A BCer in Toronto

If we’re betting everything on leadership, Bob Rae must be clear on intentions

2012-01-17T09:40:00.002-05:00

Reflectingon last weekend’s Liberal Party of Canada biennial convention, where delegatesvoted against reducing the powers of the leader and put much of their hope forrebuilding into one key initiative – admitting supporters into the party ranksand giving them a vote for the next leader – it seems clear to me we’re bettingmuch of our hope for a revival and return to relevance on a leadership racethat will culminate with a vote by all members and supporters sometime betweenMarch 1 and June 30, 2013.

We’ve longbeen a party that is obsessed by leadership, so perhaps this shouldn’t besurprising. By refusing to even limit the leader’s ability to appoint candidates and to set and veto policy, this weekend we rejected severalopportunities to not only make the role of the individual Liberal member morepowerful, but to see every member to take greater responsibility for theparty’s success or failure. We’ve long been a party beset by leaderitis, alwaysin search of a Messiah. We crown a leader and invest our hopes and dreams inthem, feting them for our collective success and, conversely, blaming them forour collective failure. It’s why we’re so quick to dump leaders after asetback; it allows us to avoid taking collective responsibility.

By opening theleadership selection to a new non-member category – supporters – members lessenedtheir collective ability to hold the leader accountable (leaders will no longerowe their mandate to the party membership, the folks that knock on the doors)and, offered an opportunity to balance that by devolving some of the leader’spowers to the membership, said no. Liberals will again investtheir hopes in the leader.

Betting ona vibrant, open, fair leadership race

While theability of the incoming executive to implement a bold agenda of party restructuringand reform shouldn’t be discounted, it’s clear delegates chose to put a lot of faith inthe next leadership race to bring the Liberal Party back from the brink. Wewant to welcome thousands of Canadians into the fold as supporters, and theshiny lure we’re dangling is a say in picking our next leader.Which means we need an exciting, dynamic and open race. A coronation isn’tgoing to attract any supporters.

If we’regoing to attract a diverse field of highly qualified candidates, they’ll need tofeel it’s a fair and open contest. But the large elephant in theroom is interim leader Bob Rae’s unwillingness to give a clear and unequivocal answeron his intentions regarding the permanent leadership.

When Raeagreed to take the interim leadership he promised not just the partyexecutive, but members, that he would not seek the permanent job. Why isthat important? Because the interim job gives its holder enormous advantages over potential opponents, as I’ve outlined in the past. Now, Bob is free to change his mind and seek the permanent job. Norules have to be changed – that’s a smokescreen thrown up to deflect the issue. He just needs to resign the interim position and he’s free to runfor the permanent gig. All that holdshim back is his word; he’d need to explain to Liberals and to Canadians why he’sbreaking his promise. And we're free to accept his arguments and vote for him, or reject his arguments and vote for someone else.

Despite hispromise upon taking the job, he continues to play coy on his long-termintentions. His answers in Friday’s convention press conference illustrate itplainly: he is asked point-blank multiple times if he will rule out seeking thepermanent leadership. And each time, he refuses to do so.

Rae is toosmart not to know refusing to give a definitive answer will only ensure thedistracting speculation will continue, and discourage otherpotential leadership candidates. If he has no intention of running, there’s noreason for him to not say, clearly and simply “I am not going to run. I will not be a candidate” Thatwould end it. But by playing coy, and by deferring to rules that don’t reallyexist, the most charitable explanation is that he is at least keeping open thepossibility of running.

You won’t findone Liberal, myself included, to say Bob Rae hasn’t done an amazing jobas our interim leader. But between his unwillingness to be clear on his futureintentions, the unwillingness of him and his office to ever include the word*interim* in speeches and communications, and a televised speech to caucus inexplicably defending his personal record as the NDP premier of Ontario, themounting speculation that he will seek the permanent leadership has become toomuch of an issue to ignore.

The timehas come

Theselection of the next permanent Liberal leader is over a year away, but therace will be ramping-up sooner than that. Potential candidates will be gaugingsupport, and once the new supporter system is in place, potential candidateswill move to sign up supporters and members. And with no expiryon a supporter’s “membership” they’d be foolish not to begin immediately. But they won't, if they feel the fix is in.

We need awide, qualified field to contest the race. And for that to happen, Bob Raeneeds to stop playing word games. He needs to level with Liberals, and with Canadians.He must either clearly and plainly rule-out running, or announce he is considering it and sit down with the national executive to negotiatethe timeline for a final decision and potential resignation as interim leader, so as to facilitate an openand competitive race.

It would bepatently unfair and unacceptable to run for the permanent job from the interimoffice, and equally unacceptable to play coy until the last possible minute,squeezing every drop of advantage from the interim office and its party and taxpayer-funded budget before pulling thetrigger on a leadership campaign.

We're the party of the Clarity Act, and we need a little clarity right now ourselves. We can’t move forward without it.

Both hope and fear drove Liberal delegates in Ottawa

2012-01-16T16:37:00.000-05:00

Looking back on my three days in Ottawa for the 2012 Liberal Party of Canada biennial convention it’s impossible to craft one clear narrative – did delegates embrace bold change or put their faith in the status quo – because the evidence is highly contradictory. And that, I suppose, is typically Liberal: hard to and pin down and define clearly.

On the hopey-changey side, delegates elected as president a candidate who promised a “bold new red,” Mike Crawley, over a veteran party stalwart of the 1980s and 1990s, Sheila Copps. For the first time in Canada a political party will let a new category of members, called supporters, into the fold to vote for its next party leader without actually taking out a membership. Instead of the leader appointing both national campaign co-chairs, one will now be directly elected by members. And not only was a controversial policy on marijuana legalization actually passed by delegates, the *interim* leader put aside his earlier opposition on the issue to signal he had been swayed by the debate and would advocate for the policy and defend it against the inevitable Conservative “soft on crime” onslaught.

On the other side is an equally impressive list of actions delegates took to timidly embrace the status quo and avoid taking power from the leadership for themselves. Delegates rejected a plan to end the leader’s ability to veto any policy developed by the membership they don’t like. The leader can still appoint all the candidates they want. A total ban on appointments wasn’t on the table, and even a compromise proposal to limit appointments to 20 was rejected. A “ballot initiative” proposal to allow any Liberal to put a constitutional amendment or policy on the agenda at a national convention if they can gather the support of 5000 members, bypassing the need to get the support of a provincial wing or party commission, was rejected. Delegates even rejected an amendment to allow them to set their own rules of procedure for conventions.

There was also a balancing on the supporter front. After welcoming supporters to vote for party leader, delegates rejected letting supporters help pick local riding candidates. And the leadership race will happen across the country on one weekend, not over successive weeks in a series of rolling regional votes.

Taking it all in, I’m left with delegates expressing an odd combination of hope and fear. The sense that we needed to do something big and bold was prevalent. They recognize the party is at a crossroads, and will either return to relevance or fade away. Underlying it all was a current of fear. Time after time, delegates expressed concern over what the media headline would be Monday if they didn’t do something big and bold, whatever that may be. Be bold, or the Ottawa pundit class will pounce. Members were even scared of themselves, insisting the leader continue to be vested with power on policies and appointments members can’t be trusted with themselves. “How can you expect a leader to run on a policy they don’t believe in?” one Liberal asked me when ending the leader veto was rejected. Sure, but how can a party expect to engage and mobilize thousands of supporters and members to campaign for a platform they have no stake in?

This week’s convention was never going to be the final verdict on the great Liberal rebuilding project, but it was important as both a starting-point and to set the tone for the task ahead. With the mixed results, we’re clearly pinning our hopes on a new national executive, a leadership race that is still over a year away, and opening up that leadership race to every Canadian that’s not a member of another party that would like to participate. In a sense, we’re putting a lot of our eggs in a few key baskets.

I opposed opening up the leadership selection to supporters for a range of reasons, such as the devaluation of membership. I stand by those concerns, and I’m disappointed other initiatives that would have helped strengthen membership’s relevance, and the responsibility of members in our success or failure, were rejected. I’m willing to put those concerns aside and work to help make this supporter system a success. However, my concern is that it’s not the panacea its advocates, including much of the party caucus and establishment, expect it to be.

That’s because I believe many Liberals still don’t yet fully understand why we were rejected soundly by Canadians not just last May, but in several successive elections. There’s a sense that if we just throw open our doors by making it easier to get involved as a supporter, people will come flooding in. It’s not that simple though. We want them to sign up so we can get their data and market to them, but we’re not asking WHY THEY would want to come to us.

It was easy enough for Canadians to mark an X for us in the last election, but they didn’t. Why? We weren’t offering anything that was relevant to them and to their lives. One non-Liberal observer made a salient point to me: partisans think everyone wants to be partisans. But most people don’t. They couldn’t care less about how we pick our next leader. They just want to live their lives. If we want to mobilize them it’s not enough to just let them vote for our leader. We need to find a way to speak to the issues that matter to them and their lives, and convince them that we are the vehicle that can bring change on the issues they care about, or they won’t be interested.

That is the challenge the party is facing, and on which the verdict of our future, or lack thereof, will hinge. We have made it easier than ever before for people to get involved with the Liberal Party of Canada. But now, we need to give them a reason to want to. If we do, this bold experiment will be proven a success and we’ll look back on this weekend as the beginning of a great comeback. If we don’t, our slide from public relevance will continue. The delegates left Ottawa excited about the promise of the future, but the hard work is only beginning.

Kyle Harrietha's speech to Liberals about membership

2012-01-13T17:57:00.000-05:00

As I speak Kyle Harrietha, who I'm proud to support for Liberal membership secretary this weekend, is speaking to the nearly 3000 delegates at the Liberal biennial convention about his vision for membership and for the Liberal Party. Here's his speech, which so far I have to say he's knocking out of the park...

• Delegates…members…amis Liberaux

• Bienveue à Ottawa and thank you for your dedication to our Liberal Party.

• My name is Kyle Harrietha and I am asking for your support in my campaign for National Membership Secretary.

• Over the past 15 years I have had the honour of working on Liberal campaigns from Nova Scotia, to Ontario, to Saskatchewan and now in Alberta.

• And what I have learned is that leadership does not begin with a select few – Leadership must be embodied by all of us.

• I would like to talk about the ways in which we can empower every Liberal to spearhead the ideals that will transform our Party and our country.

• Leadership is about individual responsibility, mutual trust and accountability.

• Yet, until now, we have allowed for the development of two parallel parties.

• A party for insiders and another for the rest.

• That…must end.

• We must commit ourselves to becoming a Party that promotes the empowerment of the many and puts an end to control by the few.

• We should not mimic the Conservatives who are governed by one decision maker at the top. We can’t wait for a messiah; it’s up to each of us.

• Real change requires policies that inspire every member to build local organizations in their communities.

• Nous avons des choix à faire. We have choices to make.

• The choice between confidence and doubt.

• The choice between optimism and frustration.

• And the choice between success and stagnation.

• We must create a fair, open and honest Party that generates change from the bottom up – and captures the hopes and aspirations of every community in our great country.

Kyle Harrietha’s eight-page plan for Liberal membership

2012-01-12T10:30:00.000-05:00

Before Christmas, when I wrote about why I was supporting Kyle Harrietha for Liberal membership secretary I spoke about his dedication to the Liberal cause, working for the party on the ground in Atlantic Canada and in Toronto, helping to rebuild a Liberal riding association in Northern Alberta, and working as a staffer on Parliament Hill. I also mentioned he was preparing a rather detailed policy agenda that spoke to not just his priorities as membership secretary, but to his ideas for building a more member-drive Liberal Party. I’m pleased to say that platform has now been released, and I encourage you to take the time to give it a read:

'Open Platform for Liberals' by Kyle Harrietha

Since he first sent me a copy I’ve been teasing Kyle about the length, but the fact is it’s a very detailed and comprehensive document that shows how much he has thought about the issues facing our party, and how seriously he takes the challenges ahead. Presidential candidate Mike Crawley also has a pretty detailed platform but otherwise, I think Kyle's is the most meaty on offer from any of the candidates by a healthy margin.

The platform is divided into four sections. The first focuses on “values & principles” and makes a very simple point: if we’re to be successful as a party we need to lead with our values and our principles and our members need to be able to articulate and carry those values forward. That’s why Kyle would work with members to create a plain-language “Red Book” for Liberals, a ,member’s handbook if you will, outlining our values and principles, our history, our structure, and other information to help members engage in a conversation with Canadians and grow the party.

The second section is focused on “dialogue & relationship building” and recognizes the importance of providing our members the training, tools and skills they need to succeed in whatever they wish to in the party, whether its policy development, communications, or campaign organization. Too often, I can tell you, we’re just tossed into a campaign to sink or swim and any training is ad hoc. Kyle’s proposals include creating a comprehensive curriculum for all aspects of riding and campaign management and an online forum for sharing best practices. I had no formal training before I became a campaign manager in the last election; Kyle’s proposals are very necessary.

The third section is called “transparency & integrity” and addresses an issue dear to my heart: reforming the nomination process. There will be some tinkering around the edges in Ottawa with a constitutional amendment proposed to limit leader appointments to 25 (including any incumbents he or she wishes to protect) but we need to do much more. While he doesn’t commit to supporting an outright ban (I’ll keep pushing him on that) he does suggest a number of other very needed reforms publishing all cutoff deadlines at least three months in advance, having clear and consistent guidelines for nomination candidates, make the “greenlight” process ongoing and timely and approving candidates to seek a nomination in any riding, not just a specific one. While there’s been much debate around candidate appointments, and rightly so, the secretive “greenlight” candidate approval process has been abused for years by the Liberal establishment to stack the deck for their preferred candidates. Kyle is absolutely right to recognize this process needs both serious reform and the disinfectant that is sunshine.

Finally, the fourth section is dedicated to “organization & leadership.” Recognizing the advent of the permanent campaign (well, it’s been here for a little while now but we’re catching-up) Kyle has a number of proposals to modernize our voter identification and mobilization systems, such as micro-targeting data for predictive vote modeling, continuous voter and brand research and creating an open, data-driven culture. I also like his ideas for a 36-36-36 approach to campaign organization, with planned action increasing in intensity in the 36 months, days and weeks leading up to election day. This includes a strategic communications plan utilizing our caucus members into all ridings, regular events across the country, and working with every level of the party, EDA, PTA and national, to define their responsibilities and help them deliver against them.

I think this is a great platform that shows a depth of understanding of the challenges facing our party developed from years of working for the Liberal cause in the trenches, and puts forward concrete deliverables that can begin to move us in the right direction. And it all comes down to membership: recognizing that as members we have not just rights, but responsibilities. This platform will help arm members with some of the tools we need to fulfill that responsibility, and that’s one of the reasons Kyle has my support for membership secretary.

Blogger debate video: BCer in Toronto vs. Calgary Grit on primaries

2012-01-12T08:10:00.001-05:00

Well, it's the eve of the 2012 Liberal Party of Canada biennial convention and one of the debates generating the most interest and discussion (besides the great #lpc12 vs #ott12 hashtag debate with threatens to tear our fragile party asunder) is the proposal to adopt a primary-style system (see 2, 3, 4 and 12) to pick our next leader.

It would involve creating a new category of non-member, called supporters, who could vote for the Liberal leader if they pledge they're not a member of another party, say they abide by certain Liberal principles, and agree to give us their contact information so we can send them fundraising pitches. As envisioned in the proposal, both members and supporters would cast their votes in a serious of rolling regional votes over as long as seven weeks, timed for maximum media attention.

I'm opposed; I feel its a gimmick unlikely to generate the wave of participation its proponents predict while, at the same time, further devaluing Liberal membership at a time when we need to engage, empower and grow our membership more than ever before. Canadians could care less about how the third-place party picks their leader; they care about their everyday lives and its convincing them that we genuinely care about and will fight for the issues that matter to them that will engage Canadians in the Liberal Party.I also feel our need to be seen to be bold and innovative is leading us to rush into primaries without thinking it through; I'd rather begin with a pilot project on the riding level. At our last convention we brought in bold, innovative change that we haven't even tried yet -- one member, one vote -- which opens up the leadership from a delegated convention to every Liberal member. Let's give it a try.

Proponents, such as my friend Dan "Calgary Grit" Arnold, point to the recent Alberta Liberal primary as a success, and feel the system will both generate the voter identification data critical to modern campaign as well as energize and democratize the Liberal Party, growing our supporter base and earning oodles of free media as our bold experiment captures the attention of Canadians during American Idol's off-season.

Dan and I recently went to a bar, as Liberals are known to do, to debate the issue. Also, stay tuned until the end for our predictions of whether or not the primary proposal will succeed this weekend.

Why I’m supporting Braeden Caley and James Morton for Liberal Party executive

2012-01-11T09:34:00.000-05:00

I’m notunder the impression whom I’m supporting at this weekend’s Liberal conventionmeans anything besides the vote I get to cast as a delegate. After all, I’mjust a humble, honorific-lacking blogger. For what it’s worth though, I’ve beentaking my personal decisions about whom to support seriously. I believe theseexecutive elections are as important, if not more so, than the constitutionalamendments on the table because these people will have so much power to shapethe direction we take in this reform process.

I hopeevery delegate will take the time to review the web sites and materials of all the candidates, listen to their speeches, corner them in their hospitality suites,and ensure they make informed choices when they cast their ballots.

I’vealready spoken about why I’m supporting Mike Crawley for president and Kyle Harrietha for membership secretary (more on Kyle’s very detailed platform later), and today I’dlike to talk about two more positions: policy chair and vice-president English.

Policychair

I’ve longheld the feeling that, while policy doesn’t matter in the Liberal Party becausethe system is seriously broken (the leadership puts whatever they want in theplatform and ignore what the members pass), that has to change because policyis the top reason most people join a political party and, if they feel likethey can’t make a difference in policy, they’ll leave. (Well, the other reason they join is jobs and contracts, but we're in 3rd place so they've all left already so we'd better get policy right...) With a large field ofinteresting candidates vying for the policy chair this year, it may be ahopeful signal, along with some of the policy-related reforms, that we’re readyto take policy seriously for a change.

Onecandidate with a very impressive resume is Paul Summerville. He has researched andwritten about policy issues in depth brings some interesting background to theposition. I had a conversation with him at the Edward Blake Society event in Toronto in November, and he is clearly very passionate about policy development. As a newcomerto the Liberal Party though (recently from the NDP), I’m concerned that he doesn’t have a strong senseof what’s broken about our policy process. He described a processhe would like to build that was well thought-out, bringing in subjectmatter experts from outside the party into the process and creating work groups to develop newpolicy. Interesting, but as I understood it would be parallel to the existing,flawed policy process we have today. And, at the end of the think-tanking, itwould still be up to the leadership/platform committee to accept or reject thepolicy developed. That’s the major flaw of the current system – adoption intothe platform must be mandatory, not optional – and I don’t think having twoflawed policy processes is better than one. I’m glad to see that later he cameto better see that point, and now supports ending the leader’s veto over policy. He seemed lukewarm in November. That’s an important first step, but we must go further.

I can’tclaim to be familiar with how the policy process has worked at the PTA level inOntario. I blame that on living in a riding that has one of those closed EDAswe’ve been talking about, and unfortunately being on the outside looking in.But from everyone I’ve spoken to in Ontario, Maryanne Kampouris has done afantastic job as the LPC(O) policy chair. I voted for her when she ran fornational policy chair at the last convention. I believe she’s genuinelycommitted to grassroots policy engagement.

Zach Pakinhas brought a great deal of passion and energy to this race, and he hasgarnered an impressive list of endorsements from some very impressiveindividuals, not to mention a good deal of media attention. I was unable, though, to get a sense of the real substantive, specific changes Zach would like to bringto the policy process to make it more relevant and inclusive.

Some of thepolicy candidates offer experience and some offer youth, but I feel that onlyBraeden Caley offers a combination of both. I first heard Braeden’s name backin 2006, when because of Young Liberal shenanigans in BC (a phenomenon I wasrather familiar with) Braeden’s run for the UBC YL executive was nearlyderailed. He would persevere, and I’d later get a chance to work with himduring the 2008 election campaign in BC, when he was a youth co-chair and I gotto see first-hand his tireless dedication to the Liberal cause. He’s played keyroles on riding-level campaigns, on leadership campaigns and on the Young Liberal national executive. Plus as a staffer hegot one of my favourite Liberals, Ujjal Dosanjh, onto Twitter.

Even thoughhe’s just 24, Braeden has been involved at every level of the party, and he’sfought for it in the trenches. And speaking with him, he recognizes both theimportance of policy development to attracting and retaining members, and the need to fix the current policy process. He recognizes that an online policy sandboxcan’t be a replacement for in-person, face-to-face policy workshops. Socialmedia must be harnessed as a supplement, not a replacement. He recognizes theneed to create a vibrant, inclusive policy process that leads into the platformwe’ll all fight for in the next campaign.

I think weneed a youthful perspective on the next board, and Braeden brings thatperspective, tempered with the experience of knowing what works, and what doesn’t,on the ground. That’s why he has my support for policy chair.

Vice-president,English

There arethree candidates for VP English. I think I’ve received an e-mail from Philip Chisholm, but I know nothing about him beyond his biography. I’ve gotten ane-mail from Chris MacInnes and he actually robo-called me as I wrote this postTuesday night, and he seems to have agood breadth of experience as well assome East Coast flavor, which is never a bad thing. I don’t know much elseabout him except that he went to Carleton. But as I did as well, I’m notinclined to hold that against him.

I do knowthe third candidate, James Morton, rather well, as he’s been a very activeToronto-area Liberal for some years, including as riding president in Thornhill.I know James first as a fellow blogger. His blog. Morton’s Musings, has beenactive for a number of years now on Liblogs and Progressive Bloggers. It’d bean asset (as recent experience shows) to have someone on the board whounderstands social media and citizen journalism, and I’m hopeful James would continue to use his blogto facilitate dialogue with both members and voters alike should he be elected.

But he’snot just a fellow lowly blogger. As deputy chair of the council of presidentshe worked with Liberal riding presidents across the country That gives himimportant perspective of the challenges faced by Liberals across Canada, not tomention some ideas on how the council of presidents can be made a morerelevant, effective body. He also ran for the Liberals in Oshawa in the lastelection, working hard to run a strong campaign in a challenging riding andhelping the local EDA get back on its feet, planting the seeds for future success. I have a lot of respect for anyonewilling to do the hard slogging on the ground in uphill battles.

I disagreewith James on some issues. We disagree on the primary model for leadershipelection, for example. But we agree on many others, such as the importance ofpredictive voter modeling, and I think his idea for a National Liberal Talentis a great simple idea that’s easy to implement and is very much needed.

Butmore important than specific policies, I believe James is a person who is committedto consultation and engagement and recognizes the importance of communicatingwith members and so I trust, wherever he ends up on an issue, even if wedisagree, it will have been a transparent process and he will have arrivedthere honestly. And that’s all I can really ask for. That’s why I’ll be voting for Jamesas VP English this weekend.

Endorsing a roadmap from an old Liberal executive before electing a new one

2012-01-07T10:47:00.003-05:00

Over the last few days I’ve dissected the 36 proposed amendments to the Liberal constitution that delegates will consider a thebiennial in Ottawa, and I’ve taken a look at 10 of the more semi-interesting policy resolutions on the agenda.

We’ll also be asked to endorse the “roadmap to renewal”document prepared by the national board, which contains a number of resolutionsasking the delegates to endorse decisions taken by the board or urge takecertain directions in assorted reform-related issues. It’s important to notethat, by my read, the actions in these resolutions are largely things the boardhas the direction to do on its own (with the exception of the constitutional amendments dealt with separately), with or without the endorsement of themembership. And as these aren’t constitutional amendments, only a simplemajority is needed for passage.

So, in a sense these resolutions are largely symbolic. Thereare two ways of looking at this exercise. The more charitable one is that theboard is presenting a vision for party reform, gathered after its ownconsultative process, and is seeking an endorsement/mandate from the delegatesfor this planned vision of party reform. The less charitable way would be tosay any consultation has been minimal and rushed with more media leaks thanmember engagement, pushed down on the membership by a lame duck board thatwon’t be in a position to implement any of this and is seeking to bind theincoming board (to be elected in Ottawa) to a vision when they’re probablycampaigning on their own ideas.

Personally, I feel it’s a little of column a and a littleof column b. I believe the current board does genuinely want to put its visionforward, and I think we should discuss it. But I think it feels rushed and topdown, and asking us to vote on it is unnecessary. Let’s discuss the range ofoptions and move forward with a new executive and a new, more consultativeprocess with ideas following up as well as down. (The LPCO resolution for a renewal commission is suddenly more attractive to me) The way this is presentedseemingly seeks to put an end to a process that is really just beginning. SoI’m not comfortable with this process.

That said, the Roadmap PDF is here (the resolutions are sprinkledthroughout). They’ll be discussed in a Q&A session “sense of theconvention” on Friday afternoon which competes with several other break-outs,and then voted Saturday at noon in the main hall. Comments on process aside, hereare my thoughts on the specifics of what’s on offer. I’m ignoring those thatdiscuss constitutional amendments because I’ve addressed those separately, asconstitutional amendments.

2. That theConvention endorse the decision to build and maintain the “Strong Start”campaign, a special cash reserve for the purpose of promoting and defending itsnext permanent Leader;

I’d like to know more first about what I’m being asked toendorse here. Just what does this “Strong Start” campaign involve, how muchcash are we talking, and how are you going to raise it? I agree allowing theConservatives to bombard us with negative ads is one of the reasons we’ve hadsuch a hard time the past two elections; we started with a handicap. That said,we’re not going to be able to match Conservative spending in a pre-writ ad war.If you can convince me you have a tactical strategic plan to counter theinevitable attacks, I’m inclined to be supportive. If the price is right, of course.

I’m currentlyundecided but supportive in spirit.

3. That the Conventionendorse a special, nationally co-ordinated, all-electoral district fundraisingcampaign in the spring of 2012 with the sole target of raising funds to enablethe Party to make the investments required to fast-track the deployment,population and utilization of its universal database technology (i.e.Liberalist) in support of national and local organization, communication andfundraising efforts;

This sounds great on the surface. Database technology iscritical to modern campaigning, and we need to get better in this area. Andthat costs money. But here’s the thing. This is two resolutions in a row nowthat propose major fundraising operations, with all of the money being suckedup to the national level. My concern is that Ottawa is going to tap-out thedonor base and leave the riding associations dry. And ridings need to do theirown fundraising to fund trivial little things like signs, literature,advertising and other local campaign expenses. And central already sucks upmoney through keeping much of the campaign expense refunds and requiring a feefor a riding services package of usually limited local value. The preamble hadlanguage about the importance of EDAs, and while they will benefit from thetechnology (which we already paid for in the last election’s riding servicespackage, and probably will in the next one too), so far all I see is a lot ofmoney going to Ottawa. That has me concerned.

I’m currentlyundecided.

4. That theConvention endorse the decision of the Party to establish, properly support andenforce targets with respect to Victory Fund and Laurier Club participation inall electoral districts, with such targets to be set in consultation with theEDAs based upon a national goal of doubling participation in both programs ineach of the ensuing 3 years by July 1 of each year;

OK, now I`ve graduated from concerned to annoyed, and maybeeven peeved. After two major spending initiatives at the national level , weget Ottawa demanding the ridings pay for Ottawa’s spending spree by requiringthey go out and raise money and send most of it to Ottawa (Laurier cash is 100%Ottawa, and Victory Fund 50% to Ottawa). Instead of perhaps working *with* EDAsto help them fundraise for both local and national needs, Ottawa wants tounilaterally hand-down orders to the ridings on how much cash they’re requiredto send to Ottawa. Oh, and punish them if they don’t meet their quotas. Yeah,I’m sorry but no. This is indicative of the top-down attitude this party needsto lose. Work with ridings and support their local efforts, don’t treat them ascash cows to be milked. And I don’t like the idea of board members in Ottawawho have never been to Northern Vancouver Island telling our executive how manyLaurier Club members they need to find at $1000/pop if they want to avoidexecution. It’s ridiculous.

I’m voting no.

6. That the Conventionmandate each EDA to undertake a comprehensive and nationally-supported voterregistration drive in its electoral district between April 1, 2012 and March31, 2013 to recruit new Members and Supporters;

This is fine in spirit, but again thelanguage speaks volumes about the attitude that resonates throughout theresolutions in this document: mandating EDAs to do things. At least they tossin a line about national support; I want to know more about what that willactually entail.

I’m currently undecided.

9. That theConvention affirm the principle of requiring all LPC candidates for the Houseof Commons in any election or by-election to face an open nomination contest intheir electoral districts in order to stand for election as an LPC Candidate inany election or by-election, subject to the Board’s right to approve specifiedexceptions to the rule at the request of and on the recommendation of theLeader.

This resolution is such a meaningless farcethat it’s a shame it will be printed on even recycled paper. Never mindrestricting or ending appointments – this is the opposite. Basically it saysopen nominations are great, unless the leader and the board want to appointsome hack or so-called star, so please delegates, confirm the status quo. It’sa pathetic attempt to appear to support open nominations to someone thatdoesn’t pay too close attention. If the board really did support opennominations, they’d have put a constitutional amendment on the table. But theydidn’t. There’s only amendment that comes close to restricting appointments(and not neat far enough for my liking) and it came from the Ontario wing (see #21), notthe national board. This is a farcical status quo resolution with no place in asupposed renewal document.

I’m voting no.

10. That theConvention affirm the Party’s decision to maintain a permanent virtual andreal-time policy development process accessible to all Members and Supportersof the Party through its website, with management of the process and contentdelegated to volunteer expert policy working groups to be organized, maintainedand supported by Caucus critics, assisted by Caucus staff;

Is this happening? Is this the web site with the stalepolicy resolutions and comment boards? That’s fine I suppose, but while theonline stuff is nice what we really need is more in person policy workshops anddebates. As I’ve said before, we need a complete overhaul of the policy processto make it inclusive and actually relevant to the platform we run on. Thisresolution just says “here’s a web site you kids can go play in.”

I’ll vote yes because it’sharmless, if woefully inadequate.

11. That theConvention endorses a streamlining of Party decision-making and operations asfollows…(truncated because it’s really long, check the PDF for the text).

This is a long one with eight different items all under thegeneral headline of streamlining decision-making, which in effect means settingout which level of the party (primarily, the national level and the provincialwings) does what. For example, uploading banking and compliance functions tohead office. If that’s proven more cost-effective then it makes sense and I’monboard. It envisions the PTA focus shifting more to helping the ridingassociations build their membership and resources, a focus which has beenlacking until now in this document. Itenvisions setting provincial targets for Laurier Club and Victory Fund membersalthough, unlike with the EDAs, there’s actually talk of cooperation on settingthe numbers. It talks about hiring field workers to help EDAs, who would reportto both the PTA and Ottawa. As long as they work with (and not dictate to)*all* ridings, not just a target list drawn up in Ottawa, I like it.

I’ll vote yes,somewhat on faith.

12. That the Conventionendorse the Party’s decision to appoint a Director of Digital Operationsaccountable to the Board to oversee the development, maintenance andutilization of the Party’s unified communications platform.

It’s curious that this person is reportingspecifically to the board, and not the national director. This reads like amash-up of buzz-words; I want to know more about just what they plan for thisposition and what systems are involved before deciding if this is flash orsubstance.

I’m undecided.

13. That the Convention endorse the Party’s decision to consolidateand integrate:

(i) all Party organizational and fundraising data into a singledatabase; and

(ii) all technology operations at the National Office of the Partywhere feasible

14. That the Convention endorse the Party’s decision to fast-track thedeployment, population and utilization of its universal database technology insupport of LPC’s national and local organization, communication and fundraisingefforts based on an implementation and investment plan to be approved by theBoard.

Does the biennial convention really needto take the time to weigh-in on your database choices and the roll-out schedulefrom development to production? Just go and do it, fellas.

I’m voting yes but wondering why I’m voting on this at all.

17. That the Convention endorses the Party’s request that the newpermanent Leader of the Party be requested to reconstitute NERC no later thanSeptember 1, 2013.

It took me a few seconds to translateNERC as National Election Readiness committee, at which point I was pissed-off NERCwasn’t some kind of secret red election-winning robot. Anyway, sure, get thatsucker up and running and lets start recruiting, screening and nominatingcandidates.

I’m voting yes on this one.

18. That the Convention endorse the Party’s request that nominationsfor LPC electoral district candidates be opened (i.e. the freeze be lifted) noearlier than October 15, 2013.

What I said a second ago.

I’m voting yes.

19, That the Convention endorses the Party’s request that the nextBiennial Convention of the Party be focuses on the policy and platform of LPCand be held no later than May 30, 2014.

I trust the typo will be fixed at somepoint. Anyway, we pick a leader in 2013 so I’m not sure what else the biennialwould be focused on besides what conventions are always focused on: policy,constitutional amendments and executive elections (pending several constitutional amendments under consideration)and sipping root beer in hospitality suites. If calling out policy is meant tomean prioritizing it over election readiness, then I have a problem with that.We need to do both. Yes, policy has been overlooked for too long. I want astrong focus on policy too. But we’ll also be one year from a campaign. We can,and must, do both. But I’m probably just quibbling with language. I’m fine onthe timing, but I’d love to see a straw poll on host city. My top three:Halifax, Quebec City or, if we’ve finally annexed them, Turks and Caicos.

I’m voting yes.

10 Liberal policy resolutions that caught my eye, from abortion and the Queen to marijuana and a preferential ballot

2012-01-06T09:00:00.000-05:00

My previous post looked at the constitutional amendmentswe’ll consider at the 2012 Liberal biennial, which involve changes to theparty’s structure and internal operations. Today I look at the policyresolutions we’ll debate.

These if adopted will, in theory, come to represent the official policyof the party, representing things we’ll try to achieve in government and, whilein opposition, push the government to do. How closely the policies passed willactually resemble the policy platform we run on in the next election will depend on the success of the policy process-related constitutional amendments we'll consider, and any other policy process reforms that may follow in the years to come.

Unlike the constitutional amendments, policy resolutionsneed just a simple majority of voting delegates present to pass. Theseamendments have been submitted through the party’s provincial and territorialwings and the various commissions, which each have their own policy development andprioritization processes, and then were further prioritized by Liberal members online.Prioritization is an important process because it allows more opportunity fordebate than is available on the plenary floor, and because there's a chance wewon’t have time to vote in every policy.

I won’t go through all the policies (the PDF is here) but here are some of the ones that caught my eye and interest,for better or for worse. My advice is to avoid the Whereases and go straight tothe Be It Resolves That's; that’s where the meat is. Or isn't.

But first, I have to say much of this book of policy proposals seems kind of stale and dated, the same sort of things we've been kicking around for years. In fairness, that's probably because we have been; the policy process has been sidelined and overlooked through the minority government era, ignored for a constant focus on an imminently possible election. Kick-starting the policy process from the ground-up before the next convention is vital.

12. Science and Policy

Coming from Nova Scotia, this resolution is a smorgasbord ofscience-related policies. Appropriate funding for research, I support.Increased funding for NSERC et al, I support. Working with the provinces onboosting science creation and creating a national science advisor, I’m onboard. Where I climb off is with the idea of creating a “Parliamentary Science Officer” to report to parliament on whether ornot the government is respecting science in formulating policy. I don't see thepoint of this position. We have MPs to examine government policy and committeescan call expert witnesses. Creating an office of parliament, with a budget anda staff, to be some kind of science overseer strikes me as unnecessary bureaucracy.

I’m voting no.

16. Comprehensive Integrated Rail Transportation System

Coming from the party’s Ontario wing, this is basically thepro-high speed rail policy, with some stuff thrown in about cargo, integratedcargo transport, yada yada. Never mind that, high speed rail to Montreal!

I’m voting yes.

18. Democratic Renewal

From Ontario, I was surprised to see a Liberal Party-focusedresolution amongst all the others focused on national policy issues. With afocus on party reform and renewal, this policy calls for the creation of arenewal commission to engage with party members to gauge how well the party isbeing accountable to and driven by its members in a democratic way, and what itcan do better. Or, if I can translate, how we can be more of a bottom-up organization,and less one that dictates from the top-down. The commission is to take twoyears to do this before reporting back, and will be made up of two party members fromeach province/territory directly elected by each region's Liberal members. I'm inclinedto be supportive, but I would like some reassurance in one area: is anothercommission, is another elected body and another study really the answer? Willthis be different than the others? Convince me it is and I’ll be fully onboard.

I'm leaning toward voting yes.

31. Fiscal Responsibility

From Manitoba, this policy starts with an overly longWhereas section about how Liberals are awesome fiscal managers and theConservatives suck. Then it calls for debt reduction and, as the “policy recommendation" says we should continue “with the Liberal record of fiscalresponsibility.” I really don't see the point of this resolution. Manitoba’stop policy resolution is for us to keep on being fiscally responsible? Economicpolicy is important, but give me some meat!

I’m voting no not because I oppose fiscal responsibility (I also like puppies), but because this is a silly andpointless resolution.

36. Post-Secondary Education

Straight outta Alberta, this would pay see the government pay first and last year’stuition for undergrads, and implement a student loan forgiveness program inexchange for work in designated communities,industries, and public initiatives. Education is an issue I care a great dealabout, but I don’t like this motion. The loan forgivness thing is fine,although the student loan system also needs much wider reforms. But they lost me onthe tuition thing. Two years of free tuition for every Canadian undergrad wouldcost a fortune, and many of those students don’t need the help anyway. We needto be more strategic. I’d rather invest in targeted assistance for thosestudents that need it most, which would allow us to do more for those thatreally need it rather than a little for everyone if they need it or not.

I'm voting no.

47. Early Childhood Development and ChildCare

Coming from B.C., Alberta andSaskatchewan, this resolution essentially seeks to bring back the child care agreements that the past Liberal government, spearheaded by Ken Dryden, signed with theprovinces, to ensure access to affordable, quality child care services acrossCanada. And it goes further, by promoting and improving early childhoodeducation.

I'm voting yes.

58. Reaffirming Women's Right to Reproductive HealthServices

From the women's commission, this policy affirms Liberalsupport for a women’s right to choose and seeks to reverse the erosion of accessto safe quality reproductive services by urging the government to financially penalize provinces that fail toabide by their Canada Health Act obligations around access and covering related costs.

I’m voting yes.

79. Preferential Balloting System

Coming from the party’s Saskatchewan wing, this policysupports the implementation of a preferential ballot for future elections. Asdemocratic reforms go it’s not overly ambitious compared to some of the systemsthat have been put to referenda in several provinces. Of course, thosereferenda all failed. Moving to a preferential ballot to elect MPs would be asimple change that voters can understand, and it would lead to results moreindicative of voter preference that the current first past the post system. Andthat would be a good thing.

I’m voting yes.

114. Canadian Identity in the 21st Century

From the Young Liberals, this is the monarchy policy thatthe media has decided to focus on this week. This is one of those resolutionswhere it pays to gloss over the Whereases. Rather than writing somethingneutral to lead into a discussion of the best system of governance for a modernCanada, it contains attacks on the Royal Family and incorrectly refers to theBritish monarchy, not the Canadian monarchy. It’s a combative approach thatdoesn’t lead well into a debate we should be having: as a modern Canada, one wherethe role of the Governor-General and their reserve powers has been much debatedin recent years (see assorted prorogation dramas), is our current system the right one for us, or is there abetter model? I want us to have that discussion and this policy leads us intothat. And the meat, the Be It Resolved, is actually less combative that the Whereases, calling forthe issue to be "studied."

I’m voting yes.

117. Legalize and Regulate Marijuana

The youth are back, and course they have a marijuanalegalization resolution. I think prohibition has been a costly failure, andforcing ordinary Canadians to deal with criminal gangs leads to many negativeeffects. And the resources of the criminal justice system would be better usedelsewhere. Legalizing marijuana, regulating production and distribution, andtaxing it, makes all kinds of sense. It’s past time to do this.

I’m voting yes.

36 proposed Liberal constitutional amendments dissected and explained

2012-01-04T08:00:00.000-05:00

Happy New Year to all; I hope you enjoyed the holidays. EspeciallyChristmas. I won’t say I’m resolving toblog more this year but I will try, and I’m sure I definitely will be in thenext few weeks as we head into the 2012 Liberal Biennial convention in Ottawa,beginning January 12^th.

I’m on vacation for another week, and so I’m spending some timepreparing for the convention. Yesterday it was poring over 27 pages of proposedconstitutional amendments, and cross-referencing with the current constitution totry to figure out what it all means. Below is my analysis of each proposedamendment and my current thinking on each; I welcome your thoughts in the comments. Afuture post will tackle the policy proposals.

For your reference, here's a PDF of the full list of proposed amendments and here's a PDF of the current constitution. To be adopted, each amendment must be approved by 2/3s of delegates voting at the biennial.

Amendments proposed by the the national board of directors

1. Elimination of the National Revenue Committeeand Appointment of Chief Revenue

Officer

I feel the professionalizing of our fundraising is long overdue. Thiswould see one person hired with

direct responsibility and accountability for fundraising planningand implementation, and would seem to constitute needed reform in this area.

I’m voting yes.

2. Registration of supporters of the LiberalParty of Canada

This is to allow the creation of the primary system, which Ioppose for leadership selection. That’s voted on separately though. I dosupport experimenting with primaries for riding nominations, so I’m willing tosupport creation the supporter category. I do have a few concerns, though.

Youcan join the Liberal Party at age 14, but you need to be 18 to register as asupporter. The supporter rules seem to mirror those for voting in a general election. Butif this is about nurturing and building support, why exclude youth? Why not try to involve them early, and try to convert them into members and/or general election voters when of age? I’d supportan amendment to lower the age.

Other concerns: there’s no time-period on beinga supporter, it lasts until you opt out, your snail mail bounces back, or you’rekicked out. Also, they seem to anticipate making PTAs process all the supporterapplications, which will cost money. The only mention of a fee is in thesection on supporters voting in the leadership selection, but no fee seems anticipated to simplybecome a supporter. What will it cost to process these applications? And it LPCdownloads it to PTAs, will they download resources to pay for it too?

I’m voting yes, with reservations, and hoping for amendments.

3. Participation of supporters in leadership vote

This is the one that has gotten all the attention, and mypreviously noted objections to the primary system for the leadership stillstand. Instead of re-hashing them, I’ll direct you to this article where Iexplain my objections at length.I think weighted one-member one-vote is a better system, we adopted it at the last convention and we should at least try it once.

It should be noted the final proposal eliminates the idea ofmaking the Council of Presidents function as an electoral college, which is a positive change. It’s a preferential ballot, weighted by riding,100 points, with lowest candidates dropped off overall until we get to 50+1.Same as current weighted one member, one vote system so that’s good.

The imposition of a fee for voting is up to the national board.But here’s the thing. According to theseamendments, members have all the rights of supporters. In many new sections,supporters is used to mean both members and supporters. Could this mean memberscould have to pay a fee to vote for leader? I would be massively opposed tothat. While I’m voting no anyway, that should be clarified.

I’m voting no to this amendment.

4. Participation of supporters in candidateselection meetings of their EDAs

This proposal allows “supporters” as created by the earlieramendment to vote in their riding’s candidate nomination contest. As mentioned,I’m opposed to this system for the leadership but I’m willing to give it a tryfor riding nominations, and I think it could be more effective generatingexcitement and attracting candidates at the local level.

I do have some concerns with this proposal as written, though. Thebiggest is that, while the leadership vote requires supporters to be signed-up41 days before the vote, for riding nominations no timeline is specified.Instead, it leaves the timeline up to the national election readinesscommittee. I dislike leaving discretion in these things, particularly whennomination rules have been so abused in the past. I’d like to see wider reformsto the nomination process. We have fixed election dates; I want fixed dateswhere all nominations are opened and meetings held, with allthe related deadlines fixed too. But that's a reform for another day.

I’m voting yes, but I’d like to see this section cleaned-up andapproved.

5. Annual strategic plan and annual report tabledby national board of directors

Requires the board of directors to table an annual strategic planand an annual report on progress against the strategic plan, to be reviewed bythe Council of Presidents and released to all members, and posted online. Makessense, seems basic, and odd it wasn’t required already.

I’m voting yes.

6. Untitled, relates to candidate nominations

Requires a nomination candidate to have been nominated by 100members of the riding association or at least 15 per cent of the riding members(supporters excluded, apparently), whichever is less. I’m fine with that, requiring candidates toget support from existing riding members is important. I’m curious though howthis would interact with leader’s power of appointment. I’d imagine an appointmentwould probably supersede this rule, although requiring some riding support before allowing an appointment would be nice.

I’m voting yes.

7 and 8. Removing the leader’s veto over the content of the policyplatform

These sections amend several sections that give the leader aneffective veto over the content of the party’s election platform. It’simportant to note there are two separate policy processes: the policy passed by thebiennial convention from the PTAs and commissions, and that developed by thepolicy and platform committee. These amendments deal with the latter; theformer is still too unlinked from the actual platform creation for my likingand I want the next national policy chair to lead further reforms in this area.

Under these reforms, the leader can still propose policy for theplatform but can’t veto other proposals from the committee outright; policy will be decided by the policy andplatform committee. The leader still appoints many of its members though, andit seems rather large and unwieldy. This committee also existed before, yet theleader still seemed to always circumvent it by appointing a few MPs to go offand write the platform on his orders.

So I’m sceptical how effective these reforms will be, and they’rebut a drop in the bucket of the reforms we need to make to the policy process. Butthis is a small step in the right direction.

I’m voting yes.

9. Election of executive officers using a weighted “one-member,one-vote” system

This is one proposal that wasn’t included in the original roadmapto renewal proposals, and I was glad to see it in the final list of amendments. Itwould institute a weighted by riding OMOV system to elect the nationalexecutive, instead of delegates doing it at convention. This is an importantstep in the democratization of our party, just as implementing WOMOV forleadership was. My only quibble is that it’s not a preferential ballot; thatwould be a nice addition.

I’m voting yes.

10. Prioritization of policy resolutions using a weighted “one-member,one-vote” system

Moves the policy development process from the delegated biennialconvention to a weighted by riding one-member, one-vote system. I’m supportivein principle, but I have concerns because this will, by necessity, largely meanmoving from an in-person process to a more impersonal electronic one. The benefit of the biennials is that itallows in-person debate and interaction, which has benefits you just can't replicateonline.

Before I decide to support this, I want to know how the policy processwill be reformed to encourage/require in-person debates on policy across thecountry, perhaps regionally. This can’t be done online alone. If I’m not satisfiedthis can/will happen, I’m inclined to vote no.

I’m undecided.

11. Untitled, relates to EDA accountability

Allows the national board of directors to put a riding associationinto trusteeship if it fails to meet its constitutional obligations. Rogue,closed, unresponsive and dormant EDAs are an issue. I’m a little leery of thisproposal, though. However, with PTA approval required as a check on thenational board, I’ll support it.

I’m voting yes.

12. Electing a leader using a system of staggered regional votingdays

A key part of the primary system for leadership voting, instead ofone day/weekend of voting across Canada it seeks to create drama and mediaattention by having the votes over a period as long as two months, with groups of regions voting in as many assix blocks. So, for example, Ontario may vote five weeks after British Columbiadoes. The preamble makes clear this hasnothing to do with democracy, and is all about preening for media attention.Like PDO, I find this proposal highly undemocratic.

I have several concerns. First, not everyone will get to vote forthe candidate of their choice. If a candidate shows poorly in the first groupof provinces, they’ll be pressured to drop out. Fundraising will becomechallenging. Look at the U.S. primary system we’re trying to copy. I want to beable to vote for the candidate of my choice; I don’t want New Hampshire tonarrow the field for me.

Second, the order in which the provinces will vote isn’t set bythis amendment; presumably this would be determined by the national board ofdirectors, or a body appointed by them. This creates a huge opportunity forconflict, as leadership candidates lobby the board, or try to get slateselected to the board, to set an order that favours them by putting theirstrong regions first to show momentum, pressuring opponents to drop out. Wehave enough drama of this sort as it is, without creating the opportunity formore.

We also shouldn’t be trying to create a system for the purpose ofgiving the media something to report about; it should be about the best way toget the best leader possible. And this isn’t it.

I’m voting no.

The following amendments are from the party’s Ontario wing.Several deal with reforming the Council of Presidents, which primarily consistsof the riding association presidents, and that many feel is a meaningless, powerlessbody.

13. Officers of the Council of Presidents

Several reforms to CoP here, particularly changing the CoPpresident to be elected by CoP members and be either a riding or commissionpresident, instead of automatically being the party president as today. The deputypresident will be similarly elected. I agree, it should be an EDA-led body.

I'm voting yes.

14. Chair of the Council of Presidents as a member of the NationalBoard of Directors

This makes the CoP president a non-voting member (can attend andspeak) of the national board of directors. If it was voting I’d definitely voteno. The board is big and unwieldy as it is. My concern is with making the boardbigger, and the cost that generates for the party. I’d rather go smaller, notbigger.

I’m undecided but leaning no.

15. Meetings of the Council of Presidents

This section seems to remove some of the flexibility for holding CoP meetings virtually, with aneye to more in-person meetings. My concern here is how much will this cost us,and if it’s worth the expense. The proposal calls for partial subsidies forsome attendees, but seemingly not all. If this body is to have meaning, costcan’t be a barrier to all eligible members taking part. But your talking 308 riding presidents and additional members, and I’m not convincedwe can afford to do this in person, outside of maybe a biennial, and that it wouldbe worth the cost. What’s wrong with improved virtual or teleconferencemeetings?

I’m leaning no.

16. Untitled, more CoP reforms

Seems housekeeping to me.

I’ll vote yes.

17. Candidate selection meeting to be held at the request of anEDA

Requires a candidate nomination meeting to be called within 120days of the request by a riding association. I’ll support giving more power tothe ridings, but my preference is still to see set identical dates for allridings across Canada.

I’m voting yes.

18. Withdrawal of nomination contestant or nominated candidatefollowing criminal charges

Seems obvious to me.

I’m voting yes.

19. Election of a National Campaign Co-Chair

Instead of both co-chair being appointed by the leader, one wouldbe elected by the membership the same way we elect the national executive, withthe leader appointing the second. Since the members go first, that means theleader must satisfy the English/French, Man/Woman rules by appointing theopposite of the membership. If (9) passes, WOMOV will elect the first co-chair.I like this amendment, as it takes some power back from the leader for themembers, as this is a position that sets many of the rules that governnominations. Letting members pick one is a good balance.

I’m voting yes.

20. Representation of PTAs on the National Election ReadinessCommittee

Adds representatives from each PTA to the committee, which soundsgood to me.

I’m voting yes.

21. Appointment of candidates of the Party for election to theHouse of Commons

Seeks to limit the leader’s power to appoint candidates to 20 per electionmaximum, and no more than 25% or five in any one province whichever is lower. Isupport the spirit here; my worry is if this would encourage appointments uptop that level. I’m not sure appointment have been that high in past (presumably it would be if you include protecting incumbents). Why notpropose lower caps? Personally, I’d rather remove the leader’s power of appointmentall together, and just leave the leader the ability to veto any crazies (who should bescreened out by the greenlight committee anyway).

I’m undecided but leaning yes.

22. Rules of Order for the conduct of a biennial convention

This would allow a biennial convention to amend the proposed rulesof order that will govern its proceedings, such as how sub-amendments can beproposed and voted on. Currently, these rules are set by the national managementcommittee and cannot be amended by the convention delegates. Before theVancouver convention, the committee tried to implement unacceptable rules in order to influence the voting on constitutional amendments. Only an outcry from themembership forced them to back down. This amendment would mean members wouldn’thave to rely on the committee’s willingness to bend to public outrage.

I’m voting yes.

23. Policy prioritization process at a biennial convention

This seeks to force policy workshops and policy debate to happenin person, at the biennial convention with online engagements as a supplement,not a replacement. The last two biennials (including Ottawa) have dumped theformer in-person prioritizaiton workshops and much of the real debate happened there,not on the plenary floor. This amendment seeks to bring that back. Thiswould seem to be in conflict with (10) and I’m curious how they’d be reconciledif both passed. I’d like to see the best of both, more in-person debate,including at biennial, with provision for all members to vote in a weightedsystem.

I’m leaning yes.

24. Amendment to the Preamble of the Constitution

Essentially adds a line about making electing MPs part of ourreason d’etre to the constitution’s preamble. No real impact but sure, why not.

I’m voting yes.

The following amendments are proposed by the party’s BritishColumbia wing.

25. Liberal members’ initiative

This seems to allow a member at large to propose constitutionalreform or policy to members directly and get it on the biennial agenda, if theycan gather a threshold of support form the membership. Today, it has to filterup through a commission or a PTA. It’s an option to cut the red tape and allowdirect engagement, which I think is a great idea.

I’m voting yes.

26. Inclusion of priority policy resolutions in Party Platform

This requires that at least three priority policy resolution(coming from the PTA/commission to biennial policy process) be included in thenext election platform. I’d like the number to be higher, but it seems to bethe first proposal to link the biennial process to the platform process, whichI feel must happen to make the member-driven policy process meaningful. So it’san important step.

I’m voting yes.

27. Election of Executive Officers using an unweighted “onemember, one vote” system

This would be seen as competing with (9) but with two keydifferences: it’s preferential, which I support. But it’s unweighted, which isa huge deal-breaker for me. I’m astounded BC would propose a system, that,essentially, would see member-rich Toronto pick the national executive. I thinkthis is a horrible idea.

I’m voting no.

These proposals are form the National Women’s Liberal Commission

28. Removal of membership fees specific to the National Women’sLiberal Commission

This would remove any possibility for the NWLC requiring anadditional membership fee to be in the NWLC. I don’t know if they’re currentlycharging a fee. If they are, as long as they don’t expect funds form generalrevenue to make up for the loss of this fee, I’m fine with it.

I’m voting yes.

29. Fundraising plan for the Judy LaMarsh Fund

Seems like housekeeping.

I’m voting yes.

Now some from the Seniors Liberal Commission

30. Untitled, member rights

Adds boilerplate about membership and EDAs to rights of memberssection. Seems purely symbolic, and without real effect and, while I’m not keenon fattening the constitution with pabulum, I’m not too worked-up about it.

I’ll vote yes.

31. Untitled, caucus rights

It basicallty seeks to encourage caucus members to remember they’reparty members too. But again, it’s largely empty symbolism.

I’ll vote yes.

32. Authority to amend the Constitution of the Liberal Party ofCanada

Essentially, this section requires constitutional amendments to bevoted or ratified by all members electronically, instead of by delegates at abiennial convention. Two amendment avenues are proposed: a special electronicvote, or a traditional biennial with ratification of the result by a member electronic voterequired. I’d support extending the weighted one member, one vote system envisionedin earlier amendments to constitutional amendments, but this proposal from theSeniors is for an unweighted system. I cannot support a system that doesn’thave riding weighting; I’d rather keep the biennial system as delegates are at least weighted by riding. I’d support an amendment to weight it by riding.

As written, I’ll vote no.

33. Policy approval and prioritization process

This requires the policy and platform committee to writeguidelines to help EDAs with policy, which I’m fine with. But I don’t likeattempt to standardize the PTAs’ policy processes; they should be free to settheir own processes. It would also seem to contradict some of the sections in(7)/(8) removing the leader’s policy veto.

I’ll vote no.

Finally, it’s the turn of the Young Liberals of Canada.

34. Free of charge membership to the Liberal Party of Canada

The title says it all. Just processing a membership has a cost. Ifeel it at least needs to make it cost-recovery. $10 is hardly a barrier tomembership. I’ve heard this proposal may be a backup in case the primaryleadership proposal fails, but it’s unclear it would be withdrawn by YLC if itpasses. I’m also leery of the section that seems to indicate campus clubs wouldbe looking to the party for some sort of help or subsidy to make up for theirlost membership revenue. In some provinces, riding associations also get apiece of membership fees and would lose that under this proposal. At a timewhen we’re cash-strapped as a party this proposal makes no sense to me.

I’m voting no.

35. Period of membership required to vote in Leadership Vote

Currently, you need to be a member of the party 41 days before aleadership vote to be eligible to vote in the leadership contest. In anotheramendment that seems to seek to replicate a primary system if it’s rejected bymembers, this amendment seeks to lower that time period to 14 days. The samedates would apply under the primary system, presumably backdated from thestaggered regional votes (if approved). I oppose this under either scenario. For one, I don’t want the leadership period tobe totally dominated by a focus on membership sign-ups. I want those 41 days(at least) to be focused on winning over new and existing members instead. Thisproposal would see campaigns focused on sign-ups to the exclusion of nearly allelse until nearly the very end. And logistically, it would be helpful to havethe time to plan the logistics of the vote knowing how many eligible voters youhave; two weeks isn’t that long. And finally, as a general principle I want toencourage long-term membership over last minute drop-in voters. This proposalgoes the other way.

I’m voting no.

36. Regional Voting Days

Just when I was growing dispirited with my YLC friends, they redeemedthemselves with this proposal. This proposal would amend the proposed system ofstaggered regional leadership votes topre-set the order the provinces vote in, instead of leaving it up to the boardwhich, as I explained, is fraught with issues. This proposal addresses thatconcern, and also requires the full results of each regional voting be postedwithin 48 hours, instead of only the first place support. I’m still voting noon the original regional voting proposal, but if it passes I’ll support thischange to make it more fair.

I’m voting yes.

Kyle Harrietha for Liberal national membership secretary

2011-12-22T10:55:00.001-05:00

The Liberal Party of Canada’s biennial convention in Ottawa is fast-approaching, and while it’s great to see so many interesting candidates contesting the position of national membership secretary I believe that Kyle Harrietha is the best choice for this position, which will be critical to our rebuilding and future success.

I’ve known Kyle for several years as a hard-working Liberal who has fought for our cause in the trenches, whether it was on Parliament Hill as a staffer, at the riding level in Scarborough or in his new home, Alberta. I’ve said in the past that character and experience are as important to me as policy, and I like that Kyle has that mix of Ottawa experience and extensive experience at the riding association level. I’ve said before that we must make riding associations the lead in our rebuilding, and I want people on the national board with riding-level experience.

I also like his understanding of both the urban and rural perspective, which we all know can be very different. He’s been an active Liberal in the Scarborough and Greater Toronto area, where Liberals have (traditionally) done well. And since he moved to Alberta a few years ago, where the Liberal experience is very different, he has rolled-up his sleeve in a rural Alberta riding that had little to no Liberal organization has has been doing the hard work of building the team, organizing and growing our support, day by day. That knowledge of the urban and rural Liberal perspectives, combined with an understanding of what works (and what doesn’t) in Ottawa, will be a valuable asset to have on the national executive.

That’s his background, but I also like his ideas. He’ll be releasing a detailed policy platform shortly and I don’t want to preempt his specific proposals, but he outlined some of what he wants to do in a recent open letter to Liberals. When it comes to issues like opening nominations, making membership meaningful and professionalizing our organization both nationally and locally, I think he’s very much on the right track and has a strong sense of what needs to be done to turn our party around and move it forward. I think you'll like what you see when the full platform is released.

I’m happy to be supporting Kyle for national membership secretary, and if you’re joining me as a delegate next month in Ottawa I hope you’ll consider doing the same.

UPDATE: The platform is now online, give it a read.

Liberal Party is foolishly retreating from social media and blogging

2011-12-20T14:33:00.008-05:00

I was disappointed to learn several weeks ago that the Liberal Party of Canada is retreating from its position as one of the early leaders in Canada in recognizing the importance of blogging, social media and citizen journalism to open and fair political debate.

The uproar and bad publicity that ensued when the news broke publicly that the party will not offer media accreditation to bloggers at its upcoming biennial convention was predictable and entirely avoidable, and sends a horrible signal for a party that supposedly hopes to usher in a new era of openness and transparency, beginning with this conference in January.

Liberals an early pioneer

I think some background is on order, because this short-sighted decision by the Liberal Party is all the sadder given our role as an early pioneer in this space. To my knowledge, the LPC was the first major Canadian political party to accredit bloggers to a convention at its 2006 leadership convention, thanks to the efforts of then LPC staffer Tait Simpson and others within the party.

A number of Liberal bloggers, including myself, were issued media accreditation and traveled to Montreal (at our own expense) to cover what (for me at least, as a Stephane Dion supporter) was a pretty remarkable weekend. And it wasn’t just Liberal bloggers. Conservatives such as Stephen Taylor and Tasha Kheiriddin were accredited, as were non-partisans such as Scott Tribe. Scott would later join the Liberal Party, due in part to his experience that weekend.

The blogger accreditation experience was repeated at the 2009 convention in Vancouver. I attended that one as a paying delegate (I wanted to vote for one member, one vote) but a number of Liberal bloggers were issued blogger/media accreditation, as were non-Liberals, such as (usually NDP supportive) blogger John Baglow, aka Dr. Dawg. Bloggers were also accredited to the Canada at 150 policy weekend in Montreal.

The Conservatives followed-up on this successful experience by offering blogger accreditation to their last two conventions, an offer I took them up on earlier this year. I don’t know if the NDP has a similar policy (Halifax was a little far for me to go) but I’d be surprised if they didn’t, and I hope to find out when their leadership convention happens next year.

What is blogger accreditation?

Obviously, you can’t just walk into a political convention and start blogging. You need some form of credentials. You need to be an elected delegate, ex-officio delegate or observer, all three categories which require payment of up to $1100. The other way to attend is a member of the press which, naturally, involves no cost. Organizations generally want people to report on their events. Media generally get a lower level of access (some sessions and events may be off limits), and access to filing facilities and space in the keynote hall to cover the event. Think the press box at a sporting event.

There are different ways to handle blogger accreditation. The simplest is just to issue media credentials. But some parties like to keep bloggers and media separate. At past events the Liberals had a separate filing room for bloggers, and gave WiFi access to bloggers that (I believe) wasn’t provided to media.

I attended the Conservative convention in Ottawa this summer as a blogger, and there it was a little simpler, with no division from the regular media. I shared their filing room and keynote riser, and paid (the convention centre) for WiFi access as they did (or didn’t if they didn’t want to).

Basically, blogger accreditation gets you in the door. Additional support may be offered, but at its basic level that’s all that is expected and required, besides maybe a power bar here or there.

The Liberal position, and why it’s wrong

I learned a few weeks ago the party was retreating from their previous policy and would not be offering media accreditation to bloggers in January. Their position is as follows: we’ll grant you media accreditation if you have ties to traditional media. For example, I could attempt to make a case based on my occasional scribbling for Macleans and the National Post. Otherwise, you need to be either a paying delegate or observer. The observer fee, by the way, is $1100.

Now, this isn’t a huge issue for me personally as I’ve already decided to attend as a delegate. I want voting rights because there are a number of important issues to be decided (ie. No to primaries). Also, the party has said they will provide some support to bloggers that get their foot in the door, offering a dedicated riser in the keynote hall, for example.

But that doesn’t change the fact that this is a foolish decision. For a party that prides itself on its openness -- we spent half of the last campaign bragging about how open we are and how closed Conservative campaign events are -- its simply baffling. We should want people to attend and write about our discussions, be they Liberal bloggers or bloggers of any stripe.

Why are they ending blogger accreditation? I can only speculate. I believe part of it is money, but that’s foolish. First of all, admitting bloggers isn’t an out of pocket expense for the party. We don’t need a filing room or a supply of soft drinks, just let us in the door and maybe give us a table and chairs at the back of the hall. You could argue lost revenue, but let’s be serious. No independent or third-party blogger is going to pay $1100 to come to our little conference, so you were never getting that revenue anyway. Maybe a few Liberals would opt to go the free blogger route instead of being a paying delegate, but with delegate fees at $400 for Victory Fund members you’re talking a few grand in foregone revenue at the most. Is that really worth the bad publicity we’re getting?

Another excuse I’ve heard is that they could be inundated with a flood of bloggers seeking to cover the conference. First of all, so what? I’d think more coverage would be a good thing. Second, I doubt it. Maybe 10 were accredited in 2006, and probably a little less in 2009. I was the only non-Conservative blogger I know of accredited to their convention this year; if there were Conservative non-delegate bloggers they (unsurprisingly) weren’t hanging-out in the press area.

And third, that’s a simple enough issue to deal with. Put a cap on the number of bloggers you can accommodate and set up an application process. The Conservatives, for example, asked me about my posting frequency and traffic statistics. Screening of this sort is normal and expected; it’s part of the job of a media relations staffer. “It’s too hard” is frankly a pretty weak cop-out for not doing what should be a basic part of the job.

Sending the entirely wrong message

Blogging and social media are increasingly recognized as part of the political debate. More and more people are supplementing their news intake by reading bloggers across the spectrum that write in shared areas of interest. In a fragmented media world, social media is another important way to get your message out, which is why it has been embraced by all the parties.

That’s why it’s foolish for the Liberals to retrench and turn their backs on social media, whatever the reason. The fact that the Conservatives are now more open and accessible on this front should give every serious-minded Liberal pause, if they can take their partisan blinders off for five minutes. Myself and other Liberal bloggers, most of whom it should be noted are paying delegates, tried to overturn this policy weeks ago. Our arguments, and warnings of the inevitable fallout, fell on deaf ears.

If all this talk of building an open and accessible party is real and not just empty platitudes, the Liberal Party should either put up or shut up. Our doors are either open, or they’re not.

UPDATE: Now that he has blogged on it, I can say that it was Steve V that first learned of this policy shift. He has now shared his thoughts.

Newman vs. Duffy, and a room full of zombies, on the Liberal Party of Canada

2011-12-07T11:07:00.002-05:00

Last weekend I watched season 14 of South Park, and in a run of super hero episodes they introduced a character called Captain Hindsight. Basically, he flies in at a time of crisis and tells them what they should have done to avoid it, once it’s already obvious. For some inexplicable reason this character came to mind as I listen to Peter C. Newman speak last night.

Newman’s latest tome, which you may have seen some media coverage of, posits the death of the Liberal Party of Canada after Newman shadowed former leader Michael Ignatieff for much of his tenure. Newman took part in a discussion Tuesday evening at the Toronto Reference Library, with TVO’s Steve Paikin moderating and Liberal strategist/author John Duffy providing a Liberal counterpoint to Newman’s pronouncement of death.

Newman’s thesis actually benefits greatly from hindsight, as he began this book-writing exercise believing Ignatieff was coming home to Canada on the wings of angels and would be welcomed with open arms by grateful Canadians, a triumphant road to Sussex drive he would chronicle in his latest book. When reality turned out somewhat different, he reversed his thesis and pronounced the party’s rot deep and lengthy and obvious and its future undoubtedly dead. He apparently does nothing half-way, this guy.

If I had asked a question last night, it would have been why were you so wrong with your initial thesis, and if you got that so wrong, what makes you think you’re right now? But while the truth likely lays somewhere between those two extremes, moderate positions don’t sell books.

Iggy-bash 2011

Anyway, the discussion began focused on Ignatieff and I thought it was a rather unfair and unfortunate gang-up, with even people in the crowd snickering as both Newman and Duffy took shots at the former leader. Was Igg’s elitist Harvard out of the country background simply unrecoverable for political Igg, Newman was asked? No doubt, he replied. Of course, the fact Peter thought the exact opposite going into the project is left unsaid.

I found Newman’s rant against intellectuals and the establishment refreshing, as no one represents the anti-intellectual, anti-establishment Canadian better than Peter C. Newman. Amusing that as he ranted against current Liberal elites he expressed longing for the Liberal elites of the 60s, but of course they weren’t elitists but good guys all. Maybe his issue shouldn’t be with elitists, but with incompetent elitists.

Newman says he has “discovered” the Liberal Party actually had tons of money ($23 million, to be precise) that it could have used to fight the Ignatieff-defining attack ads. Maybe it’s stashed behind the drywalls at Metcalfe, but I’m confused. Given that the time frame he referenced is “when the election started” maybe he’s confusing some fictional slush fund with the money saved to, you know, run the election campaign. Anyway, he also wants to get rid of the LPC’s provincial and territorial associations and has no time for the commissions either, seeing them all as money drains and power fiefdoms.

Other Igg observations from Newman: all of his leadership he only talked to Liberals (if only all those people were Liberals, Peter), he never caught on to the dark side of politics (like giving Peter access to write a book?) and he absolves Ian Davey for Ignatieff’s downfall and blames Peter Donolo. I have no desire to wade into such inside baseball mud-slinging, so I’ll just say there’s blame for everyone and leave it at that.

Before we move away from Ignatieff, let me just say I found the snark and derision around the analysis of his tenure at this event, and not just from Newman, to be unfair and inaccurate. I was never a true-believer myself, not like I was with Stephane Dion who I supported in 2005. I supported Michael in 2008 because he was the best candidate on offer. But whatever his decisions and despite how it turned out, he was a good and honest man who came into politics with the best of intentions. One incident is illustrative for me. During his tenure he was being pressured by party strategists to flip-flop and stand in opposition to the Afghanistan mission, because they had polling that showed such a reversal would poll well with key segments of Canadians. He refused; he genuinely believed staying in Afghanistan to help the Afghan people may not be popular or politically expedient, but it was the morally correct thing to do. And while these strategists would later savage him for it, whether or not I agree with his decision I find it hard to faulta leader for putting conviction ahead of opportunism.

The Liberal decline and fall

Moving past Ignatieff’s tenure to the longer Liberal decline, I found Newman’s analysis interesting since he apparently didn’t see a decline until a few months ago. In fact, many of his comments and observations led me to place even less confidence in his thesis.

For example, he pined for the Liberal“glory days” of the 1960s and seemed to view the decline as a more recent phenomenon, perhaps to 2000 or so. If you look only superficially at election results, sure. But the previous results were masked by any number of factors, such as a divided-right. Duffy was right in saying a more accurate analysis would trace back to those glory days Newman fondly remembers, when Trudeau lost the West and power became more and more centralized with group of smartie-pants elitists (the ones Peter likes), allowing a deep rot to set in.

As another example, Newman also declared Liberal infighting began with Jean Chretien and Paul Martin. I think I literally laughed out loud at that one. Has he never heard of John Turner, who Chretien battled with mightily, setting the stage for the next generation as the former Turnerites became Martinites bent on revenge? I think you can actually trace it all back to Wilfrid Laurier not tipping 15 per cent at a tavern in 1888. A newish phenomenon it’s not.

I started agreeing with Duffy now more than I did during the Ignatieff analysis (when he pointed-out several times he sat that period out and was a Rae man in 2005). He said Liberals have lost touch with their core constituency by constantly swerving for flavour of the month policy and not standing for anything consistently. The LPC, said Duffy, became to be seen not as a movement but as a vehicle for electing people that you could slap any coat of paint on you wanted.

I wholeheartedly agree. People can tell when you’re faking it and don’t really have any core beliefs, and sincerity is hard to fake. The first part of our rebuilding must be figuring out who we are, what we believe in and what we want to do. Until we do that, all the fancy primaries in the world aren't going to interest Canadians.

Paikin piped-in with a quote from Trudeau-era elite Ray Hard (who was apparently in the crowd) blaming all Liberal woes on the “Earnscliffe boys” (aka Paul Martin supporters). I think this quote was demonstrative in a way that Paikin, and certainly not Heard, may not have intended. Such infighting and finger-pointing, Ray, is the real problem.

But back to baffling arguments from Newman, he told us the reason Liberals can’t raise any money is because people expect pork like ambassadorships for their donation and LPC has none to dispense anymore. Apparently no one told Peter that corporate donations were banned years ago, personal donations capped at just over $1000, and most Conservative donations are around $20. Are all those $20 donors expecting Senate appointments, Peter?

Paikin asked the room if Dalton McGuinty, the most electorally successful Liberal in the country at the moment (and a compelling counter-point to the zombie party hypothesis) could save the federal party as leader. The room was un-enthused. This shouldn’t be taken as a lack of love for Dalton. I think he’d do a great job, and while there’s no earthly reason why he’s want to run but if he did, I may well support him, the fact is no leader is going to save the Liberal Party. The LPC will be saved by its members, or it won’t be. It’s that simple. No messiahs.

The future

Newman has to sell books, but while he had some prescient observations I found his thesis to have more holes than Swiss cheese and his analysis superficial and often farcically wrong. Are the Liberals a dead party walking? Maybe. But we’re not dead yet, and any obituaries are rather premature. The next chapter won’t be written by Newman, but by the party itself, based on the decisions we as members and supporters make in these next few years. Only time will tell.

Meeting the LPC presidential candidates, and why I like Mike

2011-11-30T12:09:00.012-05:00

The Edward Blake Society, a group of Toronto-area no longer young except at heart Liberal professionals, hosted four of the five candidates for the Liberal Party of Canada presidency on Monday in Toronto (Charles Ward couldn’t make it) and around 100 Liberals packed the Pauper’s Pub to hear what they had to say.

I didn’t take any notes so I’m going on recollection; blogging compadre BigCityLib also shared his thoughts yesterday. I thought it was a great event, and it helped me make my decision on whom I’ll be supporting in this race, which I believe is an important part (although just one part) of our rebuilding process.

I liked some of the things that each candidate had to say, and disagreed with some things as well. For reference, earlier I wrote on what I’m looking to see in our party’s next president.

Ron Hartling

As a big believer in making riding associations the key focus and vehicle for re-building the party and reconnecting with the community, I like the example of what Ron helped to do in Kingston and his plans for helping riding associations across Canada replicate that process.

Ron wasn’t the most polished speaker on offer but I’m fine with that; it’s not what I’m looking for from a party president and it’s not their job. But as much as I like his plans for riding associations, I didn’t sense he has as strong a grasp on how to manage/what needs to change at the central party level. We need a little more balance.

Sheila Copps

I liked what she had to say about multiculturalism, how the Liberal Party has taken ethnic communities for granted and how that needs to change. That definitely needs to be a priority for the party, although I think that’s something that would be led more out of the leader’s office. And that encapsulates my biggest concern with Sheila: I’m not sure she’s clear on which job she’s running for. I think she sees herself being a very high-profile spokesperson for the Liberal cause and for policy issues. That’s more the job of leader and caucus. The party presidency is an organizational role, behind the scenes working with members to reform and restructure the party and ensure it’s ready organizationally to fight and win an election.

I think we have different ideas of what the job is meant to be. I also think she’s too polarizing a figure, unfair as that may be, for a party moving forward. In her speech, her references to leadership coronations and unfair nominations couldn’t help but bring to mind her own biography. I also find her apparent stumping for a non-existent Bob Rae leadership campaign frustrating and unhelpful.

Alexandra Mendes

Alexandra spoke well and she provided the ying to Ron’s yang when she noted planning at the riding level isn’t everything; as a former MP in Quebec her own seat was wiped-out this spring in the NDP’s unplanned orange wave. She wants to make attracting more female candidates to the party a priority and I agree with that; I think the massive number of unheld seats presents a massive opportunity new candidates of all sorts.

In addition to her experience not just as an MP but also as a former riding association executive, I like her private sector experience in the non-profit sector and what she had to say about team-work really struck home with me. As much as I want to know about the candidates' ideas, much more important for me is what kind of manager and team-builder they’ll be. The next president is going to have a lot of cats to herd, and change management skills will be key. As important as the end result is, how we get there is as important if we want to stay united and grow as a party. I sense Alexandra recognizes this, which is critical.

Mike Crawley

In my “what I’m looking for” post I mentioned the need for enough insider knowledge to know what works and what doesn’t without being captured by the system; it’s a fine line but I think Mike’s experience with the federal party’s Ontario wing may offer that balance.

I liked what he had to say about embracing big ideas. I debated this with BigCityLib, and I don’t think big ideas and pragmatism are mutually exclusive. When I say big ideas, I’m not saying latch onto politically-popular gimmicks. Just the opposite. I’m saying stop playing it safe. Take the bold position and defend it; take the position that’s right, even if it may be unpopular or difficult. Say what needs to be said. I don’t know what all these ideas will be, and that’s fine. They should percolate up organically from discussion in the party and in the community. But let’s keep our infamous pragmatism while taking advantage of this third-place status to become the risk-takers that do what needs to be done, popular or not. Let’s become the party of ideas again. I’ve digressed, but point I agree with Mike on embracing big ideas.

I also liked what Mike had to say about getting more people involved in the party and opening up riding associations. If we have one area of disagreement, it’s that I sense he isn’t open to re-considering the need for commissions and PTAs as part of our structure going forward. He didn’t say this in as many words, mind you, but certainly his background as a PTA president informs his views there. I’m not saying we should shed PTAs and commissions, mind you, but I think everything should be on the table as we consider what is the best way to deliver value with the resources we have.

I did, however, like some of his thoughts on making commissions more effective. He spoke about tasking the womens’ commission with recruiting more female candidates, looking into why more women don’t seek nominations, and fundraising not just to support nomination female candidates, but female candidates seeking nominations as well. I think that’s a key part of the puzzle to seeing more strong, quality female candidates elected in winnable ridings.

My pick for party president

I went into the evening trying to decide between Alexandra and Mike, and while I like Alexandra and think she would make an excellent president, in the end I’ve decided to support Mike. I think he knows what the job is and what needs to be done, and I think he has the experience and the background to make it happen. I’ll be voting for him at the convention in January, and if you’ll be a delegate I encourage you to do the same.

I’ll end though by saying that the success or the failure of the party and the rebuilding process doesn’t rest with the party president or even the leader. It rests with each of us; it rests with every member. Too often in our party we look for messiahs; we idolize them when they succeed and crucify them when they fail. That needs to change. We must each take personal responsibility for both success and failure. It’s the only way.

Democracy is too expensive is a poor argument

2011-11-16T12:12:00.004-05:00

There are lots of good arguments you can make that just adding more and more seats to the House of Commons to address shifting populations is a bad idea. For example, at some point unless you knock out a wall, you’ll run out of room in the Commons chamber. Cost, however, is the worst possible argument you could make.

“It doesn’t make any sense in these days of financial restraint,” Liberal MP Marc Garneau said Tuesday at a Commons committee studying the legislation that would give 15 extra seats to Ontario, six seats each to B.C. and Alberta, and three seats to Quebec.

I’m sorry, but you’re never going to convince me that democracy is too expensive. That’s as foolish as the Conservative argument during the minority era that the cost of an election would be too high during the downturn. With all the countries in the world yearning for free elections and representative democracy, I refuse to seriously consider cost as an impediment to fairer representation. And in this context it’s cheap populist pandering, and I’d urge the Liberals to drop that line of attack.

If you want to make a principled argument on parliamentary representation, then do it. And the Liberals are correct on the wider point: you can’t just keep adding seats willy-nilly. It’s the politically expedient solution, to be sure, but it’s not sustainable.

It’s easy though, because a real solution is difficult. It would involve taking seats away from low and declining-population regions and giving them to higher-growth ones. Besides opening up a political can of worms, there are also assorted constitutional provisions guaranteeing parliamentary representation levels compared to Senate representation, and other factors to be juggled.

It’s like pulling a loose thread; you start to do something in one area and all of a sudden you need to do something in another. If the Liberals really want to take a principled approach to this issue, there’s no way to do it in isolation. It needs give and take on a number of fronts. Truly addressing Commons representation in a substantive way also means addressing Senate representation in a substantive way, from distribution to elections to the powers of the respective chambers. It means negotiation with the provinces and constitutional reform.

I would truly love to see the Liberals be bold here and get serious with an agenda for democratic and parliamentary reform; let’s throw in looking at voting reform at the same time. It’s all part of the wider puzzle, and it’s time we stopped nibbling around the edges and got serious about this.

But in the mean time, please stop complaining about the cost of democracy.

P.S. If the Liberals want to vote against this redistribution bill, they need to present a detailed alternative forthwith. Who would lose seats and who would gain. Otherwise, you're embracing an unacceptable status-quo that under-represents Ontario, Alberta and B.C. And that's just plain dumb, not to mention wrong. Adding more seats isn't ideal, but it's better than doing nothing.

Why Sheila Copps nearly made me scream at work

2011-11-14T15:36:00.009-05:00

I should really turn off Twitter when I'm on the phone at work, because when I scanned my feed during a down moment in a conference call this afternoon and saw this story, I nearly let slip a stream of unparliamentary language that would have greatly confused the folks on the other end of the line.
As for Mr. Rae, Ms. Copps says the executive should not be able to restrict who runs and who does not. That’s up to voters.

She noted that when Mr. Rae took over the leadership, he agreed to rules set by the party’s “current” executive that the Interim Leader would not seek the top job permanently.

But a new executive could change that rule. And Ms. Copps will if she is elected president.

Speaking of rules, it's not a "rule" per se but I think it'd be nice if someone seeking to be president of the Liberal Party of Canada had some basic sense of the actual rules of the organization. Because it appears Ms. Copps either has no clue, or is just being deliberately obtuse.

For the umpeenth time, there IS NO RULE that prevents Mr. Rae from running for permanent leader. If he wants to run, HE CAN RUN.

There never was a "rule" at all. The current executive, when tasked with picking the interim leader, said they'd base their selection on several criteria: bilingualism, caucus support, and a promise not to seek the permanent leadership. Those weren't rules, they were screening criteria. They could have said we're only picking people that wear suspenders, it doesn't matter. Point is, once they make the appointment, it's done. There is no rule.

Mr. Rae is a member of the Liberal Party, and any member of the Liberal Party can seek the leadership if they gather the requisite signatures and pay whatever the entry fee will be. Even if the last executive had codified a "rule" preventing him, it wouldn't have to be changed because it would be constitutionally invalid. He has the right to run. All the executive could do is request he resign the interim leadership if he decides to run for the permanent job; we'll get to that in a second.

Once again, the only thing preventing Mr. Rae from running (besides clear statements that he doesn't want to) is his promise that he wouldn't. That is all. He is free to change his mind if he wants to. He can explain to the voters why he's changing his mind, voters can weigh that with all the other positives and negatives and decide to support him, or support another candidate.

That's why I want to scream when I read comments like those by Ms. Copps. Any motion by a new executive like she proposes would be a sham, a kabuki play, designed only to give political cover to allow Mr. Rae to change his mind. And I'm sorry, but I don't think it's the job of the national executive to do preemptive damage and spin control for potential leadership candidates.

The Interim Advantage

And if my blood pressure wasn't high enough already, I then read on:

Part of the argument in restricting a bid by Mr. Rae was that he could use his interim leadership as a launching pad for a permanent run. He’d have an advantage because of his profile and his ability to meet Liberals during his travels.

But Ms. Copps dismisses this. She doesn’t believe that being leader of the third party gives anyone the leg up.

I'm sorry, but that's just crazy. If you don't think the interim leadership gives someone a HUGE advantage in seeking the permanent gig then I'd love some of what you're smoking, because it must be pretty good. It confers a significant advantage.

I've been consistent on this point. I supported Michael Ignatieff during the last leadership race, but I told them privately and publicly it was a mistake for him to seek and accept the interim leadership while running the permanent job. It conferred a huge advantage that was unfair to his opponents, Rae and Dominic LeBlanc. They were left with little choice but to drop out, making it an acclamation. It was wrong then, and it would be wrong now.

The interim leader gets substantial media profile, is the go-to person for commentary and the lead performer in question period. They get a taxpayer and party-funded leader's office and budget. They pick who gets to ask questions in question period and who gets what critic portfolio. Lots of carrots and sticks to build support in caucus and lower the profile of potential rivals. It's a huge advantage.

And it's not one granted by the membership because the interim leader isn't selected by the membership, but by the national executive. The proverbial party elites. It would amount to the elites giving their preferred successor a leg-up, skewing the race. That would be unacceptable, and that's why it's a bad idea to use the interim job as a stepping-stool.

Bottom Line

If Mr. Rae wants to run, he is free to run. No rule prevents him.

If you want to be party president, you shouldn't be sowing disinformation and demonstrating such a fundamental lack of knowledge.

And given this recent quote from Rae (via here)...

"It won't be me. I'm not going to run for leadership."

...and similar statements since the day he took the interim job, why is this divisive can of worms even being opened? Is this really where our focus needs to be?

Primaries and mustaches

2011-11-11T18:31:00.005-05:00

As promised earlier, I've written about the Liberal executive's open primary leadership election proposal. You've got to go over to Macleans.ca to read it though; I'll be occasionally writing for them on Liberal renewal and perhaps other exciting topics in the months to come. Here's a highlight:

I want to broaden the Liberal tent and make it more relevant to Canadians too. But open primaries are gimmicky and unlikely to build a lasting connection between the Liberal party and Canadians at large. I just don’t forsee a groundswell of Canadians rushing to get involved to pick the next leader of the third party. Gimmicks aren’t the way to engage people. I’d rather build a democratized party where membership matters, and encourage Canadians to join and support us for our ideas.

But before you go, or maybe once you're done, come on back and consider making a donation to help fight prostate cancer as part of Movember. It's why I'm growing this horrible moustache.

Anything you can give goes to a great cause, and would be greatly appreciated. And if you think I'm completely out to lunch on primaries, consider donating to one of my Movember "tecmology" teammates so I fall even further behind their fundraising totals and have to hide in shame. Everybody wins!

We need to make a Liberal membership worth having

2011-11-10T20:20:00.008-05:00

I’m working on a piece about the Liberal executive’s open primary proposal that will hopefully run Friday, but rather than make it even longer I’d like to tackle some of the other reform proposals released today here and make a wider point about membership.

Make membership worth having

I feel we should give value to being a Liberal member, and as I examine proposals for party reform and make my own, that will be my guiding principle. We need to make a Liberal membership worth having.

We need to get people more involved in the party. Why? Because you don’t build success by having an election every four years, expect people to show up and work hard for four weeks, and hope for the best. You need to be building on the ground between elections, organizing in the community, developing policy. That’s the thankless work of party members and riding associations. And it’s my firm belief that our party reforms need to put riding associations and individual members at the centre of what we do.

How do we get more people involved at the riding level? By making membership more relevant, meaningful and valuable. Right now, it’s often meaningless. Too many riding associations are closed shops, which must change. And even if you can get involved, many feel it’s pointless in an organization that is too top-down driven.

We can start by recognizing why many people get involved, and also become disillusioned: policy development. The policy process today is largely an exercise in mutual self-satisfaction, because whatever is developed is ignored by the leader who writes their own platform. Forcing the party to run on the policy actually developed by the members would go a long way to making membership meaningful.

Another would be to reward long-term membership. Have truly open nominations (no leader protection for incumbents or power of appointment) but lengthen the period of time you need to have been a member to be able to vote. This allows for a wider pool of candidates but encourages them to get involved in the party earlier if they’re contemplating a run, and encourages people to join earlier and become active.

The executive’s proposals for reform

The key when examining the proposal from the executive is to differentiate what is proposed as constitutional change, and what is merely an “affirmation” of something. Many of the items in the summary (they haven’t officially released the full document they leaked to the media, but thankfully the media have) are mere requests to affirm things the executive has done or can do on its own authority.

And some are even more meaningless. For example, the item on unprotected nominations. As mentioned, I favour truly open nominations. But all the party proposes is that the convention “affirm the principle” of open nominations. No constitutional change. There’s language about the board only rarely approving exceptions at the request of the leader. But it’s meaningless unless the leader’s power of appointment is removed from the constitution. This isn’t change at all.

Among the other proposals, a “don’t be mean to our leader” war chest is a nice idea. But it wasn’t a lack of will that stopped us from fighting back in the past; it was a lack of cash. You can give it a name, but you still need to raise the money and there’s only one donor pool.
I agree with reforming and professionalizing the fundraising operation. But when I read about a major national campaign to pay for database technology I worry about national fundraising trumping riding efforts. That must be managed carefully. Again, there’s only one donor pool.
I’m curious how the executive proposes to “enforce targets with respect to Victory Fund and Laurier Club participation in all electoral districts.” Enforcement implies consequences for non-performance. What would these be?
I mentioned earlier that we need a major overhaul of the policy process to make it relevant and the leader accountable for running on our policy in the election campaign. But there’s no meaningful proposal on policy. It merits one item out of 19, and simply “affirms” that we all talk about policy on the Web site. It would remain the same meaningless busy-work process it is today.
It’s proposed to keep the PTAs but evolve more of their functions to the national level. I favour efficiency of service delivery, but it’s unclear to me what model accomplishes that best.
An annual report seems like a given.
Open nominations for electoral district candidates by October 15, 2013. Indeed, at the latest, I agree. The more time with a candidate in place, the better.

Ending the debate too early

There are some things in these proposals I like, and some I don’t. And I’m not sure this is the way to be going about this. It seems to be presented with a certain element of finality, despite the language in the introduction about debate and discussion.

Instead of presenting specific choices as items to be voted on, I’d rather this have been presented as items for discussion in broad categories. For example, have a category on structural reform of PTA and national roles. Present a range of options, from PTA elimination to strengthened PTAs. Invite discussion, and even voting on the range of options. That would make more sense, and build more consensus, than presenting finished single options. It would signal an open process, instead of signalling the desired outcome.

All the requests that the “convention affirm the executive board decision” on a range of topics also gives me pause. Let’s remember, this document is coming from an outgoing national executive with a less than sterling track-record on some of these issues, and one without a mandate for broad reform. We’re right now having executive races for all our party offices, to elect an executive with a mandate from the membership for reform. A healthy and vibrant debate must be part of this process, and the current executive should be trying to facilitate that debate and not try to bind the hands of those that will be elected and short-circuit the debate process.

It just feels to me that this is being presented as the end of the reform process. Which is funny, because I thought it was just getting started. I know I am.

What I’m looking for in a Liberal Party of Canada president

2011-11-10T12:28:00.009-05:00

A key part of the Liberal Party of Canada’s reform process will be electing the next national executive at the biennial convention in January, and I’m glad to see we have four capable candidates seeking the position of president: Sheila Copps, Mike Crawley, Ron Hartling and Alexandra Mendes.

I’m looking forward to hopefully getting a chance to meet all four and hear their ideas for reforming the party. And if you’re in Toronto, the Edward Blake Society is hosting a free event where you can meet all four candidates on November 28 at 7:00pm at Pauper’s Pub, 539 Bloor Street West.

In the interim, here are a few things I’ll be looking for from the presidential candidates should I be a voting delegate. These aren’t meant to include or exclude anyone, and some may even be contradictory, but then I’m a complicated fellow.

STAY OFF TV: I like to play a little game with my political friends. Who, I ask them, is the president of the Conservative Party of Canada? No smartphone googling allowed. Most draw a blank. A few will offer-up Don Plett, but he’s a past-president and better known as a Harper patronage appointment Senator. None can come-up with the correct answer – John Walsh – without Google.

And, frankly, that’s the way it should be. Walsh doesn’t do the pundit circuit on Power Play and Power and Politics, he’s not quoted in the Globe and Mail. He just focuses on quietly doing his job: building and growing the Conservative Party organization across the country. And he seems to be doing a fairly decent job.

That’s what I want from a Liberal president. It’s not your job to be on TV as the public face of the party. That’s the job of the party leader and the parliamentary caucus; let them be the public face. This isn’t a job for the limelight, and if that’s what you seek you should drop out. Focus on reforming the organization and communicating with members: directly.

COMMUNICATE WITH MEMBERS: I’ve come to believe lately that one of the biggest problems our party executive has had is one of communication. They may have the best of intentions, and arrive at the right decisions, but the process has been tainted by a failure to communicate openly, which breads suspicion and mistrust even if we’re all happy with the end result.

There have been some efforts lately at more communication, including regular e-mails to members from membership secretary Rob Jamieson. And there was a tele-town hall last weekend. But still, far too often Liberal Party members hear about party decisions and proposals second-hand, through media reports and leaks, instead of directly from the party. For example, apparently there’s a white paper on party reform floating around, according to media leaks. I haven’t seen it though. (UPDATE: It's now public.)

That is unacceptable, and it must change. We should never read about major party proposals or news in the media before we hear about it directly, as members, from the party itself. Anything else is unacceptable in an era of e-mail, social media and instant communication.

We’ll be debating our party structure through this process, but whatever happens to the national/provincial/territorial association/riding association model, I want the next party president to commit to not relying on this structure to communicate information and decisions down to the membership. Use it and leverage it, yes. But you must also communicate directly with members.

And note I said with, not to. Engage directly with members. With modern technology, there’s no excuse not to.

MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE: Now more than ever, this isn’t a job for a title hunter, resume padder or favoured insider. It’s time for the Liberal Party to be run like a corporation and we need a proven manager, ideally one with experience managing distressed assets. We need a turnaround specialist.

One of our biggest challenges is also one of change management. Ask any private sector organization that has undergone major change: the biggest obstacle has been getting their people onboard and helping to drive the change, rather than obstructing it. How you manage the change is as important asthe change itself, and crucial to its success.

I want to see management skills and experience in our next president, and a demonstrated commitment to open, consultative leadership.

A NEWCOMER, BUT WITH INSIDER EXPERIENCE: Contradictory? You bet. But like I said, I’m complicated. And as with all things, it’s a matter of balance.

I don’t want someone beholden to the current power structure, or too wedded to the way we do things that they’re unwilling to consider major changes. Because I believe everything about the way we do things needs to be on the table. What services should be delivered by the national party? What services by the PTAs? How much resources should go to the ridings? Should we starve the national office to feed the PTAs and decentralize, or eliminate the PTAs to save resources and centralize, putting more resources into ridings? Do we really need, and can we afford, the youth, seniors, aboriginal and womens’ commissions?

I don’t know; I’m still considering those issues and I welcome the debates. But there can be no taboos in this process. No sacred cows. Everything must be open for consideration, and I want a president who isn’t closed off to any possible course of action entering the debate or beholden to one part of the organization for their support.

At the same time, I don’t want a complete outsider. They need to be familiar enough with the party, its structure and its people to know its strengths and weaknesses, what it does well and what it doesn’t, what should stay and what should go, and what we’ve tried in the past that worked and didn’t work.

It’s a balancing act. I don’t put much value on institutional memory when it’s a memory of failure. But we need to know enough about the past so we don’t repeat those mistakes.

AND MORE

Of course, I'll want to hear their specific ideas and proposals. But while that's important, it's not the most important. Change and ideas should be coming from the bottom-up anyway. More important for me are these intangibles I've laid-out to recognize what kind of leader they'll be.

Are NDP leadership candidates showing up for work?

2011-10-29T09:07:00.007-04:00

The proverbial "knock-out punch" in a political debate is a largely fictional, media-driven phenomenon. At best, it's rare. But if there was one during the leaders debate in this spring's federal election, it was probably this blow NDP leader Jack Layton landed on Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff:
"You know, most Canadians if they don’t show up for work they don’t get a promotion."

Layton was taking issue with Ignaiteff's attendance record in the House of Commons, saying he shouldn't expect a promotion (to Prime Minister) when he spent so much time "not at work" in the House. Of course, Layton deliberately overlooked the fact Ignatieff wasn't on vacation, or at home watching TV, but was touring the country meeting with Canadians talking about their concerns for the country. An unfair shot, but that's politics, and it was a shot that resonated with Canadians (due, in part, to Ignatieff's feeble non-response) around the point the NDP began its meteoric rise up the polls .

Nevertheless, Layton has set the bar. If you want a promotion, get your keester into your seat in the House of Commons while Parliament is in session. Which brings us to the NDP's leadership race, which now features five sitting MPs among the registered candidates. Are these MPs who are asking for a promotion showing up for work?

Let's take a look at this week, which saw the House sitting dealing with issues such as the Wheat Board and the Gun Registry, to name but two of many.

Paul Dewar wasn't at work; he spent Wednesday and Thursday off the job in Saskatchewan campaigning for NDP candidates in the provincial election, as well as drumming up support for his leadership campaign. He also came to Toronto Monday evening to talk cities.

Thomas Mulcair wasn't at work but instead spent the week in B.C., spending four days in Victoria meeting with environmentalists. And maybe tea at the Empress, but that's unconfirmed.

Peggy Nash skipped work Friday to launch her leadership campaign in Toronto, although most MPs tend to skip out on the Friday house sittings. Unfortunately, like most Canadians, my boss still expects me to work Fridays, right until 5pm. And when you put "for a full time MP" on your campaign signs, should you really skip Fridays?

Romeo Saganash was also out in Saskatchewan this week, stumping Monday in Saskatoon and Tuesday in North Battleford. And a Happy Birthday to Romeo, who turns 50 this weekend.

Nathan Cullen didn't have a large Google news footprint this week, so I'm not sure if he left work or not. Once story from this week does have a brief mention of him "campaigning in Saskatchewan and Manitoba these days."

Now, if it were up to me, MPs taking a few days off work to campaign for the leadership wouldn't be too big a deal, as long as they're back for key votes and debates and aren't excessive about it. It's par the political course in this sort of situation. And an MP's job isn't just in the House, of course, but in their ridings too. And they can't let their seatless competitors Brian Topp and Martin Singh have all the fun, can they?

However, it's not up to me. Jack made it clear that if you don't show up for work (in your seat in the House of Commons), you don't deserve a promotion. And since the party seems unable to go a day in this race without invoking his memory or asking "What Would Jack Do?", shouldn't they be held to the standard he put forward?

You want a promotion, you come to work, right? So far, these NDP candidates are earning a #fail.

“Occupy a voting booth” retort to protesters misses the point

2011-10-27T15:04:00.004-04:00

I’m the last person to discourage someone from voting and getting involved in the organized political process. I joined a political party at age 16, and I’ve voted in every election I’ve been able to since I turned 18. I want everyone to vote early, and vote often.

But I have to shake my head when I read pieces like “Want real change? Hit the ballot box instead of the streets” from Chantal Hebert and “How about occupying a voting booth?” from David Akin that say if these youngins want real change, they should just go and vote. That strikes me as a reflexive establishment reaction that misses the point, and what is driving and motivating these protesters.

To start, we’ll grant the premise that most of these protesters aren’t regular voters, although that’s by no means a given. Yes, young people vote in low numbers, but they also occupy things in low numbers. It’s not unreasonable to suggest those engaged enough to camp out in a protest tent village may be more likely to be among the percentage of youth that have marked a ballot.

But granting the premise, if these youth really want change, shouldn’t they just go and vote, as Chantal and David suggest? As I said, I’m a big fan of voting, and I absolutely want more Canadians of all ages to get involved in the political process, whether it’s voting, finding candidates they support and helping them or even running themselves.

At the same time though, I can understand why they’d be turned off by the political process, and may see voting as a waste of time choosing between lesser evils that will not lead to any kind of real change, and therefore a waste of time. Many young people, whether they’re occupying something or not, are very concerned about the state of the world and want to make it a better place. Their "give a damn" level is probably higher than the average. But they see organized politics as irrelevant to creating the change they want to see, and so they channel their energy into other forms of activism and advocacy.

Now, there is lots of responsibility to go around here. Part of it does indeed lay with these youngins. If they don’t like the choices on offer, they should go out and find someone they do like or even run themselves. Don’t feel at home in any of the political parties? Pick the one that’s the best fit and work to change it from within, or organize your own group and build a movement with like-minded fellow travelers.

At the same time though, just telling them to go vote is a cop-out. Yes, they should get involved, but we should also reform our political system because, the fact is, it is viewed as irrelevant and ineffective by many Canadians, and not just the young folk. If we want greater engagement by citizens of all ages, we need to start doing something differently.

Off the top of my head, I’d suggest loosening the oppressive yoke of party discipline, empowering individual MPs to have personalities and agendas and represent their constituents and causes, and making the policy development process in political parties actually connected to their election platform instead of an exercise in pointless tedium. For starters.

One suggestion that I know will be made though is online voting, and I have to say it’s not the answer for youth engagement. Young people aren’t voting not because it’s not easy enough, but because it’s not relevant. Online voting may well have merit (I have serious security concerns I’d want addressed first) but just because the kids like smartphones doesn’t make online voting the answer to low youth engagement.

Yes, youth need to vote. But we all need to make it count.

It won't end with killing the gun registry

2011-10-26T14:01:00.005-04:00

I won't bother writing a long obituary on the coming death of the long gun registry; I've made all my arguments previously and the issues pro and con have been well-debated. I will say this, though: if you think the anti-gun control lobby is going to declare victory here and call it a day, you're sadly mistaken.

This is an important victory for them, and will only embolden to continue chipping away in favour of what they call "gun rights" in Canada, and what others call legitimate controls and restrictions on gun ownership.

What's next? While one of their frequent anti-registry arguments was "you already need a firearms license, so the registry is redundant" there are signs that, you guessed it, eliminating firearms licensing may be next on their hit list. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation seems in favour:

“The bill introduced today (Ending the Long-gun Registry Act) is long overdue,” said CTF Federal and Ontario Director Gregory Thomas. “Our supporters would have preferred that the government go further, and also eliminate licensing for non-restricted long-guns, but today’s legislation addresses the most wasteful and unnecessary parts of the program.”

And the editor of Outdoor Canada magazine is sounding the alarm about a growing anti-licensing movement:

Now that the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, or Bill C-19, is before the House of Commons and all but certain to pass into law, should the shooting sports community take aim at also getting rid of non-restricted gun licences for individuals? The rumblings are out there, with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation making the most noise.
Emboldened by their victory on the gun registry, anti-gun control activists will be pushing the Conservatives to use their majority to weaken Canada's gun control systems, and bring it more into line with the much looser regimes we wee in the U.S. The NRA has already been spending in Canada. Gun control advocates will need to be vigilant and mobilize public opinion to beat back the coming next wave, whether it comes around licensing or other areas.

In related news, it seems the pro-gun lobby is increasingly less and less about hunting, farm protection and the rural way of life, an argument I can sympathize with, and more and more about young men wanting shiny bang bang toys they saw on video games:

The consumer tastes of Canadian gun owners are fast changing, as shooters eschew vintage hunting rifles in favour of the latest "tacti-cool" military-style weapons - many of which appear in movies and popular video games, such as Call of Duty.

As a new generation of young men become interested in shooting, but not hunting, retailers are trying to meet the growing demand for sleek firearms.

Canadian authorities, meanwhile, facing the repeal of the long-gun registry by the federal government, are worried about the trend.

Gun-lovers accuse them of trying to stall the sale of legal military technology to the public.

A worrying trend, and possibly the next front in the gun control battle as the pro-gun crowd try to remove restrictions on realistic military-style (by design) weapons that can too easily be converted to full automatic fire.

It's Jersey Shore meets The West Wing...

2011-10-25T15:09:00.004-04:00

In another of those coming of the Apocalypse signs, the people that brought you (not me, as I don't watch it) The Jersey Shore are casting for a political reality show:
Doron Ofir Casting, the epic star making company behind Jersey Shore, Nashville Star, Millionaire Matchmaker and The A-List officially confirms and announces the nationwide search for political activists with personalities that rally behind a cause and influence others to do the same.

Doron Ofir Casting, in association with a major cable network, is looking for young hot politicos who care about America, follow the heated debates, rallies, protests, and scandals! We are looking for people of all party affliliations or those who are unaffliated as long as you’re outspoken, fearless, free thinking, unbound, unleashed, unrestrained, appear to be between 21-35 and are politically active and telegenic. WE WANT YOU!

You’ve volunteered for a local political campaign, stood in protest, logged over a thousand comments on blogs, tweeted Fox News or CNN on a daily basis, you run your own blog, vlog, stream, podcast, and are still looking for the right forum to express yourself. Whatever the case, we want to hear from you!

It will be interesting to see if this show ever gets off the ground. While a political reality show sounds interesting at first glance (more West Wing than Jersey Shore, hopefully), I find it hard to see how this could work. Politics is about loyalty and public discretion, but reality television relies on conflict and nothing being off limits. Cautious talking points would make for dull TV, but the political version of "The Situation" would quickly find they have no future in organized politics.

Phoenix Coyotes vs. Winnipeg Jets

2011-10-17T08:00:00.009-04:00

When I saw that the Coyotes would be playing their home-opener vs. the Winnipeg Jets the day after I was scheduled to leave Phoenix on my work trip, I knew I had to extend my trip to catch the game. Here's some pics and video from Saturday. Was a tough outing for the new Jets, but their fans were out in force and Oh Canada was sung louder in the arena than the Star Spangled Banner.

The myth of the positive 2011 NDP campaign

2011-10-15T15:32:00.007-04:00

There seems to be this impression out there that the 2011 NDP election campaign was all sunshine and lollipops. NDP leadership contender Brian Topp sought to re-enforce that impression yesterday, as he tries to paint himself as the candidate of positivity (unlike those other bastards? -- ed.)

"I don't believe that straight negative campaigns aimed at the Conservatives will defeat them," Topp said Friday, noting that the Liberal party failed miserably in its hardball campaign against the Tories.

(snip)

"The style of our next campaign may emerge as a point of debate in this leadership race. In my view, we won't defeat Mr. Harper by 'taking him on,' by 'hammering' him, or by 'facing him down,'" Topp wrote. "Angry, negative campaigning works better for Conservatives than for social democrats, because it motivates Conservative voters while persuading progressives not to vote."

Topp, in his "let me say hello" letter, said Jack Layton's "propositional" approach that focused on policy solutions rather than attacks is the way to win government.
It's funny, because I remember being impressed with some of the NDP's negative TV ads in the last election campaign, particularly the health care pieces. And in British Columbia, where I spent the campaign (in an NDP target riding), they spent millions blanketing the radio waves with highly negative, fear mongery ads on the HST. Basically, they said Harper will make BC fire doctors and nurses and jeopardize the health care system by asking for the HST harmonization money if the referendum fails, but if you vote NDP you can keep the money and your doctors.

And Topp, of course, played a very senior role on that campaign and called a lot of the shots. He was national campaign director in 2008, when they blanketed Quebec with particularly impressive negative ads. He ran negative ads against the Liberals while trying to negotiate a coalition with us. So he certainly has no aversion to negative campaigning. So I find his claims of piety a little amusing.

If he wants to turn over a new leaf though, power to him.

(Not to say their 2011 campaign didn't also have very positive messages; just that it also had very negative ones.)

More belated political musings

2011-10-14T22:57:00.004-04:00

I write this from Arizona, where I've been attending a work conference this week in the Phoenix area. I'm staying through the weekend to see some hockey, as the Coyotes play their home opener vs. the Winnipeg Jets on Saturday. The old Jets vs. the new Jets, should be fun. And Monday, it's off to Ottawa to cover another conference, so busy times. And another offering of random thoughts on happenings political.

* I find this NDP ethics complaint against Lisa Raitt a little puzzling, as I'm having a hard time seeing Air Canada's CEO logging into the reservations system and upgrading cabinet ministers in the hope a larger seat and a cheese plate will influence labour policy. If they have documents, I'd love to see them. A gate agent doing a battlefield upgrade, I could see, although I doubt the unionized gate agents are fans of the minister these days. But the CEO? And to what end? They couldn't have a more pro Air Canada government, whether its on labour or landing slots. I'm more astounded a cabinet minsiter's staff booked her into economy in the first place. Besides, she must have enough e-upgrade credits already. Super elite!

* Were I Tom Mulcair, I'd stop whining about Quebec memberships. Because every time he opens his would to complain about the lack of NDP members in the province, it reminds me he was the guy responsible for building the party in the province and apparently, he didn't do a very good job of it. Which doesn't bode well for his ability to organize a successful leadership run. It's more obvious the NDP's surge was all about Layton, and not so much the diligent work of his Quebec lieutenant. (Which isn't to say they can't hold it without Jack, but that's another story) He'd be better sticking to some of this policy stuff, where I find myself thinking he sounds almost reasonable.

* Remember when I asked if anyone would stand up for equality of parliamentary representation? As I feared the answer, apparently, is no one.

Fears of a Quebec backlash have delayed the Harper government’s plan to give the growing parts of Canada a larger share of seats in the House of Commons.

As a result, the changes the Tories promised in the spring campaign may not be in place in time for the 2015 election, leaving millions of voters once again underrepresented in Parliament.
So none of the major parties, it seems, is willing to stand up for basic math and principle in a matter as fundamental as our parliamentary representation. That's sad, and also sadly unsurprising.

* Our generous R&D tax credits are a competitive advantage; the piece of the puzzle we're missing is assistance with commercialization. We should invest there. If that's that they mean by direct subsidies, then ok. But I don't want to see the government trying to pick winners and losers. Support un-directed research, then help it get from the lab to the marketplace. That's the way to grow a 21st century economy.

* The Conservatives are zealous in their respect for areas of provincial jurisdiction:

Despite these initiatives and studies that link school food to increased success in the classroom, Canada is unlikely to shed its title as the only G8 country without a national meal program. The federal government says it has no plans to take on school food.

“We see education very clearly as a provincial/territorial jurisdiction, so it's nothing that's being considered by our government at this point in time,” said Steve Outhouse, a spokesman for Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq.
Except when it's an issue they actually care about:
Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore, who announced Tuesday that Ottawa is plowing nearly $30-million into the 1812-1814 conflict’s bicentennial, says he wants to sharpen efforts to teach Canada about its past.

“In only four of Canada’s 10 provinces are students required to take history before they graduate from high school,” he said. “I think that’s a sadly low number so I want to work on improving that.”
The Harper government will feed students ciriculum changes, but not a healthy lunch. I'll leave it to them to explain the jurisdictional nuance that reconciles those positions.

Apparently the Liberals are dead. Who knew?

2011-10-14T22:21:00.005-04:00

Like clockwork, there's been another rash of obituaries written proclaiming the death of the Liberal Party of Canada. And what they lack in actual data points and evidence, they attempt to make up for in determination.

I particularly liked this passage form Chantal Hebert's contribution to the meme:

Notwithstanding the party's victories in Ontario and Prince Edward Island, the decline of the Liberal brand in Canada has continued unabated this fall.

Yes Chantal, if you ignore the Liberal positives on the provincial level, then things do look negative indeed. It's been amusing to watch people cherrypick some events from the recent spate of provincial activity and ignore others, whether its the ascendancy or decendancy of a particular party or to fit a narrative like it's the year of the incumbent. Frankly, I think each result has largely been driven by local factors, and trying to read wider trends into them is a little silly.

I'm also quite certain that those pointing to the lack of active campaigning for a Liberal leadership race the membership decided to postpone two years as a sign of our decline (no one wants the job!) would, were people actively campaigning in violation of the wishes of the membership, use that as evidence of internal descent and the party's decline.

Yes, what for the "expert" predictions on the death of the Liberal Party of Canada? Well, I remember when they predicted Paul Martin would win 250 seats, when they said the right was irrecoverably split, the Conservative brand toxic, Stephen Harper a loser who would be pushed out by his own party, and the NDP set to fade away, that last one as recently as this winter. Not a super track record.

Maybe they'll be proven right this time. Maybe they won't. The task facing the Liberals is daunting, and we'll either succeed, or we won't. I wouldn't want to quote odds; I have some concerns about how it's going but that's a story for another blog entry. Point is, at this point there's no way of knowing. It's just premature speculation to feed the newscycle because, while we're apparently a dead party walking, it seems we still sell newspapers.

When they stop caring, maybe I'll be a little more concerned. In the meantime, Liberal membership across the country is rising and grassroots members are meeting to discuss fixing our party. I guess they didn't get the memo.

Why politics is stupid much of the time: the flip-flop attack

2011-10-05T13:32:00.006-04:00

Trying to save is drowning campaign the day before e-day, Ontario C leader (I've redacted the P) Tim Hudak was in Mississauga today, where he used Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty's decision to cancel a controversial local power plant project to frame the Premier as a promise-breaker unfit to govern.

“This site symbolizes why we need change,” Mr. Hudak said as he stood in a parking lot overlooking the construction site. “More Dalton McGuinty broken promises are going to hit Ontario families in the pocket book. Friends, we need change.”

Seems simple enough, right? McGuinty promised to build this power plant and now he's breaking his promise. He's flip-flopping. He's a naughty promise-breaking flip-flopper who can't be trusted.

But here's the thing: Hudak opposes the power plant project. He supports McGuinty's decision to cancel the project, and has said if he's elected, he'll cancel the thing too. So, like, what the heck, Tim?

It'd be fair to say McGuinty got the initial decision wrong. It'd be fair to say making the right decision up-front would have saved taxpayer dollars. And it would be fair to say the timing of McGuinty's reversal is politically suspect. All fair ball.

But to attack him for taking a position you support because it involves changing his mind? That's really stupid. If McGuinty hadn't reversed himself, would Hudak be saying "this is the wrong decision but I respect him for being inflexibly unwilling to shift from his previous decision?" Of course not.

What a thoroughly stupid attack to make. What is Tim's message "Once I made a decision, no matter how bone-ass wrong it turns out to be I'll stick to it no matter what, because that's leadership?" That's not leadership, that's insanity.

This seems to have been a regular thing with McGuinty, actually, who has had some other fairly high-profile reversals in the face of public opposition and/or contrary policy evidence. While getting the call right in the first place is, of course, preferable, I don't want a leader who just makes the decision once and moves on. I'd rather they have the political courage to, when presented with the evidence, be willing to make the decision to change course if necessary.

The thing is, while stupid Hudak's attack will find a level of resonance. He made these comments for a reason. It's up to us as voters, though, to signal what we want. Sometimes a flip-flop is a good thing. Sometimes it's not. If we want politicians that will never change their mind on something no matter how much circumstances may change, that's what we'll get. If we want something different, that's up to us too. But it will take looking beyond the soundbite.

Stéphane Dion on senate reform

2011-10-05T07:50:00.007-04:00

I've long argued that the Conservative strategy on Senate reform is deeply flawed, and bad for both Western Canada and effective governance.

With debate underway on the latest Conservative Senate reform bill, one that seems destined to pass given their majority in the House and their numbers in the Senate, I was pleased to read Stéphane Dion's speech and remarks on the issue during the Commons debates as the Liberal intergovernmental affairs critic.

You can read the full comments here, or in the Hansard (starting around 1305) but here's an excerpt:

Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party does not oppose Senate reform, but it must be done right and in accordance with the Constitution.

There are three reasons the Liberal opposition cannot support the bill.

First, it is the conviction of the Liberal opposition that such an act would be unconstitutional. The fundamental changes it proposes cannot be implemented by Parliament alone. These changes would require the support of at least seven provinces, representing 50% of the Canadian population, notably because appointing senators through a patchwork of voluntary provincial senatorial elections is clearly a fundamental change; limiting the senators' tenure to nine years is a significant change; and giving the Prime Minister the power to name the totality of senators at the end of two mandates of four and a half years would strengthen his power considerably, another significant change.

Second, such an act would be against the interests of two of our provinces, Alberta and British Columbia. Here is why: practically speaking, an elected upper chamber would carry more weight in its dealings with the House of Commons than it does in its present form. The problem is that both western provinces are better represented in the House than they are in the Senate, and both provinces have only six senators, while some provinces have 10 with a population four or six times smaller.

Third, such an act could provoke frequent blockages in Parliament in the absence of a constitutional mechanism to resolve any conflicts that might arise between an elected House of Commons and an elected Senate.

I have to say I agree with every point that Dion made, and not just because I've made them all many times myself, if not quite as eloquently. But he also made one very interesting point that hadn't occurred to me before either:

It is important to realize that the government's muddled plan would have senators appointed through a patchwork system of optional provincial elections. Funding for these federal elections would come from the provinces, and even though they would be federal elections, the federal parties would be excluded from the electoral process. The provincial parties would control these federal elections. What a mess.
It's hardly the worst part of the Conservative plan, but it is an interesting wrinkle: no federal parties could officially participate in this system as envisioned. What would this do for spending limits, for example, and fundraising? Would it create an uneven playing field for Senators accross different provinces?

And it underscores another weakness: the Harper plan asks the provinces to undertake and fund elections to determine representation to a federal parliamentary chamber. We've known that all along but the more you think about it, the less sense it makes. You wouldn't propose the same for the House of Commons, would you?

It comes down to the same point I've been making all along: this piecework reform is a bad idea. if you want to reform the Senate, truly reform it. Hold takes with the provinces and open the constitution to do full-scale reform. Elected Senators through a federal process, equal regional representation, and clearly defined and limited responsibilities and/or a mechanism to avoid legislative gridlock between the legislative chambers. Or just abolish it. You can make a case for either, but I do feel a Senate based on equal regional representation as a stop on a rep by pop-based Commons has merit.

But as Dion argues, this patch-work, half-hearted pseudo reform is actually worse than real reform, particularly for Western Canada. Do we really want a Senate that will actually use its constitutionally mandated powers but with BC and Alberta vastly under-represented?

I wonder if the Conservative base out West will ever figure this out.

Belated random thoughts on political happenings

2011-10-04T21:23:00.008-04:00

I've found myself too busy with work and what not lately to be blogging as much as I should be, so here's some short random thoughts on recent events until I can write something longer. Which I promise to do soon. Ish.

* Montreal's crumbling Champlain Bridge was in the news today; it was a topic in question period and apparently Conservative transport minister Denis Lebel is about to visit the city to announce another study on its replacement. This tweaked my memory, as I recall the Conservatives, during the 2008 by-election in St. Lambert (cancelled by the 2008 general election) were doling out pork and promised to replace the bridge. Three years and two election after Lawrence Cannon said "We are starting to plan for the construction of a new bridge" they're going to launch another study?

* Peter Julian won't be running for the NDP leadership. As much as I would have enjoyed a battle of the roomates (he shares an Ottawa apartment with fellow BC MP Nathan Cullen) and the fun that could have ensued (Peter doesn't wash the dishes! Nathan drinks the last of my fair trade coffee!) it's probably for the best. I spent some of the 2008 election in the Burnaby area (Peter represents a Burnaby-area riding) and he struck me as a rather abrasive fellow. Maybe it was just seeing him in contrast to fellow Burnaby NDPer Bill Siksay, a very warm and personable guy. Anyway, when his name was floated I just couldn't picture Julian as a unifying bridge-builder.

* On the other hand, I'm really happy to see Nathan Cullen running for the NDP leadership. I spent the 2004 federal election in Prince Rupert working on the Liberal campaign of Miles Richardson, who, along with Nathan, was seeking to unseat Conservative incumbent Andy Burton in Skeena-Bulkley Valley. I got to see a fair bit of Nathan on the campaign trail and he's a great guy, very friendly, kind and in touch with the communities of the riding. I disagree with him on a few issues (his support of the gun registry, for example, although that is definitely reflective of his riding) but he has proven himself a very hard-working MP. He'll make this a better race, for sure.

* Speaking of the NDP leadership race (which also includes party insider Brian Topp, another great guy in Paul Dewar, the unknown but possibly impressive Romeo Saganash and the just plain unknown Martin Singh ... Tom Mulcair may deign to run at some point) it occurs to me I'm having a hard time picturing one of this group as a Prime Minister. Because, for the first time in their history, the NDP aren't just choosing a leader. They're choosing the next Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and a leader who, in three years, will go to the polls and ask for the trust of Canadians to be their Prime Minister. They've asked for that before but this time, people won't be snickering. It's a whole new field they're playing on, and the rules of the game have changed. It will be interesting to see how, and if, they can adjust.

* Of course, things haven't changed too much yet. Love may be better but politics is politics, and rival leadership camps are already sparing. But you know it's an NDP leadership race when you get smears of opponents like this one:

Mr. Brahmi added that Mr. Topp, who has the endorsement of former NDP leader Ed Broadbent and former Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow, “is the candidate of the apparatchik.”

* Meanwhile, there's a provincial election going on in Ontario. I confess, I've been unable to muster-up too much enthusiasm and interest. But I do know it's getting nasty, and I'm pretty sure it's not going too well for Tim Hudak's (not overly) Progressive (but very) Conservative Party. The polls are all over the map, from a strong Liberal lead to too close to call. We'll see who gets their vote out Thursday. What all of them show though is an undeniable trend over the past year of Conservative decline and Liberal rise. And it's clear who is panicking. Watching TV the last few nights, I've seen a steady diet of harshly negative Conservative ads and extremely positive Liberal ads. That's telling as we go down to the wire. But hey, Tim can still draw a crowd.

* Speaking of panic, this homophobic flyer from the Ontario Cs (I've revoked their P) is disgusting. When I first saw it on Twitter this weekend I thought it had to be a plant, a sick joke. But then Hudak embraced it on Monday, and it was more saddening than upsetting. First, much of the brochure is misleading, if not outright lies. And much of the material in question was developed under the last C government, in which Hudak was a minister. They're so panicked that Hudak goons are elbowing reporters in the gut to keep them away from one Brampton-area candidate that was distributing the fliers.

* But as mentioned, I haven't been following the race that closely. I observed early on though that McGuinty's Liberals are, quite wisely, running the same campaign Stephen Harper's federal Cs (they redacted their own P) ran this spring. No extravagant promises, the steady hand on the tiller with the experience to make the tough decisions, it's no time for rookies and risky schemes. McGuinty ('s comms staff) has even been tweeting "Only a strong, stable #olp government will create jobs in tough economic times." Harper's line repeated Ad nauseam was "strong, stable, Coservative majority government."

* John Baird drew some attention with his gold-embossed business cards. We're all attracted to shiny things so this drew much mockery, though not enough Austin Powers references. Baird was able to laugh it off though because the criticisms ignored the real story: he also redacted Canada from his business cards. Yes, he ordered the Canada wordmark, including the Canadian flag, removed from his cards. And it's not like he's the minister responsible for FedNor, he's the frickin' Foreign Affairs Minister! Of Canada! Yes, on the one hand they want to protect the flag, and on the other they want it off their business cards. And you're focusing on the extra couple hundred dollars it cost to emboss the coat of arms? Forest for the trees; it's the flag, stupid!

* To end on a positive note, I was pleased to see the Liberals focus on a substantive and important policy issue today with a call for a National Suicide Prevention Strategy that was embraced in the House of Commons by the Conservatives and the NDP. It's an important and overlooked issue, and hopefully this leads to more action. You can still sign the petition here.

Will anyone stand-up for equality of parliamentary representation?

2011-09-20T14:09:00.003-04:00

With our parliamentarians having returned to Ottawa this week, it seems appropriate to turn our attention to just how our parliament is composed. Representation in the House of Commons is sure to be a contentious issue once again, and I’m having a hard time finding a sensible position from any of the parties.

I won’t rehash all the background – long story short, representation in the lower house is supposed to be by population, but population shifts across the country over the years mean the current house isn’t truly representative of today’s Canada. Suburban/urban areas in British Columbia, Alberta are extremely under-represented.

The Conservatives have had a proposal on the table for several years to add 30 seats (five in Alberta, seven in B.C. and 18 in Ontario) that would make some progress toward more representative representation. It has gone through some modifications following complaints from various quarters, and they haven’t been in much of a hurry to move forward with it. Indeed, they seemed to agree with the other parties in the last parliament to quietly shelve it until after the election – none of them wanted the issue floating around during a campaign.

Why? That’s the heart of the issue: it’s all about Quebec. Any other province would accept their population doesn’t warrant more seats but, for Quebec, it’s a “national unity” issue. With other regions growing, they see their influence in the House of Common declining. And they’re demanding artificial measures (extra seats not warranted by population) in recognition of their “special” status. The most common ask: a guaranteed floor of 25 per cent of HoC seats, regardless of population.

It’s called the Senate

I strongly disagree with this. Representation in the House of Commons should be by population, period. Giving one region unequal weighting would mean taking representation from another region; that’s unfair and that’s not the purpose of the lower chamber.

Do I agree that Quebec has a unique perspective? Yes. And I believe the Maritimes, Ontario, Western Canada and British Columbia do too. And the territories. And I believe having a regional bulkwark to a pure rep by pop system that gives Ontario a very large voice is important and desirable.

And we already have a body designed to provide (in theory) that regional check: It’s called the Senate. The lower house is intended as the representative house; the upper the regional check.

Now the Senate is in need of reform and redistribution as well. But if you want to build a truly effective and representative parliamentary democracy, gerrymandering commons representation isn’t the answer. Reform the Senate so it is fairly distributed along regional lines, with elected Senators who have a clear mandate and set of powers and responsibilities.

About those Commons seats

Now, I won’t hold my breath for any of the political parties to start advocating comprehensive and meaningful Senate reform. And sorry, what the Conservatives have been doing here has been hurting, not helping.

I’d be more hopeful of someone taking a logical position on Commons representation though. Sadly, no such luck so far.

There’s some hope in the Conservative position. It could go further, but it’s a step in the right direction. While they’ve disavowed special considerations for Quebec, as mentioned they’ve shown no hurry to move forward with actual legislation either.

My Liberals have been hard to pin down. Before the election they helped to delay the proposal, and splits were evident between their Quebec caucus and the rest of the members. After the election? Interim leader Bob Rae gave an interview that left me puzzled.

(Rae) predicted that the prime minister will come up with a compromise on the seat legislation bill to deal with Quebec's concerns.

"I don't think you can take Quebec for granted, and I think the prime minister's going to have to look again at the question of the number of Quebec seats. It doesn't mean B.C., Alberta and Ontario won't get more seats - of course we will."

OK, so he wants special dispensation for Quebec?

Rae wouldn't say whether or not he supports the position of many Quebec nationalists that the province should be guaranteed 25 per cent of the seats.

So compromise if necessary, but not necessarily that compromise? OK, but what then? After all, this is about national unity, somehow.

With their new large Quebec caucus, the NDP has been a little more clear on its position: special seats for Quebec.

(Brian Topp) giving extra seats to Quebec would be a way to recognize its status as a nation within Canada.

"I think we need to find an appropriate Canadian compromise," he said at a news conference announcing his candidacy.

And the guy that may not run:

The NDP has argued that Quebec should be guaranteed to maintain its current share of the seats. That would require the 338-seat Commons to be swollen further by boosting Quebec's allotment to 82 or 83 seats, from the current 75.

Earlier Monday, Mulcair told reporters that such a move is consistent with the 2006 "nation" motion and the 1991 Supreme Court of Canada decision.

"It would be an irony to say that Quebec constitutes — the Quebecois constitute — a nation within Canada and then the first thing you do is you reduce the . . . weight of Quebecers within the House of Commons."

Nation reflux disease

There is a certain irony that many of the arguments being made come back to the Quebec nation resolution of 2006, hailed at the time as a master-stroke of strategic genius by Prime Minister Harper. My worry then was that you can say it’s just symbolism, but empty symbolism isn’t going to satisfy anyone; eventually they’ll want something real. Now those chickens are coming home to roost: the Quebec nationalists want some meat on that nation bone we gave them. The question is what happens if they don’t get it?

Fundamental myths about the Liberal Party and the interim leader

2011-09-08T10:04:00.002-04:00

Let me start by making one thing perfectly clear: there is no rule that prevents interim Liberal leader Bob Rae from deciding to seek the permanent leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. Once again, THERE IS NO RULE!

I resort to repetition and brief caps-lock because I’m hearing this false premise repeated again and again, by people that should really know better. And it’s pissing me off.

For example, when announcing her candidacy for the Liberal presidency yesterday, Sheila Copps made this statement:

Sheila Copps says she's running for president of the Liberal Party and she wouldn't stop Bob Rae from running as leader, despite rules that say the interim leader can't join the race.

That’s nice, but it’s not up to Ms. Copps, or whomever the next Liberal president is. Lawrence Martin takes the meme further in iPolitics today:

As party president, Copps couldn’t single-handedly change the rules, but she could certainly help the cause.

Copps knows every trick in the book. So does Bob Rae. They are a powerful duo.

They may well be the Batman and Robin of Liberal politics, but that doesn’t change the face that no trickery is needed: THERE IS NO RULE TO CHANGE.

Let’s back up a minute. When Michael Ignatieff announced his resignation (he was an interim leader, by the way, who ‘ran’ for the permanent leadership) it was up to the Liberal national board to pick an interim leader, with advice from caucus. The board chose to set several criteria on which they would base their decision, such a support from caucus, bilingualism, and a commitment to not seek the permanent leadership.

If those interested in the position didn’t meet those criteria, the board wouldn’t consider them. But once the board made their choice, the criteria become moot. It's not enforceable in any way. It's not codified into any constitution or rules of procedure. It was a rule to pick the interim leader, and that's done.

What it amounted to was a promise. Bob Rae, in deciding to seek and accept the interim leadership, promised to the caucus, the national board and to Liberal members that he would stay focused on party re-building, and would not seek the permanent leadership.

It’s not a rule in law that needs to be changed with tricks by an incoming party president. It’s a promise by Mr. Rae. And there is nothing at all preventing him from changing his mind. Ms. Copps is right on one thing, though:

"If Bob made a commitment [not to run], he can answer to the voters in the leadership race on that commitment.”

Exactly. No rule prevents Mr. Rae from running; just his word. The word I and thousands of other Liberals chose to accept at face-value. If he chooses to break his word to us and run anyway, it will be up to him to explain to us why. And in the end, the members will have the final say in what consequence, if any, breaking his word would have. Not the party executive.

A kabuki play

My concern is that this sowing of confusion around the rules for seeking the interim leadership is deliberate; a scripted political kabuki play.

There are no actual rules to change. But was a new executive to pass a motion deciding “we’ve changed the rules, the interim leader can run” as some seem to be advocating, it would serve one transparent purpose: provide political cover should Mr. Rae decide to break his word and run for the permanent spot. “Well, I wasn’t going to, but I promised to ‘follow the rules’ set by the executive and, hey, they’ve changed them, so it’s cool now.”

I’ve had a nagging fear of this scenario from day one. But it would be a farce. Still, I fear the national executive elections in January risk becoming a proxy battle to set-up such a scenario.

Why shouldn't he run?

One comment I hear often is “if, in two years, he’s super-popular and we’re doing well in the polls why wouldn’t we let him run?” Well, again, he can run if he wants to and if we’re willing to overlook the promise-breaking, that’s our choice. But there are fundamental reasons why I have insisted from day one that the interim leader, whomever that would be, should be someone who would not seek the permanent leadership.

From a post I wrote in May:

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.

End the games

All these objections still hold true. I would add that having a full and open leadership race is a key part of the renewal process that we need to be undertaking. Allowing someone anointed by the party elites to use the interim leadership (the time period of which they successfully lobbied to lengthen, by the way) as a party-funded head-start to the campaign would be unfair to the other candidates, and would make it difficult, if not impossible, to have the fair and open race we must have.

Finally, I should note that Mr. Rae has insisted from day one that he doesn't want to run for the permanent leadership, and has no intention of doing so. I believe he even mentioned his spouse would never let him. All this talk of rule-changing scenarios has come from others.

Look, here’s the bottom line: if he wants to run, he can run. I will view it as a broken promise and a character issue; others can make their own decision. But don’t mislead us with poppycock about rule-changing, and don’t take us for fools.

There can be no shortcuts for the Liberal Party

2011-08-29T11:37:00.002-04:00

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.

We have, and need, more Jacks

2011-08-28T13:02:00.004-04:00

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.

Goodbye, Jack

2011-08-22T11:27:00.004-04:00

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).

We’re not ready for online voting

2011-08-17T16:58:00.006-04:00

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.

Is she still Nycole from the Bloc?

2011-08-03T11:50:00.005-04:00

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.

We need generational change in the Liberal Party

2011-08-02T16:01:00.006-04:00

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.

Conservative “war criminal” round-up a made for TV spectacle

2011-07-28T10:38:00.003-04:00

Some groups are only comfortable if they have enemies to fight, real or imagined. If you were wondering how the Conservative government would adjust to having a majority government and a rookie opposition, don’t worry: where they can’t find enemies, they’ll just make them up.

It’s been interesting to follow this drama around the government’s recent “war criminal” round-up, where they flashed names and photos (but scant details) of a so-called “gang of 30” immigrants deemed inadmissible for immigration to Canada for alleged conflict-related activities in their home countries. These people are here but need to be sent home, and the government wants the help of the public tracking down these “most-wanted” persons.

Actually, what has been more interesting is how the Conservatives have tried to pick fights over this program where fights don’t necessarily exist. For example, I think most Canadians agree people deemed ineligible for admission to Canada, particularly if there are questions over their activities in an overseas conflict, should be sent home. I think most of us are in agreement on that central point.

Where there is disagreement though, a point that the government and the haphazard editorial writers at the Globe choose to ignore, is how the government is going about this. It seems abundantly clear this program is less about identifying and deporting alleged war criminals, and more about politics. Creating a media spectacle, appearing “tough on crime” and trying to pick a fight, real or imagined.

For example, there are reports that provincial and local police didn’t learn about this “wanted list” until the government held the press conference, and that there were even known addresses for some of these people. It raises the question, just how hard were immigration authorities really looking for these people?

The government has also taken pains to try to play-up the history and danger these people post to inflame public opinion. If they’re inadmissible they’re inadmissible and they should go, but let’s remember these people haven’t been charged with a crime here or at home. They’re not being extradited. Branding them war criminals approaches hyperbole. Particularly when you’re tarring them with that brush but refuse to provide details, citing privacy reasons.

That this is a public relations exercise is underlined by the near daily press conferences with Harper cabinet ministers trumpeting yet another capture of one of these dangerous fugitives.

It’s become reality television meets the immigration and justice systems. If this pilot episode is a ratings success, expect a four-season renewal to follow. It may be compelling television, but it’s no way to run an immigration system. Particularly when this is a time we should be having an open and frank debate about reforming our immigration system.

Banning floor crossing is a bad idea

2011-06-20T12:24:00.002-04:00

I think Peter Stoffer is coming from a good place and I think his intentions are pure, but I feel strongly that banning floor crossing is a bad idea that, rather than improving parliamentary representation and responsibility to constituents, will only further tighten the yoke of party discipline.

A stalwart New Democrat is hoping to ban his colleagues from crossing the floor of the House of Commons without asking voters if they can change parties first.

Peter Stoffer, the New Democrat critic for Veterans Affairs, tabled his private member's bill Monday.

"If I pick up the phone right now and call Mr. Harper's office and if they're in agreement, within an hour I can become a Conservative member of Parliament," Stoffer said Monday. "I don't have to go to my constituents, I don't have to tell my party, I could just sit tomorrow as a Conservative MP.

That's wrong on every count."

I know I was as pissed off as any Liberal when David Emerson crossed the floor from the Liberals to the Conservatives mere days after the 2006 election. Obviously my emotions were somewhat different when Belinda Stronach left the Conservatives to join Paul Martin’s Liberal cabinet. (Mainly stunned disbelief, actually)

I still wouldn’t ban floor crossing though, because it plays into a general ignorance amongst the population, one exploited by the Conservatives during the coalition drama, about how our parliamentary democracy works.

Yes, it’s true that most voters make their decisions based on national party platforms and leaders. The influence of the local candidate in the voting decision is important, but generally minimal in the wider scheme. In a tight race, it can make a difference (many of the Liberals that hung on in May were good constituency people). But generally, the local name on the ballot is secondary (see the NDP in Quebec).

While many may think we vote for Prime Minister, in fact we don’t. And we don’t vote for a party either. We vote for a Member of Parliament to represent us in Ottawa. We send 308 members of parliament to Ottawa and, from their ranks, the governor general calls on one to form a government and test the confidence of the House of Commons.

Whatever people may base their voting decision on, the fact is we’re electing a person to represent us. If they change parties, or do something else that we disagree with, then we can defeat them when and if they run for re-election. But taking away their legitimate right to change party affiliations only serves to further re-enforce this fundamental mis-understanding of our political system and further dilute the role and responsibility of individual members of parliament.

Stoffer’s bill would also have another un-intended effect: further tying MPs under the suffocating yoke of party discipline. You shouldn’t need to risk your job to stand against your party. The system of party discipline has already reduced MPs of all parties to little more than trained seals loyally parroting the party line, so it’s little wonder most Canadians see themselves voting more for a party than an individual representative. Banning floor crossing will only further exacerbate this by giving party bosses even more power and control over MPs that may stray from the flock.

I agree with the spirit of Stoffer’s motion, but it’s a bad idea for so many reasons. It’s cheap populism masking horrible policy. Punish floor crossers at the ballot box, and in the interim let’s bring more relevance to the role of Member of Parliament, not less.

Liberals, we must commit to using this time for rebuilding

2011-06-20T07:15:00.001-04:00

Well over 2000 Liberals spent a few hours Saturday afternoon taking part in an extraordinary convention via teleconference to make a few decisions about the path forward for our party. It was just one step in the road to renewal, but an important one and while the outcome wasn’t my preferred choice, the energy and the numbers on the call give me some confidence in our prospects for the years ahead.

The delegates decided to postpone the next leadership race to between March and June of 2013. We also scheduled the next biennial convention for January 2012 in Ottawa.

I proposed a sub-amendment that would have scheduled the leadership for between September and November of 2012. I felt delaying into 2013 would leave us too long without a leader democratically elected by the membership at large with a moral mandate for renewal, and would leave us for too long distracted by leadership drama.

There was enough support for this position to bring the sub-amendment to the delegates at convention, and many spoke in favour of this option. In the end, though, a sub-amendment introduced by Stephane Dion and supported by a number of caucus members to delay the leadership as late as June 2013 found more support amongst the delegates, and was adopted.

I’d like to thank everyone that helped me bring the sub-amendment to the convention, spoke in favour of it on the call, and voted for it. I felt it was important that we give the delegates the option of an earlier date and while, in the end, they preferred another option, it was important to have that choice available. More choice is always a good thing.

Like all Liberals, I accept the decision of the convention and we move forward united in our shared mission to reform, rebuild and renew our party. Having given ourselves over two years before the next leadership, it is now crucial that we all commit to not wasting this time. We cannot spend two years just spinning our wheels. We must all commit personally to making every day count.

As I said, this convention and the decisions made Saturday were but one small step on the road. We need to work in our ridings. To many riding associations are closed shops, cliques that won’t let new members in, suspicious of their motives. That must change. We need all the help we can get. We need to open our riding associations and begin building local organizations that are active, connected and open to all. The Liberal Party is only as strong as its riding associations.

Many provincial and territorial associations will be meeting in the months ahead. Here the work must begin on policy and constitutional reform to bring to the biennial next January. More importantly, we need to begin having the discussions about redefining ourselves and the kind of party we want to be.

And at the biennial in January, Liberals from across the country will gather together in one room to chart the course for the future of our party. We’ll debate policy, we’ll begin reforming the structure of our party, and we’ll elect a new national executive to help us renew and rebuild that structure. All three areas are important but we can’t treat the executive elections like an after-thought. We must find candidates that share our values and support them, and ensure they’re committed to building a new Liberal Party that is more open, inclusive and responsive to the membership.

It’s also a time to be bold, and put every idea on the table. (Here are some of my thoughts on reform) We need to examine every aspect of our organization with no taboos and ask ourselves is this the best way to do this, is this meeting our objectives? My own feeling is that we need a leaner organization that puts the riding association and the people on the ground first. The party structure should be geared primarily to helping each of our 308 riding associations build the organization and community connection needed to be successful. Today we’re too much a top-down party; we need to flip that on its head.

Bob Rae said recently we need to be a wiki-party, and I think he’s right. We need to cut down the barriers to entry, flatten the structure, and directly empower the membership. This teleconference was a great example of that. No $800 delegate fee, no need to fly to another city and stay in a hotel room. Just 2000+ Liberals who paid a $20 fee to take part in a teleconference, debate and directly vote on key decisions. And many more Liberals and members of the public listened-in online, and took part in the online chat or on Twitter. It was an example of the kind of open access and transparency that must guide us going forward.

We’ve got much to do and many important decisions ahead. Let’s use this time wisely, and let’s get to work.

Liberals: Let's not wait until 2013 to pick our leader

2011-06-17T11:10:00.004-04:00

I've been informed that my sub-amendment on leadership timing has been accepted and will be debated during the Liberal extraordinary convention tomorrow. Thanks to everyone who pledged their support to help get it onto the agenda.

I'll have a chance to introduce the sub-amendment on the call tomorrow, but time will be limited so I'd like to speak to it at a little more length here. First, here's the original amendment from the National Board of Directors which I'm seeking to amend:

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.

And here's my proposed sub-amendment:

Be It Resolved That proposed constitutional amendment number one be amended as follows:

i. in (a), strike “October 1, 2012” and replace with July 1, 2012
ii. in (b), strike “November 1, 2012 and February 28, 2013” and replace with “September 1, 2012 and November 30, 2012”
iii. in (b), strike “February 28, 2013” and replace with “November 30, 2012”

Essentially, I'm proposing we move the window for the leadership election (remember, it will be one member, one vote in our ridings instead of a convention) back to ensure it will take place in Fall 2012, between September 1 and November 30 of 2012. Under the current proposal, it could be delayed into 2013.

My proposal would also shorten the window in which the National Board could chose to schedule the vote from four months to three, to give a little more certainty on timing. The requirement for five months notice would remain intact.

Why do I object to the timing proposed by national board? Quite simply, I feel it delays the leadership process too far. Right now we're faced with two choices. A Yes vote means we might not have a permanent leader in place before the winter of 2013, nearly two years since the election. But if we vote No, that means a quickie race and a vote in October. That's way too soon for a credible, substantive race with a large field of candidates.

I think many feel like Goldilocks making her porridge choice: one is too hot, one is too cold. Where's the porridge that's just right?

I hope that Fall 2012 can be that just-right option. Very good points are made by those that favour both shorter and longer races. We don't want to rush into this; we need to begin rebuilding and decide the party we want to be before picking a leader that will buy into it. But we also need a leader with a mandate for reform from the party membership at large to carry forward with the rebuilding. It's a balancing act.

I also believe that, no matter what rules we put in place to try to limit or delay leadership organization activity, it's going to happen anyway. I'd be surprised beyond belief if it wasn't already. I don't want to see us distracted by leadership drama into 2013. Let's do this in Fall 2012, and send the leadership troops home before Christmas. Shortening the leadership window also reduces the influence of the National Board, and reduces the motivation for leadership camps to use the executive races at the next biennial to fight a leadership proxy battle.

In short, I feel that Fall 2012 is the compromise position with the best chance of success. It gives us enough time to begin on reform discussions. It allows time for credible leadership candidates to emerge and gather support. It allows for a race long enough for leadership candidates to travel the country and engage Liberals in all 308 ridings. And it will elect a leader before 2013, leaving us time to continue the reform and rebuilding process ahead of the next federal election, united as one party.

If you're a Liberal delegate I hope you'll consider voting for this sub-amendment Saturday, and I welcome your questions and comments.

Thank-you,

Jeff Jedras

UPDATE

The full list of officially approved sub-amendments is now available online. In addition to mine above, there are several others that would delay the leadership past February 2013, the end of the window proposed by the national board, to as late as mid-2013. Another would also delay the biennial convention even further.

While they seem well intended, I have to disagree with these proposals for several reasons. Given that I feel the current proposed process delays the leadership too far already, I certainly couldn't support delaying it to the point where we would be going over two years without a permanent leader with a democratic mandate. I feel part of the renewal process needs to be a leader that has been elected by the membership of the party with a strong mandate for change and reform from we, the members. We shouldn't rush to that step, yes, but mid-2013? That is way too long to go with leadership drama and machinations distracting us from the work that needs to be done. It wouldn't help renewal; it would delay it.

I also object strongly (perhaps more strongly) to the proposal to delay the biennial. I think that’s the very wrong thing to do for renewal. Delaying biennial would mean going even longer with the current national executive (and president), and I feel change at the top is necessary for renewal to truly begin.

The biennial isn’t the end of the renewal process. Rather, it is the beginning, and there will be many more biennials to come as we reform and rebuild the Liberal Party. I’m disappointed we’re already delaying it to January; I can’t support delaying it further. It will be the first chance for we Liberals to all get together and discuss who we are, what we want to be and where we want to go. It’s an important first step, and we can’t delay it.

As a technical aside, delaying the biennial would cost the party a lot of money in lost deposits and cancellation feels for the convention centre in Ottawa and for hotels; I’m not sure we can afford to that right now.

Liberals: I need your help changing the leadership selection timeline

2011-06-15T13:25:00.008-04:00

(UPDATED: See bottom of post)

If you're a Liberal who was acclaimed as a delegate to the upcoming extraordinary convention to change/set the timing for the next leadership race and you're not satisfied with the choices on offer (voting No and picking a leader in October, or voting Yes and letting it drag out as late as late February of 2013), I need your help.

I'm proposing a sub-amendment to the amendment proposed by the National Board of Directors (read their original here) that would see a permanent leader selected next fall, between September and November of 2012.

Here's the text of my sub-amendment:

Whereas the leadership selection timeline proposed by the National Board of Directors would leave the party for too long without a permanent leader,

and Whereas it is desirable to have a permanent leader in place by the end of 2012 to join with the grassroots in the rebuilding of the Liberal party of Canada,

Be It Resolved That proposed constitutional amendment number one be amended as follows:

i. in (a), strike “October 1, 2012” and replace with July 1, 2012
ii. in (b), strike “November 1, 2012 and February 28, 2013” and replace with “September 1, 2012 and November 30, 2012”
iii. in (b), strike “February 28, 2013” and replace with “November 30, 2012”

Moved by: Jeff Jedras, Scarborough-Centre

As mentioned, this change would move the timeline forward by three months and prevent us from going into 2013 without a permanent leader. My originally preferred timeline was spring 2012, but I think Fall 2012 is a good compromise between those who want a shorter timeline (but feel going this October is crazy) and those who want a longer race. Three months sooner may not seem like much, but I feel we can't allow this to drag out into 2013. This timeline would allow for a long enough race to allow for fulsome open debate in ridings across the country and for new entrants to consider throwing their hats in the ring, while allowing us to also move past the leadership issue and move forward on rebuilding the party together.

If delegates are to have a chance to vote on this compromise position though, I need your help. To be put to delegates my sub-amendment needs the written support of at least 25 delegates to the extraordinary convention.

Delegates: Need your help ASAP

If you were acclaimed as a delegate and would like to see this sub-amendment voted on at the extraordinarily convention:

* You need to send an e-mail indicating "I support the sub-amendment proposed by Jeff Jedras" (paste the text of the sub-amendment into the e-mail to be safe) to the Liberal Party at convention@liberal.ca.

* Please cc. me at jjedras(at)gmail.com so I can track the number of submissions.

* The e-mails must be received by LPC at Noon Eastern Time this Friday, June 17, so please send it now. Won't take but a second.

* Note: you must send the e-mail from the e-mail address you used to register for the extraordinary convention or it won't be valid and counted.

(UPDATE): Please use the subject line "Support for sub-amendments submitted by Jeff Jedras" for your e-mail to help LPC classify them.

Give delegates a better choice

Right now, like many delegates I feel I'm being forced to choose between two bad options.

The timeline as proposed is much too long. Even if the race won't officially be called for some time, the unofficial race will begin immediately and I don't want to see our party distracted by leadership drama when we should be focused on re-building.

At the same time, if we vote against the executive's proposal we'll be forced to pick a leader in just four months, which is far too short to allow for a proper race with a full field of credible candidates campaigning across the country.

Instead of being forced to hold our noses and pick the lesser of two bad options, let's give party members a third choice: a better choice. That's what I hope to do with this sub-amendment.

How will it work

Before voting on the main amendment proposed by the executive, the sponsors of any sub-amendments will be given a chance to speak to their proposal, and delegates given a chance to debate it, followed by a vote. If the sub-amendment is passed (by a simple majority) then debate proceeds to the main amendment as amended. If it fails, debate proceeds on the original unchanged amendment. The amendment itself will require 2/3s support to be successful. (Read the rules here)

Happy to answer any questions by e-mail or in the comments. But if you're an approved delegate and want to see delegates given a third option, please follow the instructions above. And thanks!

UPDATE: One little wrinkle to my amendment was pointed-out in the comments by Peter.

I just moved all the dates back a few months from those in the main amendment, but I also cut the window for the leadership vote from four months to three. In doing so, the date in (a) is one month past the five-month notice window to meet the end of the three-month window I set in (b). It doesn't invalidate the amendment I've proposed, but it does make it a little less neat than it should be.

Therefore I've informed the party I've changed the (a) date of my amendment to July 1, 2011, and I've asked those who have already e-mailed their support to resend reflecting their support of the changed amendment. The text above has been edited to reflect the change.

Cons keep leadership system Finley says wide-open to abuse

2011-06-12T10:01:00.008-04:00

In an convention that was seriously lacking in news (which is the way the Conservatives wanted it, incidentally) the one bit of drama was the battle (which seems to happen at each of their conventions) to re-write the rules for selecting Stephen Harper's successor.

When the Alliance and PCs merged, PC leader Peter MacKay insisted on an equal-riding system instead of the Alliance's pure one member, one vote where ridings with large membership bases (primarily in Alberta) would overwhelm smaller ridings in the rest of the country, giving candidates no incentive to campaign nationally. At his insistence they adopted a system of riding equality, where each riding gets 100 points regardless of membership, and so candidates need to gain support accross the country.

Some of the old Alliance folks have been trying to change the system for years, arguing it's unfair to large membership ridings (a vote in a small riding is worth more than one in a large riding), and it discourages all ridings from recruiting since they're capped at 100 points no matter how many members they have.

At this convention Ontario MP Scott Reid, generally seen as a proxy for future leadership candidate Jason Kenney (who would draw support from populous Ontario and Alberta ridings) put forward an amendment for what he called a compromise position: 100 point minimum, but if you sign up more that 100 members you could increase your points, to a maximum of 400 points. So there would be some incentive to sign up new members, but smaller ridings wouldn't be completely overwhelmed. Senator Don Plett lays out their argument here to delegates at a pre-vote hospitality suite:

On the other side is MacKay and a lot of old Tories, who see such a change abandoning one of the core principles on which the party was founded, and as a move that would stop the Conservatives from being the truly national party they seek to be.

The debate played out quite dramatically on the constitutional plenary floor, following some procedural wrangling. Usually amendments make it to the floor via workshops but the Reid motion was soundly defeated in workshop Friday. He managed to get it to the floor by a petition drive, which the MacKay side tried unsuccessfully to get ruled out of order.

Once debate proceeded, with Reid kicking off the for and MacKay the against, many of the speakers were high profile caucus and cabinet members. Michael Chong and Peter Kent sided with MacKay, while Doug Finley (who ran Harper's successful leadership campaign under the 100 point system) sided with Reid, describing the current system as wide-open to rampant abuse. And he's not entirely wrong; before she crossed the floor Belinda Stronach ran against Harper (and Tony Clement) in that leadership race, and became competitive by sending paid organizers into defunct Quebec ridings and taking them over for 100 points each.

In the end, delegates rejected the Reid motion so soundly by a show of hands the chairs didn't even bother going to an electronic vote. Interestingly, they also rejected an amendment from the MacKay side to enshrine riding equality in the party's core principles, which they argue would make future motion's like Reid's out of order. An interesting bit of balance.

I think Finley will come to regret those words if he's still around when a race to replace Harper does eventually happen. But in the interim, here's MacKay reacting to the day's events:

Barely news today, forgotten tomorrow: live-blogging the policy plenary

2011-06-11T13:30:00.024-04:00

1:30 PM: And we're back, or we will be in 5 minutes, the voice from on high just informed the hall. It's time for the policy plenary, and apparently we have 30 or so to deal with in one-and-a-half hours. We'll see how that goes.

Policy plenaries are a funny thing. Well-meaning people spend months getting a policy to the plenary and lobbying for its passage, with much vigorous debate. The media and opposition will loo for controversial policies to highlight. And then after the next day, we'll never hear of these policies again because party leaders write their own platform, never mind what their memberships have to say.

It seems to be a bit of a kabuki play in all parties; after all, developing policy should be a prime reason for joining a party if you're joining for the right reasons. Alas, it's usually just for show.

1:37 PM: They're reading the rules. One requires a "clear majority" to demand debate on a policy for there to be debate. Hmm, how will Guy define a "clear majority"? Is it 50+1? More? Jack Layton definition or Clarity Act definition? Ah, fun.

1:45 PM: After 15 minutes of rules, we're underway. They're not naming them, so it's a it hard to follow. No debate on the first, which I think was basically we love veterans. It passed. They also oppose human smuggling.

1:48 PM: Still no debate. Policy on shared parenting (joint custody mother and father) passes. And motion on family and marriage, saying we don't want to force religious institutions to marry people they dont' want to. Which no one is forcing them to do. Anyway, it passes. This is going too fast.

1:50 PM: Finally debate on a motion which I support, to remove parental means test from student loan eligibility determination. Ridiculous speech against saying it's the millionaires resolution that kids of rich people that don't need it could be getting loans. Really, why would they? That's dumb. Speaker for makes point families can be asset rich/cash poor, like farmers, and shouldn't have to sell land to put kids through school. Glad to see it carries fairly clearly.

1:53 PM: Point of order from a delegate asking the chairs to slow the heck down is met with applause from the floor. I agree, but no clapping allowed on media row.

1:55 PM: This is too fast so I'm not going to comment on each one, just the major ones, and I'll let you know if one is actually killed.

1:59 PM: Point of order from floor, if it's close to wanting debate just have the debate, don't waste our time with the electronic voting. Given that it's two minutes of debate and takes at least that much time to do the e-vote, makes sense to me, and the floor and chairs agree.

2:00 PM: Now it's a motion to require immigrants adhere to "Canadian values." A speaker against asks just how you would define Canadian values anyway. It goes to an e-vote. It passes 65-35 on vote count, and it gets 9 of 11 provinces/territories, so it passes.

2:05 PM: A lot of people's votes aren't being counted electronically, because they're not using the machines properly. First you need to initialize it with the number of people using each machine, to a maximum of six. When you enter the votes, the yes and no votes must equal that number. Apparently people are trying to initialize six, or are trying to enter more votes than they initialized. In the last vote over 30 machines were invalidates, that could be as many as 200 lost votes.

2:08 PM: Debating a motion on refugee determination, #75, and it's the first to be defeated. It would be tougher on refugees, basically, and seems similar to government policy around the ship/s of Tamil refugees. So its defeat was interesting.

2:13 PM: Tension between delegates at the back and the chairs. Delegates say there's an echo in the room, we can't hear what you're saying and don't know what we're voting on, so slow down. Chairs have little sympathy, say we're following the order in your booklet so pay attention losers. Guy and friend are getting a bit chippy; so are delegates.

2:22 PM: That was social policy, now we're on to Government, Taxation and Crime.

2:23 PM: What looks to be a stealth anti-Sharia law motion passes soundly (B-98).

2:24 PM: Legalized prostitution? Not these Conservatives. They also oppose government waste. Wish I could have seen how Tony "Gazebo" Clement voted on that one. And ha, they're in favour of tax code simplification. Et tu, Jim Flaherty? This government has done more than any other to complicate the tax code than most, with all these ridiculous tax credits designed to buy the votes of target groups.

2:28 PM: Debating a motion to lower the number of convictions for dangerous offender status from three convictions to two. Young guy speaks against saying you don't want to have some lowly pot dealer named dangerous offender; I laughed, delegates not so much. I thought it passed by hands, but it goes to e-vote. And the "two strikes you're out" policy passes handily.

2:38 PM: And now it's the Khadr motion, which would remove right of citizenship even of people born in Canada that take up arms against Canada or its allies. I mean seriously, how do you strip a person born in Canada of their citizenship? Where would you send them exactly if they're not a dual citizen, Atlantis? Narnia? This is silly and dangerous. And it's thankfully defeated on a hand vote; good job delegates.

2:39 PM: Vote on clean air and green house gas policy that can be summed up as an anti-cap and trade policy. It appears to pass by hand, but they go to e-vote and confirm that yes, it carries by only by seven provinces to four. One speaker said this policy would condemn the government's current policy. Opps. I suspect they'll get over it though.

2:44 PM: Resolution that basically supports ending the per vote subsidy, passes easily but still with opposition. And now we're on to economic issues.

2:46 PM: Motion for union strike votes to be by secret ballot passes without debate, as does one to oppose penalties for picket line crossers. They also oppose red tape and support arctic sovereignty.

2:51 PM: We're actually now well ahead of schedule, knock wood. Just a handful of economic policies left and nothing controversial.

2:59 PM: And with the last motion passing, the policy plenary finishes one hour early. That was speedy. We'll see if they can move to the closing festivities early or not. Fingers crossed.

3:02 PM: Closing fun moved-up by 15 minutes to 3:45 pm, so see you then.

Let's get ready to roberts rules rumble...liveblogging the constitutional plenary

2011-06-11T10:14:00.025-04:00

(refresh for updates)

10:14 AM: After sleeping in a little and grabbing a muffin and a diet pepsi (breakfast of champions) I'm settled in on press row again for more Conservative mainhall drama. Actually, we may have a modicum of drama today because the constitutional and policy plenaries are the main orders of business.

The hall has been reorganized into tables and chairs with delegates seated by province, and the usual yes and no microphone positions have been set up. And on each table is what looks like an electronic voting do-hicky for delegates to enter their votes. Interesting set-up, we low tech Liberals just used voting cards and counters. This could potentially go more quickly, but the show of hands can be more fun.

Up first is the constitutional plenary at 10:30 am, followed by a buffet lunch and then the policy plenary at 1:30. The folks at iPolitics.ca have posted the resolution booklets here. I don't see Scott Reid's one member one vote reform one in there, but while it was defeated at workshop I did hear the petition drive to get it to the plenary floor was successful, so we'll see. I'm sure there's some fun policy stuff in there too. And Guy Giorno is going to chair the session, that should be...interesting.

I'll sign back on in a bit when the festivities get back under-way, so stay tuned for updates.

10:42 AM: OK and we're underway, just 12 minutes late. Guy Giorno has some sort of fluorescent green shirt on; it's hurting my eyes from the very back of the room. Hard to miss Guy in a crowd. Anyway, apparently there's voting-cards too, they only go to the vote machines if it's not clear. Pretty poor audio here, they're asking people to shussh. I see speakers at the back here, but they don't seem to be working.

OK, maybe it's a green tie Giorno is wearing. If that's so, it's overwhelming his shirt from back here. Wonder if the green is a message; a new environmentally-friendly CPC? Nah...

Each provincial group is cheering in turn. Alberta was the loudest group, but Ontario looked to be the biggest with over 1/3 of the hall. BC was probably second, and broke out into a spirited "Go Canucks Go!" chant.

10:50 AM: They're testing the vote machines with a best tie contest between Steve Blaney and Guy Giorno. Apparently there's some blue in Giorno's and it's his coalition tie; Blaney's is a majority tie because Conservatives hate majorities. Yeah, the delegates didn't find it overly funny either.

And they seem to have trouble initializing the voting machines; they're resetting the system and starting again. Or maybe Guy's tie lost and he's demanding a re-vote. And other request for people to stop talking because some people can't hear the chairs.

11:00 AM: We're still stuck on the tie voting. You know, this seems like one of those examples of technology not necessarily improving the process. Everyone can raise their hand...

11:03 AM: No tie results yet, but they've finally got the room to quiet down to a dull murmur so that's progress. But they're resetting the voting machines again; still having technical difficulties. I'm sure this is even more exciting on CPAC than it is here. And we're trying the tie vote again...

11:06 AM: And Blaney's majority tie beat Giorno's coalition tie with 69 per cent of the vote. There's no accounting for taste, I guess. Onto the rules: the chair makes the rules, the authority being granted by grand maker of all rules, Stephen Harper. No amendments from the floor. Speakers get a minute, yada yada.

11:10 AM: Lots of rules. To pass, constitutional reforms need a double majority: voters and provinces. And before the first resolution, a point of order! A real one or fake one, we'll see. Someone from Toronto is asking if these are the real rules, or, I don't know, rogue breaking all the rules rules. Blaney and Giorno confer and confirm yes, these are the real rules, but apparently there's another four resolutions or something. I don't know.

11:13 AM: First resolution is up, on secret ballot votes on national board vacancies. But there's apparently a difference between the text on the screen (which I can't read from back here) and the handout, so they're moving to the next one while they figure it out.

By the way, it occurs to me that the reason they're seated by province is because of the double-majority needed to pass constitutional amendments.

11:16 AM: Someone from Rona Ambrose's riding is introducing their housekeeping motion, and calls her the most civil MP. Being civil is easy when you're invisible, I suppose. The motion passes easily by a show of hands.

11:18 AM: Now it's a change to give Conservative Fund workers delegate status. Guy moving it says they do hard work we need their perspective. Guy opposed says only elected people should be delegates, we don't want to open the door to ex-officio nonsense. Neither do the members, they defeat it by a show of hands. By the by, do unelected Conservative Senators get automatic delegate status or do they need to get elected by an EDA?

11:21 AM: Next is an item that says the national board needs to inform EDAs what's going on in a timely fashion. A few people speak against it, saying it's nice but it's vague apple pie that doesn't belong in a constitution. It's defeated by a show of hands.

11:22 AM: Motion to give each territory it's own seat on the national board. There are three territories, they each want a seat; makes sense. One speaker says they don't have enough people to have one each, Alberta with its huge membership only has three speakers and it's not fair. Now another guy says Ontario would be screwed by this too. Foreshadowing of OMOV? Looks defeated to be but it's close; crowd sighs as Blaney says they'll move to electronic vote.

11:26 AM: Motion is defated by electronic balloting, looks like about 2/3s opposed. Next is a similar motion for representation on a policy committee. Speaker for says it's not a voting group, it's about policy discussion, and we have three territories so don't lump us all into one for the love of pete. Speaker against says dido the last vote, and you're territories not provinces so suck it. Clearly defeated in a hand vote.

11:29 AM: Membership motion that says if you're CPC you can't be a member of another party. It seems pretty clear it's a yes vote, but they're not sure of the regional majority so they're going to do an electronic vote. And they're going to re-boot the system because more people have been arriving. The electronic vote is barely yes, compared to what seemed like an overwhelming show of hands. Seven provinces in favour so it carries, but that was closer than I'd thought.

11:34 AM: Some guy on a point of order says people were being moved around and may have voted at different provincial tables, and we may need to revote. People boo, and Giorno says not gonna happen.

11:34 AM: We're back to the national council one we delayed because of the different texts issue. It would elect national council members by secret ballot; speaker says there's been intimidation in the past. Guy from Red Deer notes there's a mistake in the French text, which everyone finds amusing. Giorno makes a joke about the BQ having less seats than a Toyota Corolla. Vote by hands is overwhelmingly in favour.

11:39 AM: Now we're on to the motions that made it to the floor by petition instead of workshops. Apparently there's three, including Reid's OMV leadership one that has caused some drama.

Reid's motion is up first. On a well-cheered point of order though, a speaker says this motion is our of order because the petition process isn't meant for do-overs of things defeated in workshop. Giorno tells the cheering crowd they'll base decision on rules, not cheers, so shut it, and the point of order continues. He seems quite well argued, and I'm not a CPC rules expert but he seems to be making a good argument. It was defeated in workshop, after all. Now he's on to a slippery slope argument though, which is always lame.

11:44 AM: Points of order aren't generally debatable, but Guy says they're going to use their discretion to let a few people add further input. Which seems weird. Aren't the rules the rules. Someone has another interpenetration though, and says workshops are more guidance, not votes, and don't replace the plenary. Chairs are now conferring on the point of order.

11:58 AM: The point of order is over-ruled; the plenary will get to vote on Reid's motion and Reid is now speaking to his motion, telling the history of merging the CPC and PCs and saying why his hybrid approach is the way to go until he's cut off by the timekeeper.

Speaking against the motion is Peter MacKay, who also helped merge the parties and opposes this motion. He says it's about equality, about confederation, this system elected us a great leader and led to a stable majority government, let's keep it.

Over to Doug Finley speaking for; he says this system is broken. He ran Harper's campaign under this system and there is ample and unbelievable room for abuse and shenanigans. And in a rebuke to MacKay, he says the system didn't give us a majority, it accidentally elected a great leader that won a majority.

Michael Chong says the current system is fair, it works, don't tinker with a system that works.

A delegate from BC is for it, one from Quebec speaks against. Unsurprising. Getting the regional support will be a challenge for Reid's motion.

12:04 PM:Hey it's Peter Kent. He opposes the motion, and says it is symbolic of the creeping horror of proportional representation or something. Now to electronic vote, after re-initalizing the system again. Apparently hungover delegates are still trickling in.

12:08 PM: Motion is defeated by a show of hands, to cheers and a standing-ovation. Blaney said it was a clear 60-70 per cent majority, but don't publish that. Sorry, Steve. So that was interesting, but not surprising given the workshop results. So now the next CPC leader will be selected under what Doug Finley says it's a broken system subject to rampant abuse...

12:10 PM: Now they want to enshrine equality of ridings in the principles section of the constitution, which apparently would make amendments like Reid's out of order in the future. Speakers from the west opposed, east in favour. Interesting regional splits in the CPC. Motion is "clearly defeated" by hand vote, so Team MacKay loses one too. So we'll probably see this OMOV issue raised next convention, and the next...

12:13 PM: Last motion is something to do with who can run for national council; they want to ban spouses of caucus members from national council to avoid conflicts of interest. Is this an anti-Doug Finley motion (his wife Diane is in cabinet.). Interesting... Motion looks defeated by hand vote, but they're going to electronic vote. And it's defeated.

12:20 PM: Before breaking for lunch, Blaney admonishes people to be more discipled next time. I thought they did fairly well. Signing off, back for policy at 1:30pm.

My day two video blog from Conservative Convention 2011

2011-06-11T08:15:00.001-04:00

Back again with my day two video blog of Friday's fun and games at the Conservative convention in Ottawa.

We got shut out of the good stuff, such as the constitutional and policy workshops where, once again, the creation of a youth wing was soundly rejected, perhaps on orders and pressure from the party brass. Scott Reid's semi-one member one vote motion also got a rough ride, but it appears he has enough signatures to get it to the convention floor through other means.

Things I did get to see though included a panel of pundits, research on Conservatism with Preston Manning, heckling protesters and a speech from Stephen Harper. Here's my video blog:

Navigating the anti-Harper protest line (video)

2011-06-11T07:45:00.001-04:00

After venturing off campus Friday afternoon to have a drink with an old Carleton friend, I returned to the conference centre to find the road out front closed and filled with about 200 protesters there to greet Stephen Harper who was due to speak to delegates that evening. I proceeded to work my way through the rather profane cloud who were swearing at anyone in site they thought might be a Conservative. This included me, in my Walmart sportcoat and Zellers shirt. I particularly enjoyed being told to choke on my money, as we all know how well blogging pays...

Here's a look on video:

Liveblogging Harperpalooza gloat-a-thon 2011

2011-06-10T19:01:00.012-04:00

7:01 PM: I've settled in on press row for the evening keynote by Stephen Harper. I'm a little late but, thankfully and true to form, Harper is even later and the event shows no sign of starting, so it's all good.

Was off campus meeting a friend from my Carleton days for a drink, and had to run a bit of a protester gauntlet to get back in. The area in front of the conference centre is cordoned off from traffic and there were maybe less than 200 people making their feelings felt. It seemed like a rainbow of issues, united only by their dislike of Steve.

Flashing my blogger badge I managed to finally get past the activist cyclists who tried to block me with their bikes, finally crossing the barricade as a protester told me to go enjoy my money. Hey, I'm a blogger, if only...

The keynote hall isn't filled with chairs but it is now standing-room only and then some. Apparently delegates launched a raid on the press section for chairs (I think the press let them have five chairs, but five only). Staff replenished the press riser (in the far back of the hall) and press are now trying to guard their seats.

With that, I think you're caught up. I'll pause until the program begins, hopefully soonish.

7:12 PM: And we're starting; about 42 minutes late masters of ceremony Steve Blaney and Pam Wallin are on the stage getting things started. I'm distracted by more chair marauders, but I just heard someone say "strong, stable blah..." so I'm doing a shot in my mind. And wondering how far they're going to run into the Canucks game...

The pre-show is still going on though, with Jacques Demers interviewing James Moore on the floor, a Canucks fan celebrating his birthday today. And the crowd breaks into a not overly spirited rendition of Happy Birthday. It's also Preston Manning's birthday today.

Meanwhile, pretend reporter Mike Duffy is talking to delegates as well. But diverging for a moment, the Conservatives don't have near enough chairs here. The room isn't full, tons of empty space, but a few hundred are being forced to stand. Including a number of seniors. The media are being forced to give up chairs or be jerks, when really the party should (and could) put out enough chairs for attendees.

My head down, but Duffy just made a comment about "little women visiting native reserves" by themselves or something; yeesh.

7:21 PM: Wallin is going on about how Harper doesn't look for parades and lead them, he's guided by his principles. His principles, and massive taxpayer-funded polling and public opinion research to fund out where parades that he can lead are.

Now she's building a Harper as Rocky theme, or maybe Rodney Dangerfield. Always been underestimated, can't get no respect, yada yada. Trying to build a prompt and response rythym, but the crowd isn't buying into their "they were wrong" part that enthusiastically.

7:27 PM: And nearly 30 minutes after he was supposed to start speaking, Harper is slowly making his way to the stage, kissing hands and shaking babies to non-de-script rock music, as is the custom.

7:31 PM: Harper welcomes us to the new Ottawa Convention Centre, which is apparently the house that John Baird built (actually, the taxpayers of Canada through Canada's Economic Action Plan, but whatevs). With a hammer and nails, I'm sure.

Harper says there's two Ottawa, including the one "the media" refers to as Ottawa, the big government town. And then there's the real, hard-working Ottawa filled with good citizens who vote Conservative. Umm, sorry Steve, but the Conservatives bashed "big government Ottawa" for years, so give me a break. Of course, now Harper's party is the establishment, so the establishment is now ok.

7:36 PM: Harper was winning a few points from me with a well-placed Seinfeld reference, but then he ruined it by a baffling line "but it wasn't me that learned from George Kostanza, it was the Liberals." I don't get it, did we buy cheap wedding invitation envelopes or something?

7:40 PM: Harper is lauding his taxable day care subsidies; meanwhile with funding from the Liberal daycare program now gone daycare spots across the country are drying up. You can't have choice in child care, Steve, unless you have choices to make.

7:42 PM: Tax breaks for corporations now, and for families when we get around to balancing the budget. On crime, he affirms the crime omnibus bill will be introduced within 100 sitting days. Fairly sure he said sitting days. Was that the promise in the campaign, or was it 100 days overall?

He promises legislation this fall to scrap the gun registry, pitching it as part of supporting victims of crime. Umm, no. The registry was created in response to the concerns of victims of crime. Killing it has nothing to do with helping crime victims.

7:46 PM: Now it's on to using the troops as props. I'm fine with giving the military the tools it needs, I agree with that. But I can't stand lines that pretend other people don't support the troops as well. Don't use the military as a partisan prop, it's pathetic.

Meanwhile, he's moved on to righteously promising to continue not sucking up to dictators at the United Nations. Particularly, I suppose, after under Harper's leadership Canada for the first time failed to win election to the security council.

7:54 PM: Conservatives aren't a party of entitlement, declares Harper. Someone save that clip for future commercial use, because these guys are rocking-up the arrogance scale at an accelerated rate. Trust me when I say that, we Liberals no arrogance when we see it...

7:56 PM: The honeymoon with the NDP will pass, he says. And it probably will. And then he switched to French to speak to those Quebec NDP voters. Sounds like he's wrapping, hockey game starts shortly. But he wants to remind us that Conservative values are Canada's values, and the Conservative Party is Canada's party. He used to think it was arrogant when Liberals said things like that, but this time he thinks it's true, I'm sure, so it's different.

By the way, every speaker has their crutch lines. For Paul Martin, it was "let me clear." For Steve, it's "my friends."

Harper wants us to "be all we can be." Not by joining the army though, I hope? No, by building a better Canada in the years ahead. And hey, hockey game dude, wrap it! Canada is the best country in the world, he says. And the biggest hockey fans, Steve.

God bless all of you, god bless Canada, and he's done and walking out to more non-de-script rock music. I'll sign off for now, may have some thoughts later.

Dean Del Mastro's lie-based campaign techniques

2011-06-10T14:48:00.002-04:00

At a punditry panel this morning at the Conservative Convention in Ottawa, Conservative MP and Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Dean Del Mastro, took to the microphone to share some of his campaign techniques.

Apparently his primary technique is deliberately misleading his constituents. In this video, he talks about how he told voters that a private member's bill from Ruby Dhalla about immigrant pension reform was a Liberal Party policy, even though he knew full well it was a private member's bill that not only wasn't Liberal policy, but was officially opposed by the party leadership.

Stay classy, Dean.

Gettin' our conservative on: live blogging Preston Manning at #cpc11

2011-06-10T10:29:00.012-04:00

10:30 AM: Had to run over to the Rideau Centre for a cold beverage because none seem to be available in the conference centre, but I'm back in the same hall. It's now packed; with the delegates having sent a message to Canada's youth by massively rejecting the creation of a youth wing, they're now here for a panel on the Manning Centre's "everybody's conservative" report with headliner Preston Manning, who is looking greyer than I remember him.

10:34 AM: Apparently everyone is becoming conservative and is finally realizing how right they are and how wrong everyone else is. I find it just amazing how research commissioned by a conservative think-tank just happens to confirm and buttress he organization's world view. Fascinating, that.

10:37 AM: And here's Preston Manning. Directly over his shoulder is a sign for the ladies room; I hope CPAC frames that out of the camera shot. On the report, Manning says more and more conservative values are being shared by more and more Canadians and are becoming mainstream values, which he says is a good thing. But as a note of caution, as they become more mainstream a challenge will be that they become less identified with the conservatives.

He goes on Canadian views on the perception of government is changing; we're getting more sceptical of it's ability to do big things and are turning more to community groups. Left unsaid is the Harper government's strategy to make the government less relevant; it's self-fulfilling to a large degree in my view.

He also says it'd worrisome more people said they had a worse view of politics after the election than they did before, and feel people don't get into politics for good reasons. Preston wants to change this. Hey, here's an idea Preston: tell Steve to stop spending millions attacking people's personal motivations for getting into politicians as part of your party's partisan strategizing. Your party is feeding this problem you claim to lament.

10:43 AM: Now Carleton University's Andre Turcotte, who put together the research, is diving deeper. He says while Cons built popular support from 2004 onward the number of those identifying with conservative values was actually decreasing, but something really changed between 2008 and 2011.

People don't want big things from the government and don't trust them, except on public safety. There's no appetite for grand designs at the moment, he says. People want the government to work with other organizations and governments.

Now they're getting into the specific questions, and some of their methodology really becomes questionable. They ask if you have a problem, who do you turn to first, and say it's telling that you turn to themselves and and their friends first, before the government. Well, of course we do. And then he says the only thing they turn to the government first on is public safety. Again, so what? I'd agree to both and that hardly makes me Conservative. If I'm out of work I'd turn to friends and family to help find new opportunities; if I'm mugged I call the cops. So what?

10:52 AM: Oh, some of these questions: do you want a government focused on today's challenges or doing bold things about the future? Yeah, because you can't do both, it's totally an either/or. How about asking if you want a government that can walk and chew gum at the same time? That's what I want.

10:59 AM: Apparently Canadians are increasingly isolationist and want government to solve problems at home and not everyone else's overseas. This counts as increasing Conservative values, but only if you ignore strong Conservative support for the mission in Afghanistan, in Libya, and elsewhere.

11:04 AM: Yeah, I'm calling shenanigans here. The link between their data and their conclusions is being seen through blue-tinted glasses. Some of these questions are just silly, and besides, left unsaid is the huge gulf between so-called conservative values and the actual policies and actions of this conservative government.

11:13 AM: Now it's questions form the poll. One questioner wants more conservative professors preaching conservatism in universities; alrighty then. Manning uses that to segue to the need to educate and train campaign volunteers, something his Manning Centre does. Another questioner from Ottawa takes an offhand crack at Quebec on pork-barrel politicking.

11:17 AM: They're talking about people wanting more choice and control over their lives; meanwhile somewhere else delegates are debating the definition of marriage.

11:18 AM: Questioner now doesn't like human rights tribunals, calls them a "debate blanket" that stops debate. What, debate on not exposing human rights violations?

11:22 AM: Now a Lyndon Larouche-supporting "journalist" is on a diatribe about financial market conspiracies, and killing cattle or something. Manning says the biggest threat to private enterprise isn't socialist NDPers, it's irresponsible corporations that give everyone a bad name.

11:24 AM: A questioner is now complaining that her daughter is being brainwashed by "left-wing teacher" and is developing opinions that don't match her own world-view, requiring her to re-educate her daughter by forcing her to share her perspective. Oh, boy. Yeah, don't let her form her own views or anything.

Former Nanaimo-Cowichan candidate John Koury says he was looking to create wedge issues in the campaign; the budget has good policy but the NDP were talking electoral reform. He's wondering if there's anything in their research on rep by pop and if democratic reform has merit.

Manning says while he's not against electoral reform, he'd ask why NDP governments in power provincially in a position to change election laws haven't done anything about it. It's hypocrisy, he says, and he's right.

11:31 AM: And that's about if. I'm off to lunch. Looks like the afternoon is closed off to the media for the most part, so I'm off for lunch and I'll be back early evening for the big Harper speech, and the protests outside.

Video: Don Plett rips into Peter MacKay on one member, one vote

2011-06-10T09:15:00.000-04:00

As promised, here's some video of a speech Conservative Senator and former party president Don Plett gave at a hospitality suite Thursday night sponsored by MP Scott Reid, who is leading the movement to do reform the system of riding weighting for leadership voting that the party adopted when it was formed through the merer of the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives.

Former PC leader Peter MacKay had been leading the charge against Reid's proposal, and when Plett refers to a letter that's been circulating, he's referring to MacKay...

Liveblog: Panel of Conservative pundits

2011-06-10T09:03:00.011-04:00

(refresh for updates)

9:05 AM: Whole delegates are off doing fun constitutional things blogger/media types like me are banned from, I'm with a small group in a large room for a panel of pundits hosted by Monte Solberg. Other pundits on the panel of men in suits include twitterer Mike Storeshaw, recently former PMO staffer Dan Robertson, a fellow whose name I didn't catch, and Jamie Watt.

9:08 AM: Monte is talking about cratering Liberal support. Geez dude, I'm right here? But his question to the panel is how do we pick up cratering Liberal support without selling out and becoming *gasp* Liberals ourselves?

Jamie replies first step is solidifying support of the fight-leaning Liberals that voted CPC in 2011. One advantage is Harper was very clear on what he put on offer in 2011 campaign, he says. His research shows right-leaning Harpers were willing to give Harper a shot. To keep them, he says CPC needs to honour their promises by doing exactly what they said they'd do in the campaign.

Dan says rising NDP with the prospect of government is causing nervous Liberals to go CPC to keep NDP out of power, and best thing to help CPC keep gained LPC votes is Jack Layton as NDP leader.

9:12 AM: Monte cites the Manning Centre's "everyone is becoming more conservative" research (which I find less than compelling), and asks if the CPC just communicates better how awesome they are, won't everyone flick to them.

Guy I don't know says people are no longer identifying as partisans, it's about issues that impact them. Storeshaw talks about the importance of working between elections, being pragmatic and working for the people. Oh, and I see on Twitter the other guy's name is Jason Lietaer.

Jamie adds that writ periods are getting shorter, and for Ignatieff it wasn't long enough for him to kick the crap out of the CPC and sell his "family pack" or "whatever the hell they called it." Four days of Facbook story cost him 10 per cent of the campaign and his bandwidth to sell his message to Canadians.

Meanwhile, Robertson is writing the obituary of the Liberal Party. I remember when people wrote his party off; I guess he has forgotten though. Of course, no one will remember his definitive statements when they're proven to be full of crap. But Motne is excited about it.

9:20 AM: Question from floor, member from Ottawa-Centre doesn't like loyalty of his riding association and wants to know how to build a better one so they can knock off Paul Dewar, of whom I'm guessing he's not a fan.

Monte notes that Mark Holland actually kept his vote in Ajax-Pickering; when I heard Holland's name I expected something bad because they dont' like him; particularly after Mike Duffy's Nazi reference last night.

Meanwhile, Robertson is ranting about vote splitting as a myth.

9:25 AM: Apparently I'm in a CPAC camera shot, particularly when questioners are at the mic, so I guess I need to work on my posture. Anyway, a delegate from Don Valley West walks about the hard slof they've had there, and asks how they can keep with the multicultural support they've won in order to keep the riding.

Watt has nothing on topic, just repeats about Harper needing to keep his promises. Robertson continues in that theme, but the questioner gets back up and complains they're not answering her question, which is about how do we keep faith with the poor and disadvantaged that voted for them, because if they're not helped they'll lose their votes. Monte jumps in to list all sorts of great things the CPC has already done for the poor folks.

9:31 AM: Delegate from Quebec feels communications response needs to be better when the party was getting slagged for Harper not visiting the flood sites. Apparently he was in Europe and Afghanistan, but all the media were being mean because he didn't visit Quebec and he party didn't respond well, comms wise.

Jason, who works on comms team in PMO and the campaign, says they could have done better in Quebec in the campaign but comms wasn't their big challenge and their quick response was fine, the media was just mean to them. Internally, he says their focus was on talking to journalists quickly rather than getting into to riding associations, and they need to do better on the second half.

Meanwhile, Storeshaw answers her question in the language she primarily asked it, French.

9:41 AM: Parliamentary secretary to the PM, Deal Del Mastro, takes the mic to say as important as doing what we said we'd do is saying what we won't do. He says CPC is better for poor people than the NDP, and boasts about how he lied to voters by pretending Ruby Dhalla's pensions bill was a Liberal bill. Of course, he knows it wasn't and that the Liberal leadership didn't support it.

9:47 AM: Robertson says Conservatives have replaced Liberals as the patriotic party of Canada, and Storeshaw questions Ken Dryden's performance in the 1927 Summit Series with the Soviets.

9:52 AM: Former candidate says he doesn't see many people from his riding or volunteers here, because it's so expensive to attend the convention; it's mainly MPs and staffers because to much. He wants to know if anything can be done to make these events more affordable and inclusive and make all members feel included. Monte says more can be done with technology, and strong ridings can fundraise and help support delegates.

9:56 AM: Question on NDP Quebec support. Watt says it's not orange crush, it's a box of cracker jacks. It's entirely Jack Layton. When the BQ stumbled, people looked at the LPC and apparently we're toxic, and they looked at the CPC but apparently Jamie's party is awesome but just misunderstood. so beer-goggled Quebecers went home with an ugly Layton. Watt also switches from saying we need to make the NDP seem close to government so we can scare people to saying they're not close to government so they won't keep support.

10: 00 AM: And that's about it. Back in half an hour with a session with Preston Manning.

Video: James Moore and Mark Strahl on one member, one vote

2011-06-10T08:45:00.000-04:00

As I mentioned earlier, an attempt led by MP Scott Reid to change the equal ridings one member, one vote method of leadership selection is generating buzz at the Conservative convention. I'll have a fiery speech on the topic shortly, but here are BC MP Mark Strahl (son of Chuck) and BC Minister James Moore trying to avoid definitive statements on the topic.

Touring Conservative hospitality suites

2011-06-10T08:15:00.000-04:00

At least until the day when policy developed at conventions has any impact even remotely on campaign platforms, for many the most important part of most political convention is the hospitality suites,which seek to woo delegates with free booze and snacks.

Here's a look at a few of the suites from the first night of the 2011 Conservative convention in Ottawa, with stops at suites sponsored by the Canadian Real Estate Association, the Canadian-Israel Committee & Canadian Jewish Political Action Committee, MP Scott Reid (for OMOV reform) and Ontario PC leader Tim Hudak.

My day one video blog from Conservative Convention 2011

2011-06-10T07:45:00.001-04:00

Here's my video blog from the first day on the 2011 Conservative convention, which I'm attending as a blogger. It includes cameos by Tony Clement and Jacques Demers, close-up shots of cheese, and failing to negotiate a bargain on a Stephane Dion t-shirt.

For more of my thoughts on the first say, see my live blog of the evening's festivities. And I have several more videos I'll post later this morning including a tour of hospitality suites and a fiery speech by Don Plett that had Peter MacKay's ears burning, and not in a good way.