Great event with Stephane Dion in Toronto on Saturday

If you're in Toronto on Saturday (May 26th) this is where you should be, as the Edward Blake Society presents a pub night and discussion on Canadian democracy and reform with former Liberal leader (and still number one in my heart) Stephane Dion.

It begins at 6pm at Pauper's Pub, 539 Bloor Street West (at Bathurst) in Toronto. He'll speak about the Senate, seat redistribution and electoral reform, with plenty of time for questions. Hope you can make it out, as it should be a great event.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liberals need to rethink their Quebec approach

Since the election of former Quebec cabinet minister Thomas “Tom” Mulcair as leader of the NDP last month, much attention has been paid to the political situation in Quebec and the consensus seems to be the Liberals are screwed in the province.

Consolidating NDP gains in Quebec is certainly a priority for the party, and as a high-profile former minister in the Charest government whose departure from cabinet was spun as a matter of principle, Mulcair gives the NDP their best shot at holding and building on those gains.

Already, commentators such as Chantal Hebert are touting Mulcair as the new federalist champion, a position the Liberals used to like to claim:

He is well placed to establish the NDP as the default federalist party in Quebec — and, by the same token, to reduce its dependency on the nationalist vote at the expense of the Liberals.

As of the convention, Mulcair has become the top Quebec federalist on the federal scene, coming second for pre-eminence in the province’s federalist line-up to Premier Jean Charest.

While I don’t think she intended the comment in this way, Hebert also obliquely hinted at the potential weakness for Mulcair here:

Mulcair’s federalist credentials are important to his national standing. They will matter even more in Quebec if the Parti Québécois wins the provincial election.

Which raises the legitimate question: just how strong are his federalist credentials? A closer examination puts him firmly in the mainstream of Quebec’s political elite, the same “federalists” that savagely attacked Stephane Dion, dismissed Jean Chretien as unpolished and un-Quebec and tried to sideline him from the last referendum, and are determined to play footsie with soft nationalists by demanding ever more special powers and special treatment for Quebec.

The 30^th anniversary of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms was yesterday, and the statements of both Mulcair and the Conservative government are interesting. It’s pretty clear both are fishing in that same soft-nationalist waters.

Here’s part of the NDP’s statement, which was finally released late in the day Tuesday after the media became vocal wondering if the party was going to ignore the charter’s anniversary:

At the same time, the anniversary of the Charter also serves to remind us that, 30 years after the repatriation of the Constitution, Quebec is still not a signatory to the most fundamental compact of our democracy.

 As such, New Democrats will continue on the path laid out by Jack Layton, working to create the conditions that will one day allow Quebec to embrace the Canadian constitutional framework. We will work tirelessly to give real meaning to the unanimous recognition that the Québécois form a nation within Canada.

Similar comments from Harper on why the federal government is only marking the charter anniversary with a brief press release:

“In terms of this as an anniversary, I think it's an interesting and important step, but I would point out that the Charter remains inextricably linked to the patriation of the Constitution and the divisions around that matter, which as you know are still very real in some parts of the country,” Mr. Harper said.

And then there’s the NDP’s Sherbrooke Declaration and their opposition to the Clarity Act, a position they’ve tried to soft-play in the rest of Canada.

There has long been a tug of war within the Liberal Party of Canada between the nationalist wing (dominant in the Quebec Liberal establishment) and the strong federalist wing typified by Jean Chretien and Dion. Recent comments by Chretien illustrate the wider divide:

Jean Chrétien says Quebec politicians have cultivated a “culture of grievance” over the province's exclusion from the 1982 deal to patriate the Constitution – even though Quebeckers overwhelmingly supported it at the time and have been benefiting from it ever since.

"It will always be like that,” Mr. Chrétien told The Canadian Press. “They have a culture of grievance over it, not looking at the facts.”

I’ve long argued the Liberal Party should play to itsstrengths and become that strong, unapologetic federalist champion that puts facts before emotion instead of courting soft-sovereignists. That makes sense now more than ever, with both Harper and Mulcar courting the nationalist vote. Attracting those votes has always been difficult for the party of the charter and repatriation, and it will be even more so with Harper and Mulcair fighting for them too.

And the fact is, no one in Quebec politics today is flying the Maple Leaf and speaking to that staunch and unapologetic federalist community. It may not be as big a pie as the nationalist vote, but it’s definitely there and the Liberals have a chance to own it if we embrace our history and our strengths.

I was pleased to see comments from interim Liberal leaderBob Rae yesterday, which echo much of what Dion has been saying on the topic for years:

Quebec is not an oppressed minority, Canada is not a dictatorship, Canadian federalism, democracy, and the protection of minorities are all real things. A “clear vote on a clear question” would trigger discussions, not secession. The fantasies on this issue, now being fuelled not just by the Parti Quebecois but by the NDP in their “Sherbrooke Declaration”, have to be understood as pandering, an appeasement defies logic and constitutional reason.

It’s time, as Dion would say, to demand clarity from these supposed federalist champions. It’s time for Liberals to embrace our identity and stand up as the unapologetic federalist champions. On the constitution, on House of Commons representation, on language rights.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

“Dion syndrome” is revisionist history masking self-interest

Leadership races are always places for amusing and nonsensical spin, and the current NDP race is no exception with some participants warning against a supposedly deadly, but entirely fictional, new malady: Dion syndrome.

Named for former Liberal leader Stephane Dion, it’s meant to describe the horror of a candidate that finished third on the first ballot going on to win because of their strong second-choice support. Or in other words, winning because more members like them than like the other choices.

Here it is in common ussage:

* An NDP MP is warning party members to be wary of the “Stéphane Dion Syndrome.” .. “I’m behind Thomas Mulcair,” he said. “However, I’d prefer if the winner were Brian Topp instead of everyone’s second choice.”

* Last week party officials were warning about "Stephane Dion syndrome," referencing the third place Liberal contender who won his party's leadership because of divisions between Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae supporters.

First of all, it’s amusing to see the notion of preferential balloting degraded by supporters of a party that has made electoral reform and the evils of first past the post a key policy plank for years. Preferential balloting is fairer; I won’t bother repeating the argument as they've already made them ad nauseum.

But a look at who is pushing this narrative (primarily Mulcair supporters) reveals why they’re tossing-out past arguments of fairness: self-interest. It’s in the interests of the two media-anointed front-runners (Mulcair and Brian Topp) to do everything to frame this as a two-way race, and force members to make a polarized choice. While they may like one of the supposed second-tier candidates better, if there are only two “real choices” they’re forced to choose between them.

Ironically, it’s the same strategy the Liberals and NDP have ran against each other at the riding level for years. Only we can stop the Conservatives, so vote for us or you’re electing the Conservatives/throwing your vote away. Just hold your nose and pick the lesser evil…

However, they can’t just come out and say “we’re the only real candidates and those other guys suck” because, besides not being true, they do actually need the support of people that like those other candidates. Hence the invention of “the Dion Syndrome” to frighten people about the evils of electing a third-place candidate. While I would take many lessons from Stephane’s leadership, this isn’t one of them.

Let’s look back and look at the numbers. Going into Montreal in 2006 much of the media had framed it as a two-way race: Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae. This offered a compelling media narrative for a number of reasons. For one, a two-way race is easier to cover. Also, their personal history made it compelling: former roommates who went off and made good in the world, now battling for the leadership. And like it is for Topp and Mulcair, it was in Ignatieff and Rae’s interests to promote this narrative. One was right of centre, one left, and both were polarizing figures. And neither had strong second-place support. So make it a two-way race and let the chips fall.

Except, once the members began to vote it was clear this was anything but a two-way race. Going into the first round of voting, Ignatieff campaign members told me they’d be in the high 30s. Rae would be within striking distance, was the word.

Instead, we got Ignatieff 29.3%, Rae 20.3%, Dion 17.8%, Kennedy 17.7% on the first ballot. Ignatieff’s results were nowhere near his campaign’s over-spin, and just a few per cent separated supposed also-rans Dion and Kennedy from the supposed front-runners.

Now, to follow the logic of those diagnosing “Dion Syndrome” everyone but Rae and Ignatieff should have dropped-out because of a difference of 121 votes out of 4,815. Of course, they didn’t, and with Ignatieff and Rae’s support stalled Dion would take the lead on the third ballot and win on the fourth.

Now, there are lessons to learn from Dion’s leadership. He won with the support of the delegates (not the wider membership, which is why we went to WOMOV a few years later) but little support from caucus, which would prove a problem. And some supporters of other candidates declined to down tools, preferring to wait him out. But to think picking one of the supposed front-runners would have changed that is incorrect; first past the post would have elected a candidate with less support from the membership, not more.

The lesson is the same as it is from any leadership race: respect the will of the membership and work together to support the new leader or we won’t get anywhere. I’d actually call that Liberal Syndrome, and its one non-fictional malady that, speaking from experience, the NDP would do well to avoid.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stéphane Dion on senate reform

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.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

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

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

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

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

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

Setting the question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The percentage threshold

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Factors for House of Commons to take into account

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

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

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

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

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

Stephane Dion yesterday said it best:

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

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

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

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

Pick a position

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

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

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stéphane Dion speaks on clarity

He hasn't had a super high-profile since he resigned the Liberal leadership, but Stéphane Dion has been keeping busy working on and speaking about the issues he has been passionate about throughout his career.

He recently gave a speech at a conference in Ottawa called "Secession and the Virtues of Clarity" where he gives an overview of international and Canadian law on succession, the examples of Kosovo and Sudan, and the way the way sovereigntist thinking in Quebec has evolved thanks to the 1998 supreme court reference, and the Clarity Act which followed.

Interesting stuff for my fellow political nerds. Click here for the text of the speech.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Stéphane Dion on Canada at 150

Grabbed a brief minute with former Liberal leader Stéphane Dion today to ask him about what he wants for Canada in 2017, at age 150, and if people still expect big things from government.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Help Stéphane Dion retire his leadership campaign debt

Just received this letter asking for support in retiring Stéphane Dion's debt from the 2006 Liberal leadership campaign. Please try to help if you can. You can print the form and send it in or, if you prefer, donate online here. (To donate to one of the other former candidates still trying to retire their debts, click here, go down to "Former Leadership Candidate Donations" and select the candidate of your choice.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Looking back on The Coalition, one year later

It’s hard to believe that, one year ago, political Ottawa was in a tizzy of coalition madness, and even in the rest of Canada, the political interest alert system rose from “who cares” to “meh, wha?” Looking back one year later, who were the winners and losers and what are the lasting impacts?

In the short-term, certainly, while they may have over-played their hand the coalition was the right move for the opposition parties. With the Conservative economic update that ignored the worsening economic realities and instead tried to destroy their political opponents, the opposition parties had to act.

The coalition succeeded in forcing the Conservatives to introduce a budget in January that, while unfocused and imperfect, did make needed changes in areas such as Employment Insurance as well as spend billions in necessary stimulus to help the economy. It wasn’t the budget we’d have written, but it went much further than the Conservatives wanted to go because their feet were held to the fire by the coalition.

At that point, while I had misgivings at the time as well as quibbles with the strategy, Michael Ignatieff made the right decision in backing-away from the coalition. If they’d tried to take the government, after it has gone a long ways toward meeting their demands, the public would have revolted. No matter how constitutionally legitimate it would have been, in the eyes of much of the public it would have lacked moral legitimacy, and without such legitimacy no government can, or should, govern the people.

So, on the positive side for the opposition, the coalition forced the Conservatives to address the economic reality, dramatically change their policy in our direction, and bring in necessary economic policies to help Canadians deal with the recession. And for the Liberals, however messy the aborted leadership process triggered by the coalition drama may have been, it did get our new leader in place much sooner, saving us many, many dollars that could instead go into party coffers. We emerged with a new leader, a united party, and a healthy war chest.

That said, there were missteps and many negatives.

Did we overplay our hand by proposing a formal coalition, rather than just a Liberal government that would seek to govern with NDP and BQ support on a case-by-case basis? Certainly the NDP saw this as their opportunity at real power and wanted seats at the table. And it was important to demonstrate to the Governor-General and Canadians that the new government would be stable. But it made the separatist-socialist coalition messaging easy, and that resonated with Canadians. And we needed public support for legitimacy. We may well have over-reached.

Having Gilles Duceppe at the table for that press conference/photo-op was a mistake too. It lent credence to Conservative lies about the BQ being in the proposed government when they weren’t, and hurt our chances to sell this to the public.

And as much as it pains me, having Stephane Dion at the head was a deal-breaker for many Canadians. I argued at the time it had to be Stephane, and for us, there was no other viable option at the time. But he had just been pretty soundly rejected by the electorate and I talked to many Canadians who said, they’d support the coalition, but not with Dion. While he was the PM we needed, he wasn't the salesman we needed to sell it. It was another factor that made it harder for us to gain public support.

Looking back now, I’d have to say I total more wins in the Conservative column one year removed from the coalition crisis.

While they were forced into stimulus spending they’ve embraced it, using the opportunity to paint themselves as Conservative Santa Clauses with a multi-billion dollar slush fund. They’re showering money on their own ridings to cement their re-election chances and on key swing ridings they need to get to their elusive majority, all with giant prop-cheques emblazoned with the Conservative logo.

We can point out all we want that the distribution of funds is politically-motivated, that they’re blurring the partisan/government divide, but for most people any outrage is largely of the “a pox on all their houses” variety. Conservative popularity has largely held steady through this downturn. That’s a remarkable feat, and due in no small part to the stimulus spending forced on them by the coalition.

More long-term, the prospect of a future coalition government, which would be perfectly democratically legitimate and could be an antidote to both the perpetual minority governments that Canadians are tiring of as well as a good opportunity to unite the centre-left against the Conservatives, has been poisoned and will likely be a no-go for a generation.

We had to sell Canadians on the concept, and we blew it. We were hobbled by the factors mentioned above and we couldn’t overcome the Conservative campaign of smears, lies and distortions. Now the concept of coalition governments, which are the norm in so much of the rest of the world, is as politically toxic as, well, the green shift. Which is a victory for the Conservatives that greatly increases their chances of continued governance by playing the NDP and Liberals off each other. A divided left helps a united right.

So, overall, while the opposition parties largely played their cards as best they could and did achieve some tactical victories, in the long-game it’s Stephen Harper’s Conservatives that emerged as the winners from the coalition madness of one year ago. They continue to govern, their opposition is divided, they held (and even increased) their popularity through a punishing economic downturn, and are inching closer to majority nirvana.

It has been quite a year.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Tribute to Stephane Dion

The video tribute to Stephane Dion shown at the Liberal convention in Vancouver:





____
PS. Check-out my entry for the YLC's positive politics ad challenge, "Is this your Canada?"

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stephane Dion can be a Liberal elder statesman

Speaking with several Liberal friends from Quebec over the course of the convention, I've been hearing that it's very likely Stephane Dion will run for re-election in his St. Laurent-Cartierville riding. It's not official yet, but I'm told nominations are slated to be opened in Quebec shortly, and Dion is more likely than not to opt to stay around.

I was asked to keep this low-key until official, but since La Presse seems to have reported it, it would seem the cat is out of the bag.

I really hope Stephane does run again. The LPC needs him, his voice and his concious. We actually gained seats in Quebec in the last election, showing Stephane is more of an asset there than many would care to admit. He was one of our strongest cabinet ministers under both Jean Chretien and Paul Martin. And, should the Liberals be lucky enough to form the next government, I know he would be a real asset in a Michael Ignatieff cabinet. Who better to lead he charge on cap and trade as Mi's environment minister then the man so respected in the domestic and global environmental community?

And let me just take this moment to observe that Jane Taber is completly full of crap on so many levels its a wonder she manages to walk upright. This section today in her gossip column or whatever the heck she calls it, really pisses me off, and shows just how out of touch with reality Jane is:

La Presse columnist Vincent Marissal is reporting today that former
Liberal leader Stéphane Dion will run again in the next election, creating
an interesting puzzle for new leader Michael Ignatieff. Whispers are that
there are some younger Liberals who had their eye on Mr. Dion's Montreal
riding; those quasi-safe Liberal ridings rarely open up. So there could be a
fight. As well, it's always awkward dealing with former leaders - what
job do you give them? How much influence should they have? And after Mr.
Dion's disastrous speech last night at the convention, there doesn't seem to
be a lot of goodwill around for him. Still, former Conservative prime
minister Joe Clark and former Alliance leader Stockwell Day have both
demonstrated how former leaders can make valuable contributions to a caucus
and federal cabinet.

First of all, Jane, I'm confident that Stephane's riding meets the minimums set out for incumbents to avoid a nomination race, so if Stephane wants to run again, there will be no nomination race. And besides, even if there were, Stephane's personal popularity in that riding is very high. And no one would be stupid enough to try to unseat him. Even Jean Lapierre was quickly warned off when he contemplated it as Paul Martin's Quebec organizer. And just how safe the seat would be without Stephane is debatable.

Second, I'm sure Michael will have no problem finding a key position for Stephane on the team. Michael is a smart man, who knows what an asset Dion is and the strengths he brings to the team. That's not an issue.

Third, your statement that there isn't much goodwill for Stephane in the LPC and that his speech was "disastrous" is complete horseshit, and evidence you should really stick to writing about Laureen Harper's cats. I don't know what you could see from your snarky perch on media row, but down on the floor, where the Liberals were, I saw a lot of emotion, respect and much goodwill for Stephane.

Yes, we Liberals may be disappointed with his term as leader. Ok, strike the may be. We are. But don't dare for a second mistake that for a lack of respect, and affection, for the man, and for what he has done for Canada and for the Liberal Party. While he didn't have the royal jelly to be leader, Stephane is an honourable, intelligent, decent man who has fought, sweat and bled for his party and his country all his political career. There was a lot of love for Stephane in that hall, and there's a lot of love and respect for Stephane in the Liberal Party.

On that, Jane Taber couldn't possibly be more wrong. Next convention I hope the Globe sends an actual journalist.

Anyway, rant done. I'm at YVR, having a few glasses of wine in the lounge (thanks to a pass from generous former blogger Bob the Red) before taking the red-eye back to YYZ. And once home, I plan to sleep much of Monday. After that, though, I'll be back with some convention big picture thoughts, and some commentary about the constitutional plenary, including OMOV and more.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

It's morning in Vancouver. And hopefully dawn for OMOV

I'm back at the convention centre for the final full day of the Liberal biennial convention in Vancouver. And for a convention the media keep insisting we're saying is about nothing (I haven't met one Liberal that has said that, nor would they have came all the way here if they did) we've been pretty darned busy. I know my feet are killing me, from all the walking around.

Last night was a good night, but time management always seems to be a challenge for Liberal convention oganizers. I remember in Montreal in 2006, one of the keynote speakers (maybe Howard Dean, I forget) was running late and so the hosts had to fill, having one of the musical groups play song after song.

This time, it was the opposite problem: things went way too long. Particularly given that many delegates had just arrives in town and were still in Eastern time. The convention really should be a day longer, they just tried to pack too much into last night's program.

The opening by the Coast Salish chief and the later dancing by the Nisgha was great, the drumming stayed in my head for awhile. Paul Martin gave a great speech and Jean Chretien rocked the house, making me wish I could go back and write his name in in my leadership ballot.

And, of course, Stephane Dion spoke. I covered off my feelings on the content of his speech and his legacy last night. I'm told he spoke for some 40 minutes, and went over his time. Honestly, it didn't feel like he was up there that long to me. Not that he's a spellbinding orator or anything. It just didn't feel that long to me.

And, frankly, I don't think it would have been appropriate to rush him off the stage or make him just give a quick au revoir. With all he has done for the Liberal Party and for Canada, and, frankly, with the way the Liberal Party has treated him, he deserved to not be rushed but to leave on his own terms having said his peace and making the case for the ideals and principles that have driven him throughout his career.

I am very sorry though for the later speakers and particularly two great Canadians, Louise Arbour and Eric Hoskins. And I apologize to those who were hoping I'd be blogging about their speeches, which I really did want to see. I'm disapointed I didn't. But it was just so late in the evening at that point, my energy was fading, and I needed to seek nourishment and a beverage before heading to bed. As I said earlier, even if Stephane went long, it was waaaay to much to try to pack into one evening.

Today is a new day though, and potentially a big day for the renewal of the Liberal Party. The policy plenary is currently ongoing, but later this morning and in the afternoon is what for me is the main event, and one of the primary reasons I dropped a large chunk of cash I should have saved to be a votiing delegate rather than a non-voting blogger: One Member, One Vote.

I really think OMOV is going to pass. When I speak to delegates about it, I'd say easily 90 per cent are onboard. There is an organized yes to OMOV campaign, with nifty buttons. Nothing similar on the No side.

The question is the YLC ammendment. It's up in the air, but I wouldn't bet against it passing. The youth really know how to organize. Something is interesting though. When I speak to some delegates about it who aren't really familiar with the issue, they say sure, let's support the youth. But when we dive into it, that with OMOV anyone who takes out a $10 membership can vote, they see it really isn't fair to just reserve 25% of the riding points for youth, particularly when that's more than double their membership and much more than their % of the population. So, if enough people consider the issue, I think the ammendment might be defeated. But if it's just a reflexive "let's support the youth" without thinking further, it will pass. I don't want to call it at this point.

I will say though, for the record, that I will be supporting OMOV even if the ammendment passes. I think OMOV is a crucial reform. I think the YLC ammendment goes against the very spirit of OMOV, and has more to do with protecting influence then franchising youth. I think it's a bad ammendment. I think it will lead to problems down the road with other groups having a now legitimized argument for their own over-weighted quotas.

But let's not let perfection get in the way of progress. With that attitude, we'll never move forward. Let's pass OMOV.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Live from the tribute to a Great Canadian, Stephane Dion

6:56pm: I'm back on the netbook and Wifi in a cavenous hall at the Vancouver convention centre for the evening's main event, including the tribute to our outgoing leader, Stephane Dion. It looks like I have just under two hours battery power, so I'll keep live-blogging as long as I can. So keep refreshing for updates.

Those of you who have followed my blog for awhile will know I was a very early supporter of Stephane Dion. I came to support Stephane at a time I was rather disollusioned as a Liberal, deeply disapointed with my party after its conduct in the 2005/06 election and turned-off the party in general after the petty BS of the years of Martin/Chretien feuding.

Stephane wasn't a perfect candidate, but he was a decent and hobourable man, a fighter for Canada, and someone whose integrity was above reproach. As I wrote at the time, he was a candidate I would never have to apologize for, someone I could be poud to support. And I was.

Once we impobably won, obviously things didn't go as we would have hoped, for a variety of factors. But I'll never forget the emotion of that night in Monteal, when my long-shot came in. When we launched that noble experiment: could a good man succeed in politics? Whatever else happened, Stephane renewed my faith in Liberalism that night, and for that I thank him dearly, and I pay tribute to him tonight.

Merci Stephane.

7:15pm: After a bilingual national anthem from a local children's choir, always a crowd pleaser, the convention co-chairs come out: Ujal Dosanjh, Justin Trudeau and Bobbi Ethier. Uj makes some jokes about the convention centre's green roof and its rooftop bee hives to polonize the plants (no, its true), saying the buzz of the bees will carry Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals into office. While the partisan crowd applauds, Uj needs a better speach writer I think.

7:21pm: Justin is talking in French about Einstien. I'm going to go offline to converrse battery power for a bit, until the opening stuff is done.

7:31pm: Back online to say the chief of the Coast Salish native band, on whose traditional land the convention is being held, is a great hit with the audience. Afte a lenghtly greeting in his traditional language, he switches to English to ask "are you with me so far?" He also jokes this convention centre is the future home of their casino, which gets a good laugh. Now he's singing a traditional welcoming song I rather like, and leaves to a standing-0 from the crowd.

Ujjal says from one Indian to another I understood every word of that song.

7:35pm: Mayor Gregor Robson: We are all Canucks. The mayor, a former NDP MLA, thanks past Liberal govenments for their infrastructure commitments to Vancouver, and thanks Jean Chretien for helping Vancouver win the 2010 Winter Olympics without resorting to the Shawinigan handshake.

Also, he says we have ambitious goals, including ending homelessnes sin the city by 2015 and the greenest city in Canada by 2020.

7:50pm: A great ovation for the Right Honourable Jean Chretien. He's been coming here since 1967, when he came as a junior minister for the centenial. He pays tribute to the amazing job Stephane Dion did as a member of his cabinet.

If today, he says, the country looks at the time when he was PM and looks at it as a great 10 years for the country, Stephane Dion was a big part of that. Thank-you Stephane.

Now, Jean goes into Harpe bash mode, fun. He's talking about the G-20 photo-op. Every leader was there for one, Stephen Harper. And we all know where he was... And these days Harper only talks to American journalists. CNN says he was at the door of the washroom, but this time he wasn't waiting to shake hands with the PM of China. And we don't know who he was waiting for...

The PM was in the same place he always was when the world needs Canada to lead ... missing in action. Jean goes off on a rif now, the economy, China, Africa, developing world, peacemaker in the middle east... where was Stephen Harper.

We know where he is: nowhere. And we know where he'll be after the next election...

Can I go back and write-in Jean Chretien's name on my leadership ballot? Please?!

"I say to Stephen Harper there is no such thing as Liberal values or Conservative values. There is only Canadian values! It's not Liberal or Conservative to help a starving child in Africa. It's Canadian!"

Jean reads some of the Stephen Harper talking-down Canada quotes of the past, and then says now Harper is proud of Canada, and guess what he's proud of: the Liberal economic record. It was Liberals that returned surplus after surplus, it was the Liberals that said no to bank mergers and insisted on stable, well-regulated banks. Thanks to what the Liberals did our banks are standing strong where others have fallen.

"I thought Stephen Harper was supposed to be tough on crime. Well, he should be charged for stealing our record. But I can't blame him. If I had his record, I'd want to steal someone else's too."

I love Jean but I think this is going to be a late night, we've got a lot left on the schedule and we're already one hour in.

8:18pm: Bobbi Ethier kicks off the Dion tribute and launches a tribute video kicked-off by Aline Chretien, who first learned of Stephane and introduced him to Jean to bring him to Ottawa and to cabinet after the referendum.

The video is heaby on the clarity act, fighting the separtists, bringing in more women candidates, his integrity and honesty. Surprisingly, very little on the environment. I mean, the green shift didn't work out, but come on guys: it was a big part of Stephane's legacy.

8:23pm: Paul Martin on the stage now. Paul has been asked to introduce and talk about Stephane. A tad ironic, Paul left Stephane out of his first cabinet. Paul learns from his mistakes though, and that error was quickly rectified.

Paul says lots of people talk about the need for getting more women active in the Liberal Party and in politics, but no one has put it into action like Stephane Dion has, refering to the 33% quota.

Paul says he hasn't been given much time to speak, and on his way up John Turner said to him for god's sake Paul, cut it short! He goes on to talk about the UN climate change meeting in Monteal, and the work of Stephane at achieving a consensus.

8:37pm: OK, I'm back. Second half of the video was all about the environment. Michael Ignatieff is now on stage to intro Stephane, calling him a true Canadian patriot. Michael lauds Stephane's commitment to female candidates, saying he cannot do less and he must do more. And Stephane put environmental sustaniability at the heart of what this party is and will present to the counntry in the next election, and he promises to carry that legacy forward.

Stephane gave every last inch of what was in him to defend the values that we have always presented to this country with pride.

9:11pm: And Stephane's speech is over. I posted a number of tweets on it so I won't rehash all the content. But it occured to me as I listened to Stephane that what he was saying was so remarkably consistent with what he spoke about during the campaign, and what he spoke about during the leadership race.

All along during that time, from his leadership run to his speech tonight, Stephane called it as he saw it. For better or worse, damm the torpedos, he spoke from his heart and stood up for what be believed in, for what he believed was right, and what he believed was best for Canada. And that's admirrable.

It may have been his unwillingness to get dirty, to play the political game, that drew me to Stephane in the first place. And that didn't change. Stephane was always Stephane. While he wouldn't let politics change him, even if he leaves the stage under less than ideal circumstances, he leaves us with his honour and his integrity intact, and my respect for him just as strong. That's not something that many politicians can say.

From here I'll sign off for the evening. Good night.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Road to Vancouver: Convention keynote speakers announced

History dictates that, one day, one of these keynote speakers will run for Liberal leader (after Michael has a long, successful run of course). I see a name or two on here I'd like ... Jean may be a little old though, alas. But I can dream.

International human rights take centre stage at the 2009 Biennial Convention in Vancouver. Former Supreme Court Justice and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour and War Child Canada President Dr. Eric Hoskins will be speaking at the Opening Ceremonies. Former Prime Ministers John Turner, Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin will also address delegates during the convention.

I'm also looking forward to the tribute to and speech by Stephane Dion. A good man who will always have my respect.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The sovereigntists, Denis Coderre, Michael and me

Back when we were going to have a real-live leadership race, and I was trying to decide who to support, if there was one concern I had about supporting Michael Ignatieff it was his past positions on Quebec issues, and his Quebec organization.

I disagreed vehemently with Michael’s handling of and position on the Quebec as a nation issue during the last leadership race. I felt it was empty symbolism that would only raise artificial expectations amongst sovereigntists we weren’t prepared to meet while, in the end, solving nothing.

And as a Stéphane Dion supporter, I was (and am), frankly, pissed off at what I viewed as an at least Ignatieff-sympathetic Quebec Liberal organization that, at best, sat on its hands while Dion tried to rebuild the party following his leadership win. His lackluster performance as defence critic aside, the fact Denis Coderre refused to serve as Quebec lieutenant when Dion asked was appalling.

In the end, I decided the nation thing seemed like a dead issue, that overall Michael was the best choice for leader, and that it wouldn’t be fair to hold him responsible for the actions of those who have supported him in the past.

So, needless to say, I read this news with interest:

Michael Ignatieff's Quebec lieutenant says he is wooing disaffected sovereigntists and members of the stumbling Action democratique du Québec to the federal Liberal fold for the next election.

Liberal MP Denis Coderre said Monday that he has had talks with "fatigued" sovereigntists about possibly running for the Liberals in the next federal election. However, he would not identify those to whom he has spoken.

Members of the provincial ADQ, which has been reduced to third place in the legislature and is searching for a new leader, are also being courted.

While I’m certainly not ready to say this is troubling, I think it does bear watching. And it does cause me worry of backsliding to a Martin/Lapierre-style approach to Quebec that crashed and burned spectacularly.

If Coderre is going to be bringing in “fatigued sovereigntists” and former ADQers I’ll just say I hope they’re vetted very closely. Frankly, the ADQ has advocated some troubling policies and has attracted some questionable characters.

If there is real, honest support to be found there for the Liberal Party, people who have come to a federalist position, and support the principles of the Liberal Party, than so be it. I’m all for reaching out, and I’ll give Denis the benefit of the doubt as I watch with a wary eye.

But before we go too far down this road, let’s remember the history here. It’s a history of failure.

Brian Mulroney brought in Lucien Bouchard, we all know how that turned out. Martin and Lapierre failed. The Conservatives tried this approach too, compete with the BQ for soft-nationalists. It worked for the short-term but they couldn’t keep up with the rising price, and now they’re in a shambles in Quebec. The NDP is playing in this sandbox too, and it hasn't gotten them anywhere.

The Liberal Party should and must be the federalist champion. The unapologetic defender of a strong and united Canada. The party of the Clarity Act. The party that, while respecting provincial jurisdictions, believes in an activist federal government that uses its resources and powers to drive national interests, priorities and programs.

Anyone who is comfortable in that Liberal Party is cool with me.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Stéphane Dion asks a question, Peter Kent acts like a tool

Former Liberal leader (and still number one in my heart) Stéphane Dion posed a question in question period today for the first time since he stepped down as leader, using the slot following Michael Ignatieff to ask a question about the recent federal court ruling requiring it to seek clemency for a Canadian citizen facing the death penalty for murder in Montana.

In a rather heated exchange, Conservative junior foreign affairs minister Peter Kent showed what a tool he is. And I love his whole say something inflammatory, and than say we're reviewing the court ruling and it would be inappropriate to comment further in a rather patronizing tone. The pride of the liberal media, former Global anchor Peter Kent.

Anyway, good to see Stéphane again.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Reflecting on Stéphane

I’m in the Maple Leaf Lounge in Vancouver on my way back to Toronto, and thanks to a flight delay when the clocks strike midnight in the GTA I’ll be at 30,000 feet with Air Canada. I had planned to be waiting for my suitcase when the clock struck midnight, so no biggie.

I didn’t want to let the calendar turn from 2008 though without reflecting on the career of Stéphane Dion. Particularly, of course, his tenure as leader of the Liberal Party. As an early and ardent supporter of Dion, I wanted to let a little time to go by to reflect on the event of the past two years.

About mid-way through the 2005/06 election campaign I became deeply disillusioned with politics in general, and Liberal politics in particular, culminating in my disgust with the “soldiers in our streets” ad and the feeble defences offered by the campaign and my declaration the Liberals had lost my vote. When I began considering whether I would remain involved in Liberal politics or not the choice of the next leader played a large role, and the day after the election I was one of the earlier people in blogland to float Dion as a potential leadership candidate.

I won’t rehash all my reasons for supporting him, they’re well-documented in my archives. He was, for me, the right person for the time though: an experienced, loyal Liberal removed from the sponsorship nonsense, palatable to both the Chretienites and the Martinites, whose honesty and integrity was above reproach. I also didn’t shy away from his challenges: charisma, language, the ability to transition from loyal lieutenant to leader. In the end, he never wavered on the positives, but was sadly unable to overcome the negatives.

Frankly, I never expected Dion to win. I’m not sure many really did. I felt though that he was the best candidate on offer at the time – I still do – and he was a candidate I could be proud to support. And I was. I’ll never forget the exhilaration of that convention in Montreal, as the momentum built day-by-day, never wanting to believe we could take this until that final night, and the interminable wait standing in a packed hall waiting for the final ballot results, when I considered, never having considering winning a possibility, how crushed I’d be if we lost now.

That night in Montreal was probably the high-point. There seemed to be real unity in the room that night. As the convention euphoria subsided though and we returned to the real world, and the Conservative attack ads began, the downward trend began.

Where did it go wrong? Who is to blame. The problems were manifold and the culprits many.
For one, much of the party was never really behind him. He was the consensus candidate, but was the first choice of very few, and with early weakness many began to view the Dion administration as a temporary aberration that would soon be corrected. He was hampered by an inability to rally the full weight, and energy, of the party and caucus behind him. The lack of fiscal resources was also a serious impairment. The public and anonymous source snipping from within the tent only served to underline the narrative of the second factor.

And that’s the unprecedented Conservative smear campaign. Never in our political history has a political leader been subjected to such a coordinated, highly financed attempt to destroy their reputation. I freely admit I underestimated the impact and the effectiveness of the Conservative negative ad campaign to ill define Dion. It was far more effective in shaping the view of Dion held by ordinary Canadians than I’d ever imagined. What’s more, out inability to effectively counter the smear campaign, both in paid advertising and in our free media opportunities, meant Dion was buried in a deep hole even a more able politician would likely have been unable to crawl out of.

And finally, but certainly not least, there’s Dion himself. My respect for the man, his integrity, and all he has done for Canada is undiminished. Sadly, however, he was unable to realize the potential we saw in him, and grow into the leader I felt he could become.

As much as it pains me, the language issue was a serious problem. It bothers me that, in a linguistically and ethnically-diverse country as Canada this is the case. It shouldn’t be. But we live in the real world, and I heard from too many people with no interest or stake in politics that the language barrier was a major concern for them to be able to dismiss the issue. While I felt he made improvements over the course of his tenure and during the campaign, the hole was too deep.

As well, frankly Dion proved to lack the skills as a politician to be an effective leader, and particularly to broaden the tent and mend fences across leadership lines. He was unable to develop consensus support within the party for his strategies and policies. During the campaign he seemed to be unwilling to consider strategic course corrections or heed the advice of those more experienced in campaigns when the strategy proved to be failing. The lateness of the shift from an environmental to an economic message is the obvious example. If executed sooner, the result would not have been so bleak. And before then, there was a point where the polls showed it was serious deck chair salvage time, forecasting an even bleaker result.

Which brings us to the Green Shift. This one issue probably encapsulates the Dion tenure. It was, policy-wise, absolutely the right policy, with broad support amongst those informed and educated on the issue. And Dion, as a point of principle, stuck firmly to it, despite being advised of the pitfalls. However, despite the policy-soundness of the Green Shift, it proved to be an albatross due to the fact a) Dion didn’t build the consensus around it within the party, b) he lacked the charisma and language skill as a political leader to be an effective salesman, and c) we again lacked the fiscal and quick response resources to effectively counter the paid advertising and earned media smears and distortions of the Conservatives and the NDP. We let them define the Green Shift, just liked we let them define Dion himself. And the high gas prices at the time didn’t help either.

So, when it comes to examining what went wrong with the Dion leadership there’s lots of blame to go around, and he deserved a good deal of it. As do we rank and file Liberals, and senior anonymous Jane Taber Liberals. For all that though, as I’ve said many times before, the problems facing our party go far deeper than our leader, and if left unresolved, we’ll keep repeating this vicious cycle. As I’ve pondered the Dion leadership the past few weeks I’ve been reminded of the Coldplay lyric:

“Revolutionaries wait, for my head on a silver plate. Just a puppet on a lonely string. Oh, who would ever want to be King?”

For all his faults and shortcomings, from the language barrier to his stubbornness, in the way that he left the leadership, Dion again demonstrated the integrity and putting of country and party before self that drew me to him in the first place. By stepping aside early to allow Michael Ignatieff’s selection as interim leader, something he was under no obligation to do, he again showed more respect and commitment to the party than, frankly, it has ever shown him.

While he wasn’t, in the end, the right person for the job, Dion leaves it with his pride intact, having not wavered from the core commitments he holds dear. He stood-for what he believes in, even if it wasn’t popular, and even though it cost him dearly. That’s why I decided to support him, and on that, he hasn’t let me down. Merci, Stéphane.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stéphane steps down

I'm having a very busy day at work, and then after work I'm off to the Maple Leafs game (go Isles!), so I won't have time until late tonight or early tomorrow to respond to the decision by Stéphane Dion today to step aside as party leader with the time and thought deserved.

For now, I'll just say I'm very sorry about the way things worked out. Stéphane is a good man and a good Canadian, and my respect for him has never wavered. No matter what the last few chapters of his political biography may read, today he's ending his leadership as he has spent his career: putting his party and his country first. Which just deepens my respect for the man all the more.

In the mean time, here's his statement, followed by an e-mail that went-out from the Michael Ignatieff campaign this afternoon.

Dion's Statement:

After the election on October 14 I announced I would stay on as Leader of the Liberal Party until my party could select my successor. One of my goals was to ensure an effective opposition to Stephen Harper's government.

I believe that decision was the right one and I am proud of having forced Stephen Harper to back away from his attempt to force upon Canadians his most ideological and harmful plans in these tough economic times.

The alliance between the Liberal Party and the NDP to replace the Harper government, with the support of the Bloc Quebecois, is a solid basis to give Canada a government that reflects both the aspirations of the majority of Canadians and the support of the majority of Members of
Parliament. Such a government would be more stable than a minority Conservative government incapable of cooperating with opposition parties.

As the Governor General has granted a prorogation, it is a logical time for us Liberals to assess how we can best prepare our party to carry this fight forward.

There is a sense in the party, and certainly in the caucus, that given these new circumstances the new leader needs to be in place before the House resumes. I agree. I recommend this course to my party and caucus.

As always, I want to do what is best for my country and my party, especially when Canadians' jobs and pensions are at risk.

So I have decided to step aside as Leader of the Liberal Party effective as soon as my successor is duly chosen.

I will offer my unconditional and enthusiastic support to my successor in the same way I have always supported the leaders of our great party. I will work under the next leader's direction with all my energy in order to give Canada a better government.

I wish to close by making it absolutely clear that my earlier departure does not change the facts of the situation that the Prime Minister has created in the last two weeks.

The Prime Minister and his government refused to lay out a plan to stimulate the economy. The Prime Minister has lost the confidence of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister shut down Parliament to save his job while thousands of Canadians are losing theirs. The Prime Minister
has poisoned the well of trust and respect that is necessary for a minority government to work in Parliament _ especially in a time of crisis. Mr. Harper took an economic crisis and added a parliamentary crisis that he then tried to transform into a national unity crisis: this is no way for a Prime Minister of Canada to act.

It is my hope that the decision I have announced today will enhance the capacity of Parliament to function effectively for the sake of Canadians in this economic crisis.

Stephane Dion, PC, MP

Micheal's letter:

Dear Friends,

Over the past few days I have been honoured by the incredible surge of support from all parts of our party for my candidacy for the leadership.

The week ahead promises to be an exciting one and I wanted to share with you my thoughts as it begins.

First, every one of us owes a debt of thanks to Mr. Dion for his public service as Leader of our party, as a cabinet minister and an MP. I hope that we may continue to count on his contributions to Canada and to the Liberal Party.

Second, I want to share with you that I will stand as a candidate to replace Mr. Dion under the process outlined in the party constitution, as voted upon by the delegates of the grassroots of our party at the last convention in Montreal, for replacement of a Leader who resigns prior to a leadership convention. I am doing so because our parliamentary caucus and party need leadership now to confront Stephen Harper's Conservatives.

Third, should I succeed in winning the support of the national executive of the party and our caucus as leader, I remain committed to having that leadership confirmed by our party at our upcoming convention in Vancouver, as our party's constitution requires.

Fourth, should I become leader I hope to immediately engage the grassroots in the very real policy challenges facing our country at a time of peril and in the party renewal challenges that all Liberals must face together. I will need the best from each and every one of us in this regard.

Thanks to each and every one of you for all your hard work and support on my behalf. It is appreciated more than I can say. If you haven’t done so already please tell me what you think, volunteer or make a donation.

Michael

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Dion ate his wheaties in question period today

I liked the passion and fire in Stéphane Dion in question period today. Here's some highlights:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

An historic day in Canadian politics

What an amazing press conference yesterday with Stéphane Dion, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe. Three political leaders that disagree on a lot setting it all aside to work for Canada (and Quebecers), agreeing to form a coalition government that could well change the face of Canadian politics forever. It’s high-risk but high-reward, and was an example of a statesmanship that fits the times, and that has been sorely missing on the other side of the House of Commons of late.

We’re a long ways from nirvana still, but as a Dionista from day one who had given up hope of ever seeing Stéphane in the PMO this was a heady day indeed, bringing back memories of the heady idealism of the Montreal convention. Even if it’s just for a few months, to see Stéphane leading our country will be sweet indeed.

And I have to say full credit to the NDP, and to Jack Layton. Both our parties have had to compromise to get this agreement done, but from compromise and negotiation comes good, stable, moderate and responsible government. With the best of both our parties, I’m excited to see what a progressive coalition can do for Canadians. I haven’t been a big fan of Jack Layton in the past, that’s no secret. But I liked the Jack Layton I saw in that press conference yesterday. Articulate, reasoned and passionate.

Certainly, there is risk involved here for all parties. For my Liberals, we risk elevating the NDP and giving them a new legitimacy and prominence. A move to the left may alienate some of our centre/right supporters. The NDP, as well, risks alienating their leftish supporters with a move towards the centre. Both sides are having to compromise.

However, I feel, and obviously Stéphane and Jack agree, that these risks are worth it to provide Canada the leadership it need in a time of economic crisis. The kind of leadership Stephen Harper has been continually unwilling to provide.

I’ll have more to say later about the challenges of the week ahead, and bringing this thing home. For now, let me just say that I do truly hope that this coalition, should it take government and should it prove successful, will herald a new era of cooperative Canadian politics.

With the fracturing of the political spectrum, any party getting a majority these days is highly unlikely, and that may never change. It’s time for a new norm in federal politics. Hopefully this progressive coalition will show Canadians the way.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers