Hale Insurance: Cleaning up after the storm

First of all my apologies for the paucity of blog entries the last while. Between the hectic debate schedule, practicing medicine in Esterhazy and Biggar, and the hubbub around the membership scandal, such a backlog of commentary has built-up that I haven't managed to tackle it. I intend to blog more frequently in the days approaching the election. Today I felt I should comment on how we move forward as a party from the membership scandal and the Hale Report.

The cancellation of the false memberships and the report produced by Robert Hale for the NDP reflect a good start to the investigation. The report serves a purpose in establishing some of the details of the events that led to 1100 memberships being obtained on behalf of people who had not given their consent.

To suggest, however, that the case is now closed ignores a great number of questions that arise from this report. These questions will continue to be asked by the press, the public and our political opposition. Our party should continue to investigate.

There is, however, one aspect of the report which is very clear and deserves further discussion.

Quoting Mr Hale: “The party does allow membership fees to be paid by someone other than the person applying for membership. There do not appear to be any specific rules on how or under what circumstances this can be done. One can certainly understand a parent paying for the membership of a child or one spouse paying for the membership of herself and her spouse. Or, in some cases memberships being paid for someone who does not have the financial resources to pay. This is the spirit of the rule that allows this practice. However, a leadership campaign paying for 1100 member applications is an entirely different proposal.”

While the the letter of the law may have been followed in purchasing memberships, it is hard to imagine how this could be seen as fair practice. Buying memberships for hundreds of people during a membership race, in this case nearly 10% of the total membership, is a clear attempt to purchase influence on the outcome. While it is not technically against the rules, it is against the spirit of the law.

Since the opportunity for such abuses persists, we need to make a constitutional amendment to the party rules that prevents this kind of outcome. One simple way would be to disallow buying anyone else a membership. If that is seen as too restrictive, perhaps one could be allowed to purchase a small number (<5) for friends and family, with the membership form changed to clearly denote the purchaser. At the very least, no candidate or campaign team should ever be able to buy memberships for anyone during a nomination or leadership election.

The NDP is a party of social democratic principle based on an underlying egalitarian philosophy -- the notion that we are all in this together. It is also a party that turns principle into success at the ballot box. Actions that vary from these principles stain on the integrity of the party.

If we do not take serious action to ensure our integrity remains intact, our party is at serious risk. Without integrity, we cannot appeal to people’s values. Without honesty and courage we will not have electoral success. For the future of the party and the province, this matter cannot be taken lightly.

Ballots are now on kitchen tables throughout the province. The members of the party must decide now how to respond. What kind of party do they want? What chance do we have in 2011 with a leader whose integrity and judgment are in question? We need a break with the old style politics that this kind of activity represents. The future success of our party demands that we win back the public trust. Now is our opportunity to present a real alternative to the Saskatchewan party, a vision of social democracy for this century.