There can be no shortcuts for the Liberal Party

The Liberal Party of Canada's summer caucus meetings begin today in Ottawa, and I've already heard some rumblings and musings from those quarters that give me pause, and cause for concern.

When I read comments about how the passing of Jack Layton and the upcoming leadership challenges the NDP will face provide opportunity to the Liberals, I grow concerned. When I read about how this could be a shortcut back to power for the Liberal Party, or at least relevancy, I get upset.

The fact is, the problems the Liberal Party faces have absolutely nothing to do with the NDP and everything to do with us. And the idea that we could simply seize an opportunity created by external events to return to prominence is exactly the kind of short-sighted, short-term thinking that has plagued this party for years, and contributed to the slow rot that has led us to our current state. It's the same mentality that had us put off meaningful reform for years, because if we just got the right bright shiny leader, and we just waited for Harper to stumble, then all would be will in Liberaldom once more.

We must cure ourselves of that thinking. At the extraordinary convention this summer we committed to a long-term course of rebuilding and restructuring. From the biennial this winter, the election of a new national executive, policy debate and constitutional reform in the years ahead, and a real leadership race with a strong field of contenders. We need to keep our eyes on that path and what we need to accomplish, and not be distracted by whatever challenges the other parties may face.

I was on CJAD in Montreal this weekend to talk about Layton, and I was asked what the Liberals could learn from Jack Layton's example. To me, it was fairly clear: for better or for worse, people always knew what Layton and the NDP stood for. Sure, there were politically-motivated deviations, like their stance on the HST and their rejection of carbon pricing – but by and large, if you asked someone what the NDP stood for, they could tell you. And they haven't been able to say the same thing of the Liberal Party in some time.

Harper can stumble, and the NDP can face challenges holding their coalition together. And our caucus should use this period in the House of Commons to show Canadians we can provide the kind of effective, practical and principled opposition they're looking for. But the fact is, until we get out house in order and our act together, external forces mean nothing. It's not them; it's us.

There can be no shortcuts, and if you're not in this for the long-haul you may as well hop off now.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

We have, and need, more Jacks

As we begin to move forward now with Jack Layton's celebration of life behind us, and as we consider what his lasting legacy will be, I think it would be a disservice to his memory to gloss over his imperfections (he's a human being, we're all imperfect) and to pretend his example was a unique one. It was all too rare, but it's not unique, and if we're to honour his example we should recognize that.

As I wrote earlier, Jack was someone who entered politics for the right reasons. He wasn't immune to playing the political games, exploiting the wedge issues, and running the negative ads. That's a part of modern politics, as disquieting as that may be. And everyone faces an internal battle between their demons and their better angels. But in his journey through political life he tried to keep principle and pragmatism as his guide-posts, and be willing to work with anyone with whom he could forge common ground.

And in that, Jack was not unique. There are people like Jack in every party, and in every part of the country. To be sure, there are those that get into politics for the wrong reasons: the pursuit of power, or ego. And there are those that will use the ends to justify any means. These are the people that give politicians a bad name, and cause them to rank down with lawyers and journalists when it comes to public trust and respect. And they're also in all parties.

But there are also those that see public service as a higher calling, a noble sacrifice. They're willing to make the sacrifices inherent in public life – long hours, time away from family, lost earning potential, public scrutiny – because they believe public service is the obligation of a citizen and they want to see this country improved. They're in every party and, while they may disagree on the finer points of how to get there, they share the same noble motivations and the same end goals.

Given the low esteem we hold politicians in the country, the public outpouring of emotion we've seen this week has been impressive. Much of it has to do with Jack's positive and dynamic force of personality, but I think it's larger than that. I think it's the people embracing the idea that Jack has come to represent, in spirit if not always perfectly in practice: a different, more positive, cooperative type of politics. It's the citizenry sending a message that there is a better way.

I think the way forward is multifold. Politicians of all stripes should heed this message, and reconsider their ways. But I think the bigger challenge is for our citizens, and it's two-fold. First, recognize that there are more Jacks out there, and in every party. Seek them out and support them as they try to work in a system designed to stifle them; too many good people give up on public life, but we need them too much. Help them persevere. Second, be the change you want to see. Get involved, up to and including running yourself, in promoting the ideal of public service you would like to see.

It's easy to lament the state of modern political discourse, but it's also a cop-out. We get the kind of politics we demand; if we don't demand change ... if we don't make change, we'll never get it.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Goodbye, Jack

Anyone who saw Jack Layton’s final public press conference, where the energizer bunny of Canadian politics looked so frail and weak, knew he was in the fight of his life. Over his long career though, many had learned the perils of betting against Jack. He’s a fighter, and he was a fighter to the end.

Perhaps that’s why the news of his passing from cancer early this morning was so stunning. It’s just hard to imagine Ottawa, and political debate, without Jack. The NDP has had some larger than life figures -- Tommy Douglas, Ed Broadbent – but they were before my time. I remember Audrey McLaughlin and Alexa McDonough but for me, and more many, Jack Layton is the NDP. The happy warrior whose ever-present smile and trademark moustache belied a tireless determination to build a better Canada.

Politics can be a rough and tumble business. And make no mistake; Jack played the game as hard as anyone. But there’s also a collegiality that crosses party lines. A recognition that, despite our differences on this issue or that issue, we’re all united by a love of Canada and a desire to see it be the best it can be for all its people. And Jack typified that higher calling.

Some people like to talk about enemies in politics. I don’t like that kind of talk, and I don’t think Jack did either. Certainly, Jack wasn’t my enemy. I have nothing but respect for anyone who makes the sacrifice of public service, with all the slings and arrows that come with that commitment. And while we may have disagreed on points of policy, there’s no doubt Jack was fighting for all the right reasons. He elevated the debate, and spurred all around him to do the same.

And no matter your political learning, it was hard not to cheer Jack on this spring as, still recovering from his battle with prostate cancer, he tirelessly barnstormed across the country in an election campaign that brought his party to its greatest electoral success, and the cusp of something few would ever have thought possible before: governing Canada. His courage was inspiring to all Canadians.

It’s heart-breaking to see Jack leave us on the heels of his greatest success, with so much promise left unfulfilled. We’ll always wonder what might have been. It’s certainly too early at this juncture to consider what his legacy will be, or what the future will hold. I hope, though, that if Jack leaves us with one lesson, it’s this: you don’t need to dirty yourself in the mud to be successful. A positive vision and hard work will be rewarded.

Jack, you left us too soon. But we’re better for the time you shared with us.

Thank-you, Jack.

UPDATE: A touching final letter from Jack to Canadians (PDF).

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

We’re not ready for online voting

I read today that Elections Canada is considering dipping its toe into the waters of online or e-voting:

Canada's chief electoral officer says he's committed to seeking approval for a test of Internet voting in a byelection held after 2013.

Marc Mayrand also says Elections Canada wants to expand other services offered online, like voter registration.

In his report on the June 2 federal election, Mayrand says it's clear Canadians are demanding more ease and flexibility when it comes to voting.

Let me say first that, on the one hand, it’s positive that an organization that is as culturally-conservative and traditional as Elections Canada is even pondering exploring alternate methods of service delivery is a positive. Some years back I interviewed their CIO a few weeks into the job; he’d come from the private sector and he was floored at the degree of institutional resistance to even minor technological advancement. They had their way of doing things, it was in a big binder, and it was step-by-step. I’m not sure how long he lasted there.

On the other hand, while voter registration seems like an obvious step, I’d have a very hard time trusting Elections Canada to devise a secure and reliable system for online voting when every time I try to use their online contributions database, for example, I want to cry over how unnecessarily complicated and cumbersome they make even simple tasks.

But griping about Elections Canada’s web savvy aside (they’re still better than the Parl.gc.ca folks) I have serious concerns about the idea of online voting, and serious reservations that would need to be addressed before I could consider supporting it.

It’s one of those things that sounds great in theory – vote easily and quickly wherever you are, you don’t need to travel or wait in line – but, upon further reflection, loses some of its luster.

Our current system has the advantage of being direct and personal: you go to your poll, identify yourself, you’re crossed off the list, mark an X on the ballot, then the ballots are counted and a winner tallied If there’s a challenge/recount, we have the physical ballots and we count them.

If we move to an online system, I see a number of problems:

*How do we know who that anonymous person is behind the computer screen is? Online systems usually involve a token or PIN sent to the mailing address of the registered voter. What’s to stop one person from collecting the PINs of past occupants or other residents and voting them all?

*How do we know they’re not being coerced by a friend or family member? Ask anyone who has worked a poll; they’ve had to stop people from going behind the private voting screen with the voter and attempting to influence them. If someone does want assistance, they need to sign a solemn declaration not to attempt to influence the voter. This is a real issue, and online there’s nothing to prevent coercion. The sanctity of the voting choice must be sacrosanct.

*With a physical ballot, there’s a paper trail. Where’s the paper trail with e-voting? There's none, it's all 0s and 1s. What if a server crashes, and votes disappear? Thousands could be disenfranchised, their votes disappeared forever into the electronic ether.

*No electronic system is secure. No matter how much security and encryption you build in, you will be vulnerable. If experienced and dedicated hackers (and today the majority of illegal online activity isn’t rebellious youth; it's organized crime, corporate espionage and nation states) want to penetrate the system, they will. And the possible motives for wanting to disrupt or influence a federal election are endless.

It could be that concerns such as these could be satisfied. We’ll see. But I think there’s a high bar that will need to be met before we trust something as fundamental as our democracy to computers. Look at the online voting experience for the BC Liberal leadership race -- something as simple as delays by Canada Post delivering PINs threatened to scuttle the process.

And in the interim, while I wouldn’t argue against progress, the fact is I like our current system and I don’t see much of a hurry to move online. Voting is a our civic duty. It’s 15 minutes our of our lives every four years (more or less), popping into our local church basement or school gymnasium to pick our national representatives. Ask the people of Libya if they’d see it as a burden.

I don’t know if I want voting to be an app on my phone, next to AngryBirds. I think it’s a little more important than that, and we should treat it that way.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Is she still Nycole from the Bloc?

Who says political summers need to be boring? A well-timed leak to the Globe and Mail about new NDP interim leader Nycole Turmel certainly livened things up, with the revelation that Turmel was very recently a member of two Quebec sovereigntist parties, quitting the Bloc Quebecois just weeks before she became an NDP candidate for the last election, and only promising to quit the other yesterday.

Party-switching is certainly no rarity these days in Canadian politics, and that’s fine. The key for me is to explain how you got from A to B and let the people decide. As long as the people have the information, they can make an informed decision on the person’s motivations. For me, I’ll accept a well-reasoned ideological move but frown on a move motivated purely by political opportunism or expediency. In Turmel’s case, it’s hard to argue in the context of the time that being an NDP candidate in Quebec was the expedient choice. But everyone has their own criteria.

This apparently was an issue discussed in Turmel’s riding during the campaign to some extent so that test may be met, although I find the explanations she’s offering now (she joined and donated to help a friend), her overlapping BQ/NDP memberships, and the membership in Québec solidaire, somewhat less than compelling. I’ll let others dwell on them, though.

What would primarily be an issue for the people of Hull-Alymer gained national import when Jack Layton made her his pick for interim leader of the official opposition. It's a position of national leadership. But for me, this is less about Turmel (who is essentially a placeholder until either Layton returns, or doesn't) and more about the fuzziness of the NDP’s position on Quebec, and its approach to federalism.

There are many Turmels in the new NDP caucus, many MPs who were either avowed sovereigntists or, like Turmel, at least members of sovereigntist parties, and recently so. This flirting with Quebec nationalism is dangerous; just ask Brian Mulroney. And I was no fan of the approach Jean Lapierre brought to my Liberals. As I’ve written previously, the NDP seems determined to promote one vision of federalism in Quebec, and one in the rest of Canada. They continue to ignore the undeniable gulf between their Sherbrooke Declaration and the Clarity Act.

I’m less concerned about Turmel’s membership cards (a symptom) than I am the underlying condition: where does the NDP stand on federalism and Quebec nationalism, are they consistent in that position across the country, and is all of their caucus onboard with defending and promoting that position? Until they’re clear on these issues, they’re going to have to continue to deal with flare-ups like this one, because the underlying questions will linger.

And another thing

It has been painful to watch the NDP spin in response to the Turmel story. I found their strategy puzzling from a communications perspective (in their case, I’d have said something like many former BQ/LPC/CPC supported the NDP in Quebec in the last elxn because we were the only party to address their concerns, and then pivot to issues), as it seems to only prolong and elevate the story.

But more than tactics, the most striking thing was how the NDP and its supporters is their utter inability to take a hit. They’re the Official Opposition now. They’re going to be a target and under scrutiny like they never had before. Some times the criticism will be valid. Often, it won’t be. Either way, they’re going to need to grow a thicker skin and learn to role with the punches, or it’s going to be a long four years.

You can defend Turmel’s actions, and feel they are perfectly above-board. But raising the questions raised yesterday is absolutely fair. It is a legitimate story, and the people have the right to an explanation. Provide it, and then move on to your issues. But don't cry that it was raised in the first place. If all is above-board the defensiveness is unnecessary. I read some Turmel defenders cry McCarthyism yesterday, which is beyond ridiculous.

Continually playing the victim will get old fast.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

We need generational change in the Liberal Party

There have been a few articles recently about the emerging race for the presidency of the Liberal Party of Canada. A number of interesting names have emerged, from party veterans like Sheila Copps, recently former MPs like Siobhan Coady and Mark Holland, and veteran riding organizers like Ron Hartling. I think it’s a positive such people are willing to put their names forward.

I’m glad some attention is being paid to this race. I believe the national board elections that take place at the biennial convention in Ottawa in January will be crucial to the success, or not, of the rebuilding of our party. Reform has be a bottom-up exercise driven by the membership, but it also needs a reform-minded executive with a mandate from the membership to facilitate the process.

I’m watching the emerging race with interest, and hope to see a crowded field and vibrant debate. Here’s what I’ll be looking for, and I’m not sure if any of the current candidates meet these criteria or not. They’re not meant to preclude or include anyone.

*Generational change: It’s time for a new generation of Liberal leaders to emerge. Not wedded to the ways of the past, but ready to embrace new ideas and new thinking with the energy for a lengthily rebuilding process. Institutional memory is less valuable when nearly all that we’ve been doing needs to change.

*Liberal commitment: Balanced with the need for generational change, we also need someone who has demonstrated a commitment to the Liberal Party over time, with an understanding of how we work, what we do right and what we don’t. The new vs. experience balance is important.

*Managerial skill: The next president has a huge challenge ahead of them, and it’s largely one of organization and change management. They need to redesign a bloated party structure that isn’t working, and that we can no longer afford. And they need to do it inclusively with a membership that agrees on little but that change is necessary, while building consensus and growing the base.

As much as organization and management skills will be needed, equally important will be change management. It will be about communications, and about tone. You can have the best ideas, but if you don’t bring people along properly, it won’t work.

*Focus: Who’s the president of the Conservative Party of Canada? I’ll wait while you open another browser window and Google it. Are you back? It’s John Walsh. No, not the America’s Most Wanted Guy. The point is, he’s low profile. He doesn’t do the talking-head TV shows, or pontificate in op/eds. He just keeps his head down building the Conservative organization. I think there’s a lesson to be learned from that. Shun the spotlight, and focus on the job.

*Communications: This plays into the change management point above, but deserves its own bullet. We need a commitment to direct and open communication with the membership at large. Not through media leaks or pundit panels, not flowing down through the party bureaucracy, but directly to the membership. With tools like e-mail, blogging and social media available, there’s no excuse to do otherwise. Only with openness can we build the trust needed for successful reform.

Those are some of the traits and commitments I’ll be looking for from our presidential candidates in the months ahead. Of course, equally important will be their ideas for party restructuring and reform (some of my past thoughts on the topic are here). These debates will be wider than just the executive race, and many will involve separate votes of their own in the years to come, but the debate begins now.

While the focus will be on the race for president, as important will be the other national executive positions up for election. The vice-presidents, membership and policy chairs all play important roles both in their respective areas of responsibility, and as members of the national executive. Too often these races have been ignored and subject to acclamation, and that can’t be allowed to repeat. We need capable, energetic people to step forward and contest every position, and ensure a thorough debate takes place around every role.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers