Eating up the Hill: Rob Jamieson's Liberal constitutional buffet

Last Monday I attended a briefing on amendments to the Liberal Party of Canada constitution at the Farmteam Cookhouse on Sparks Street. The party sprang for a few plates of appetizers, and Liberal carpenter Rob Jamieson strongly insisted I report on the nibbles.

There were a variety of cold appetizers, including veggies, meat and cheese, bread and crackers, and a fruit tray.

Veggies are veggies, they were fine. I enjoyed some fruit, particularly the pineapple. Usually it is cut in chunks, but the thin slices were a nice change. I'm not a big cured meat person, but it went quickly so the constitutionally curious seemed to enjoy it.

I do need to raise concerns, however, about the crackers. I was not a fan. They were not good crackers to pair with cheese. The texture and size were off, leading to a imbalanced cheese to cracker ratio. The cracker should never be the main show -- it is merely the cheese delivery vehicle.

Next time, I'd recommend less cracker, more crunch.

Now, on to Winnipeg. Hoping for pierogies in the Laurier lounge.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

There is an argument for the Senate – just not this Senate, or this House of Commons

The Senate has been much in the news lately, with the expense troubles of a few Senators – compounded by the mishandling of their investigation – bringing much  negative attention to the other place. While this is really a scandal about Stephen Harper’s decision-making and the style of governance he fosters, a serious and real national debate about the Senate’s place in our democracy is long overdue.

It’s easy to look at the shenanigans and say just abolish the thing. The NDP wasted little time in making that case. I think the misdoings of a few Senators is a poor argument for abolishing the thing. However, the NDP are long-standing abolitionists and, while I disagree for reasons I’ll outline shortly, I credit them for their consistency on the issue. Some of the provinces have also begun making pro-abolition musings. Some Conservatives too, although the official party position – in spite of their utter lack of substantive progress towards it – is to reform the Senate to be at least elected and effective; I’m not sure about the equal.

The Liberal position on the Senate has always been a bit more difficult to pin down, other than, of course, preferring we be the ones doing the appointing. From what I can gather, we’re lukewarm on elections, fine with term limits, and (rightly) believe real reform requires constitutional amendment – which we’re not keen on doing. The latter issue has been referred by the government to the Supreme Court for an opinion; I think the answer is fairly obvious, but we’ll see what they say. Stéphane Dion Dion has also done some interesting work in this area.

While abolition is an easy and populist argument to make, there is a case to be made for keeping the Senate. I don’t think I’ve heard it made yet, though.

I want us to keep the Senate. Just not this Senate. Let me make this clear: I’m arguing for a substantively reformed Senate, not the status quo. With respect to all the fine reports, hearings and second thought the upper chamber provides today, it’s not enough to justify its existence in its current form.

In any democracy with a bicameral system, the two houses are meant to each serve separate and distinct purposes. The lower chamber, our House of Commons, is meant to be the people’s house, pure representation by population. This would mean areas with more people get more seats, and more populous regions would have more representation. The purest form of democracy, but in a geographically diverse country with divergent regional interests, there’s potential for important perspectives not to be heard. Which is where the upper chamber – our Senate – is supposed to come in: as a body with representation equally allotted not by population but by region, providing a regional counterbalance to the rep by pop voice of the lower chamber.

Problem is, neither chambers fill those roles today. For the House of Commons, just look at the last round of seat redistribution. Instead of proportioning seats purely on population, politics meant faster growing regions remained somewhat under-represented, Quebec still had to be kept at a certain level, and seats were added because taking away seats from any area was deemed politically unacceptable.

And then there’s the Senate. With a formula based on how Canada looked closer to Confederation than today, the regional balance is out of whack. The Maritimes are over-represented; the West under-represented. It’s also unelected, which, frankly, is a positive right now because, without a regional rebalancing and a revision of the powers of the Senate – if we elected Senators today and gave them a democratic mandate, gridlock could ensue, and the West would be greatly disadvantaged. Without a democratic mandate today, Senators rightly exercise just a fraction of their constitutional authority.

I’d favour abolition over the status quo. Abolition would still, though, require a constitutional amendment and probably provincial negotiation. So before we decide between abolition and reform, the question we need to ask is, in an ideal world, do we want a true bicameral system, and is a regional check on the rep by pop power of the Commons desirable?

I think, in a country like Canada, that regional check is essential. The perspectives of the West, of Quebec, of the Maritimes, and of Ontario, are often unique and different. A properly-constituted Senate would ensure that, as laws are made and the future of our country charted, these perspectives are heard.

And if we’re going to be doing the constitutional thing anyway, I’d rather fix our democracy and get this thing right.  So, as part of such a process, here’s a few things I’d like to see:

• An overhaul of representation in the House of Commons, including a reviewable cap on the number of MPs and the proportioning of seats purely on population, moving seats from declining-population areas to higher-population areas.
• An elected Senate, with set terms and an end to the archaic constitutional requirements for a minimum age and land ownership. Also, rebalancing representation so Senate seats are allotted equally by region.
• A revision of the powers and role of the Senate. It should be effective in reviewing and proposing legislation, and curbing the excesses of the House, but to avoid gridlock there should be a mechanism for the House to over-turn a Senate move to over-rule it if a certain threshold of support (say, two-thirds) can be achieved.

Getting to such a model may not be possible. It would require a great deal of negotiation among competing federal and provincial interests, not to mention Indigenous and municipal. There would need to be a great deal of give and take, and getting the balance right would be difficult. The temptation would be to widen the scope of the constitutional negotiation, which would be a mistake – history shows focus in these things is important.

Let’s remember though, abolition would also be difficult. It’s not as easy as waving a magic wand. Provincial support (and likely a referendum) would also be required for an abolition constitutional amendment, and the same competing interests would need to be satisfied.

If we’re increasingly agreed though that blithely accepting the status quo because change is difficult is no longer acceptable, then change becomes inevitable. The only question is, what change. It’s time we had a national debate about what that change should be.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

36 proposed Liberal constitutional amendments dissected and explained

Happy New Year to all; I hope you enjoyed the holidays. Especially Christmas.  I won’t say I’m resolving to blog more this year but I will try, and I’m sure I definitely will be in the next 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 time preparing for the convention. Yesterday it was poring over 27 pages of proposed constitutional amendments, and cross-referencing with the current constitution to try to figure out what it all means. Below is my analysis of each proposed amendment and my current thinking on each; I welcome your thoughts in the comments. A future 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 Committee and Appointment of Chief Revenue

Officer

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

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

I’m voting yes.

2. Registration of supporters of the Liberal Party of Canada

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

You can join the Liberal Party at age 14, but you need to be 18 to register as a supporter. The supporter rules seem to mirror those for voting in a general election. But if 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 support an amendment to lower the age.

Other concerns: there’s no time-period on being a supporter, it lasts until you opt out, your snail mail bounces back, or you’re kicked out. Also, they seem to anticipate making PTAs process all the supporter applications, which will cost money. The only mention of a fee is in the section on supporters voting in the leadership selection, but no fee seems anticipated to simply become a supporter. What will it cost to process these applications? And it LPC downloads 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 my previously noted objections to the primary system for the leadership still stand. 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 of making 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 these amendments, members have all the rights of supporters. In many new sections, supporters is used to mean both members and supporters. Could this mean members could have to pay a fee to vote for leader? I would be massively opposed to that. While I’m voting no anyway, that should be clarified.

I’m voting no to this amendment.

4.  Participation of supporters in candidate selection meetings of their EDAs

This proposal allows “supporters” as created by the earlier amendment 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 try for riding nominations, and I think it could be more effective generating excitement and attracting candidates at the local level.

I do have some concerns with this proposal as written, though. The biggest is that, while the leadership vote requires supporters to be signed-up 41 days before the vote, for riding nominations no timeline is specified. Instead, it leaves the timeline up to the national election readiness committee. I dislike leaving discretion in these things, particularly when nomination rules have been so abused in the past. I’d like to see wider reforms to the nomination process. We have fixed election dates; I want fixed dates where all nominations are opened and meetings held, with all the 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 and approved.

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

Requires the board of directors to table an annual strategic plan and an annual report on progress against the strategic plan, to be reviewed by the Council of Presidents and released to all members, and posted online. Makes sense, 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 100 members 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 to get support from existing riding members is important. I’m curious though how this would interact with leader’s power of appointment. I’d imagine an appointment would 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 policy platform

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

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

So I’m sceptical how effective these reforms will be, and they’re but a drop in the bucket of the reforms we need to make to the policy process. But this 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 roadmap to renewal proposals, and I was glad to see it in the final list of amendments. It would institute a weighted by riding OMOV system to elect the national executive, instead of delegates doing it at convention. This is an important step in the democratization of our party, just as implementing WOMOV for leadership was. My only quibble is that it’s not a preferential ballot; that would 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 biennial convention to a weighted by riding one-member, one-vote system. I’m supportive in principle, but I have concerns because this will, by necessity, largely mean moving from an in-person process to a more impersonal electronic one.  The benefit of the biennials is that it allows in-person debate and interaction, which has benefits you just can't replicate online.

Before I decide to support this, I want to know how the policy process will be reformed to encourage/require in-person debates on policy across the country, perhaps regionally. This can’t be done online alone. If I’m not satisfied this 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 association into trusteeship if it fails to meet its constitutional obligations. Rogue, closed, unresponsive and dormant EDAs are an issue. I’m a little leery of this proposal, though. However, with PTA approval required as a check on the national board, I’ll support it.

I’m voting yes.

12. Electing a leader using a system of staggered regional voting days

A key part of the primary system for leadership voting, instead of one day/weekend of voting across Canada it seeks to create drama and media attention by having the votes over a period as long as two months, with groups of regions voting in as many as six blocks. So, for example, Ontario may vote five weeks after British Columbia does.  The preamble makes clear this has nothing 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 for the candidate of their choice. If a candidate shows poorly in the first group of provinces, they’ll be pressured to drop out. Fundraising will become challenging. Look at the U.S. primary system we’re trying to copy. I want to be able to vote for the candidate of my choice; I don’t want New Hampshire to narrow the field for me.

Second, the order in which the provinces will vote isn’t set by this amendment; presumably this would be determined by the national board of directors, or a body appointed by them. This creates a huge opportunity for conflict, as leadership candidates lobby the board, or try to get slates elected to the board, to set an order that favours them by putting their strong regions first to show momentum, pressuring opponents to drop out. We have enough drama of this sort as it is, without creating the opportunity for more.

We also shouldn’t be trying to create a system for the purpose of giving the media something to report about; it should be about the best way to get 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 consists of the riding association presidents, and that many feel is a meaningless, powerless body.

13. Officers of the Council of Presidents

Several reforms to CoP here, particularly changing the CoP president to be elected by CoP members and be either a riding or commission president, instead of automatically being the party president as today. The deputy president 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 National Board of Directors

This makes the CoP president a non-voting member (can attend and speak) of the national board of directors. If it was voting I’d definitely vote no. The board is big and unwieldy as it is. My concern is with making the board bigger, and the cost that generates for the party. I’d rather go smaller, not bigger.

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 an eye 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 for some attendees, but seemingly not all. If this body is to have meaning, cost can’t be a barrier to all eligible members taking part. But your talking 308 riding presidents and additional members, and  I’m not convinced we can afford to do this in person, outside of maybe a biennial, and that it would be worth the cost. What’s wrong with improved virtual or teleconference meetings?

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 an EDA

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

I’m voting yes.

18. Withdrawal of nomination contestant or nominated candidate following 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 would be elected by the membership the same way we elect the national executive, with the leader appointing the second. Since the members go first, that means the leader must satisfy the English/French, Man/Woman rules by appointing the opposite 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 the members, as this is a position that sets many of the rules that govern nominations. Letting members pick one is a good balance.

I’m voting yes.

20. Representation of PTAs on the National Election Readiness Committee

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

I’m voting yes.

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

Seeks to limit the leader’s power to appoint candidates to 20 per election maximum, and no more than 25% or five in any one province whichever is lower. I support the spirit here; my worry is if this would encourage appointments up top that level. I’m not sure appointment have been that high in past (presumably it would be if you include protecting incumbents). Why not propose lower caps? Personally, I’d rather remove the leader’s power of appointment all together, and just leave the leader the ability to veto any crazies (who should be screened 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 rules of order that will govern its proceedings, such as how sub-amendments can be proposed and voted on. Currently, these rules are set by the national management committee and cannot be amended by the convention delegates. Before the Vancouver convention, the committee tried to implement unacceptable rules in order to influence the voting on constitutional amendments. Only an outcry from the membership forced them to back down. This amendment would mean members wouldn’t have 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 happen in person, at the biennial convention with online engagements as a supplement, not a replacement. The last two biennials (including Ottawa) have dumped the former in-person prioritizaiton workshops and much of the real debate happened there, not on the plenary floor. This amendment seeks to bring that back. This would seem to be in conflict with (10) and I’m curious how they’d be reconciled if 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 weighted system.

I’m leaning yes.

24. Amendment to the Preamble of the Constitution

Essentially adds a line about making electing MPs part of our reason 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 British Columbia wing.

25. Liberal members’ initiative

This seems to allow a member at large to propose constitutional reform or policy to members directly and get it on the biennial agenda, if they can gather a threshold of support form the membership. Today, it has to filter up through a commission or a PTA. It’s an option to cut the red tape and allow direct 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 the next election platform. I’d like the number to be higher, but it seems to be the first proposal to link the biennial process to the platform process, which I feel must happen to make the member-driven policy process meaningful. So it’s an important step.

I’m voting yes.

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

This would be seen as competing with (9) but with two key differences: it’s preferential, which I support. But it’s unweighted, which is a 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 think this 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’s Liberal Commission

This would remove any possibility for the NWLC requiring an additional membership fee to be in the NWLC. I don’t know if they’re currently charging a fee. If they are, as long as they don’t expect funds form general revenue 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 members section. Seems purely symbolic, and without real effect and, while I’m not keen on 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’re party members too. But again, it’s largely empty symbolism.

I’ll vote yes.

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

Essentially, this section requires constitutional amendments to be voted or ratified by all members electronically, instead of by delegates at a biennial convention. Two amendment avenues are proposed: a special electronic vote, or a traditional biennial with ratification of the result by a member electronic vote required. I’d support extending the weighted one member, one vote system envisioned in earlier amendments to constitutional amendments, but this proposal from the Seniors is for an unweighted system. I cannot support a system that doesn’t have 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 write guidelines to help EDAs with policy, which I’m fine with. But I don’t like attempt to standardize the PTAs’ policy processes; they should be free to set their 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. I feel it at least needs to make it cost-recovery. $10 is hardly a barrier to membership. I’ve heard this proposal may be a backup in case the primary leadership proposal fails, but it’s unclear it would be withdrawn by YLC if it passes. I’m also leery of the section that seems to indicate campus clubs would be looking to the party for some sort of help or subsidy to make up for their lost membership revenue. In some provinces, riding associations also get a piece of membership fees and would lose that under this proposal. At a time when 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 a leadership vote to be eligible to vote in the leadership contest. In another amendment that seems to seek to replicate a primary system if it’s rejected by members, this amendment seeks to lower that time period to 14 days. The same dates would apply under the primary system, presumably backdated from the staggered regional votes (if approved). I oppose this under either scenario.  For one, I don’t want the leadership period to be 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. This proposal would see campaigns focused on sign-ups to the exclusion of nearly all else until nearly the very end. And logistically, it would be helpful to have the time to plan the logistics of the vote knowing how many eligible voters you have; two weeks isn’t that long. And finally, as a general principle I want to encourage long-term membership over last minute drop-in voters. This proposal goes the other way.

I’m voting no.

36. Regional Voting Days

Just when I was growing dispirited with my YLC friends, they redeemed themselves with this proposal. This proposal would amend the proposed system of staggered regional  leadership votes to pre-set the order the provinces vote in, instead of leaving it up to the board which, as I explained, is fraught with issues. This proposal addresses that concern, and also requires the full results of each regional voting be posted within 48 hours, instead of only the first place support. I’m still voting no on the original regional voting proposal, but if it passes I’ll support this change to make it more fair.

I’m voting yes.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Auditioning to renovate 24 Sussex

The new ballot question: who would you trust to do unskilled manual labour during the construction of your home?

Michael Ignatieff volunteering with Habitat for Humanity today in Cobourg.

Stephen Harper needing a few tries and help from an expert to work an nail gun on some guy's wall while promoting a tax credit.

* The answer is trust neither. Always use a certified contractor, and get at least three references.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper’s Quebec constitutional foray, and where’s Rona?

I find it interesting that this…

The Harper government is telling Quebec that if the Conservatives win a majority in the next election, they will look to reopen the Constitution and give more meaning to their recognition of Quebeckers as a nation.

Emphasizing the Conservative receptiveness to “Quebec's historical demands,” Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn raised the possibility of winning 30 to 40 seats in the province, up from the current 11.

“The recognition of the Quebec nation within Canada allows us to think that we can put some meat around it, and that a majority government is more able to do a number of things, while being respectful of all of the provinces,” Mr. Blackburn said in an interview.

…comes just a few days after this:

Mr. Dion also appointed Gerard Kennedy, who will run in a Toronto riding in the next election, as intergovernmental affairs critic. It is a potentially contentious move because Mr. Kennedy, who threw his delegate support behind Mr. Dion in the December, 2006, leadership contest, had not backed the idea of the Québécois as a nation within Canada.

I suppose the timing could be coincidental, but I suspect it’s not. It will be interesting to hear Gerard’s first public comments on this. And speaking of intergovernmental affairs, interesting that the Conservative minister, Rona Ambrose, is no where to be heard from in this story. Instead it’s a senior Quebec minister, Jean-Pierre Blackburn, making the comments.

I wonder if Blackburn gave Ambrose a courtesy phone call? Hopefully Rona keeps her mouth shut; we all remember what happened to her predecessor when Harper first brought-up this Quebec as nation nonsense:

The federal Parliament formally recognized Quebecers as a "nation united within Canada" Monday night, but it came with a high cost for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who suffered his first resignation from cabinet over the divisive move.

Michael Chong, the minister of intergovernmental affairs and sport, prefaced his resignation by telling reporters he continued to have faith in the government, the Conservative party and the prime minister. But he charged Harper's recognition of Quebecers as a "nation united within Canada" smacked of what he called "ethnic nationalism."

"The reason why I got involved in politics is my belief in this nation we call Canada. I believe in this great country of ours and I believe in one nation, undivided," he said. "This is a fundamental principle for me, not something on which I can or will compromise. Not now, not ever."

While Michael made a move of principle, opting to resign when he was cut-out of a matter squarely within his ministerial responsibilities and asked to defend a position he disagreed with, I suspect Rona will want to keep the car and driver instead. And it’s not like she hasn’t been busy.

Why, look at these media releases for 2008:



Well, maybe 2007 was a busier year:


OK, well, maybe not. It’s probable telling though whose picture is on the front page of the ministry Web site, and whose is not:


Maybe some enterprising member of the parliamentary press gallery will track down Michael Chong down in the hallways and ask him for his thoughts on Blackburn's promise. Anyone?

Anyway, back to the Conservatives; constitutional musings , which have generated quite a bit of blogsphere reaction. I thought the nation motion in 2006 was supposed to be the end of it, was that not what Harper told us? I think the only person that wanted to re-open the constitution for this, at least back then, was Michael Ignatieff.

Anyway, even if I favoured putting this in the constitution, and I don’t, it would never work. You couldn’t do just this one thing. You need to get the other provinces to support it. You can ask them to give this to Quebec and ignore the Senate inequality concerns of the West, the seat distribution concerns of Ontario, and other issues. We’d quickly get bogged down again in the constitutional moray and that’s not the priority of Canadians.

This is all just politics, of course: the Conservatives sense Liberal weakness in Quebec, and they’re looking to gain ground. It’s a continuation of their fighting with the BQ for the soft nationalist vote. It’s akin to Russian roulette though, because every vote Harper gains in Quebec by pandering to soft-nationalists is going to cost him one in the West. And that’s if he can convince Quebecers he’s serious. The BQ and PQ are going to constantly be moving the goalposts, and will use any failure to meet them as a betrayal of Quebecers, stoking the separatist fires.

And whatever Harper does, they’ll just raise the stakes higher. We saw that in 2006 with the nation motion. Duceppe was pleased as punch with how it played out, and his next demand was ok great, now let’s constitutionalize it. Now that Harper is doing that, I wonder what the next demand will be?

To square the circle, frankly I’m glad Gerard Kennedy, with his lack of support for the nation motion, is now our intergovernmental affairs guy. I think he’s actually the right person for us on this file.

We can’t compete with the BQ and the PQ for the soft-nationalist vote in Quebec. But there is an opening in Quebec, and in the rest of Canada, to be the strong federalist champion. It has been a traditional Liberal role, but it’s one we’ve gotten away from since the aborted Paul Martin era began. Let’s pick that federalist mantle up again.

If we do we’re appealing to a segment of Quebec the other parties are ignoring, and a segment that actually thinks positively of Stephane Dion. We need to get those voters back; if we do we’ll hold our own there. And we’ll gain ground across the rest of Canada as well.

We’ll have to wait and see what play gets called though. It's not without risk, but as Warren says it could galvanize the party. So for god's sake, don't wuss-out yet again.

Anyway, I leave you with these comments from Stephane Dion the leadership candidate on this issue back in 2006:

"People are all mixed up about this." Dion says. "It’s a very interesting discussion at a seminar of political science, but the moment you talk about putting that in the Constitution and you blame the other candidates for being afraid to raise the issue, then legitimate questions come: If you are a nation, what am I, mashed potato?"
--
"Now all of a sudden, the burden of proof is back on our shoulders. We need to deliver this mysterious constitutional change that will change Canada into a Federation of Nirvana through a magic word that everybody would agree upon. It will not work. Keep the burden of proof on the separatists."

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Would an 'I told you so' be rude?

From the other shoe dropping department:

Quebec wants to define 'nation' status
JOCELYNE RICHER
Canadian Press
August 7, 2007

QUEBEC -- The provincial government plans to force the federal government's hand on how it views the division of powers with the provinces and spending, Quebec Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Benoît Pelletier says.

Premier Jean Charest's government also wants to finally see Quebec's distinctiveness recognized in the Constitution in a charter of open federalism.

Quebec wants the federal government to address the division of jurisdictions between Ottawa and the provinces and intends to press Ottawa on the matter, Mr. Pelletier said in an interview yesterday.
(more)

Gee, no one saw this coming. It's a purely symbolic motion, no need to worry, this is the end of it…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers