Senate reform shouldn’t be a populist bandwagon of convenience

Following Stephen Harper’s appointment of several (more) failed Conservative candidates to the Senate, we’ve seen the usual outrage over the sheer contempt demonstrated by the moves. But for those who say Harper is trying to (semi) reform the upper chamber by bringing it into disrepute, some evidence is also emerging there may be some method to his madness.

In Newfoundland, where Fabian Manning’s move from Harper Senator to candidate rejected at the polls this week back to Harper Senator has raised hackles, the Liberal opposition leader is suddenly calling for Senate elections:

Newfoundland and Labrador should elect its first senator this fall, the province's opposition leader said Wednesday. "All it would take to elect a senator would be an extra ballot for voters to mark when they vote in this fall's provincial election," Liberal leader Yvonne Jones said in a news release.

The province’s Conservative Premier, incidentally, isn’t a fan of the idea.

And closer to home in Ontario, I’m hearing rumours Dalton McGuinty’s provincial Liberal government may add a Senate election to this fall’s scheduled provincial elections.

I must say, I’m skeptical of this sudden interest in Senate elections by two provincial Liberal parties. Given that I don’t recall this being a topic of discussion in these circles before, I’d have to guess the fact the federal Liberals are in the wilderness and won’t be wielding the power of appointment any time soon may have something to do with it.

More so, though, this seems to me to be a knee-jerk reaction to Harper’s provocations with these latest appointments. Jones and McGuinty may see this as a chance to jump on a populist bandwagon by pushing for Senate elections, hoping a populist wave may raise their own boats at the polls this fall.

Whether their political calculus is accurate or not, it’s a short-sighted move that would be bad for public policy and regional representation at the federal level. And, I suspect, it would play into Harper’s hands. Even if a Liberal senator may get elected in one of these elections (small risk in Ontario, I’d say, but maybe not in Newfoundland) and he’d have to appoint them, I think Harper would see it as a small price to pay for moving toward an elected senate giving him a victory on his version of Senate reform.

As I’ve written many times, Harper’s piecemeal Senate reform plan is dangerous. Electing Senators gives them legitimacy and the mandate to exercise their power.

• We shouldn’t take that step until we consider just what we want Senators to do – how are they different from MPs and what should their legislative role be?
• The current Senate composition also severely under-represents British Columbia. We need to fix the regional balance of the Senate before giving it real power and the legitimacy of elected members; otherwise we’re entrenching the unfair treatment of the West.
• A Senate with a mix of elected members exercising their constitutional powers and appointed members not exercising those powers would be a mess.

Meaningful Senate reform would require constitutional amendment, an option the Conservatives have shown no interest in entertaining. Their piecemeal reforms are designed to give the appearance of reform but major planks, such as term limits, are likely wouldn’t survive a court challenge. It’s all just for show.

If we want to debate Senate reform we should do it full-hog. Until then, I support maintaining the status quo. Which means Harper can appoint whomever he wants, and if we object we can vote against him in four years.

In the interim, I’d urge my provincial cousins not to put populist calculations and provincial electoral expediency ahead of the future of the red chamber; gaining a few points of support provincially isn’t worth saddling us with a dysfunctional and disfigured yet powerful Senate. They need to look at the big picture.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Clarity Act and the NDP’s Sherbrooke Declaration are not the same thing

Much buzz on twitter and in politicaldom yesterday on the confusion around the NDP’s position on recognizing a sovereignty referendum vote by Quebecers. NDP policies on this issue have been somewhat confused and contentious for years, but with their newfound relevance many are just now beginning to pay attention to them and try to get some clarity.

Much of the debate and the confusion has centred around two specific documents: the Clarity Act passed by the Liberal government under Jean Chretien and Stephane Dion following the 1995 referendum and a subsequent Supreme Court reference, and the Sherbrooke Declaration which has outlined NDP policy on Quebec since its adoption in 2005. I’d encourage you to read both documents to better frame the debate going forward.

In my view, the root of the confusion has been the NDP doing what many political parties have been guilty of: saying one thing in Quebec, and one thing in the rest of Canada. In Quebec, they point to Sherbrooke as their policy. In the rest of Canada, they seem to signal support for the Clarity Act, trying to back away from pre-Sherbrooke comments to scrap it. And they’ll have you believe those two positions are compatible.

However, if you’ve read both documents it’s hard to support that argument on two key points: acceptance of the referendum question, and the threshold required to accept a yes vote.

Setting the question

First, the question. Here’s the NDP position via Sherbrooke:

The NDP recognizes as well that the right to self determination implies that the Assemblee Nationale is able to write a referendum question and that the citizens of Quebec are able to answer it freely.

I read this as saying the Quebec national assembly has sole right to select whatever question they want and the NDP will accept it. Yet here’s the Clarity Act on this point:

1. (1) The House of Commons shall, within thirty days after the government of a province tables in its legislative assembly or otherwise officially releases the question that it intends to submit to its voters in a referendum relating to the proposed secession of the province from Canada, consider the question and, by resolution, set out its determination on whether the question is clear.

It goes on to set out broadly some criteria for judging the clarity of the question, and says the Government of Canada will not recognize an unclear question.

Now, I view those two positions as opposed, and it’s hard not to. The NDP says the National Assembly sets the question, and we need to accept it. The Clarity Act says we'll only accept a clear question, and the House of Commons will make the call. This is kind of important, because the sovereignty movement has a history of trying to hoodwink Quebecers with confusing questions and messaging that’s just not true, like they’ll keep their passports and the dollar.

Now, you could try to argue the NDP is just saying Quebec picks the question but that doesn’t mean the feds can’t reject it. I don’t read it that way, but to make that argument you’d have to overlook the fact they don’t say the question is open to judgment so, at best, in that scenario you’re arguing they’re deliberately misleading Quebecers by leaving that part out. But I don’t buy it; they’ll clearly accept Quebec’s question, no reservations. And accepting a confusing or misleading question that could lead to the break-up of Canada is unacceptable.

The percentage threshold

The other point of contention is around the percentage needed for a sovereignty referendum yes vote to be accepted. The threshold has generally in the past been accepted as 60 per cent, although it was revealed post-1995 referendum that if he got one vote over 50 per cent Jacques Parizeau was pulling the trigger in a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI).

In Sherbrooke, the NDP also affirms its support for accepting 50 per cent plus one:

The NDP would accept a majority decision (50% + 1) of the Quebec people in the event of a referendum on the political status of Quebec.

Clear enough. It had appeared to some recently that Jack Layton was backing away from this position, but under questioning yesterday he confirmed the party’s position:

"The Supreme Court decision says you need a clear majority. And our Sherbrooke Declaration put a number to what a clear majority means: 50 per cent plus one. That's been our policy for a long time, and it remains so."

With that clear, what does the Clarity Act say on the matter?

House of Commons to consider whether there is a clear will to secede

2. (1) Where the government of a province, following a referendum relating to the secession of the province from Canada, seeks to enter into negotiations on the terms on which that province might cease to be part of Canada, the House of Commons shall, except where it has determined pursuant to section 1 that a referendum question is not clear, consider and, by resolution, set out its determination on whether, in the circumstances, there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of that province that the province cease to be part of Canada.

Factors for House of Commons to take into account

(2) In considering whether there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of a province that the province cease to be part of Canada, the House of Commons shall take into account

(a) the size of the majority of valid votes cast in favour of the secessionist option;

(b) the percentage of eligible voters voting in the referendum; and

(c) any other matters or circumstances it considers to be relevant.

While it’s deliberately vague in setting a precise threshold, the Clarity Act does clearly say “a clear majority” is needed. Is 50 per cent plus one a clear majority? I don’t think so. If the act accepted 50+1, it would have just said majority. Clear is the operative word.

Stephane Dion yesterday said it best:

But Liberal MP Stephane Dion, who spearheaded the secession reference to the Supreme Court and authored the subsequent Clarity Act based on the court's ruling, scoffed at Layton's logic.

Dion said the top court would have said so if it meant a bare majority would be good enough to trigger secession negotiations. Instead the court insisted, 13 times, that a "clear majority" would be necessary.

"If (Layton thinks) 50 per cent plus one is a clear majority, what is an unclear majority?" Dion asked in an interview.

Indeed. Clearly, on the two fundamental points here – the question, and the threshold for acceptance – the Sherbrooke Declaration and the Clarity Act are opposed.

Pick a position

You may be asking yourself, so what? I agree, the NDP is free to take whatever position on these issues they want. They’re free to accept a confusing question, and they’re free to let Canada break-up on a one-vote majority resulting from that confused question. I disagree fundamentally and vehemently with both policy positions, but they’re free to take them. And as Antonio notes, both positions are within the Quebec political mainstream.

What they can’t do, however, is try to have it both ways. They can’t tell Quebecers one thing and Canadians another. They can’t say Sherbrooke is their policy but claim support for the Supreme Court opinion and the Clarity Act, because the two aren’t compatible. They need to pick a position, own it and stand by it in all of Canada.

As for the NDP pushback on this issue, which can be summarized as a) our position isn’t confused but no one cares about this so stop talking about it, and b) the Liberals making an issue of our position is akin to fermenting a national unity crisis, I can only say both positions are ridiculous.

With half the NDP caucus hailing from Quebec, and with most Quebec MPs now NDPers, some of whom have been unclear on the unity issue, their party’s position on this issue is incredibly relevant and should, at the very least, be made clear. And if talking about the NDP’s position on this issue is someone dangerous to national unity, is the problem really talking about it, or is the problem actually their position?

As Jack would say, that’s a hashtag fail.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Goldilocks and the Liberal constitutional amendments

The actual honest to goodness text of the much speculated Liberal constitutional amendments with respect to leadership timing were finally released to the membership last night via an e-mail from party president Alf Apps; after one final round of media leaks for tradition’s sake.

Here they are in their entirety:

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
JUNE 18, 2011 EXTRAORDINARY CONVENTION

1. The members of the Party assembled in convention, as a Special Resolution, amend the Constitution to add as section 82(1) the following:
Notwithstanding anything else contained in this Constitution (including, but not limited to, section 54):

(a) the meeting of the National Board of Directors required by subsection 54(3) as a consequence of the resignation of the Leader in May 2011 shall be held at any time on or before October 1, 2012; and

(b) at the meeting referred to in Paragraph (a), the National Board of Directors, in consultation with the Caucus and the Council of Presidents and on five (5) months' notice to the Party, shall set a date for a Leadership Vote between November 1, 2012 and February 28, 2013.

This subsection (1) shall no longer be of force or effect on the later of the conclusion of the Leadership Vote contemplated by Paragraph (a) and February 28, 2013.

2. The members of the Party assembled in convention, as a Special Resolution, amend the Constitution to add as section 82(2) the following:

Notwithstanding anything else contained in this Constitution (including, but not limited to, section 65), the next biennial convention of the Party (which is the rescheduled biennial convention of the Party originally called for June 17, 2011) including the related in-person meeting of the Council of Presidents shall be held on January 13 to 15, 2012 at Ottawa, Ontario.

This subsection (2) shall no longer be of force or effect on January 15, 2012.

This conforms to previous media leaks, and my view on these dates still stands: I’m disappointed, because I don’t want it delayed this long. My preferred timing is to go next spring, which would be about a year from the last election. I’d be willing to compromise and go next fall. Neither option is on the table though. Instead, it’s winter 2013, as long as 21 months from the last election. It’s too long.

The board would have us believe they can put a clamp on campaigning, and we’ll all focus on renewal and rebuilding until the next board sets the date with five months notice. Poppycock. Let’s be honest here; the race began before the votes were cast for the last election. People are organizing, signing up members and getting commitments for donations.

Let’s also consider the short-term timeline here. Constitutionally, the board needs to call a leadership vote for October. They hope to delay that by up to two years if 2/3s of delegates vote in favour of the amendments next month, but they need to put out the call for October and be ready in case the vote fails. And it’s very possible it will fail. Either way, if you’re a leadership contender you need to start organizing now, in case the October date turns out to be real; if it ends up being real every week is crucial. Do we really expect people to gear-up now, and then down tools for two years if the amendment passes?

The fact is, this would not be a five month race in two years, it would be a two-year race beginning now that everyone will say they're trying to pretend isn’t really happening. But leadership maneuvering will dominate every election for a party position from national executive to riding association, and every debate about policy and renewal will see leadership influence. It’s unavoidable.

That’s why I’ve favoured a middle-road timeframe: not a five month race voting in October, but one-year voting next spring. And without a phony war phase: let candidates campaign openly until a spring 2012 vote, criss-crossing the country visiting riding associations and meeting members.

Instead, we’re left with two bad options: this October, or winter 2012. I don’t know yet which bad option I’ll choose, but I’m strongly learning toward getting it over-with and going in October.
I feel like Goldilocks: one bowl of porridge is too hot, and one is too cold. Where’s the just-right porridge?

What about amendments?

I’m hoping though, that there could be another way. I’m hoping that an amendment to the executive’s motion can be moved to allow the delegates to the extraordinary convention to consider another date: say, spring 2012. If that amendment were to pass (with a simple majority), then we’d vote on the main motion as amended reflecting the new date. If not, then we’d vote on the original date. This way, members could have more say into timing. We could even consider two amendments – say, spring 2012 and fall 2012 – but I’d settle for one.

I’m not sure yet if amendments will be allowed, or if so how that process will work – who can move them, deadlines for submission, etc. I’ve been promised answers soonish on these important details.

I will, for now, say this: if the board tries to play games by not allowing amendments, making it near impossible to introduce them or passes silly rules governing their consideration and passage (there’s precedent for that one), they’re going to have a major s**tstorm on their hands.

They need to let amendments be fairly moved and fairly considered, and allow the chips fall where they may.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Constitutional amendments (Now with dates?)

(Scroll down for updated information)

As mentioned, today was supposed to be the day Liberal members found out that constitutional amendments they'd be voting on as part of the extraordinary convention to be held via teleconference next month.

In fact, today was the membership deadline to join the party if you want to vote for to select delegates to that convention, or be a delegate yourself. Unfortunately, that deadline seems to have passed without people getting to know what they'd be joining to vote for or against. As mentioned, a message and page has been posted with some information on the process, but not the resolutions themselves.

I have obtained a copy of what appears to be the close to final amendments we'll be asked to vote on but they're missing one key detail, which I've bolded: the date we'll be voting to move the leadership to. I pass these on to you because I believe all members should know where we're apparently at, even if it's not complete yet.

1. The members of the Party assembled in convention, as a Special Resolution, amend the Constitution to add as section 82(1) the following:

Notwithstanding anything else contained in this Constitution (including, but not limited to, section 54):

(a) the meeting of the National Board of Directors required by subsection 54(3) as a consequence of the resignation of the Leader in May 2011 shall be held at any time on or before [date to be inserted];

(b) at the meeting referred to in Paragraph (a), the National Board of Directors shall set a date for a Leadership Vote between [insert date] and [insert date].

This subsection (1) shall no longer be of force or effect on the later of the conclusion of the Leadership Vote contemplated by Paragraph (a) and [insert date].

2. The members of the Party assembled in convention, as a Special Resolution, amend the Constitution to add as section 82(2) the following:

Notwithstanding anything else contained in this Constitution (including, but not limited to, section 65), the next biennial convention of the Party (which is the rescheduled biennial convention of the Party originally called for June 17-18, 2011) including the related in-person meeting of the Council of Presidents shall be held on January 13 to 15, 2012 at a location to be determined by the National Board of Directors. This subsection (2) shall no longer be of force or effect on January 15, 2012.

Here's a link to the current constitution for reference. As I said, some key information is missing from the above. Namely, the dates the leadership would be delayed to. If the above is accurate though, we will be asked to vote on a specific date range, which is in line with what I've been hearing.

I know the date issue has been a contentious one. My preference is to have the leadership vote in spring 2012, about one year from now. I'd compromise and go fall 2012, but I would vote against a proposal that pushes it beyond next fall. We'll also vote, of course, on delaying the biennial to January 2012.

We can also glean from above that, rather than change the constitutional leadership process permanently, we seem to be authorizing a one-time exception to the rules to extend this leadership race only, and that this exception will sunset. This is probably a positive; we should consider a more fulsome reform of the process for future races though through the normal biennial process. This ad hoc amendment thing isn't ideal.

So, I await the actual final proposed amendments, including the hopefully not too late dates, to be publicly released and communicated to the membership.

Hopefully soon, please.

UPDATE: CP's Joan Bryden is tonight reporting the dates will be filled in as follows:

Federal Liberals will be asked to postpone electing a new leader for 18 to 22 months.
...
The proposed amendment calls for a new leader to be chosen sometime between Nov. 1, 2012, and Feb. 28, 2013.

I'm still digesting this, but my first reaction is negative. I want a longer race, yes. But as long as 22 months? No way. For me, 18 months would be pushing it, and is as far as I'd be willing to bend on this. But potentially 22 months? No.

Now for me the question will be which is better, picking a leader in 22 months of this October? I don't particularly like either option, so the question for me will be which bad option do I like less.

Also, this section here demonstrated incredible naiveté:

Party president Alf Apps says rules will be issued to ensure prospective leadership candidates don't start actively campaigning or fundraising before the official starting gun goes off.

Let's be serious here, shall we? The leadership race has already started and it will continue, and nothing the board says or does is going to change that. Nor should it. We're not voting on delaying the leadership, we're in essence voting on extending it. It is underway and it will continue until whenever the vote is held.

I favoured extending the race so candidates could take the time to really criss-cross the country, visit every riding, meet every member, and have a robust, fulsome debate on the future of our party. Trying to keep the genie in the bottle for as long as a year-and-a-half is patently absurd, and not overly productive.

I'm going to let this marinate in my mind a little (and get back to the Canucks game), but consider my initial reaction not happy at all.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why the interim leader shouldn’t run for permanent leader

There has been much debate in Liberal circles about the insistence by the national executive that the interim leader of the party agree to not run for the permanent leadership, and even more debate with the announcement by Bob Rae yesterday that he will seek the interim leadership of the party.

Some see this stipulation as some sort of anti-Rae clause, designed specifically to bind him. I don’t know what’s in the heads of the national executive, but the fact is this is a rule that would apply to anyone interested in seeking the interim/permanent leadership: anyone will have to choose which job they wish to go for.

Rules vs. promises

I’ll get to why I support this “rule” in a moment but first, I’d like to make one point that seems to be missed in much of the debate: there is no actual “rule” here at all.

Under the Liberal constitution, the national board (aka the executive) pick the interim leader, with advice from the caucus. It’s important to note too the caucus’ role is to advise, not advise and consent – the executive isn’t bound by their recommendation.

And the executive is free to base their decision on any criteria they want. They’ve chosen to publicly put some criteria out there: bilingual, support from caucus, no merger talk without a mandate, and won’t run for permanent leader. These aren’t published rules; these are just criteria the executive is choosing to base their choice on.

Once the interim leader is named by the executive, there is no real enforceability of these rules because these rules don’t really exist – they were just screening criteria the executive used in making their choice. And promises made by the candidate.

So there is no “rule” saying an interim leader can’t run for permanent leader. There is nothing in the constitution or the bylaws making it illegal. A new executive could be elected at the next biennial and say “we’ve changed the rules, it's cool now” but there is actually no "rule" to change.

What the current executive is asking for, essentially, is a promise from those seeking to become interim leader that they won’t later run for permanent leader, using this position as a springboard. That’s what it boils down to: a promise. A “rule change” by the next executive may provide political cover for an interim leader that decides to run for permanent leader, but it would still amount to a broken promise by that person. Nothing is stopping them from breaking that promise as, again, no actual rule exists. The only cost for breaking their promise, if any, would be political, and it would be determined by the membership in their voting decision.

Why interim to permanent is a bad idea

With those procedural details out of the way, just why is it a bad idea to let the interim leader contest the permanent leadership? There are many reasons, really.

The interim leader has a good deal of power that would give them an advantage in the race. Consider, for example, that many of the leadership candidates are likely to be caucus members and caucus support is always a key indicator to watch. The interim leader controls a lot of things such as who gets what critic portfolio, who get to hold positions such as whip, and even who gets to ask questions in question period. If you want to miss a vote or have a day off from house duty, you need the whip's permission.

If the interim leader is competing with fellow caucus members for permanent leadership, that opens up a hornet’s nest of possible conflicts. Are they going to give their rivals prominent roles and questions, or relegate them to the back of the back bench? And how about caucus members that have chosen to support a rival? Even for an interim leader with the best of intentions, every move is going to be second-guessed and examined for motivations and agendas.

Also, the interim leader’s time is and should be focused on representing and running the party inside the House of Commons and building the organization and structure outside it. Even if we delay the leadership vote to next spring, which I favour, the race will begin now and candidates will begin campaigning across the country. It will necessarily mean time away from the House. We need an interim leader not distracted by a leadership campaign, focused on representing and building the party.

Finally, with all the advantages an interim leader has (the increased media and public profile and attention) there’s another major reason I reject their seeking the permanent leadership: they’re not given that advantage by the membership writ large. As I noted, the interim leader is anointed by the executive with advice from caucus; not by the membership. Allowing them to use the interim job as a springboard would amount to the party elites giving their preferred leadership candidate a huge advantage, and that would be a slap in the face to the membership at large who feel picking from a level playing field should be their prerogative, and don't want the deck stacked for an anointed choice.

That’s why I think letting the interim leader seek the permanent leadership is wrong. And while there is no “rule” to be enforced, I do think asking for this promise to be made is appropriate.

What about Bob and Marc?

I think we should take any personal politics out of this. People have pointed-out that many of these same executive members had no problem with Michael Ignatieff using the interim spot to jump to the permanent job in late 2008/09, and they’re absolutely right. It’s the sort of hypocrisy that has led many of us to lose faith in the current executive.

Two wrongs, however, do not make a right, and a bad decision shouldn’t make a precedent. If you thought it was wrong then you should still think it’s wrong now, regardless of the personalities involved.

I supported Ignatieff in the last leadership race, but I strongly disagreed with his decision to grab the interim leadership. When his team polled supporters before the decision, I said so. And when he did it anyway, I said so publicly. It was a bad decision that needlessly alienated party members and made it much more difficult for him to unify the party.

It was wrong then, and it would be wrong now.

Marc Garneau and Bob Rae have both thrown their hats into the interim leader ring, and both have agreed to respect the “rule” on interim leaders not seeking the permanent job. Personally, I found Bob’s letter to be a bit ambiguously worded; I understand his public statements have been a little firmer. I think either of them would be excellent choices as interim leader.

I will choose to take them both at their word; that they’re promising to not seek the permanent leadership if they become interim leader, period. There are no “rules” to enforce these promises, just their word as gentlemen. If that can’t be enough, our problems run deeper than we think.

And finally

On Tuesday, Alf Apps told us we could expect the text of the constitutional amendments we’ll be asked to vote on by today, at the latest. Yeah, not gonna happen. Now I’m hearing maybe late today or tomorrow, or maybe Tuesday. Let’s just say, this is becoming slightly farcical. Communication remains the biggest problem here.

That said, there is a new communication posted on the party web site (apparently it hasn’t been e-mailed to members). Today is the deadline to join the party if you’d like to vote on our mystery plan, and you can sign up as a delegate now online as well.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A curious start to Harper’s first majority government

I’m taking a brief break from Liberal navel-gazing to turn my attention to other affairs of state, namely yesterday’s cabinet shuffle and senate appointments by the “The Harper Government.”

First, I should note that I’ve made an executive decision: I’m raising the bar on my partisan outrage trigger by about four notches. These guys are going to be governing for the next four years with relatively few constraints and they’re going to do lots of things I disagree with; if I amp it up to 10 every time I’m going to lose my mind. So I’ll still call attention to decisions I disagree with, but I’ll save the hyper-ventilation for the really egregious stuff.

Frankly, I think we could all do with four years of toned-down rhetoric. It got a little crazy during the perpetual minority period. I hope to see everyone make the adjustment. Perhaps we can see a more constructive parliament where, with an election not always imminent, opposition parties offer constructive advice on legislation and the government, from time to time, actually listens. And perhaps instead of the regular “will you trigger an election” stories, the media can instead write about policy and challenges and ideas. Call me crazy, but you never know.

Since it’s been so long, a little majority refresher may be useful. Generally, with a four (with fixed election date) year mandate, a government will do all the needed but high-impact and potentially unpopular stuff in the first year or two, with the hope it will be forgotten or forgiven when they go to the polls in four years. The second half of the mandate is gearing-up for the election with feel-good stuff to win the public over. The real governing is generally in the first two years.

So I’ll be watching for signs of how the Harper Conservatives intend to use their majority mandate in this “go big or go home” period, and if they’ll signal a new direction from their minority approach.

Frankly, I’m not expecting to see Scary Steve or an outbreak of radical social conservatism. He could go that route if he wanted, but it would make things tough in four years. I think Harper wants to make the Conservatives Canada’s new natural governing party, and that means he’ll stay relatively middle of the road to appeal to a broad swath of the population, maybe throwing the odd bone here or there to his more conservative base.

What I would expect to see, though, is austerity measures to bring the government into line, reduce spending and cut the size of government.

The beginning

We’ll really begin to get a sense of the course he’ll chart when Parliament returns next month with the speech from the throne. If we try to read between the lines of the cabinet shuffle though, the stay the course messaging they’ve been signaling may well prove accurate.

It’s a big cabinet, tied for the biggest in Canadian history with one of Brian Mulroney’s. He created new positions and made sure every region was covered. If he is planning to shrink government and usher-in an austerity era, he could have signaled it with a leaner, meaner cabinet: show the buck stops here, so to speak. Instead, millions more will be spent on salaries, staff and bureaucracy to support the new ministers. It’s an odd signal, and an opportunity lost.

Of course, the other thing to watch for in a majority is restless backbenchers. It’s not uncommon to try to give everyone a title so they don’t get restless and start plotting. And if you’ve been left our of the biggest cabinet in Canadian history your chances of making if next time aren’t great, so we’ll see if Conservative backbenchers start to strain at the yoke a little.

I don’t have too much comment on specific cabinet appointments. John Baird to Foreign Affairs raised eyebrows. Personally, I think he acted like a partisan jerk in past positions because that’s the role Harper wanted him to play. I think he can also play the collegial diplomat, if that’s what Harper wants. Most of the major positions are otherwise unchanged, although B.C. has lost a lot of cabinet clout without Stockwell Day and Gary Lunn.

Blowing up the Senate to save it?

If anyone was surprised by Harper appointing defeated candidates rejected by the voters to the Senate, you need to seriously give your head a shake and get out more. I’d have to question where you’ve been for the last five years.

Sending people that quit the Senate to run for the House and lost back to the Senate was a new twist, but still, the list of failed candidates appointed to the Red Chamber by Harper was already long, and includes Salma Ataullahjan, Yonah Martin, Claude Carignan, Fabian Manning (now twice), Michel Rivard, John Wallace, Leo Houskas, Michael Fortier and Suzanne Duplessis. And now add Larry Smith and Josee Verner to the list, making 11 Conservative Senate appointments that have been rejected (at least once) by the electorate. (UPDATE: 12, I forgot Don Meredith)

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; Stephen Harper isn’t serious about Senate reform. If he was, he’d propose comprehensive constitutional amendments, which is the only way to properly and effectively reform the Senate. Let me know when that happens; I’ll be the one not holding his breath.

Anyway, while these appointments weren’t surprising, the level of chutzpah was as it seemed to serve no purpose. He can appoint whomever he wants; the optics of who he appointed though were deliberately provocative. It’s an odd way to expend political capital.

Anyway, I’ll wait for the throne speech, and the re-introduction of the budget, so see where they’re really going. In the mean time, back to more Liberal navel-gazing.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On Alf, consultations and constitutional straitjackets

Tuesday evening I attended a pretty successful social event and informal renewal brainstorming session in Toronto with over 100 Liberal Party members ... and guess who came to dinner?

The Edward Blake Society is an informal group of Toronto area young professional Liberals (say, age 25 to 40) who get together regularly to lift a pint and talk some politics and about building the party. Usually there's 10-15 of us, but what was going to be an informal post-election drinks and dinner mushroomed on Facebook to nearly 150 RSVPs, and about 100 people of all ages showing up Wednesday to share ideas for renewal in a positive spirit.

And among those who showed-up was embattled Liberal president Alf Apps, who listened to ideas and debate for over an hour before making a fiery speech to those present, including some likely very confused patrons at the Elephant and Castle.

Let me say first of all I give much credit to Apps for coming to a room he knew wouldn't be overly friendly to him. That took gumption, which I admire. That said, I found his remarks somewhat baffling and out of touch. He urged Liberal youth to storm the Bastille of the party, either not realizing or accepting most of us see him as Louis XVI. And speaking of which, he assured us he wouldn't be resigning until the biennial in January and only 14 people have called for him to quit (guess Facebook doesn't count). He outlined the consultation process on the process for interim and permanent leader, and picked a number of questionable fights with caucus. I don't see caucus as blameless, but the ferocity of the shots was odd. He said it's wrong to let the interim leader run for permanent leader -- I agree and I said so with Ignatieff did it in 2008, but I think Alf felt differently then. And he promised we'll have the text of proposed constitutional amendments by Friday, and floated the idea of voting on a preferential ballot to set leadership timing: next spring, next fall or spring 2013. And that he said that if youth don't take back the party and revolutionize it in the next leadership, it will be all our fault. All in all, a rather odd performance I felt, and mixed reaction from those present.

Moving on, the drama around the constitutional proposals for the leadership and biennial continues. As mentioned, consultation continues this week. I'm told we don't have the amendments yet because the final ones haven't been drafted yet; they're continuing to evolve as consultations continue and the picture has changed a fair bit since this (now out of date) document was written. We've been promised we'll get to see what we'll be voting on by Friday.

From what I'm hearing, the idea of approving a fairly open-ended timeframe in which to allow the executive to call the leadership (as was floated previously) wasn't well received, and is out. We'll likely be asked to approve a specific date range of perhaps one month, ie. May to June of 2012. I think that would find wide support, and would meet the concerns I've had about the previous leaked proposals.

I have a sense that this process is meandering toward a good outcome, shaped largely by feedback received by the national executive from across the party. We'll know for sure when we see the actual official final proposals. And I believe consultation has been happening to a degree. I'll say it again though: for me, the biggest problem is that it hasn't been a transparent process.

So much drama and mistrust could have been avoided by making the consultation process more open and transparent, and communicating openly and directly with members. Instead, it has relied on filtering down through our unwieldy infrastructure of PTAs, commissions and riding associations. Each group had a responsibility to report discussions down and feed opinions back up the chain, and some groups do it better than others. That leads to some on the member level being left out. I take from this two lessons: our bloated infrastructure is a barrier to agile reform, and we need more open communication and information flow directly to members, and through public forums.

Finally, much talk in Liberal circles about if the extraordinary convention to amend the constitution is even constitutionally legal. I'm not a lawyer so I'll give it to you in a nutshell: you're not allowed to have an extraordinary convention within six months of a biennial. The biennial needs to legally be held by mid-December. The extraordinary convention would vote to delay it to January, which would make it retroactively legal, but only retroactively. So there's some that say the extraordinary convention can't be held, which basically means they say we can't delay the leadership and need to just pick a permanent leader in October.

Frankly, my take on it is this: I'm not keen on looking for ways around the constitution, but I'd rather bend to find a way to let members have the chance to vote either way (early or late leadership) than stick to the letter and not let people's voices be heard. It may not totally be by the letter of the book, but giving people the chance to vote is certainly by the spirit. If members disagree, they can vote no. But I want to have that chance to vote either way.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

I'm done with witch-hunts and fighting old battles

As an ardent and early supporter of Stephane Dion (still first in my heart) you could argue I should be sympathetic to this line of argument from journalist turned Liberal staffer turned journalist again Mark Dunn, but actually I'm decidedly not.

Do we need renewal and change, and fresh blood? Absolutely. But while it may be of interest to Sun readers, I'm one Liberal who has no interest in revisiting who undermined whom three years ago or drawing-up an enemies list of undesirables to be purged from the ranks.

In fact, it's exactly that kind of mentality that has been one of our party's biggest problems over the years: we're unwilling to let go of past nonsense. Instead, we perpetuate a never-ending cycle revenge in which everyone always believes they're on the side of the angels.

It's not too hard to trace back. John Turner beats Chretien for the leadership; Turner's people feel Chretien undermines them so they go to work for Paul Martin to get revenge. Chretien beats Martin for the leadership, and Chretien's people feel Martin undermines him. You could probably trace it back to Laurier if you had the patience, but I think we've all forgotten how the war started. We just march off to the battlefield because that's what we do.

At some point, it has to stop. Some people were puzzled when I decided to support Michael Ignatieff in the last leadership race. They wondered how I could do that, as a Dion supporter, with what his people allegedly did to undermine Stephane. Well, for one thing, whatever his people did they certainly weren't alone. But more importantly, I'm going to make my decision based on the candidate, not his supporters. And building blacklists is neither helpful or productive. And it just continues a cycle of stupidity.

This is a time for renewal, and it's a time for fresh faces. But who supported who in a leadership race, whether it was 1984 or 2006, shouldn't be a consideration. I want to see change at the top because of job performance, not tribal politics. We need to move past the desire to settle old scores and right old wrongs, real or imagined. Let's judge people on their ideas and performance, not their past affiliations.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Ok, so what are we voting for exactly?

Liberal Party of Canada members received an e-mail from the national executive yesterday about the leadership timing/constitutional amendment drama that has absorbed the party and the membership since the election.

While I applaud the desire to communicate with and inform the membership, and this note was a step in that direction that offered somewhat more “meat” than the previous e-mail that went out from party president Alf Apps, it still left many unanswered questions and seemingly left some more confused than when they started.

The letter outlines some of the pertinent details: there has been “overwhelming” (but anecdotal) feedback expressed to delay the timing of the next leadership convention, which under the current constitution must be scheduled for late October of this year. To change that, the executive is proposing a virtual convention in which riding delegates would vote on an amendment that would allow the executive to delay the leadership convention and delay the biennial convention, currently scheduled for December (although it would be replaced with the October leadership convention if that went ahead) until January 2012.

The letter also outlines the timeline for this process, including May 20^th as the membership cutoff to be eligible to run or vote for a delegate spot to the extraordinary convention, which will be held in late June.

Broadly speaking I’m not completely opposed to the process. As I’ve said, I’m supportive of a delay to the leadership process if it can be done constitutionally and, while I’m no constitutional expert (some who are have raised concerns) I think they’re at least trying to respect the spirit of making it a decision of the membership.

But there are several significant problems remaining here.

1. The membership cutoff is in five days but, as it stands, new and old members still have no idea just what they’d be voting for. The e-mail outlines it only in the broadest of terms. Where is the wording of the proposed amendments? We’re still getting more detailed information in media leaks than we are from our own party, and that’s unacceptable.

2. When exactly would the leadership be delayed to? The e-mail doesn’t say. It does mention delaying the biennial convention (where the next executive will be elected) to January 2012, but doesn’t mention leadership timing. This has confused many and led some to believe January would be the leadership vote, but that’s not the case. According to the media leaks, the executive is asking for the right to schedule the leadership convention at will, any time between mid-2012 and mid-2013, something unmentioned in this e-mail.

That’s unacceptable for me. As I’ve written before, I can support a delay of one year, but I don’t want to go any longer with an un-elected interim leader appointed by executive who lacks a democratic mandate for reform. I don’t support giving the executive a blank cheque of over a year to set the timing. I want to vote on a specific date.

There are several reasons why that’s important, but here’s a big one: if this process goes forward we’ll elect a new national executive in January. This will be a key step in driving the kind of real party reform and renewal we need. If we leave it with the current proposal, that new executive will wield tremendous power setting the timing for the leadership. Which means the executive race will be turned into a proxy leadership battle, with each camp determined to stack the board in order to get their preferred timing. That would be a distraction from the real work of reform, and could be avoided if members vote in June on the timing.

3. How will this extraordinary convention work? The e-mail indicates it will be a teleconference. What will be the opportunity for debate? How will people be recognized? I trust, as per the constitution, a 2/3s majority will be required for approval? What will quorum be?

And more importantly, what will the process be for amendments to the proposed constitutional changes?

4. The timing is necessarily tight, which creates problems. That can’t be avoided, but I do have one major concern: it feels like we’re being forced into voting yes here whether we like it or not. Maybe you want to vote no to send a message, or because you agree with some of the proposal but not all of it (say, like me, you don’t want leadership delayed past next June.)

Let’s consider, for a moment, what a note vote would mean. If 1/3+1 of delegates vote NO on June 18 and the amendment is defeated (which is entirely possible) that means we’ll hold a leadership vote (under the weighted one member, one vote system) just four months later, on October 28/29. That essentially means we’d have a rushed four-month leadership race as we won’t know until late June if it’s on or not. Even if you don’t want a lengthy race, four months is hardly enough time for a proper race or for candidates to criss-cross the country. It’s not enough time for lesser-known candidates to mount a serious challenge, and would mean a choice based on name recognition rather than a debate of ideas.

I don’t want the four-month scenario to unfold, but I feel I’m being pressured to pick the slightly worse of two bad options here by giving the executive a blank cheque to set timing. That’s another reason why I want to vote on a specific date, and why I’d like to know about the amendment process.

So I appreciate the communication to the membership but I have several concerns about the content, and again, the process remains problematic. We’re still getting more information in media leaks than we are from our own party executive, and that’s unacceptable. Release the full proposals publicly, even if it’s in draft form and subject to change, and allow the membership to debate them. Then take that feedback and incorporate it into what we’ll vote on next month. There’s no reason not to.

I’ve heard from some higher-ups in the party who feel stung by what they see as regular questioning of their motives. I can sympathize. But people are going to be rightly suspicious when information is being held back from them, and when more is being leaked to the media than is communicated to them. Open up the backroom and open up the debate. We may agree or disagree with your course, but if we can debate that course publicly a lot of the criticism will be lessened.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Building liberalism beyond the Liberal Party

We’ve been necessarily focused on how to reform, restructure and renew the Liberal Party of Canada, as we should be, but to be successful at refreshing liberalism in Canada and the moderate, pragmatic values we seek to promote and embody, it’s also necessary to think outside the box and beyond just the Liberal Party of Canada.

It’s time to think about how we can influence, develop and promote liberal values from outside the formal party structure. I think a way to do this that could be very beneficial to the cause is to consider the think-tank model. Common in the United States, it offers several advantages over the traditional party structure: it’s a way to develop and promote shared values and ideals and push boundaries without being tied to the formal party.

The Conservatives have already brought this model to Canada with the Manning Centre for Building Democracy. Created by Reform Party founder Preston Manning, it operates at arms-length from the Conservative Party itself. But it’s decidedly sympathetic to the conservative cause, sponsoring research and polling on conservative issues, promoting conservative values, and holding training and development colleges for conservative organizers and holding events with leading thinkers.

Operating at arms-length from formal parties, these organizations are freer to get creative and take risks. They’re places where policy can be researched, debated and proposed, as well as promoted. They’re also training grounds for the next generations of political activists and leaders.

For supporters of the Liberal cause, they also offer another significant advantage: they’re free of the fundraising and donation constraints facing Canadian political parties. While there’s no tax deductibility, for those that used to donate $5000 to the party and now face a $1100 cap, supporting such a foundation would be a way to further support the same ideas and values and help further the cause.

Who would be our Preston Manning? That remains to be seen, although certainly a number of likely and worthy candidates spring to mind. But as we seek to re-centre the Liberal Party and promote the values of liberalism, it may be time for them to step forward, because such an organization could be a crucial part of our rebuilding process. And we must not be afraid to look tot he example of out political cousins outside the country, and even our rivals here at home, for inspiration.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A brief history of a long Liberal history of talking about reform

We've all been absorbed since the election with issues of Liberal Party reform, and over the last week I've made my own contributions to the debate:

May 5, 2011: Renewing the Liberal Party: Leadership

May 6, 2011: Real change isn't forced top-down

May 7, 2011: Reforming the Liberal Party: At the top, part one

May 9, 2011: Reforming the Liberal Party: At the top, part two
May 9, 2011: Members shouldn't read about constitutional proposals in press leaks

May 11, 2011: Reforming the Liberal Party: Who are we and why are we here?

Of course, writing at length about Liberal Party reform is hardly a new activity; in fact, there's a long and rich history of writing about the need to reform the Liberal Party:

June 24, 2006: It's not just about the leader: We need real reform

August 25, 2006: Tie a Red Ribbon around that sagging Liberal tree...

November 20, 2008: Bob Rae on party reform

April 30, 2009: Liberal Party self-introspection, Part XVI: Change Commission

April 30, 2009: Video: John Turner at Council of Presidents

May 5, 2009: Constitutional plenary thoughts: OMOV, ex-officios and much more

The point being, we've been debating a lot of this stuff for years. I'm hopeful that perhaps now, with a Conservative majority, with the party in the wilderness, the scale will finally tip away from inaction hoping for a quick fix and return to glory. Instead, maybe we'll finally move past just talking about reform and, once we have some consensus, actually begin to move forward on it.

Talk is important. But so is action. After six weeks in B.C. for the election and another week in San Francisco for work, I'm heading back to Toronto tonight and I'm looking forward to rolling up my sleeves and getting to work.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Reforming the Liberal Party: Who are we, and why are we here?

In my Liberal reform posts so far I've focused on questions of leadership and questions of structure. These are important to building the party into an accountable and efficient vehicle, but unless you know where you're driving to and why you'll still be going in circles. That's why it's important that as part of this renewal process we also consider something more fundamental: who we are, what do we stand for and what do we have to offer? Because if we don't know, no one else will know either.

I think it would be a useful starting-point for each Liberal to reflect on why they joined the Liberal Party in the first place. I joined when I was 16, around 1994, although I'd followed politics for a few years already through the implosion of the Mulroney Conservatives in Ottawa and the implosion of the Vander Zalm Socreds in B.C. I liked Jean Chretien, and I found myself drawn to the Liberal Party because of its history of social justice and compassion balanced with a recognition that we need to act within certain fiscal constraints. I could have been a Red Tory, but the Mulroney legacy was pretty toxic and unappealing. So I rolled-up my sleeves and became a Liberal in a rural B.C. riding where we hadn't elected a Liberal since the early 1970sbecause it was the party that closest shared my values.

I don't think it's entirely fair to say we've completely lost touch with what we believe in. We've always borrowed from the best ideas of the left and the right, but I think our last platform did come from certain values and ideals: valuing education and the knowledge economy by investing in early childhood learning and post secondary education, helping families and seniors get ahead, for example.

I think it is fair to ask if Canadians moved on though, and is what we have stood for still relevant in today's Canada? I think Toronto Star columnist Susan Delacourt asked a useful question the other day that we should all consider: if the Liberal Party didn't exist in 2011, would we need to reinvent it?

That's an interesting question. I think most Liberals considered this question at least tangently after the election results came in: is there still a home for me in the Liberal Party and should I fight to save and fix it, or would I be more at home with the party of the left or the party of the right, or just staying at home? For me, the answer is yes, I still want a Liberal party. I wouldn't be at home with the small-c conservative values of the Conservatives, their values aren't mine. If there was still such a thing as Red Tory, maybe, but they're long extinct. And the NDP lacks the pragmatism and grounding in fiscal realities I'd need to be comfortable with their direction.

So, I still want a pragmatic party of the centre, a party that supports targeted investments to help students, families, seniors and the less fortunate and will protect and improve public health care, within the framework of a balanced budget and targeted tax relief for families. The questions are though, do Canadians still want a moderate party of the centre? Or do they want the clear choices of the left or the right? The fact is, people don't think in terms of left, right or centre. They look at what a party wants to do and what it means for them.

I think over the next four years with a clearly defined government on one side and clearly defined official opposition on the other, there will be a public appetite for a more nuanced and balanced approach. But we need to be prepared to give it to them.

Still, it's not enough to just figure out what they want and give it to them. They can tell if you're faking it. Trying to find where the parade is going and attempting to lead it isn't the way to go either. And once you decide what you stand for, there's still the matter of communicating it. That has been our challenge being in the middle: it's easier for the parties on either side to define themselves, and start to squeeze us out.

We need to start from scratch and ask ourselves the basic questions: what is the role of government in society, and what is our vision for Canada. Personally, I believe in government as a force for good. I've always liked this quote from Toby on The West Wing:

We have to say what we feel, that government, no matter what it's failures in the past and in times to come for that matter, government can be a place where people come together and where no one gets left behind. No one...gets left behind. An instrument of good.

Once we decide what our core beliefs are, we can begin to develop policies around then. And we need to reform the policy process so that the membership writes the policy platform, not the leader and his hand-picked advisers. I can see having some ability to filter out the random craziness and setting timelines with the need to present a costed and affordable plan, but the core of the policy platform should be the result of the member-driven policy process.

Today, the policy development process in the Liberal Party is a huge waste of time: a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. Countless hours of effort are expanded as members and riding associations research and draft well-intentioned policies that are submitted to a provincial biennial for debate, discussion and voting. Some are promoted to the national biennial where again there are hours of passionate debate and voting, and some are officially adopted. And then they're ignored and the leader puts whatever they want in the platform.

I've never invested too much energy in this process because while policy should be central to why people get involved in a political party, in our party the policy process is completely irrelevant. It's a make-work project to make members feel valued while the important people focus on important things. And this sort of the top knows best, focus on polling and strategy over things as basic as what we believe in as a party is a huge part of the problem.

If we're going to delay the leadership, let's take the time as a party to reform the policy process, undertake a defining "core beliefs" exercise and as members develop policy that will flow from those core beliefs that will form the basis of what we run on in 2015 . Then the next leader can either agree to get behind it before they're elected, or they can choose to not stand for leader.

Let's decide what we stand for, develop policy that flows from that, and stand behind it. And it's not about trying to find out what's popular or what will sell. It's about standing behind what we believe in and if the people come, they come. As long as we're standing together and for something we believe in, I'm fine with that, and the rest will come from there.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Members shouldn't read about constitutional proposals in press leaks

While the decisions made by the Liberal national executive are often questionable, so often it's more the process than the decision that bothers me the most. That was quite evident with this story today. As the saying goes, what we've got here is a failure to communicate.

Much of Liberaldom has been preoccupied these last few days with the question of picking an interim leader and the timing of the race for permanent leader. Well, as permanent as any Liberal leader these days.

The constitution, which we changed after Jean Chretien announced an 18-month road to retirement, requires a leadership convention to be called within six (actually, with WOMOV it's five) months of the leader declaring his attention to resign, which Michael Ignatieff did last week. Our habit of changing the constitution regularly in response to specific circumstances is probably part of the problem, but it is what is is.

Essentially, it comes down to three camps. Some want to get a new leader in place quickly for various reasons, primarily to get on with the rebuilding and avoid the fissures (and cost) a long race can create. Some want to delay the leadership process (anywhere from one to three years), to either focus on rebuilding first, make the reform debate part of the leadership process, or maybe give the Conservatives less time to run scary commercials before the 2015 election. Finally, there's the camp that may prefer either timeline, but just think we have rules and maybe we should try following them for a change.

Frankly, I'd put myself in the third camp. I don't want to spend an extraordinary length of time with an interim leader choosen by the national executive on advice of caucus; we need a leader with a mandate for reform from the membership. Six months does seem short; I do understand the concerns (maxed-out donation limits, for example) but the rules are the rules .

As I mentioned earlier this week, I'd be open to a proposal to move the leadership convention to one year from now if, and only if, the constitution could be amended in a way that is both legal and involves a real and open vote by the members at large. But I wouldn't support going longer than one year, for the reasons outlined above.

That appears to be what the national executive is proposing. I say appears to be, because all we have to go on are leaks to the media. And that richly symbolizes what the real problem is here: the failure of the national executive to have an open process and directly communicate with the membership at large. It is unacceptable that we have to read about this stuff in leaked media reports.

For the record, I did have an indication that such a proposal was in the works. But a few off the record backchannel conversations does not equal an open and inclusive debate and consultation with the membership. Alf Apps is quoted as saying the feedback from members has been overwhelming. Oh has it really, Alf? Who did you talk to exactly? How many people? What did they say? I have no idea and, I'm sorry, but I'm not inclined to take your word for it. We have plenty of open forums that can be used to canvass the membership; they should be used.

And when I went to find the link to the CP story for this blog, I saw it had been updated and my jaw hit the floor when I read this from Apps:

However, Apps said the statement obtained by The Canadian Press is "an old draft" and some elements of the proposal were changed prior to Monday night's conference call with national board members. He would not say what had been changed.

"Everyone should just take a Valium until our national board vote," he said, adding that a final statement will be delivered to all caucus members on Tuesday, one day before caucus is to meet to choose an interim leader.

The arrogance, it positively drips off the screen. Take a Valium, Alf? Seriously? If we're pissed off Alf, and you better believe we are, it's because you're operating a closed-door back-room process that makes clear you could actually give two shits about the members you purpose to represent. A final statement will be delivered to caucus? What about the party members, Alf? When do we get included in the process, exactly? I think our party would be a lot better off if Apps resigned today and turned over the interim presidency to one of the national VPs; every time this guy opens up his mouth it sets the party back a year.

We need openness and transparency and this process, whether you agree with the outcome or not, has had none. And that's symbolic of the problem with today's Liberal Party.

What of the alleged proposal? Again, it's heresay at this point, but at first blush I may be fine with it.

On the rules for interim leader, these may have no constitutional force and effect but they don't need to: essentially, candidates for interim leader are being asked to make several promises -- not to run for permanent leader, and not to pursue merger talks without a mandate. There may be nothing legally preventing the interim leader from running for permanent leader, but if they don't make the promise the executive won't vote for them and if they make the promise and break it, the consequence is political and will be exercised, or not, by the membership. The executive can use whatever criteria they wish to make their decision, and I'm fine with the ones they've outlined.

As to permanent leader, I'd still like more information on this "virtual convention" they propose to change the timeline for permanent leader. As I said before, if I can be satisfied the process is both constitutionally permissible and puts the decision firmly in the hands of the members at large, then I'm inclined to support it. I would like to see the constitution written in such a way to give some measure of flexibility on timing though so we're not doing this nonsense every few years. That's not how these things are supposed to work.

I keep coming back, though, to process. And even if the end result is the best in the world, if it's tainted by a closed, backroom process I'm going to find it hard to support. The national executive needs to communicate openly and publicly with the membership immediately, but its thinking and the options on the table, and allow an open debate to happen on the way forward.

Proposals hatched in backrooms and floated in media leaks are not the way forward.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Reforming the Liberal Party: At the top, part two

On Saturday, I described how a top-down mentality drives the Liberal Party, and why the party needs to be re-oriented to a structure devoted to putting riding associations first and giving local organizations the resources and support they need to grow the party on the ground. Today, I'd like to begin to consider how we can make that happen.

A major challenge that is going to force much change in the party, whether we like it or not, is money. We got a lot fewer votes in 2011 than in 2008, which means a dramatic reduction in the per vote subsidy we receive from the taxpayers. And with the Conservative majority about to kill that program, it may reduce all the way to 0 before the next payment is due. The loss of official opposition status means the loss of budget for staff and research. And as a third-place party with 34 seats, we'll find it even harder to raise money that we did before. We reportedly did fundraise well during the campaign, but it's going to be very difficult.

This money challenge is going to make dramatic reforms in party structure and operation a financial necessity. I also, though, think it provides an opportunity to examine our bloated structure, determine if it is really serving our needs, and build a new leaner, streamlined model dedicated to supporting the volunteer organization at the riding level.

The Liberal Party is unique amongst the major parties in that it's structured as a federation of provincial and territorial associations (PTAs). It's almost like the U.S. with strong states and a somewhat weak federal government, although reforms in recent years have moved more power to the centre. Still, rules vary greatly from province to province. In Ontario, for example, ridings get a cut of membership sales while in B.C., ridings get nothing. And a lot of paper is still pushed at the provincial level, with the necessary infrastructure in place to support it. That means renting offices and paying staff at the PTA level, as well as supporting a large national office.

We've traditionally viewed this as an advantage; PTAs keep us closer to the regions offering a better level of service and ensuring the party stays responsive to all parts of the country. I think it's time to ask ourselves, though, can we still afford to support an expensive PTA structure, and is it serving our needs? I'm still thinking this one through, but I'm inclined to say no, we can't and no, it's not.

I'm not sure I'm ready to abandon the PTA model completely. But we uploaded some functions like membership to the national level a few years ago for economies of scale and efficiency of service, and I think it's time to upload any remaining services to the national level and no longer have offices or staff at the provincial level. We just can't afford it. If we do keep the federated structure, it should be the volunteer executive only. Other functions, such as banking, should be devolved to the riding level.

It may be time to consider abandoning the federated structure all together and restructuring as a national organization. We already have the council of presidents, which provides equal representation to each riding and can be strengthened further to compensate for the loss of PTAs. We could also consider electing provincial VPs to the national executive to replace the PTA presidents which sit on exec today, although I'd prefer removing bloat from that body. I know abandoning PTAs will be controversial, but we need to think outside the box and ask ourselves: is this really delivering needed value and is it worth the investment, or is it just another opportunity for people to have titles?

At the national level, we'll need to restructure and make cuts as well. The office staff is by necessity going to need to be a lot smaller. It will need to be reoriented to focus on core services: membership processing and riding support. We'll need a complete re-evaluation of fundraising to determine if it's delivering value in the current model or not. Fundraising should pay for itself, and if it's not there's obviously a problem.

We need to ask hard questions here too. They won't be easy, and they will be controversial, but if we don't ask them and openly consider them we're not doing ourselves any favours.

For example, do we really need a youth commission, a seniors commission, a womens commission and an aboriginal peoples commission, each with their own executive, activities and infrastructure? Again we're unique among the other parties with this structure, so we should ask are we achieving more inclusivity in these areas with this structure than other parties are, and is it worth the investment in money, as well as energy and resources?

What I'd like to see is a smaller national executive (the current body is way too large, and costs too much to support) with reduced power closely defined by a re-written constitution. Move more decision-making power to the Council of Presidents, who are directly answerable to and serve the needs of the 308 riding associations across Canada. I would also like to prevent caucus members from running for party office: caucus has ample opportunity to influence our direction, the executive should be left to the members.

Streamlining the PTA and national structure is fiscally necessary, but if we cut far enough it may end the situation where so much of every dollar generated locally is sucked-up to support this infrastructure with little value provided back down. That would mean more resources to help ridings organize and build on the ground. Those dollars are better spent on the ground where the voters are than in in Ottawa, Toronto or Vancouver. The streamlining would have a further desirable effect, however: reducing the power of the national and provincial organizations and putting it in the hands of the riding organizations.

It's time for a dramatic re-think of how our party is structured and how it operates, and no topic should be taboo. The debate must be open and free, and everything needs to be on the table. And the question I'll be asking as we examine every party of the operation is this: how does this help ridings organize and grow? If it doesn't, it may not survive.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Reforming the Liberal Party: At the top, part one

In my last reform post I touched on reforming the Liberal Party from a leadership perspective. Today, I'd like to touch on reforms from a party structure, procedure and philosophy perspective.

Merger madness

But first, let me touch on the elephant in the room: the suggestion of merging the Liberal Party and the NDP. I think open and frank discussion on the idea is perfectly fine and healthy, but I'm strongly opposed.

I thought it was a bad idea when it was floated a year ago when we'd be the senior partner, and I still think it's a bad idea now, when we'd be the junior partner and I'm unclear why an NDP that views themselves as ascendant and ourselves as, well, the opposite, would even consider it.

I'm opposed for a number of reasons. I think it's being pushed by some as a quick-fix to a return to relevancy. Why reform and rebuild when we can hitch our wagon to their's? Others honestly see "uniting the left" as a logical step to stopping Harper, but I strongly disagree. We're two very different parties with different traditions. Liberal members are centre-left and centre-right, and many wouldn't be at home in this new party. You'd lose people on the right to the Conservatives and the Greens, and people on the left unhappy with the new members pulling it toward the centre. The end result would be polarized choices and a strengthened Conservative Party.

I can't accept any backroom machinations trying to foist a merger on the membership. No one has a mandate from the membership to negotiate anything, and without a mandate any process would lack legitimacy. If we're going to debate this, it must be open and in public with all members and all views being shared. As for me, I'll be arguing no and getting on with the business of trying to rebuild the Liberal Party of Canada.

What reform do we need?

In short, we're too top-heavy and our mentality is too top-down. (This development is an example of mentality). We're weighed-down by a bloated infrastructure that the party requires the ridings to support. It should be the opposite: a lean top-level infrastructure geared to supporting riding-level organization.

The examples of resources being sucked-up are endless. While any vote gains on the ground can be largely traced to riding-level organizational effort, none of the (soon to be eliminated) per-vote subsidy comes back to the riding. Candidates are required to sign half their expense refund over to the party before they're approved as a candidate. And every campaign is required to spend $2000 on a "riding services package" of minimal value. While most of the work to sign-up new members is done by the riding, in B.C. every dollar of that membership fee goes to the party (in Ontario, I believe the riding does get a cut). In essence, there are many, many ways in which the central party drains resources from the ridings.

What do the ridings get in exchange? Not too much although, frankly, it depends on which riding you are. Liberalist has been a great initiative in recent years, although I was amused to see this as a stated benefit for our $2000 riding services package given that we've had it for two years. We also got some national brochures, a few posters, and some lit templates. Most of the resources sucked-up though go to support a bloated infrastructure and to provide support for target ridings deemed more "winnable" or worthy of support.

And that's a big part of the problem. To LPC, some ridings are created far more equal than others. My riding saw Stephen Harper once and Jack Layton twice; we weren't winnable so Michael Ignatieff didn't come within hours. We actually were successful in getting some secondary tour visits, but we had to fight to keep Bob Rae because, despite the fact he wanted to come, some of the powers that be felt he would be wasted in such an unwinnable riding.

It speaks to a philosophical problem within the Liberal Party: instead of working to build and grow in every riding, we pre-emptively write-off large swaths of the country as unwinnable and leave them to fend for themselves. Well, if you starve them of resources and offer them no support then of course they're going to be unwinnable. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'm not saying you send the national tour to every riding during the campaign. But you support them all, and between elections the leader needs to visit every riding multiple times to support the local organization. In Vancouver Island North we pulled in every favour we had and leveraged personal connections to get Paul Martin pre-election in 2004; it was the first visit by a Liberal leader since Pierre Trudeau. That's ridiculous.

The biggest reform we need within the Liberal Party is to adopt the philosophy that all 308 ridings are equal, and we must commit resources and effort to developing local organizations in each riding. We need to re-orient the infrastructure of the party to supporting the local organizations, and we must make the local organizational effort the reason d'etre of the party.

How do we specifically start to do that? I'll share some ideas in part two.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Real change isn't forced top-down

I'm working on a post in my ongoing Liberal Party reform series, and the theme today is how the mentality of the party is too top-down, instead of bottom-up. When I read this story though I had to pause and comment separately, because I'm fuming and it epitomizes the top-down problem that haunts the party:

Chretien has been promoting the idea that Rae should be interim leader for two years, giving the party time to pick itself up off the mat before going into a contest to choose a permanent successor to Ignatieff.

I have a lot of respect for Jean Chretien, and I like Bob Rae. He came to Courtenay to support my candidate during the campaign. For me this isn't about name, but about process, and the process being described here is everything that's wrong with the Liberal Party: the old guard trying to force its will down onto the membership, who don't get to have a say.

I understand that some people want to pick a leader sooner rather than later, and some want to wait awhile. Frankly, I'm in the middle of those camps. I don't want to rush into picking someone. I want the candidates to take the time to visit every riding in the country. But I also don't want to drag this our forever either. Getting a leader in place (my criteria are generational change, energetic, committed to long-term multi-election building) is key to the rebuilding process as well. In theory, I'm fine with a one-year process to a leadership convention.

That's theory. In reality, the rules right now are clear though: once the leader signals his intention to resign (which he did Monday and Tuesday, and even if you wanted to parse words, when he tool a job at the U of T that sealed it), we need to have a leadership convention within six months. That's the timeline, and we can't throw out the constitution for the sake of expediency. That mentality is part of the problem.

And I'm sorry, but I cannot accept an unelected interim leader picked by the powers that be serving for two years. We need a leader with a mandate for change and a mandate for change can only come from the membership, not from the executive and caucus.

To be clear on process, it's actually the party executive that picks the interim leader; the caucus role is advisory only. I would note though that we're overdue to elect a new party executive, and I don't like seeing that convention delayed further. The current executive does not have a mandate for change, and I don't want them picking our leader for two years. Electing a new reform-minded executive is another key element of the reform process.

I understand there is a wide-range of opinion amongst the membership on how we should move forward. That's healthy. We should all speak-up, make our voices heard, and debate the way forward. I would urge the membership to stand-up and remind the executive that this is our party, and our will should be heard. I would also caution against throwing-out the rulebook for the sake of expediency, as expediency is never the path to reform.

And I would urge the executive to remember they serve the membership, not the caucus and not the old guard, and they must operate within the bounds of the constitution.

If a way could be found to amend or suspend the rules to extend the leadership process I would be open to that, but it MUST involve a real vote of the party membership at large. Not a canvass, not a vote by riding presidents, a REAL VOTE by every member with thresholds for turnout and percentage needed for approval (constitutional changes usually require 2/3s support). And two-years is an unacceptable time-frame for a leader without a mandate. I would support no more than one year.

I'd like to add any candidate for interim leader should commit top NOT running for permanent leader. The interim leader should focus on the House of Commons while the candidates for permanent leader campaign across the country. Using interim leader as a springboard for permanent leader is unfair and unacceptable.

Above all, the process needs to leave the back rooms. We shouldn't be reading about it in leaks to the Canadian Press. Meaningful change and reform never happens in back rooms. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. The process must be open, inclusive and member-driven form the bottom-up. Anything else is unacceptable.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Renewing the Liberal Party: Leadership

I'm a Canadian first and foremost, and as a Canadian I'm nervous about what Stephen Harper's Conservatives will do with majority government. That's not fear-mongering because to do so would be pointless now; it's how I honestly feel. But as a Liberal, there is something to be said for having four years, and likely quite a few more, to begin a rebuilding and reforming process that has long been needed and has been postponed partly due to the nature of minority governments, but primarily because of a lack of will.

I'm disappointed that we lost a lot of good Liberals Monday night. Ujjal Dosanjh is a principled man that got into politics for all the right reasons. Glen Pearson, Rob Oliphant, Mark Holland, Gerard Kennedy and Siobhan Coady are also among those that I'll miss. There are quite a few other defeated Liberals that, frankly, I won't be sorry to see go. It was time to see the winds of change blow through many areas, particularly Scarborough, where the need for renewal is strong. There are also a lot of good young people in the old OLO finding themselves out of work; they had a good young crew doing a lot of interesting things around the web and social media.

While Michael Ignatieff, to use a phrase, didn't get it done, this isn't Ignatieff's fault any more than it was Stephane Dion's of Paul Martin's. It's deeper than leadership, and while leadership will be part of the way forward it's only one piece of what's needed.

Rather than depressed, I'm actually excited for the years ahead. The prospect of power has held back needed changes and soul-searching. The next election may be four years away, but realistically I think it's a decade before we're a viable contender once more. Not only does that mean we have the time for a deliberative process of reflection, reform, and rebuilding, it means those that truly want to build a better, more democratic Liberal party will be free to do so without being weighed-down by the resume paders and title-seekers just looking for quick path to jobs and power. With no prospect of either in these quarters, they'll move on and leave the rest of us to get some work done.

As I see it, we need to focus on three areas: leadership, internal party reform, and policy/what we stand for. Today, I'll tackle the first one: leadership.

Leadership

It's too early to start talking names, although of course some names are already being bandied about. I believe it's time for generational change within the Liberal Party. It's time for a dynamic young leader who will energize and engage younger Canadians, and who can make the commitment to a multi-election building process without the prospect of electoral success any time soon. There is no quick path and there can be no messiahs: we need someone committed to a decade of hard slogging, and someone with the energy to spend those next 10 years criss-crossing 308+ ridings across Canada building and supporting local riding associations.

I'm not convinced the leader need come from within caucus. It would be more ideal, of course. I don't see someone resigning from our depleted caucus to let a new leader run, so it'd be four years before they'd have a chance to get into the House. We're in a re-building phase though, and being third-party leader in a majority parliament isn't the most high-profile gig anyway, particularly when the real work will be on the road.

If it is within the caucus though, a few obvious choices emerge that fit my generational change requirement: Dominic Leblanc and Justin Trudeau. I'd have included Coady if she'd held her seat. Both bring compelling traits to the table: good constituency people, young, reform-minded. I've tended to think Trudeau needs more seasoning, but with the chance of governing out of the picture I no longer have that concern. I think both would make very interesting candidates.

Outside the caucus, I have no idea. I hope some names come forward. I doubt it will be any of the usual suspects though. The Manleys and the MacKennas aren't interesting in party-building, so don't hold your breath. And besides, they're the old guard. We need to look forward. Perhaps some interesting candidates could emerge from the provincial ranks.

Many have argued for a long leadership process. I understand that inclination, although constitutionally it would seem impossible as it requires a convention within six months of the leader's resignation. That may not be a bad thing though. While we need to pick the next leader in a deliberative process, we also need to get on with the process of reform. Leadership is only step one; there are many more to come. Let's not rush through step one, but let's not spend years there either.

This will be an interesting race for another reason: it will be the first with the weighted one-member, one-vote system we adopted at the last biennial in Vancouver. I supported this change, but I think it's particularly useful to our renewal process. With each riding equal and each member having a vote, candidate will have to try to visit all 308 ridings across Canada and sign up members in each. It can help fuel coast-to-coast rebuilding.

It will also have to be a campaign on the cheap. It will be another campaign under the new restrictive fundraising and financing regime, and donations will be hard to come by. Which means it will have to be candidates travelling the country by themselves, meeting members and prospective members in small groups, relying on local unpaid volunteers. Back to basics, and back to the grassroots.

So in short, my leadership candidate check-list includes generational change, long-term commitment, committed to party reform and renewal, understands importance of personal connections and constituency service, and committed to an open policy development process. I look forward to seeing who emerges.

Tomorrow: reforming the Liberal Party from top to bottom.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention, I don't think the interim leader should be a candidate for permanent leader. Yes, Ignatieff did it. I thought that was wrong, and I said so at the time. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers