Macdonald-Laurier Institute Submission Guidelines

Key Takeaways

• The Macdonald-Laurier Institute publishes two broad kinds of writing: short, argument-led commentary and longer research papers. Each carries a different evidence threshold and a different review process.
• Editors decide from a pitch. A 200-word email that states the argument, the timing, and what is new usually matters more than an unsolicited finished draft.
• MLI's readers are Canadian policy audiences: members of Parliament and their staff, provincial officials, journalists, and business associations. Prose written for a specialist academic seminar usually needs a rewrite before it fits.
• Length, copyright terms, and exclusivity windows vary by format and change over time. Confirm them with the commissioning editor before you invest weeks in a draft.
• Outlets differ in audience, evidence bar, and turnaround. Match the outlet to the evidence you already hold.

1. Introduction

A policy analyst finishes a strong piece of work, looks at the Canadian think tank sector, and picks the Macdonald-Laurier Institute because its audience is the one they want to reach. The pitch goes out. Two weeks later a short reply arrives saying the piece is not right for them. Nothing in the reply explains what would have been right.

That gap is common. Where public submission guidance is brief, the working rules sit with the commissioning editor, and authors who have never published with the institute are left guessing at format, length, and tone. The cost of guessing is high: a rejected 4,000-word draft represents weeks of unpaid work.

This article sets out what MLI publishes, how its editors evaluate pitches, what the writing itself needs to do, and how MLI compares with peer outlets in Canada and in technology policy. The aim is practical. By the end you should be able to judge whether your material belongs at MLI, prepare a pitch in an afternoon, and know when a different outlet is the better home.

2. What MLI publishes, and who reads it

MLI's output splits into commentary and research, and the two tracks ask different things of an author. Commentary runs short, usually built on one argument and public sources. Research papers run long and need original data, legal analysis, or economic modelling to justify the length. Inside Policy, the institute's online publication, sits between them and carries more explanatory work tied to live debates.

The readership shapes the writing more than any style guide. MLI writes for people who influence Canadian policy decisions within a budget cycle or a parliamentary session: MPs and their staff, deputy ministers and policy advisers, provincial cabinets, journalists on the federal beat, and industry associations. Those readers skim for the recommendation. They will not work through three pages of literature review to find it.

The ranges above reflect common practice among Canadian policy institutes, not a fixed MLI schedule. Treat the editor's stated limit as authoritative.

The practical test for choosing a format: if you can state your argument in one sentence and support it entirely from published sources, you have a commentary. If your argument depends on something nobody outside your institution can see yet, such as a new dataset, an access-to-information result, or a legal interpretation of a recent decision, you have a paper. Pitching a paper's worth of material as commentary produces a piece that says nothing. Pitching a commentary as a paper produces 5,000 words with one idea.

3. The pitch is the product

Editors at MLI and its peers commission from pitches because unsolicited drafts arrive in unmanageable volume and rarely fit the current publication calendar. A pitch that answers the editor's unspoken questions in the first paragraph gets a response.

Send the pitch, not the draft, unless an editor has asked otherwise. Keep it to roughly 200 to 300 words plus a short author note.

Two conventions cause most friction. First, exclusivity: many outlets want first publication rights in Canada and will not run a piece that has already appeared elsewhere, including on a personal blog or a university site. Second, simultaneous pitches: sending the same pitch to five outlets at once is normal practice in journalism, but say so in the email. Editors respond badly to discovering it afterwards.

A worked example of the argument line, using a fictional but realistic pitch: "Ontario's new procurement rules will raise the cost of municipal broadband projects by pushing small suppliers out of the bidding, and the fix is a tiered bonding requirement." That sentence can be disputed, checked, and turned into a headline. "Ontario's broadband procurement needs reform" cannot.

Expect to hear back within one to three weeks if there is interest, and to hear nothing if there is not. A polite follow-up after two weeks is acceptable. A second follow-up is not.

4. Writing to MLI's editorial standards

Once a pitch is accepted, the writing needs to survive an editor who is working to a deadline and a reader who has five minutes. Four habits separate accepted drafts from ones that come back covered in comments.

Lead with the recommendation. State what should change, who should change it, and by when, inside the first 150 words. The supporting case follows. Canadian policy readers are accustomed to this structure and will assume a piece that buries its conclusion has no conclusion.

Cite primary sources by name. Statistics Canada tables, Bank of Canada data, departmental reports, committee testimony, and court decisions carry more weight than secondary summaries. Where a number comes from an advocacy group, say so and give the group's name. Vague attributions to unnamed experts weaken a piece that will be read by people who know the file.

Keep the register plain. Canadian spelling, short sentences, jargon defined the first time it appears. An acronym that means nothing to a provincial official should be spelled out or dropped.

Watch the disclosure line. Institutes generally want to know who funds your research, whether you hold a party membership or a government contract, and whether the work has appeared anywhere else. Declaring these things upfront protects the author and the outlet. Undisclosed conflicts are the fastest route to a retraction request.

Charts need a source line and must work in greyscale, since policy documents get printed. A table with four well-chosen variables often does more work than a figure with twelve.

5. How MLI compares with other Canadian policy outlets

Fit is the single largest reason pitches fail, and fit is easier to judge against a peer set. The table below summarizes where MLI sits, with the honest limitations of each outlet.

Two decision rules help. If your argument needs to reach a member of Parliament's office this quarter, choose an outlet with a fast cycle and an Ottawa audience. If your argument rests on a model that reviewers will want to check, choose an outlet with peer review even if it takes months longer.

6. FAQ

Does MLI accept unsolicited submissions from authors it has not published before?

Yes, in the sense that commissions usually begin with a cold pitch rather than an existing relationship. A cold pitch competes with pitches from returning authors, so the argument and the timing have to carry more weight. Referencing a specific recent MLI publication and explaining how your piece extends or challenges it signals that you have read the outlet.

How long should a submission be?

Length follows format. For commentary, stay within whatever limit the editor states; if none is stated, ask before writing. For a policy paper, expect several thousand words and expect the editor to trim. Authors who send 6,000 words when the format is 1,000 rarely get a second invitation, because the editor ends up doing the structural work.

Can I pitch the same idea to several outlets at once?

You can, and many writers do. Say so in the pitch and note who else has it. Once an outlet commissions the piece, withdraw it from the others. If two outlets accept at the same time, tell both immediately and honour the first acceptance unless the terms are clearly worse for you.

Do I need to be based in Canada?

Topic relevance matters more than residence. A piece on federal procurement, provincial regulation, or a Canadian court decision needs someone who knows that file, and that person may work in London or Washington. Writers outside Canada pitch successfully on trade, defence, and technology files where the Canadian angle is clear. Authors without that specific angle face a harder sell.

7. Conclusion

The Macdonald-Laurier Institute is a workable home for argument-led Canadian policy writing, provided the author accepts its constraints: short formats, a policy rather than academic readership, and a pitch-first process that rewards clarity about timing and novelty. The realistic preparation is an afternoon of writing a 250-word pitch that names the argument, the hook, and your evidence. If you cannot compress the argument that far, the piece is not ready for MLI or for any outlet with a comparable cycle.

Before sending, run three checks. Confirm the current length and rights terms with the editor, since these change. Verify that every factual claim traces to a named primary source. Decide which single reader you are writing for, and cut anything that reader does not need.