The “REAL” Convention Stories (according to me)
Party Constitution
I was in the Constitution meeting (after all, policies are just recommendations from “stakeholders”). The real story was the recycled delegate points system, but it got killed before it could go to plenary (but the vote in committee was very, very close). I suspect we’ll be arguing this one for the next 76 conventions, so stay tuned for Convention 2035 and so on. The official argument on both sides is the same – that the change will encourage membership growth in non-traditional ridings, or that the status quo will encourage membership growth in non-traditional ridings. Clearly what we need is “membership growth in non-traditional ridings” to make this debate go away.
The only Constitutional amendment to make it to the floor which was terrible, was C-115, an amendment to give the Party President a Board seat on Conservative Fund Canada (which is actually a good idea), with an unfortunate second part that would give all the appointed directors of Conservative Fund Canada automatic voting delegate status. Whoa! Screeeeeech.
Unelected delegates at a convention? What are we, the NDP? I don’t care that we are talking about the good folks at Conservative Fund Canada – open up this door, and what comes next, and where could it stop?
In the committee room, there was a clear consensus to split this into two (C-115A and C-115B), so I proposed it. If this had happened, C-115A would have clearly passed, but C-115B would not have. The chair ruled this out of order and the omnibus resolution managed to garner enough support to pass in committee, so it carried on for consideration at plenary.
At plenary I rose to speak against it, suggesting it was a “referendum on grassroots democracy“. Thankfully, the resolution failed. At least a dozen delegates told me they changed their mind and voted against it based on my address. So score one for grassroots democracy, and my amazing powers of persuasion!
Policy Resolutions and Controversy
What floor policy proposals were actually controversial? And, by this I mean creating an uncomfortable split between members (“members”), or potentially a media problem (“media”). Notably all the arguments falling into the latter had delegates essentially saying, “we can’t do this, or the media will never let us live it down.” To this, I say, too bad. If the Government doesn’t want to enact policies from our convention, they don’t have to – but don’t vote it down because you think it might look bad, vote it down only if it is bad.
- P-113 and P-114 – Dangerous Offender Status and “Killing” the Faint Hope Clause – really just a media controversy – the guy who suggested we would have to “build more prisons”, and that we should focus on “rehabilitation” didn’t seem to win over the masses, despite his passion about the issue.
- P-202 – Affirming the Charter, Notwithstanding Clause and All – Not controversial but poorly worded in both official languages – Lesson #1 for next time: Vive le dictionnaire!
- P-203 – Neutering Human Rights Commissions – media controversy – the members were pretty darn close to 100%, if not 100% in favour (except, perhaps, for those sitting in section 13 … ugh).
- P-207 – Protecting Pregnant Women – media and member controversy – I’m pro-choice and I voted for it – part of a woman’s right to choose is her right to “choose” to keep the baby – if this is taken away by some thug (probably a man) that assaults her, clearly it is not too bold to declare this as a separate crime.
- P-308 – Allowing Union Opt-Out – media controversy – I’m surprised we haven’t heard more on this from the MSM, frankly. This was championed by blogger Derek Fildebrandt.
- P-208 – Updating the Student Loan policy to eliminate the assessment of parental income – member controversy – this was only the case because the proponents did not explain very well what it was about. I have no doubt that if they had explained it properly, this would have passed easily.
- P-209 – Students Don’t Pay E.I. – member controversy – again, not pitched very well by proponents. The “against” argued that this would create a lot of bureaucracy. As a former E.I. recipient, and as a current employer, I disagree – you could just have students claim back E.I. on their tax return (and a little double-check to make sure there was education claims during the year as well).
National Council Elections
The National Councilors for British Columbia are incumbent Menno Froese and newcomer Hamish Marshall. Lois Johson lost by a “rumoured” six votes to Hamish Marshall.
Lesson #2 for next time: The B.C. ballot read “Vote for 2 Candidates“, even though it should have read “Vote for up to 2 Candidates“. I don’t know if this would have definitely changed the outcome or not, but it was an unfortunate error (especially considering there was 1 slate of candidates and 1 independent candidate – presumably some wanted to only vote for the independent, which could have easily caused a different outcome than what might have been intended by voters). I don’t know if the other provincial delegate elections were plagued by the same poorly worded ballots or not.
Comments
-
http://www.conservatism.ca/2009/03/shakedown-how-our-government-is-undermining-democracy-in-the-name-of-human-rights/ Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights | Conservatism.ca
Network
