This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about cookies.
Skip to main content
Green Party of Canada WeDecide / Parti Vert du Canada Decidons's official logo
  • English Choose language Choisir la langue
    • Français
Sign Up Sign In
  • Watch Race!
  • Leadership Race
  • Leadership Events
  • Leadership Campaigns
  • Calendar
  • Policy Process
  • Help

2020- 2022 Policy Process | Green Party of Canada

Where GPC membership collaborates to develop our policies

Phase 1 of 1
Review and Comment 2020-03-26 - 2022-03-27
Process phases
  • The process
  • VGM Results
  • All Proposals
  • VGM Proposals
chevron-left Back to list

G21-D009 Include Subject-Matter Experts in the Policy Development Process

Avatar: Official proposal Official proposal
05/06/2021 13:49  

Submitter Name

Michelle Bowman

Ratification Vote Results: Adopted


Proposal

Adopt a more holistic policy development approach by including multidisciplinary research expertise that reflects the six interdependent GPC core values.

Objective

Interdependencies among issues make policy development complex (for example, climate change). Translating evidence-based policy into public support and desired outcomes requires effective knowledge translation. The GPC should adopt a more holistic approach to incorporating the six interdependent GPC core values into policies by including subject-matter experts in the process.

Benefit

A more holistic policy process that includes researchers with a range of expertise (for example, both social and physical sciences) can strengthen environmental, social and economic outcomes, improve knowledge translation, minimize trade-offs among policy objectives, and improve actual and perceived policy standards.

Supporting Comments from Submitter

Stronger policy leads to better environmental, social, and economic outcomes while minimizing trade-offs among competing policy objectives we want to achieve.

https://www.schoolofpublicpolicy.sk.ca/research/publications/policy-brief/evidence-based-policy-development.php

The work of policy experts and researchers is increasing in complexity, so it is important to take a holistic approach and consult researchers during policy development.

https://ktalberta.ca/blog/2019/2/1/knowledge-and-action-bridging-the-gap-between-scientists-and-policymakers

Existing GPC policy process: “The process increases the representation of diverse viewpoints by seeking participation from across the regions of Canada, from groups who are affected by a particular proposal, from party members, and from policy experts.”

A similar proposal to include Green Party Member Knowledge Clusters and Critic Portfolio Brain Trust was included in Annamie Paul's leadership platform

https://www.annamiepaul.ca/shadow_cabinet and is included in her current approach to strengthening the Shadow Cabinet.

Green Value(s)

Ecological Wisdom, Sustainability, Participatory Democracy, Social Justice, Respect for Diversity, Non-Violence.

Relation to Existing Policy

Add to current GPC policy.

  • Filter results for category: Directive Directive

List of Endorsements

Avatar: Michelle Bowman Michelle Bowman
Amend Proposal Improve this proposal by modifying its title and body
Endorsements count1
G21-D009 Include Subject-Matter Experts in the Policy Development Process Comments 14

Reference: PVC-PROP-2021-06-2336
Version number 5 (of 5) see other versions
Check fingerprint

Fingerprint

The piece of text below is a shortened, hashed representation of this content. It's useful to ensure the content hasn't been tampered with, as a single modification would result in a totally different value.

Value: 4443d55b10c468df5535901879c19d4fc82dab44cdacce2365a65076a0e95360

Source: {"body":{"en":"<h4>Submitter Name</h4><p>Michelle Bowman</p><h4>Ratification Vote Results: Adopted</h4><p><br></p><h4>Proposal</h4><p>Adopt a more holistic policy development approach by including multidisciplinary research expertise that reflects the six interdependent GPC core values.</p><h4>Objective</h4><p>Interdependencies among issues make policy development complex (for example, climate change). Translating evidence-based policy into public support and desired outcomes requires effective knowledge translation. The GPC should adopt a more holistic approach to incorporating the six interdependent GPC core values into policies by including subject-matter experts in the process.</p><h4>Benefit</h4><p>A more holistic policy process that includes researchers with a range of expertise (for example, both social and physical sciences) can strengthen environmental, social and economic outcomes, improve knowledge translation, minimize trade-offs among policy objectives, and improve actual and perceived policy standards.</p><h4>Supporting Comments from Submitter</h4><p>Stronger policy leads to better environmental, social, and economic outcomes while minimizing trade-offs among competing policy objectives we want to achieve.</p><p><a href=\"https://www.schoolofpublicpolicy.sk.ca/research/publications/policy-brief/evidence-based-policy-development.php\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.schoolofpublicpolicy.sk.ca/research/publications/policy-brief/evidence-based-policy-development.php</a></p><p>The work of policy experts and researchers is increasing in complexity, so it is important to take a holistic approach and consult researchers during policy development.</p><p><a href=\"https://ktalberta.ca/blog/2019/2/1/knowledge-and-action-bridging-the-gap-between-scientists-and-policymakers\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">https://ktalberta.ca/blog/2019/2/1/knowledge-and-action-bridging-the-gap-between-scientists-and-policymakers</a></p><p>Existing GPC policy process: “The process increases the representation of diverse viewpoints by seeking participation from across the regions of Canada, from groups who are affected by a particular proposal, from party members, and from policy experts.”</p><p>A similar proposal to include Green Party Member Knowledge Clusters and Critic Portfolio Brain Trust was included in Annamie Paul's leadership platform</p><p><a href=\"https://www.annamiepaul.ca/shadow_cabinet\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.annamiepaul.ca/shadow_cabinet</a> and is included in her current approach to strengthening the Shadow Cabinet.</p><h4>Green Value(s)</h4><p>Ecological Wisdom, Sustainability, Participatory Democracy, Social Justice, Respect for Diversity, Non-Violence.</p><h4>Relation to Existing Policy</h4><p>Add to current GPC policy.</p>","fr":"<h4>Auteur</h4><p>Michelle Bowman</p><h4>Proposition</h4><p>Adopter une approche plus holistique de l'élaboration des politiques en incluant une expertise de recherche multidisciplinaire qui reflète les six valeurs fondamentales interdépendantes du PVC.</p><h4>Objectif</h4><p>Les interdépendances entre les questions rendent l'élaboration des politiques complexe (par exemple, le changement climatique). Traduire une politique fondée sur des preuves en soutien public et en résultats souhaités nécessite une application efficace des connaissances. Le PVC devrait adopter une approche plus holistique pour intégrer ses six valeurs fondamentales interdépendantes dans ses politiques en incluant des experts en la matière dans le processus.</p><h4>Avantage</h4><p>Un processus d'élaboration des politiques plus holistique qui fait appel à des chercheurs possédant un large éventail de compétences (par exemple, en sciences sociales et physiques) peut renforcer les résultats environnementaux, sociaux et économiques, améliorer l'application des connaissances, minimiser les compromis entre les objectifs des politiques et améliorer les normes réelles et perçues des politiques.</p><h4>Commentaires d’appui de l’auteur.e</h4><p>Une politique plus forte conduit à de meilleurs résultats environnementaux, sociaux et économiques tout en minimisant les compromis entre les objectifs politiques concurrents que nous voulons atteindre.</p><p>https://www.schoolofpublicpolicy.sk.ca/research/publications/policy-brief/evidence-based-policy-development.php</p><p>Le travail des spécialistes en politique et des chercheurs devient de plus en plus complexe, il est donc important d'adopter une approche holistique et de consulter les chercheurs lors de l'élaboration des politiques.</p><p>https://ktalberta.ca/blog/2019/2/1/knowledge-and-action-bridging-the-gap-between-scientists-and-policymakers</p><p>Processus politique actuel du PVC : « Le processus accroît la représentation de divers points de vue en sollicitant la participation de toutes les régions du Canada, des groupes qui sont touchés par une proposition particulière, des membres du Parti et des experts en politiques. »</p><p>Une proposition similaire visant à inclure les groupes de connaissances des membres du Parti vert et le Brain Trust du Portefeuille des Critiques a été incluse dans la plateforme d'Annamie Paul lors de sa campagne pour la chefferie</p><p><a href=\"https://www.annamiepaul.ca/shadow_cabinet\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.annamiepaul.ca/shadow_cabinet</a> et est incluse dans son approche actuelle pour renforcer le Cabinet fantôme.</p><h4>Valeur(s) Vertes</h4><p>Sagesse écologique, développement durable, démocratie participative, justice sociale, respect de la diversité, non-violence</p><h4>Lien avec la politique actuelle</h4><p><strong></strong>Ajouter à la politique actuelle du PVC.</p>"},"title":{"en":"G21-D009 Include Subject-Matter Experts in the Policy Development Process","fr":"G21-D009 Inclure des spécialistes en la matière dans le processus d'élaboration des politiques"}}

This fingerprint is calculated using a SHA256 hashing algorithm. In order to replicate it yourself, you can use an MD5 calculator online and copy-paste the source data.

Share:

link-intact Share link

Share link:

Please paste this code in your page:

<script src="https://leadership.green.ca/processes/Policy2021/f/275/proposals/2336/embed.js"></script>
<noscript><iframe src="https://leadership.green.ca/processes/Policy2021/f/275/proposals/2336/embed.html" frameborder="0" scrolling="vertical"></iframe></noscript>

Report inappropriate content

Is this content inappropriate?

Reason

14 comments

Order by:
  • Older
    • Best rated
    • Recent
    • Older
    • Most discussed
Conversation with Sarah Gabrielle Baron
Avatar: Sarah Gabrielle Baron Sarah Gabrielle Baron verified-badge
08/06/2021 07:52
  • Get link Get link

This motion seems to suggest that the Green members making policy proposals are not experts in their field or immersed in the 6 Key Principles. It's been my experience as a Green that the folks drafting policy proposals are deeply informed about their subject, and most are usually very holistically minded. That is why I feel this 2017-2021 move by HQ to limit our word count and curtail our specificity is wrong. If this directive motion was telling Federal Council to continue to work towards an ongoing Living Policy development process, whereby Shadow Cabinet and experts met continually with Members in subject-specific think-tanks, then you'd be asking the same thing we have all been asking at least since 2005. It's a good motion, but could be misinterpreted to further take policy production out of the hands of Members, (it is constitutionally enshrined as being Member-driven see, article 7.3.13).

Avatar: Michelle Bowman Michelle Bowman
19/03/2022 19:28
  • Get link Get link

Hi Sarah. Thanks for your comments.

Indicating which of the core principles this directive includes was a submission requirement.

Expertise gained through lived experience or formal education is different than being informed. We need all three to develop strong, practical policies.

I understand the call for lack of specificity UNTIL we have continuous policy process but agree the word limits and specific requirements left few words to actually explain the intent of the directive.

I’ll amend to clarify the directive is to encourage more rather than less input from members.

Best, Michelle

Conversation with Blocked user
Avatar: Blocked user Blocked user
16/07/2021 15:50
  • Get link Get link

There is nothing in the current motion process to prevent submitters from incorporating subject matter experts into the drafting of their policy motions. Formally mandating the inclusion of subject matter experts may have unintended consequence of those experts expecting remuneration. Who would pay for that?

Avatar: Michelle Bowman Michelle Bowman
19/03/2022 19:31
  • Get link Get link

Shadow Cabinet and Knowledge Clusters are unpaid positions held by members and the first open calls generated many people anxious to serve the party in this way.

Conversation with Laurence Hudson Montgomery
Avatar: Laurence Hudson Montgomery Laurence Hudson Montgomery
16/07/2021 18:01
  • Get link Get link
Against  

I oppose the proposal but not because I disagree with its objectives. It is just that all Parties claim to be evidence-based. And none of them really are in any meaningful way, including ours. So talk is cheap, yes? And wishes cheaper still.

So yep we have a problem, but we are not going to solve it without substantial changes to the way we make decisions and the way we get work done. Getting 50% of the members to say that they support the principle of emplyong 'holistic' expertise (strictly defined as?) without committing to any specific action is... innocuous. But with only 15 proposals available to us, a redundant and vague affirmation of values with no specific prescription or interdiction just doesn't make the cut.

Or else what would this motion specifically require to happen? It is ignorable. Deep structural reform is needed to make our party evidence-based. I only wish I could say what that should look like.

Avatar: Shel Goldstein Shel Goldstein
07/08/2021 03:04
  • Get link Get link

It would be really useful to minimize the number of proposals to consider at Convention; 86 is wayyy too many for limited time available (official business such as policy debates/workshops/votes needs to be transacted within a window of time when folks in all Canadian time zones can reasonably attend). So, I agree with AGAINST, as this proposal does not substantially reform our Policy Making Procedures.
As Sarah stated, usually a Proposer IS highly knowledgable about the subject, &/or would choose to seek multi-sectoral expertise prior to drafting; and if not, presumably the Policy Process Committee ought to have that as a key element of the guidance that they should offer / encourage for each Proposal.

Avatar: Michelle Bowman Michelle Bowman
19/03/2022 19:38
  • Get link Get link

We were required to state the problem and specific objective without specifying specific action - those were the rules.

I’ll amend to give concrete examples of possible actions such as an open call for members of Shadow Cabinet and Knowledge Clusters (which happened in 2021-22) and this tool that will hopefully be used for continuous policy development with more input from members with interest, lived experience and expertise.

Conversation with Blocked user
Avatar: Blocked user Blocked user
17/07/2021 09:00
  • Get link Get link

The 15 motion limit was removed for this round of motions (approved by Federal Council)

Avatar: Laurence Hudson Montgomery Laurence Hudson Montgomery
19/07/2021 21:55
  • Get link Get link

That is good news. But then what is the purpose of the 'prioritization' ballot? Also: any idea how it ballooned to 172 motions?

Avatar: Laurence Hudson Montgomery Laurence Hudson Montgomery
19/07/2021 22:02
  • Get link Get link

OK I found the 'updated' Proposal Process Overview. Still not sure how we got to 172 proposals.

Avatar: Laurence Hudson Montgomery Laurence Hudson Montgomery
19/07/2021 22:08
  • Get link Get link

My browser was double counting. I see 86 proposals now. Phew!

Conversation with Jamie Ker
Avatar: Jamie Ker Jamie Ker
23/03/2022 17:40
  • Get link Get link

My reasons for not supporting this proposal:

inconsistent with participatory democracy because it would qualify a few contributors to the process as experts
the current proposal format includes a section for supporting evidence (as Catherine notes)
balancing the complex interplay of GPC values is not an expert domain
"knowledge translation" is an aspiration best reached by the messy discussions of people who care—and listen to each other

Avatar: Michelle Bowman Michelle Bowman
26/03/2022 15:11
  • Get link Get link

The aim is participation by more members, not fewer (in forums such as this one)

Avatar: Jamie Ker Jamie Ker
22/05/2022 15:21
  • Get link Get link

I joined the Policy Development and Process Committee (PDPC) last year when FC opened the door a crack. Designing the optimal way of accepting new members is a priority of the committee.

It's great that your proposal addresses the issue of expertise and that the outcome you seek is more member participation. Whether or not it's ratified (I still think the problems, as described here, outweigh the benefits) the policy committee would do well to accept the Directive as a Good Suggestion.

Add your comment

Sign in with your account or sign up to add your comment.

Loading comments ...

  • Thank you
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Safe Spaces Content Guidelines
  • Download Open Data files
  • Green Party of Canada WeDecide / Parti Vert du Canada Decidons at Twitter Twitter
  • Green Party of Canada WeDecide / Parti Vert du Canada Decidons at Facebook Facebook
  • Green Party of Canada WeDecide / Parti Vert du Canada Decidons at Instagram Instagram
  • Green Party of Canada WeDecide / Parti Vert du Canada Decidons at YouTube YouTube
Creative Commons License Website made with free software.
Decidim Logo

Confirm

OK Cancel

Please sign in

Sign in with GPC account
Or

Sign up

Forgot your password?