendly amendment, but true ‘renewal’ must come from the ground up and can only be accomplished by re-writing our Constitution to ensure that it maximizes the democratic participation of our membership.
If we elect this commission using block voting we still won’t have. How these provincial elections will work is going to go a long way to determining how I vote on this resolution.
While I understand that people hate commissions, there is no other way that we know to wrestle the Party back to it’s owners and supporters, us, the membership. The Party is there to serve the membership, not the other way around and so we have Resolution 18. How can we chide the Harper Government on it’s lack of democratic process when our own Party decries the practice within it’s ranks. We urge all democratically minded Party members to vote “YES” to Resolution 18 and for Delegates in Ottawa in January to support this resolution. Thank you.
As long as the constitution is amended in such a way to obviate the need for yet another democratic renewal in future, I support the commission.
Winning an election is easy…just look how the LPC fortunes are already turning simply due to the fatal errors of the government. However, winning Canadians to the LPC will be much more difficult, unless the strong opinions and preferences of how rebuilding should occur are not respected. How we pursue our rebuilding goal will be the greatest test of the LPC in its history. Let’s be nimble, connected and honest in doing so.
Oops…I failed to edit out the ‘not’ when asking that members be respected in this most important task of all…rebuilding the LPC.
Why is the site still taking votes after the Nov 30th deadline?
I also ask why the voting is extended for another day. Rules are rules and if we are going to be credible once again we must behave seriously.
No votes should be counted after the original deadline. It smells funny.
I also ASK WHY the deadline has been extended? If we are going to be taken seriously we need to behave properly and ethically.
I have been told that the voting was extended due to the issues people were having voting. I can say I too had problems voting and had to notify people.
It is scheduled to end tonight at midnight pacific time. I hope we do not see any major vote increases in other resolutions disproportional to what we have seen already. I want assume things are being done in good faith.
Let’s not forget the sponsors of this resolution have stated more than once the two-year mandate was decided on before our horrific Liberal Spring this past May. They are open to suggestions for a different time line.
Secondly: I’m surprised at the number of people who still think our present constitution is one decent amendment away from being useful. On the contrary, our constitution, its content and its form, is grossly inadequate to the tasks we Liberals have to undertake.
In my opinion any discussion directed towards re-jigging this current constitution is a non-starter. We must, I think, concern ourselves with writing a new, sleeker, more efficient, constitution which brings accountability, responsibility, and consequence back into the party at all levels. We can, with one inspired stroke, completely remake and renew the Liberal Party into a modern-day entity capable of responding rapidly and decisively to the twists and turns of Canadian political life.
Our present constitution is a relic of the age of dinosaurs and doesn’t contain, nor will it ever contain for that matter, the mechanisms necessary to give members greater control over the affairs of our party.
I think we simply have to have a constitutional committee authorized by the Ottawa convention, with tight, tight time-lines, and charged with the job of bringing us into the real world of today and additionally to complete this task before our leadership contest begins.
The consequences of doing anything less could be catastrophic.
WE, as Liberals, promoting Liberalism in the western world, and globally, are stuck behind the tide of current conservatism. It’s NOT the time, or economy that keeps us in this position. It’s the unfortunate state of politics nationally that sees us in the position we are in. It is through this “posterity” that we will reconnect our VISION with a majority of Canadians (and voters).
We will “rise again” and I like the grass roots level promoting and embracing change within our party. Dominic Leblanc – Scott Brison – Justin Trudeau- Martha Findley-Hall and others, will lead us from the doom of former “whigs” and nepotism as accepted practice, hijacking our parties future direction. This lack of connection with current voters vs connection with our “past” has led to our demise!
I look forward to a new LIBERAL PARTY direction that is beneficial to Canadians voters mindset, as we carve a new path in our national political landscape. We were, and can be again, an envy of the world where rights, liberty, freedom, acceptance, compassion, empathy, and fiscal responsibility define for others how great it is to be a LIBERAL, regardless of town, municipality, province (or territory) and/or nation.
Liberalism is a potential GLOBAL belief system of how Governments across the World should respond to increased civil requests for democratic CHANGE, as seen through revolutionary tension from old to hopefully new accountable governments!
I look forward to developing this change here locally in “the Peace, Alberta, nationally and in other parts of the World!
Yours in Liberalism! I salute YOU (and your personal power to impart “change”, wherever you are!)
Sincerely,
Don MacAskill
I do not believe that any political organization needs half an electoral term to figure out “whither goest”.
Harper (and many other governments in the past including Liberal ones) know full well that to stall a hot issue and hopefully diffuse it, you put it in the hands of a committee / inquiry and let it gather dust until the passion has withered.
What this party has LOST is passion – and a proposal like this is – to my mind – a stall tactic by an executive which refuses to read the writing on the wall!
Vote it down!
To pdarlaston@xplornet.com: You seem to have confused our Proposal with the other Proposal which was written and crafted by the National Executive. This Resolution is in no way related to the Proposal from the National Executive. Please visit, http://www.lpcrenewal.ca for more information.
I believe the time has come for Canada to start moving toward direct democracy. I believe that constructive dialogue among the citizenry is the key to implementing lasting programs of democratic renewal, the main focus of which should always be the goal of maximizing personal liberty.
The role of the individual as a building block of a system, aware of the consequences his action or inaction might have on the overall system as a whole will only be realized democracy works from the bottom up. And although Canada ranks near the top of democracy metrics, we have to realize there is room for improvement.
I think the Liberal party of Canada should amend their platform on democratic renewal to include legislation that safeguards against coercion or undue influence.
Most importantly, the Liberal party should not be afraid to realize the potential of technology in their platform of democratic renewal. Elections and referendums must be based upon substantive policies and not focus on candidates. We can use our domestic talent to write software to validate the voice of each citizen, and create channels of communication to facilitate decision making unparalleled in bureaucratic effciency. Elected representatives can reach their constituents quickly, accurately and with a high degree of flexibility. If we invest moderately into computer science to target this issue, and bring everyone on board, I’m certain we will come out on top as a party in any future elections.
Should I be confused? I thought our “processes” got us into this situation.
We are creating yet another commission that doesn’t have members for a year and have to run for the job. The Commission then gets 2 years to bring forward proposals. Is there anything wrong with this?
Stop it!
Create a constitution committee with mix of membership of appointed and elected. Must be up and running in 3 months & deliver final report in 1 year. Establish timeline for regional meetings which should be completed by September, 2012. Draft report circulated late fall while final draft done by January, 2013.
Can we run this country if our own processes bog down into do-loops that spin in circles? Can we ask to govern when we can’t govern ourselves? We must run a dynamic, timely and successful reform process.
The reform of the party itself, must be different than what we have done in the past!
In response to Randy Norris, please note that the party has not had a ‘democratically’ elected Commission of this nature since 1982. It is indeed long overdue. The time frame for the work of this Commission can be shortened by way of a friendly amendment, but true ‘renewal’ must come from the ground up and can only be accomplished by re-writing our Constitution. To do this properly takes time and we’re in no rush. After all, for better or worse, we’ll be in the wilderness for 4 years to come. We might as well take our time and do this right. It may be our last chance!
Jeff I’m sorry but your response concerns me. We don’t have 4 years to enact the much needed reforms. We must focus on a bottoms up process that is goal directed and timely. What about the processes of enacting the reforms, refining them, supporting riding level changes and then enacting changes that win the next election on the ground.
This process needs to be done quickly and correctly. We need to win the next election and to do that we need to be ready at all levels.
I have been involved in many constitutional reform processes and nothing is gained by allowing the process to languish.
Jeff I’m sorry but your response concerns me. We don’t have 4 years to enact the much needed reforms. We must focus on a bottoms up process that are goal directed and timely. What about the process of enacting the reforms, refining them, supporting riding level changes and enacting changes that win the next election on the ground.
This process needs to be done quickly and correctly. We need to win the next election and to do that we need to be ready at all levels.
I have been involved in many constitutional reform processes and nothing is gained by allowing the process to languish.
Randy and Jeff, can I jump in here? I’m not a member of the riding that came up with this resolution, but I eagerly await the friendly amendment that moves it to more like a six-nine month timeframe. And I think that can be done fairly easily because we HAVE got some documentation on reforms gathering cobwebs which the elected people can go through to jumpstart the process. I’d also like to see a complete revamp of the Constitution (to, like, 10 pages), but I’m not sure this committee would do that alone. Still, they can certainly take a good stab at it and then open up for discussion within that timeframe, perhaps to be discussed and then voted in at the next Convention, if absolutely necessary (by which I mean there is no better and faster way to get one member one vote).
Has a friendly amendment been put forward yet, does anyone know?
Jennifer, Yes I can confirm that a ‘friendly amendment’ is in the works and will be in place amending the timeline closer to that which you have suggested. We first drafted this resolution some time ago and it was passed as an Ontario Priority Resolution prior to the last election. As the original authors of the Resolution, we are happy to tell you that we are all on the same page pertaining to shortening the time frame. We also agree that much work has been done which this Commission if created can build upon. By virtue of being an ‘elected’ Commission it will be solely accountable to the membership of the Party and therefore, unlike previous appointed Commission’s, its recommendations cannot be ignored.
Thanks for this John. It seems that you have suggested that there is a problem with all of the Commissions. If a Commission is not elected then it is ignored. Why are they ignored?
What were the original purposes for Commissions? It seems to me that even if they weren’t elected they were a mechanism to focus the party on particular issues and to solicit the opinion of the membership. Ignoring the results of a Commission is a leadership problem at the top levels in the party not necessarily a Commission issue.
Please drastically shorten the timelines.
Thanks so much for the update, John-Frederick. I went through the entire policy process from beginning to now as well, and I know that what sounded like a plan two years ago, doesn’t fit the bill today now that everything has changed. I’m glad to hear the amendment is being actively worked on so I can vote, yet again, for this resolution.
Another way to renew/fix the Party would be to focus on voting for members that are running for the Executive Positions that will in fact take members and the rebuilding process seriously.
I’m running for VP (English). One of the reasons why I am running is because I was enraged that we already had a Change Commission a few years ago but ~85% of the suggestions were ignored by the executives. We cannot continue to have reports and recommendations that will only be ignored by our leaders.
Please take a look at http://www.philtheengineer.com for my platform.
Cheers
I like your platform Philip- see you at the convention
Phillip, I’d like to arrange to speak with you directly perhaps by phone.
Please email me at president@oakvilleliberal.ca .
Hi John-Frederick,
Did you get my email?
I’m around to talk all week to talk.
Cheers.
Phil
I for one can not support the resolution as written. The commissioners need to be established within the first three months of 2012 then have recommendations ready for the next Convention. I see no argument for a long process. Time is indeed of the essence if we are to bring a more grassroots movement within our party. If we are in fact trying to bring new people or ex-liberals to our party then we must show them by timely actions that we willing to enact change quickly.
To John -Fredrick and Jennifer: thanks, this is good to hear.
But John McCulligh. won’t the next Convention be too late?
Yes greg that may be to late. Certainly open to making change happen as soon as possible. As stated in the resolution the timeline is much too long.
John, Phillip & Greg,
We’re happy to see so much interest and support for this Resolution. As the original authors of the Resolution, we can confirm that the amended version (by way of a friendly amendment) for which Delegates will vote at the Convention, will include a substantially shortened time frame. We agree that the process can now be much more expeditious than that which was originally proposed long before the disastrous results of the last Election. That new shorter time frame will therefore be included in the amended version so we look forward to your support.
John-Frederick;
Firstly I want to commend you on taking the initiative for bringing forth and vigorously promoting the need for Democratic/Constitutional Renewal.
As I understand it, the resolution on Democratic Renewal was passed by Ontario before the last election and much has changed since then. The National Board has now put forth a package of resolutions that will dramatically alter the constitution of the party. Many of us feel that they have not gone far enough in the right direction and in particular say very little about the support of EDAs to recruit members volunteers and raise funds. I fear that the resolution on Democratic Renewal is too little to late. If the Convention is asked to approve the National Boards resolutions (subject to amendment) or place our fate in the hands of a multi year Commission they will choose quick change (however imperfect it is). A commission drawn from the very structure that has brought us to disasters door will not renew the party in time to save us from another electoral disaster. We can not wait up to two years or even one year for 24 wise men/women to come forward with recommendations that may or may not be approved. We need every minute in the next three years to be working on preparation for the next election. We must move on both streams simultaneously.
Because of the change in circumstances since the last election, the pending plan from the National Board, and the short time before the next election, Cambridge is proposing a friendly amendment (copy attached) to ensure that LPC does move ahead with Democratic Reform.
Douglas. Jackson
Cambridge
MOTION: Review and Renewal of the LPC Constitution:
Whereas the process of renewal has brought forth a variety of excellent suggestions and ideas for an overhaul of the current Constitution of the Liberal Party of Canada;
And whereas the current national convention preparation process has not afforded sufficient time to weigh and incorporate all of these suggestions into a coherent overall package of choices;
Be it resolved that, a Constitutional Advisory Review Committee be appointed by the National Board to review all existing submissions and subsequent submissions up until April 1, 2012 from the National Board, Caucus, the PTAs, the COP, the EDAs as well as from individual members.
That the Review Committee be chaired by a Liberal of outstanding integrity and independence such as Peter Milliken, the former speaker of the House of Commons.
This Committee would then be empowered to present their findings after a six month period of time, specifically by August 15, 2012 to make recommendations regarding:
1. A renewed statement of purpose and values.
2. An updating and consolidation of the basic party structure.
3. A recommendation for what is appropriate to be included in the constitution and what is appropriate to be included in operating standards and strategic plans.
4. Items that need to be changed modified and or included in the constitution.
The final report would be presented to all parties and then voted on by the membership in a national tele-convention.
Douglas, we have our own amendment to our resolution before LPCO and LPC for approval, which we expect to be approved today. So having checked with the other authors of our Resolution, we are not able to accept your amendment as ‘friendly’. That said, the amendment that we have advanced for LPCO’s approval will change the timeline substantially. So the issue of ‘quick change’ will be addressed in our amendment. I suspect you will appreciate the shortened time frame and hope you will support our amended Resolution. Also, we believe it is absolutely important that this Commission be ‘elected’. Its ironic (and unacceptable to us) that a Commission on “Democratic’ Renewal would be comprised of ‘appointed’ and not ‘elected’ Commissioners. An ‘elected’ Commission is accountable to the membership of the Party and not to those who have appointed them. So the resulting work of the Commission will not be potentially ‘silenced’ by the Party elite, as they have done with previous appointed Commissions. We will post the amended Resolution once it is accepted by LPC(O) so you can see the scope of the changes. In addition, we believe that a series of attempted ‘quick fixes’ have not served us well. We need substantive change to our Resolution which manifests itself in a Party that is a truly grassroots movement and built ‘from the ground up’ as opposed to any degree of a top-down governance structure. Please review our amended Resolution once posted and we look forward to your support.
I think as a Quebecer we should not waste time and we should support English Institutons in Quebec as there are still a lot of anglophones like me who love living in Quebec but feel our rights are not being looked after
The National Liberal Party of Canada could learn a lot from the Provincial Liberal Party of New Brunswick which is in the mist of a Renewal process. A Renewal Commission was appointed or elected, I am not sure which, with a mandate to visit each riding to listen to the membership and record recommendations. These recommendations were condensed in a report that resulted in 48 resolutions that were debated and voted on at a special provincial meeting where all members had a right to attend, speak and vote. From this we are seeing real change and speedy change. This ia a grassroots driven change and participation rates are high. We have adopted a one member one vote system for choosing the leader, the old delegate system that was corrupt and denied many members the right to vote has been done away with. Grassroots particpation in party policy development has been recognized as a vital process in the function of the party and a mechanism that will allow the membership to ratify important policy is now being worked out. This is breathing new life into the Provincial Liberal Party of New Brunswick and for the betterment of all.
I oppose the federal province splits we have ex LPCO / OLP .
We should one entity in each province and unite as one!
The Renewal commission is a good idea but the time frame should be cut in half, take a year and come back with proposed changes, Although our problems may have some deep underlying causes, identifying what needs to be changed and keeping the membership appraised of the process is a crucial point in a successful renewal process, this is the one area that the New Brunswick renewal failed in. There were plenty of meetings but the transparency of the decision making and work was left a lot to be desired. See you all in Ottawa.
Thank you Douglas Jackson for stressing the need fopr timeliness. I was going to support your points but see now that John-Fredrick promises to incorporate the issue in the LPCO resolution.
My comments are from the perspective of a long-time Liberal supporter, but one who has manifested that support only at election time. In the past several months, alarmed by the the actions of the Harper bunch, I decided to become more active, joining the party and becoming a donor. I was unprepared for what I found. Communication with the donors is limited to taking our money. Questions directed to the infoliberal site are not answered unless one is very persistent. For a new member, the structure of the party is a little difficult to grasp. I still don’t understand what I am a member of. What , in organisational terms IS the Liberal Party? As a significant donor, I am interested in where the money goes.
I gather that the money and the general services are the function of the Liberal Agency of Canada. My inquiries about that have never been answered. It is a not for profit corporation. I now know who is on the Board by looking at the Industry Canada web site.
But who are the members of the corporation to whom the Board is accountable? Is it the membership of the Party? The National Board? The Council of Presidents? In a properly run operation, all of that should be transparent, and it is not.
Donors want to know this sort of information, and if it is not readily available they will not be donors for long. Whatever else happens we need to ensure that donors are respected and well informed. Without a base of willing, happy and satisfied donors, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. Commissions and reforms will simply be spitting into the wind.
Hang in there Ken.I guess a lot of us are in the same boat. I have identified with the Liberal Party most of my life, but never bothered with ‘membership’, just election signs, a bit of volunteering during elections, occasional donations, etc. Harper really was the catalyst for me to become a member, then moving from Victory Fund to Laurier Club when Harper announced he would change election financing, and now on the EDA executive and a delegate. I think the LPC is organizationally in a weak state, and quite possibly in the short run, may even fall on harder times as it rebuilds, especially given that Harper has single-minded determination to destroy the Liberal Party by any means – of which he has many. Therefore, out of a love for our country and the core values that Harper seeks to destroy, let us prepare ourselves and our party for a battle that will likely take us six to eight years minimum to win. We cannot afford to be faint of spirit or impatient and should expect that there will be further setbacks and frustrations, especially over the next four years. We start with our own democratic renewal and modernizing our party, engaging and organizing Canadians who share our values, and keeping our eyes on one goal – defeating Harper without becoming like him. Everything we do and say as Liberals should answer two questions – (1) Is it congruent with our values? (2) Will it advance the cause of winning back government? Patience, dogged determination, focus and integrity will win. Stay in the fight and recruit your friends.
Right now Harper is out to create a one – party state very underhandedly.
1) Sign up many anti-Harperites under our banner.
2) Emphasise the importance of membership and make certain new members feel it is worthwhile
3) Get the involved and make certain they stay invovle right up to and after the election
On this I have to confer with many others, 2 years and a lot of baggage to get it done is not workable or sensible, 1 year max to be complete, if the CPC senses any risk to the next election they will call an early election on some bogus excuse, they will not want the LPC prepared but want them looking like they did in the last election. The fatal blow is what that would be. Time is running out or maybe has already run out. And real membership growth may not happen until this is acted upon and really committed to. Many are just tired of money spent on promises that are not kept.
Hey Don your input is valuable…there is a friendly amendment in
Hi Don: I hope you have read the comments about the friendly amendment that is deemed to shorten the timeframe. If you want to get some interesting views please go to some EDA’s websites or FB pages. I have been a footsoldier in the Party for over 40 years but have just lately got involved other than election time. The drift in the party from small l liberalism has me concerned. Yes you are right Jenn has been a valuable contributor in the discussions and has straightened out some of my confusion.
I am a new member who like you have voted liberal most of my past and like you have just become a new member, and I fully felt the same sense of being lost in a wilderness with no guides readily available, except for the ones wanting my vote, and my money. Maybe it was just a bad time to be a new member, everyone so busy, but I joined once before when it was not so busy and the result was the same and I dropped out then, no one was interested in me or my thoughts only my money, I do not think I got even a phone call, then or now, from my local riding welcoming me. Just a form email.
What happens in the next 3 months will decide whether I am to be an active member or no member at all.
As a not-quite-new-member-anymore, may I welcome you both! I’ve been here three years now. And might I suggest that the more you find wrong, the more involved you get to try to fix it? Because, I think what might have been happening is that new members join, get frustrated, have nobody to talk to about it, and quit. Leaving nothing but the old guard who aren’t bad people but who are already connected and so don’t see a problem. And it takes more than one person to change things, although there ARE a lot more than one person wanting change now! But change is slow, which we’re also trying to change :)
Thank you Jennefer for this and for your replies to some of my other not so infomed questions. You are a light in the dark. I hope these exchanges of knowledge and friendship continue after the convention.
Thanks so much, Don (you too, John!)
May I suggest you check out a couple of Facebook groups I’m aware of,
http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/40190123148/
http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/Liberalsrebuild/
John joined something I’m on, we got each other’s email addresses and HAVE kept the communication going, so absolutely we can do that, too!
Democratic renewal, most definitely; however, the proposed timelines make no sense if the party is to be prepared for the next election. Others have proposed amendments which expedite the process, and they must be acknowledged.
I would like to thank you all for your continued interest and support for our Democratic Renewal policy resolution and your thoughtful comments.
As I mentioned in an earlier posting, we (its original authors) were willing to propose a friendly amendment to our resolution that would reduce the time frame for the Democratic Renewal Commission to complete its mandate. I can now report that we did indeed submit such an amendment. However, the party has informed us that they are unable to adjudicate on whether to accept the amendment because there is no process in place for doing so! Our amendment is therefore in permanent limbo. Furthermore, we have been advised that there will be no amendments allowed from the floor during the Policy Plenary!
Once again, our party has clearly demonstrated the need for democratic renewal.
We are exploring other options to achieve our objective but at this late date we are uncertain as to the likelihood of success.
I would like to stress however, that should the party ultimately thwart all attempts at amending our resolution, we remain fully committed to it. While we agree that a shorter time frame would offer some advantages, the need for a thorough revision of our party’s constitution is so overwhelming that if the process takes a few extra months then so be it. We simply cannot survive as a party unless we reflect the hopes and desires of the Canadian electorate. And to do that, we must truly reflect the breadth of the Liberal Party membership. That begins with a transparent and democratic party.
Therefore, irrespective of its final wording, I hope we can count on your support for resolution #18 at the convention and I would urge you to please spread the word amongst your fellow delegates. Now is the time to take back YOUR party!
Hi John-Frederick,
I believe it is important for everyone to know the facts about the process that was followed. The amendment in question was brought to the Provincial / Territorial association in question, in this case LPC(Ontario), in accordance with the established rules. LPCO discussed the amendment and decided not to adopt it. I suggest that LPCO be contacted if you want more information on their decision and discussion.
That is clearly ridiculous. I don’t know how many comments there are on this thread, but I believe they consist exclusively of either people complaining that the timeline is too slow, or you or others assuring of a tightening of the timelines.
So may I suggest that we simply consider the timelines tightened such that this elected body’s work is done and recommendations tabled before the next biennial, understood by all members standing for election to this body? And, it wouldn’t hurt to question our new policy chair candidates on honouring the clear wishes of the membership on this, in spite of “the party’s” (whatever that means)obstruction.
For more clarity, I mean, recommendations tabled in time to be voted on at the next biennial (or through electronic means by all members).
After seeing a few elections by electronic ballot in Edmonton, no way to the electronic ballot as it can be abused.
I agree. Electronic voting can be easily hacked.
May I ask how many secure servers you have set up?
We must accomplish democratic renewal at this weekend’s convention. There are good resolutions that take major steps in that direction. We can also pass this resolution for a Renewal Commission, and give it time lines to match the next biennial convention. However, this resolution should not be used as an excuse to avoid approving resolutions that bring democratic renewal now. I am also confident that internet solutions for democratic engagement can be just as viable and secure as it is for online banking.
Find a ballot method where the voter can’t be influenced in any way, and go with that.
For me, that’s online. I’ve seen too much deal making and arm twisting at conventions to believe in that method.
Online voting can be secure. It’s just a matter of compartmentalising the process. Hacking one computer is easy – hacking many simultaneously is next to impossible. Far easier to mess with paper votes.
Passes!!
I can’t believe it passed without an amendment to the timeline. All that talk – where was the amendment???
I just saw John-Frederick Cameron’s comment re making an amendment. After yesterday I thought we had reached a different plateau but we clearly need more work.
After spending many hours debating this policy with many delegates at the convention the mood is to have this completed prior to the next convention. But, the rules do NOT allow changes from the convention floor. This will be changed to reflect the will of the membership.
Democratic Renewal passed with an overwhelming majority!
To respond to the comments, the Party did not allow us to amend it, but we will make sure that the commission once elected is aware that we want a shorter timeline.
Thanks to everyone who voted.
Pingback:
Pingback:
Pingback:
Pingback:
Pingback:
Pingback: