2020- 2022 Policy Process | Green Party of Canada
Where GPC membership collaborates to develop our policies
G21-D009 Include Subject-Matter Experts in the Policy Development Process
Ratification Vote Results: Adopted
Adopt a more holistic policy development approach by including multidisciplinary research expertise that reflects the six interdependent GPC core values.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ecological Wisdom, Sustainability, Participatory Democracy, Social Justice, Respect for Diversity, Non-Violence.
Relation to Existing Policy
Add to current GPC policy.
List of Endorsements
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Conversation with Sarah Gabrielle Baron
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).
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.
Conversation with Blocked user
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?
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
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.
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.
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
The 15 motion limit was removed for this round of motions (approved by Federal Council)
That is good news. But then what is the purpose of the 'prioritization' ballot? Also: any idea how it ballooned to 172 motions?
OK I found the 'updated' Proposal Process Overview. Still not sure how we got to 172 proposals.
My browser was double counting. I see 86 proposals now. Phew!
Conversation with Jamie Ker
My reasons for not supporting this proposal:
The aim is participation by more members, not fewer (in forums such as this one)
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 ...