Constitution Proposal #812
British Columbia Regional Priority
14. CANDIDATES FOR PARLIAMENT
Co-Sponsoring EDA’s
Vaudreuil,Davenport,Etobicoke Centre,Guelph,London Centre,Ottawa Centre,Pickering–Brooklin,Scarborough–Guildwood–Rouge Park,Wellington–Halton Hills North,Windsor West,Provencher,Calgary Signal Hill,Edmonton Strathcona,Foothills,Lethbridge,Abbotsford–South Langley,Cloverdale–Langley City,Prince George–Peace River–Northern Rockies,Richmond East–Steveston,Similkameen–South Okanagan–West Kootenay,Skeena–Bulkley Valley,Victoria,Yukon
Short Summary of Proposal
This brief and moderate proposal seeks to protect from encroachment the central role that the Constitution already ascribes to EDAs in administering their nomination processes and specifies some core elements of what “fairness” looks like in dealing with nomination applicants.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why do we need this expansion of Article 14.2? We should instead simply trust people to do their jobs.
It’s not a question of trust or lack of it. It’s a question of the meaning of some of the words already in the Constitution – statements about the centrality of EDAs in the nomination process, and about fairness in the administration of that process. The evidence of the 2025 nomination process strongly suggests that we need to supply more guidance in the Constitution itself about what these words require of us and forbid us from doing.
Doesn’t the Party need to be able to override CNCs in candidate selection much more often than only “in exceptional circumstances”?
No!! This assertion is bound up with an underlying, elitist assumption that is antithetical to democracy itself: that “ordinary people cannot be trusted to make good decisions and need to be ruled by higher-ups who know much better.” Whether these higher-ups do always or even often know better than “the people” how to run a good nomination process is of course open to serious question in the light of what happened during the 2025 election. But in some ways, this is beside the point. The main point is that our Constitution itself already takes its stand against elitism and in favour of respect for democracy, investing trust in “the people’s” wisdom and competence as their local CNC representatives administer “the candidate selection process in the electoral district”
(Article 14.2). A Constitution-respecting Party must embrace this same respect. It must do so even when it has a good “star candidate” in mind for a riding, seeking to persuade local CNCs rather than coercing them into an endorsement. The ongoing, negative consequences of not practicing this respect are currently everywhere to be seen in ridings across Canada, much to the detriment of the health of the Conservative Party.
Should we really allow local CNCs full access to all applicants (through interview) and their nomination packages when there is so much private information being divulged in the process?
There’s something rather ironic about this question in the aftermath of the personal details of the 2025 nomination applicants being leaked from the Party’s centralized files. But let’s address the question anyway: there is no good reason to think that local CNC members, who already operate under a signed confidentiality agreement, are generally more likely to be indiscreet than members of National Council. But there is every good reason to ensure that local CNCs know their applicants well, can form their own judgments on them as potential candidates, and in the end are able to stand behind the nomination winner fully and without reservation.
Don’t National Council’s revised Rules and Procedures for Candidate Nominations (2025) already solve the problem you’re trying to solve?
No!! The revised Rules persist in treating the local CNC as if it possessed merely an advisory role in relation to the National Candidate Selection Committee. It is not given the position it should, in fact, have. See further the document, “An Assessment of National Council's 2025 RPCNs”
