NDP Convention (Thread 3)

111 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

A24, I didn't say they have to "reaffirm" Sherbrooke - I didn't say that sovereignty is some big issue that needs to be addressed right now - I said none of those things. I said that the NDP has been hamstrung in Québec for decades by failing to take a simple democratic stand on the rights of the Québec nation. When the party's hand was forced in 2006 by its own delegates (who unfailingly show better political savvy and better adherence to principles than the party functionaries), I rejoiced (as did many others here). But I was concerned by the apparent efforts to downplay and bury that achievement. Now, it appears to be gone from policy. If, as you say, it is still there - please show me where - other than the individual website of some Québec candidate. This is a monumental error the NDP is making, but I intend to find out where the orders are coming from on this. All the party needs to do, as Cueball indicates, is to say those few words whenever it lays out policy for Québec. If it can sound like it means them, then that's just gravy.

The unfortunate snickering and jibes by some non-Québec posters here shows the importance of ensuring that anti-Québec chauvinism never again is allowed a safe haven within the NDP.

 

 

 

Aristotleded24

Well, since 2006, the NDP improved in Quebec in terms of both the popular vote and electing an MP. And looking at the material that was targeted to Quebec, I saw things about the importance of stopping Harper, protecting the environment, dealing with poverty, childcare, public transportation, and all those things in terms of how Quebec benefitted. I don't remember issues around self-determination playing any significant role whatsoever.

Quite frankly, I think we have bigger fish to fry than the issue of Sherbrooke, and judging by the the results I just mentioned, I don't think I'm alone.

Unionist

I guess we're just not communicating, A24. I never said the NDP needs to campaign on this issue, did I? I just said it would be fatal to discard that policy. Sort of like freedom of religion. Not a big campaign priority right now. Or free K-12 education. Do you get what I'm trying to say?

 

NorthReport

Unionist,

I am glad you are questioning this, before the election, because you are correct, and it could come back to haunt the NPD during the election campaign in Quebec.

Unionist

NorthReport also raised a startling point about the elimination of income tax for small businesses. This proposed dramatic departure from past policy never got to the delegates. Yet Layton and his team are already saying they will [url=push">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-trumpets-new-policy-in-... ahead with it anyway![/url]:

Quote:

The NDP Leader told reporters at a closing press conference Sunday afternoon he is extremely excited that the party has approved policies that would bridge the gap between the environment and the economy.

“And also that we want to help out small business,” he said, “because that's where so many of the jobs get created these days.”

But the proposal to phase out income tax for small business never made it to the convention floor. [...]

He and the party's small-business critic, Bruce Hyer, said the issue of phasing out small-business income tax would not be allowed to die.

Mr. Layton said it would be put to the party's federal council, and Mr. Hyer said he would find a way to introduce it in the House of Commons when Parliament resumes in the fall.

This takes me back 35 years. The party bigwigs downplay and ignore convention decisions that they're uneasy about (on Afghanistan and now, apparently, Québec self-determination from the 2006 convention), while pushing forward their own pet policies with no membership mandate to do so.

 

NorthReport

I wasn't at the convention, saw very little of it, don't know a lot about how these things are run, but why did a whole lot of issues not get addresed? Was it a bit unorganized, or is this just the way the party functions.

NorthReport

Thanks Cueball

KenS

For all intents and purposes Council is the ultimate governing authority of the NDP. [And all at least of the major parties have that or something that amounts to it.]

Convention amounts to being a 'higher authority'. But since Convention is episodic and can only deal with a fraction of issues, it is quite limited on that in practice. [Formally, only where changing the Constitution is required, as with any name change.]

Convention absolutely must pass over most policy questions. There is an inescapable tension, or interplay, between this practical reality, and the fact that procedure can be used to sideline policy 'the centre' doesn't want.

But there is a countervailing practical reality- if you are confident that your policy was deliberately sidelined, and even think you could have got it passed at Convention, then you have the means to ensure it ultimately comes to Council.

NorthReport

And thanks Ken.

KenS

Unionist wrote:
NorthReport also raised a startling point about the elimination of income tax for small businesses. This proposed dramatic departure from past policy never got to the delegates. Yet Layton and his team are already saying they will [url=push">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-trumpets-new-policy-in-... ahead with it anyway![/url]:

Its probably clear my preceding post implicitly contradicts this. But I'll make it explicit and elaborate a bit.

1.] This is standard and democratic procedure. As I pointed out, there is the compelling practical reason that Convention can only deal with a fraction of issues.

2.] That said, if it was so all important as people think for him to have this, Jack Layton would have no problem pushing this resolution up the priority list. Ditto with the name change.

And make no mistake. Council is no rubber stamp. When this resolution comes to Council it will if anything get an even rougher ride there. The numbers of Council delegates as dead set against it as you will be more than sufficient to ensure that.

KenS

For what its worth:

The NDP does not have a mechanism for one member one vote on policy questions. If it did and you were to put that small business tax question to the membership- I'm quite certain it would easily sail through with a compelling majority.

Given who in practice goes to Convention, it would get a rougher ride there. My guess is that it would ultimately pass, especially with Jack speaking strongly to it. But I'm not at all sure of that.

And given the even greater selectivity of who gets elected to Council, and the aggregate characteristics of those folks, you can expect that this resolution will get a somewhat rougher ride at Council... that an ultimate majority in favour would take this kind of resolution a bit more to achieve.

NorthReport

KenS wrote:

The NDP does not have a mechanism for one member one vote on policy questions.

Why not?

That sounds like a great democratic and progressive idea.

What about voting on the leadership? Is that now a one member, one vote process?

 

Debater

Unionist wrote:

genstrike wrote:

Hasn't the NDP pretty much always been a federalist party?

Yes, but favouring federalism is not inconsistent with recognizing the democratic right of the nation of Québec to exercise its sovereignty and establish its own state, if it so chooses, without external threat or interference. For decades, the CCF-NDP refused to recognize that fundamental democratic right - until September 2006, when the NDP convention overwhelmingly ratified the Sherbrooke Declaration, which explicitly affirms that right. That doesn't mean the Sherbrooke Declaration is "anti-federalist" either - it is not.

Not recognizing Québec's right to separate means being prepared to use force to prevent its exercise of the sovereign will of Quebeckers. This is not an insignificant matter.

Quebeckers have shown they will support and elect parties that promote a federal state - but not without the right to leave.

Unionist, it is important to remember that Quebec does not have a unilateral right to separate - the Supreme Court of Canada said this in 1998 in the Secession Reference.  This is also reflected in many other principles and norms of international law.

The "right" to separate is subject to certain principles, rules and conditions.

NorthReport

Debater wrote:

 

Unionist, it is important to remember that Quebec does not have a unilateral right to separate - the Supreme Court of Canada said this in 1998 in the Secession Reference.  This is also reflected in many other principles and norms of international law.

The "right" to separate is subject to certain principles, rules and conditions.

Oh God, here we go again.  Give it a break.

NorthReport

Here's some feddback on the convention from a Globe article which includes the support Layton received. As I previously stated, it was very close to 90%

 

NDP trumpets new policy - in the same socialist vein

Jack Layton says he is offering Canadians a new way of thinking.

But the policies approved at the NDP conference in Halifax this weekend are not new to New Democrats.

The more than 1,000 delegates endorsed action to prevent violence against aboriginal women. They endorsed enshrining childcare into law.

They endorsed investment in environmentally friendly jobs. They endorsed ending rules that prevent homosexuals from donating organs.

In the end, there were more than 50 policies approved. But there was little to raise the eyebrows of the party's socialist founders.

The NDP Leader told reporters at a closing press conference Sunday afternoon he is extremely excited that the party has approved policies that would bridge the gap between the environment and the economy.

"And also that we want to help out small business," he said, "because that's where so many of the jobs get created these days."

 

 

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ndp-trumpets-new-policy-in-...

KenS

NorthReport wrote:

KenS wrote:

The NDP does not have a mechanism for one member one vote on policy questions.

Why not?

That sounds like a great democratic and progressive idea.

What about voting on the leadership? Is that now a one member, one vote process?

Leadership is OMOV. Jack was the first to be so elected.

OMOV on resolutions would take a huge amount of work to do. And whatever its merits, would have the same limits as Convention: too complex and/or too much requires investment of organizational time to deal with anything close to all policy questions.

NorthReport

KenS wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

KenS wrote:

The NDP does not have a mechanism for one member one vote on policy questions.

Why not?

That sounds like a great democratic and progressive idea.

What about voting on the leadership? Is that now a one member, one vote process?

Leadership is OMOV. Jack was the first to be so elected.

OMOV on resolutions would take a huge amount of work to do. And whatever its merits, would have the same limits as Convention: too complex and/or too much requires investment of organizational time to deal with anything close to all policy questions.

Thanks Ken.

Actually with today's electronic communications, the one member, one vote might work really well. for policy decisions as well.  And the NDP could be very current with our policies if it needed to quickly change something. Imagine the excitement, and how many new members the party could possibly generate, if it could tell potential new members they would have a direct say in policy. Talk about people power, this could be the real deal. And things of how progressive environmentally it could be to not waste all those hydrocarbons by traveling such great distances. Regional meetings with some teleconferencing could become the focus for meet-ups.  The NDP could be the trendsetters here, and it may need to do it financially as well anyway, if Harper gets his way and eliminates public financing of political parties.

NorthReport

I think having the Obama people can do wonders for the NDP if they follow their message and stay on track with these organizational ideas. And how refreshing a message it is by actually asking for input instead of always telling the voters you know what is good for them.

 'No magical formula' to winning votes, NDP told

Obama team member addresses convention

 

But Betsy Myers, chief operations officer for U.S. President Barack Obama's campaign, told the more than 1,300 delegates at this weekend's NDP convention there is nothing magical about it.

"There is no magical formula. We had a very clear and focused strategy that we stuck to," she told reporters before her speech yesterday.

Myers said that means ignoring the polls and not straying from the core message.

"At the end of the day, I would say Barack Obama worked his tail off. He never let up. He was willing to ... sit in living rooms and go to events that were small in the beginning ... A lot of it means going to these homes and saying, 'What do you think? ... I don't have all the answers,'" said Myers,

 

 

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/681874

George Victor

NR:

"At the end of the day, I would say Barack Obama worked his tail off. He never let up. He was willing to ... sit in living rooms and go to events that were small in the beginning ... A lot of it means going to these homes and saying, 'What do you think? ... I don't have all the answers,'" said Myers,

 

And that is exactly what he learned to do in Chicago, with the little, desperate folks. It's fun reading about how organization and a media prompted to respond, brought the city politicians onside. That's how he later did it state wide, and then nationallly. But he needed many $50 and $100 donations to do an advertising number on his opponents.

We'll see if the threat of environmental degredation and breakdown moves the philosophers forward to the current  realities.

Uncle John

By not changing the name, and by not changing the fact you have to join the provincial as well as the federal, the NDP will continue to be a foil on Liberal votes to allow the "racist and homophobic" - according to the Toronto Star - Conservative Party to win. Not a real contender for power, and continually dominated by fossilized party hacks and ideologues.

What a shame. I guess some people have to stand for punishing success, rewarding failure, and ignoring opportunity!

Congratulations!

Joel_Goldenberg

Stockholm wrote:

"DP is also open to bad retro (post ww II)  jokes about the party's fate as "displaced persons".  Go ahead, be morons."

Gee if it was that simple, why don't we all start referring to the Liberals as the "LP" and make a lot of jokes about how they are as out of date a vinyl and how long-winded they are because they are long playing...

 

Actually, the LP (vinyl) is making quite the resurgence these days and is the "in" thing amongst many audiophiles, and you'd be surprised how many young people I see in used record stores buying vinyl.

Sarann

Should our public broadcaster be oligated to cover major party conventions?  I believe so.  Else what's it there for?  Other main media coverage deteriorates to talk about trivia (and I include reportage about name change in this) and no reports about resolutions passed.  Seldom have I had such contempt for the main line Canadian media. The comment threads on the Globe and Star have been taken over by dumb conservative hacks who constantly show their ignorance of Canadian politics and parties.  The whole thing has degenerated into an exercise in idiocy.

The other thing I don't understand is the tendency to look to every Tom , Dick and Harry to feed into decisions about very complicated issues.  Some issues require expert opinions to help in decison making, not, as the conservatives seem to be doing, listening to those who spout without knowledge, just to garner votes.

Uncle John

The convention was more than adequately covered on CPAC, which is available to most cable and satellite subscribers, and paid for by the cable and satellite industry. Far better this than taking commercially viable shows off of the public broadcaster, which already soaks up $1 billion in taxpayer money.

Caissa

I got to see Gerad's speech and all of Ganz speech. Most of the "debates" of motions were reminiscient of the games people played during my tenure in student politics. Fillibustering to keep motions off the floor or from coming to a vote are events I remember participating in when Lavigne and I were both active in student politics.

NorthReport

Sarann wrote:

Should our public broadcaster be oligated to cover major party conventions?  I believe so.  Else what's it there for?  Other main media coverage deteriorates to talk about trivia (and I include reportage about name change in this) and no reports about resolutions passed.  Seldom have I had such contempt for the main line Canadian media. The comment threads on the Globe and Star have been taken over by dumb conservative hacks who constantly show their ignorance of Canadian politics and parties.  The whole thing has degenerated into an exercise in idiocy.

The other thing I don't understand is the tendency to look to every Tom , Dick and Harry to feed into decisions about very complicated issues.  Some issues require expert opinions to help in decison making, not, as the conservatives seem to be doing, listening to those who spout without knowledge, just to garner votes.

Sarann,

You raise some good points about the Liberal CBC and of course the rest of the media.

Unfortunately we are stuck with them for now, so we have to work with, or around what we have. But yes it would be great to get some union money and startup some left-wing media. Talk with Don Davies about that! Tongue out

Uncle John

Unions don't even want to manage their own pension funds to stop investments in environmentally dirty non-union companies, so it is highly unlikely they would invest in left wing media.

Having a left wing paper is something I have heard socialists dreaming about for at least 40 years.

Well, socialists, why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Surely some of you have inherited money...

All you need to start a daily paper is $50 million or so...

genstrike

George Victor wrote:
We'll see if the threat of environmental degredation and breakdown moves the philosophers forward to the current  realities.

If you're referring to anyone who sees capitalism as the problem as a "philosopher" (which includes workers, students and yes, some academics as well - I don't see what is wrong with workers and working class students understanding and talking about how society functions and issues a little deeper than ATM fees or Jim Maloway's airline passenger deal), I think a lot of the "philosophers" are facing the realities of environmental degradation head on.  At least they realize that things like carbon taxes and cap and trade aren't going to avert the problem, and that the only way is a radical restructuring of the economy on ecosocialist or ecological anarchist lines.  And from time to time we see real mass working class movements pop up which are far ahead of political parties - the anti-globalization movement was an example, and I can imagine that if things get much worse we're going to see Seattle 2.0 on the environment.

And there are a lot of young people out there active on environmental issues.  The only difference is that they see through and are incredibly frustrated with party structures which have been choking activism for years and try to solve the problems in the streets and in their communities.  While this can sometimes be a little individualistic, it can also get collective results - a local university recently banned bottled water on campus, a very positive example of "think globally, act locally".  This was the result of what you praise in the beginning of the post - organizing and talking to people, not working in some decrepit power structure in some political party to get some politician elected.

I think these days we're just seeing a lot of party politicians resentful that young people are taking to the streets to fight for change and trying to build extra-parliamentary movements instead of taking to the campaign offices to work in their decrepit power structures.

Uncle John

I think we are seeing baby boomers who have outlived their usefulness acting as a drag on social progress.

They would rather smoke pot and say how progressive they are, but God forbid they should actually have to DO anything...

genstrike

And I guess I should add to my above comments, how close are professional politicians to "current realities" anyways?

remind remind's picture

Unionist... I must ask about your newly found angst over where the Sherbrooke Declaration is on the NDP website and why isn't it out there in full, and all the other comments you have made in this thread.

Because over here you clearly knew where the Sherbrook Declaration was on the NDP site, in fact you linked to it. And  you  declared there quite the opposite  just a little over a month ago,  of what you stated  here in this thread.

unionist wrote:
July 9, 2009 - 4:42pm #29 (permalink)

Not sure what you mean by "Québec self-determination", Ken. The Sherbrooke Declaration is official federal NDP policy, adopted by the September 2006 Québec City convention. It recognizes Québec's right to separate from Canada based on a 50% + 1 vote (in accordance with Québec's referendum law - not the Supreme Court decision or the Clarity Act), based on a question which only Quebeckers can decide, and opposition to any use or threat of use of force to stop them. That represents a principled and complete defence of Quebeckers' right to decide - all alone - whether to split from Canada.

Is the NDP finished now? Are they going to lose all support outside Québec? Or maybe Harper and Ignatieff haven't noticed this little document, so they're covering for the NDP by keeping it quiet?

By the way, over 95% of delegates voted in favour of this document. So, for the NDP, the "Québec self-determination" train has already left the station.

I find it all very unusual actually.

 

Unionist

remind wrote:

Unionist... I must ask about your newly found angst over where the Sherbrooke Declaration is on the NDP website and why isn't it out there in full, and all the other comments you have made in this thread.

Because over here you clearly knew where the Sherbrook Declaration was on the NDP site, in fact you linked to it. And  you  declared there quite the opposite  just a little over a month ago,  of what you stated  here in this thread.

I'll try to be patient with your question.

The Sherbrooke Declaration is not and has never been on the NDP website. No, I never linked to it either, because it's not there. I'm having trouble believing this conversation where you say, "Look at the elephant over there". There's no elephant.

Why my "newly found angst"? Because (and I've said this several times) you linked to [url=http://www.ndp.ca/sites/default/files/hfx09/Policy.pdf]this new policy statement on the NDP website, which I had never seen before[/url] - and I followed your link and found that even though it talks about Québec quite a bit, it omits the most fundamental recognition of self-determination which was the main achievement of the 2006 convention.

So, I am now concerned that some party bigshot somewhere, who decides what goes into the policy books and on the website, has decided to backpedal on this issue.

If the above sounds familiar, it's because I've repeated it several times.

Let me know if there's anything in the above that isn't clear. 

Quote:
I find it all very unusual actually.

What a strange sort of statement that is.

By the way, I'm not alone in my concern - Bärlüer said above:

Quote:
If the NDP is turning its back on the Sherbrooke declaration, it can kiss my vote goodbye. (I'm among the voters who elected Mulcair, BTW.)

 

remind remind's picture

Funny...you linked directly to the QC NDP website, in July, as above, but yet here you stated  that you did not know where it was, and indeed carried on about Bovin's only being a overview and not the lengthy rendition and painting the NDP as somehow remiss in this thread.

And I am trying to be patient with you too, as it is strange to me the positions you took here in this thread,  such as dening knowing where the Sherbrooke Declaration was, but a month ago you knew where it was and even linked to it.

 

remind remind's picture

Uncle John wrote:
The convention was more than adequately covered on CPAC, which is available to most cable and satellite subscribers, and paid for by the cable and satellite industry. Far better this than taking commercially viable shows off of the public broadcaster, which already soaks up $1 billion in taxpayer money.

But the Liberal and Conservative Conventions get covered, and you have no issue with that?

 

Debater

NorthReport wrote:

Debater wrote:

 

Unionist, it is important to remember that Quebec does not have a unilateral right to separate - the Supreme Court of Canada said this in 1998 in the Secession Reference.  This is also reflected in many other principles and norms of international law.

The "right" to separate is subject to certain principles, rules and conditions.

Oh God, here we go again.  Give it a break.

What?  I was responding to Unionist's discussion of secession, and stating what the Supreme Court has said and what the conventions of international law are.  If you have something of significance to add, then do so.

remind remind's picture

Do you have a link to what the Supreme Court has stated?

Policywonk

remind wrote:

Unionist... I must ask about your newly found angst over where the Sherbrooke Declaration is on the NDP website and why isn't it out there in full, and all the other comments you have made in this thread.

Because over here you clearly knew where the Sherbrook Declaration was on the NDP site, in fact you linked to it. And  you  declared there quite the opposite  just a little over a month ago,  of what you stated  here in this thread.

unionist wrote:
July 9, 2009 - 4:42pm #29 (permalink)

Not sure what you mean by "Québec self-determination", Ken. The Sherbrooke Declaration is official federal NDP policy, adopted by the September 2006 Québec City convention. It recognizes Québec's right to separate from Canada based on a 50% + 1 vote (in accordance with Québec's referendum law - not the Supreme Court decision or the Clarity Act), based on a question which only Quebeckers can decide, and opposition to any use or threat of use of force to stop them. That represents a principled and complete defence of Quebeckers' right to decide - all alone - whether to split from Canada.

Is the NDP finished now? Are they going to lose all support outside Québec? Or maybe Harper and Ignatieff haven't noticed this little document, so they're covering for the NDP by keeping it quiet?

By the way, over 95% of delegates voted in favour of this document. So, for the NDP, the "Québec self-determination" train has already left the station.

I find it all very unusual actually.

It is unclear whether the new policy booklet as amended at Convention (marginally, even incorporating policy resolutions not phrased as amendments to the policy booklet) supercedes all previous policy. Clearly not all, as the new policy process was in the resolutions reference.

 

remind remind's picture

what are you saying policywonk?

melovesproles

And big surprise-the media's narrative is that the NDP is still too 'socialist'.  For them it doesn't matter how many activists and "fringe" issues the party throws overboard for the sake of 'credibility', it will never ever be good enough.  Although I'm sure behind closed doors they appreciate the effort.

remind remind's picture

Got a link?

melovesproles

I'm pretty sure it has already been posted.
NDP trumpets new policy – in the same socialist vein

 

 

Policywonk

remind wrote:

what are you saying policywonk?

I'm saying I'm not clear that all of the previous policies are now defunct.

remind remind's picture

According to what I read, in respect to the policy book, the policies stand as is, on a on going basis,  and the only thing that changes is that new or amended policies get added to the perenial standing ones.

Thus no policies are ever defunct unless amended or deleted at a subsequent convention by vote of a majority.

remind remind's picture

Thanks meloves, I did not see it before.

I like Alexa's comment

Quote:
But Alexa McDonough, a former NDP leader, doesn't see the need for a dramatic twist.

“The foundation of this party is rock solid, the roots are deep, they're strong,” she said. “Of course there needs to be change as the world changes around us. But what isn't going to change is our basic values, and most of our policies simply build on those values.”

 

 

NorthReport

 

NDP to keep name-- for now

 

 

So what is in a name?

A poll from Angus Reid suggested that most political parties have negative connotations for Canadians. Fifty-five per cent of respondents found the Conservatives arrogant, while 43 per cent said the same of the Liberals. The NDP was seen as "out of touch" by 41 per cent of respondents, 39 per cent called the party inefficient and 37 per cent found it weak.

Yet despite an effort to put on a new (or not New) face, the reputation might be hard to shake.

"It's a futile idea that if they can change their name that they can escape any negative impressions," said Pilon.

Instead, Pilon suggested that the NDP focuses too much on capturing the votes towards the centre of the political spectrum.

"This has been the party strategy since the 1960s and we've seen a consistent drop in voters. They lose the voters on the other side," said Pilon.

He added that when parties focus only on established voters, they start to resemble each other. The lack of alternatives causes the number of non-voters to grow.

In the last federal election, 58 per cent of eligible voters went to the polls. This is the lowest turnout Elections Canada has ever recorded. In the 1980s voter percentages were in the mid 70s.

"What we want in a democracy is for the voters to have real choices," Pilon said. "The crisis of Canadian democracy is not that the NDP is not mainstream enough, the problem is all these missing voters."

 

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Federal-Politics/2009/08/17/NDPKeepName/

NorthReport

He's right about the media, and it's refreshing to see a journalist admit it.

 

NDP's challenge was never the name

 they are also saddled with the problem of a lack of media presence. The New Democrats have no big media to sell their message - to sing their song. There's a national newspaper of the right, the National Post.

There's one for the centre, the Globe and Mail. There's none for the left. In recent times the Canadian media has drifted to the right. The NDP is largely ignored - even when the issues of the day run in their favour.

To change this they have to find a way of gaining ownership of media properties.

But lefties don't have deep pockets.

Big money runs big media - and that isn't going to change.

 

http://www.metronews.ca/ottawa/comment/article/285456--ndp-s-challenge-w...

remind remind's picture

Even rabble is to busy trying to be centrist. ;)

Debater

remind wrote:

Do you have a link to what the Supreme Court has stated?

Not at this precise moment, but I may look for one tomorrow when I have some time.  I assume most political followers such as yourself would be familiar with the basics of it anyway.  I am sure you are able to research it yourself on the Internet if I don't get to it first.

NorthReport

Well unionist, at least these Quebecois look happy.

 

 

Le NPD adopte une résolution sur le français au travail

 

Par cette résolution, le NPD réclame que des amendements soient apportés à la loi fédérale afin que le français soit la langue de travail dans les entreprises de juridiction fédérale au Québec.

Le Bloc québécois avait présenté un projet de loi privé similaire au printemps dernier, proposant l'application de la Charte de la langue française (loi 101) aux entreprises fédérales du Québec. Les députés du NPD avaient soutenu l'initiative, mais les députés libéraux et conservateurs l'avaient rejetée.

Le chef adjoint du NPD et député d'Outremont, Thomas Mulcair, a aussi annoncé un projet de loi privé «visant à donner un sens réel à la reconnaissance de la nation québécoise».

 

Les néo-démocrates canadiens reçoivent par ailleurs la visite de membres de l'équipe du président américain Barack Obama responsables de sa victoire historique l'année dernière.

Plusieurs délégués soutiennent que le parti doit améliorer sa stratégie de communication et être plus actif au niveau communautaire.

 

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/...

Wilf Day

Unionist wrote:
. . . someone has taken obvious pains to eliminate Québec's right to self-determination from the platform. As I said before, if this is the case, the NDP reverts to its historic position of chronic losers who just don't get it. I hope it's not true, but I intend to find out, and I would appreciate others doing likewise.

The Policy Review Committee produced a precis of many previous convention resolutions. I am aware of several that were summarized. In each case some significant details were left out, but not the most significant.

However, the resolutions process was designed to give riding associations and affiliates a chance to say "you've left out something important" as well as "we have something new to add." Resolutions were to propose specific amendments to the new Policy Book, which has the new status of a standing "Party Program." Some did so. Others were in the old format. A little-noticed feature of this new process was that old-style resolutions do not amend the Policy Book, but are nothing more than directions to Federal Council as to future action.

The Quebec delegation was very visible and active. In the Friday morning panel on section 5 of the Resolutions Book, they were well-organized. This panel dealt with policy on federalism, as well as First Nations, Inuit sovereignty, and even electoral reform ("Renewing Canadian Democracy.") Anything on the eight points in Section 5 of the new Policy Book .

The Quebec delegation focussed on moving resolution 5-11 into eighth place, right after their other favourite 5-06. (Aboriginal delegates were also hard at work, and moved 5-10 (on consultations with First Nations communities) into third spot.) This new 5-11 called for a new policy transferring to Quebec all federal funding and programs for cultural activities except the CBC and NFB. It passed the panel, and passed the plenary. Similarly 5-06 passed at plenary, calling for extension of Quebec's language policies on language of work to employers under federal jurisdiction. Both 5-06 and 5-11 had been submitted by the Quebec Section, not just by some ridings.

In the result, on Section 5 in the Policy Book, we adopted a specific amendment expanding party policy on Aboriginal Peoples (5-02, submitted by the party's Aboriginal Commission), and passed eight other resolutions including the two from the Quebec Section.

No one mentioned Quebec's right to self-determination. It would be presumptuous of me to say why. To all appearances, the Quebec Section felt it went without saying, and the short five-point precis of the Sherbrooke Declaration was acceptable. But then again, maybe there were private discussions on this point that were more contentious.

At the end of the convention, as announced earlier, a motion was moved and adopted without debate adopting the new Policy Book as amended.  

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

Well unionist, at least these Quebecois look happy.

 

Gee, that's truly warm and cuddly, but the article doesn't deal with the issue I raised at all.

Wilf: Thanks for the analysis of the process. The fact remains that a "précis" of the party policy which includeds asymmetric federalism but omits the right to self-determination is troubling, to say the least. To suggest that the latter "goes without saying" is unconvincing, especially given that it was conspicuously absent from party policy for 73 years.

 

Pages

Topic locked