Dominic LeBlanc to bloggers: Will Conservatives’ throne speech be flash or substance?

On throne speech eve, I took part in a Liberal bloggers conference call with Dominic LeBlanc, MP for Beauséjour and Liberal house leader, where he discussed the party's plans for the fall session of parliament and what we're expecting from today's speech from the throne.

LeBlanc said the Liberals are open to supporting good legislation should it be brought forward by the government. He expects they've spent the summer preparing a whole raft of bills that will be put on notice for debate with Parliament's return; the Liberals will want to scrutinize those closely. It will be a compressed session due to the prorogation; the Conservatives will want legislative victories but he’s curious to see how much of their agenda will actually be substantive, effective measures.

Some of what we've heard telegraphed as far as throne speech content has been positive, said LeBlanc, and indeed some of it mirrors what Liberal leader Justin Trudeau discussed during his campaign and in the House of Commons in May and June – economic measures to help middle class Canadians. Liberals may be able to support some of the measures in principle, but the test will be are they effective measures, or just a series of gimmicks.

“If some of them are effective, sure, I don’t know why we wouldn't support things that move the yardsticks forward,” said LeBlanc. “But our desire is to see what substantive things are contemplated, not just what James Moore talked about on the Sunday talk shows.”

It's unclear yet how many opposition days will be allocated for the fall supply period, said LeBlanc. That’s something the speaker will need to determine. Likely, the Liberals will have one day, maybe two. It hasn't yet been discussed by caucus, but LeBlanc said he expects Trudeau will want to keep the focus on the government’s failings with respect to middle class families, and the increasing economic pressures people are facing in their daily and monthly existence. Incomes aren't keeping up with the cost of living, and the economic pressure on families is making for a great deal on anxiety.

“I would think we’ll focus on issues like job creation and employment prospects, and retirement security. I have colleagues working on ideas around retirement security, improving CPP and other instruments that can help,” said LeBlanc.

In a nod to the Liberal grassroots though, LeBlanc said while the caucus will continue to respond substantively to current events and government actions, they also want to see what comes out of the Liberal policy convention happening in February in Montreal, which will be the culmination of a process of local and regional policy meetings happening across the country between now and then.

“We won’t be making great platform pronouncements until we hear what Liberals have to say at the convention,” said LeBlanc.

Over the summer, both in his riding and travelling the country, LeBlanc said two things struck him. One, people are profoundly disturbed by some of the ethical lapses that dominated public attention in May and June. Harper ran a very sanctimonious campaign about restoring honesty and transparency to government, and they’re unhappy with the culture of secrecy and vindictiveness that has instead set in. 

And second, there’s still a great deal of economic angst. Many people think we’re still in a recession; they don’t feel the recovery that the government talks about in their lives. There are concerns about jobs, about retirement, about the costs of goods and services. Small businesses feel squeezed. Conservatives have picked up on this too. Again, the question is will they offer gimmicks or substantive action to help.

Finally, on a side note, LeBlanc said it appears the Conservatives may not allow any debate or a vote on the throne speech. As it stands now they’re not scheduling any debate on the speech, when six days of debate are pro forma, though he cautions they could easily change their minds up until the last moment. But it appears they will go straight to debate on a legislative matter on Thursday.

It’s strange, said LeBlanc, as throne speech debate is usually pretty general, and the government gets the most speaking slots. Perhaps, he said, the Conservative leadership doesn't want, or trust, its backbenchers to speak broadly on the throne speech or the government’s agenda. Which would be telling, giving how stunningly un-conservative some of the leaked interventionist measures seem.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Renewing the Liberal Party: Leadership

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

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

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

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

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

Leadership

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tomorrow: reforming the Liberal Party from top to bottom.

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Romeo Leblanc: A great Canadian

A long-time Liberal, a stellar (and our first Acadian) Governor General, and above all, a great Canadian, Romeo Leblanc was a good man, and he will be missed.

I know my thoughts, and the thoughts of many, are with his son Dominic and their family today.

Romeo LeBlanc, Canada's first Acadian governor general, dies

By THE CANADIAN PRESS – 42 minutes ago

OTTAWA — Romeo LeBlanc, the first Acadian to be appointed governor general of Canada and a central figure in the Liberal party for more than two decades, has died after a lengthy illness.

Born in the tiny farming community of Memramcook in southeastern New Brunswick, LeBlanc worked as a teacher and then as a journalist before moving to the political arena.

He became an important player in the federal Liberal party, serving as press secretary to former Liberal prime ministers Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau, before being elected as a New Brunswick MP in 1972. As federal fisheries minister in the Trudeau cabinet, he was called the "fishermen's minister." He was also instrumental in establishing Canada's 200-mile offshore economic zone and helped shape the International Law of the Sea.

LeBlanc became a Senator in 1984, was appointed Speaker of the Senate in 1993 and became governor general in 1995.

(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Live from the convention closer

2:24pm: I'm back on the convention floor for the closing of the convention, including the speech by the shortly to be official Liberal Leader, Michael Ignatieff. Keep refreshing for updates during the program.

Right now, Alf Apps, the incoming party president, is speaking to the convention delegates, who have been issued with noise-making thundersticks bearing the new Liberal logo. I'll post a pic later, but essentially it's an L with a maple leaf. I'm not sure why we needed a logo change, we don't need to do this with every new leader. We're not a hockey team that needs to sell jersys.

Anyway, Apps has some good opening lines about there being three former Liberal PMs in the room, noting to get even two Conservative PMs in the same room these days you'd need a subpoena.

Opening jokes aside, Apps is making a pitch for greater member involvement, more use of technology, and accountability. Membership needs to mean more than getting a membership card in the mail or putting a lawn sign up during a campaign.

He says there needs to be accountability both up and down if a 308-riding strategy is going to be more than a catchy phase.

To Jack, Steve and Gilles: The LPC may have been bruised a bit but let it be known that the party of the people has picked itself up and dusted itself up and we're ready to do battle, and make Michael Ignatieff the next Prime Minister of Canada.

2:37pm: Michael is now making his way onto the hall to banging thundersticks through a crowd holding red Michael/Liberal signs. Convention co-chairs Ujjal Dosanjh, Justin Trudeau Bobbi Ethier waiting at the podium to announce the results of the leadership voting. Hmm, wonder who won...

2:39pm: I missed the announcement of the party officer elections, but among the notables I'm told Sam Lavoie won YLC president, John Bourrassa is back as policy chair and Steve Kukucha won as vp-english. Congrats to all the winners, particularly my friend Kuch. And I want to congratulate John Lennard for running a very impressive campaign for YLC president. I hear it was an exceedingly tight race, and I know John has a big Liberal future ahead of him.

2:43pm: Justin is introucing Bob Rae. Fitting that he gets to introduce Michael, given how far they go back. He was one simple message: he wants Michael Ignatieff to be the next great Liberal Prime Minister of Canada, and he wants this renewed united Liberal party to form the next great united Liberal Party of Canada.

Canada, he says, needs the LPC at its very best and the world needs Canada at its best. It will only happen if each and every one of us makes it happen. Bob is making a strong pitch for party unity. There may still be people out there disapointed with the way the "leadership race" was aborted, and Bob is trying to speak to them in saying its time to now all come together so we can speak for those Canadians that can't, that need a Liberal Party to be their voice, the voice for jobs and justice, clean air and clean water, human rights and human dignity.

Now comes the mandatory Harper shots. It can't be a one-man band, Bob says. We have a one-man government now and we know it's not working that well. Harper has replaced the cabinet table with a mirror, which he asks who is the fairest of all. Bob is contrasting the Liberal team apprroach under Michael with the one-man band of Harper.

Now Bob is moving on to foreign policy, his critic area, lamenting Canada's declining voice and influence on the world stage, calling Harper's foreign policy a faded George W. Bush echo. Thought we'd heard the last of Dubaya bashing for awhile. But that's always red meat for a Liberal crowd.

2:56pm: OK, over 10 minutes and Bob is still going. I think Bob is one of the best political speakers in the game today, but after what happened last night we need to keep this thing tight. Bob is introducing Michael, not giving a stump speech. Keep it moving folks.

2:57pm: And of course Bob ends it seconds afte I wrote that. And he goes out with a Jean Chretien-style "vive le Canada!" which is a nice touch. Good ovation for Bob.

2:58pm: OK and now we're getting Dominic LeBlanc coming-up. Good to give both of the candidates that dropped out of the race for Michael a chance on the stage, very classy. And Dominic is a comer in this paty, no doubt.

Dominic makes a short speech touching on the economy, but he's here to officially nominate Michael as party leader and moves on to talk about Michael, his values and his ideals. He makes particular note about Michael's desire to reach out to rurral Canada, and speaks of the excitement for Michael in his own rural Francophone riding in New Brunswick.

Dominic waps it up at 12 minutes, saying his friend Michael Ignatieff is the man to move us forward.

3:10pm: Two young Liberal delegates are now coming to the stage to add their names to those nominating Michael. Apparently over 3500 others also did so online. I recall signing Michael's actual physical papers, and Dominic's, back when we were expecting an actual leadeship race. I'd have signed Bob's too if I'd had the chance.

3:13pm: And now the results of the vote. Total votes cast 2023. Spoiled 59. Total for Michael 1964, 97%. I look forward to Jason Kenney and Dimitri Soudas telling me how those 59 spoiled votes are a sign of party disunity and the coming appocalypse. Anyway, Justin calls to make it unanimous, everyone says hi.

And now Juston brings up, the newleader of the LPC and, of course, the next PM of Canada, Michael Ignatieff.

3:16pm: First it's a video, with decent production values, where people against a white background speak of their hopes for Canada to mood music. Then it mophs into an Iggy photo montage. Big applause for the pic of Iggy with Obama. Actually, four pics of Iggy with Obama, and another of him with Air Force One.

If they show a picture of a young Iggy with Pierre Trudeau I'm going to strangle myself with my mouse cord. Assuming they don't do that, it was a good video. Pics of Mi with Bob, Dominic and the Queen. And Peter C. Newman. Rick Mercer from the house-moving bit.

The video is now running about 7 minutes, starting to feel a little long. Am I getitng over concious about time? Maybe. It's important though. Looks like it wraps at about 8 minutes.

3:24pm: Alright, finally, Michael is making his way to the stage for the big speech. He looks a tad emotional, and is doing the old finger point to random audience person, blow kisses to the crowd thing as the crowd chants and claps.

3:26pm: And he speaks. He notes we need to get this show on the road because the puck drops at 6pm, and we're all Csanucks tonight. Iggy talks about a united party and the crowd chants Tous Ensemble.

If you're watching at home Michael says come on in to the Liberal Party, we'll give you a great welcome. Canada is more than the sum of its parts, we're one great people. We're not two solitudes, we're for each other all together. Or something like that, it was in French.

He says we need to tell Canadians we're living your challenges with you, in opposition we'll fight for you and in government we'll lead you back to prosperity. It's a good line. The road back to prosperrity may be long but we know with road will get us there: it's the Canadian way.

This would be a good speech line for a compare and contrast, a call and repeat: The Candian Way.

Some policy meat now, for thise who have been complaining Mi has been lacking on the vision. We need reformed, comprehensive employment insurance, says Michael. Also, skills training, a society where learning is a way of life and lifelong. A knowledge society where every child gets an equal start with world class early childhood learning and childcare. This gets a huge ovation from Liberal delegates. Where women get equal pay of equal value gets the delegates right back on their feet. Dido for where every student who gets the grades gets the best education in the world. He goes on, that means every Aboriginal and Metis child gets a worldclass, not a second class education. He also touches on literacy, and removing obstacles for Canadians for disabilities.

You know, as he switches into Francais, it occurs to me that for a guy the haters insist is some kind of crazy neo-con, Michael is laying-out a very centre-left vision in best traditions of traditional Liberalism.

3:49pm: My computer froze but I'm back online now. Michael is back talking about the Canadian way, and how we're good neighbiours and the best friends you'll ever have. We'll keep the peace, and if there's no peace to keep we'll fight for our freedom, and yours too. We're the party of Vimy Ridge, and the deserts of Kandahar.

Now he wants to speak directly to Stephen Harper, and he launches a pretty good attack to chants of shame, with the end line Harper doesn't understand Canada. Harper has failed to understand the PM has only one job: unite Canadians. And if he can't appeal to the best in all of us, we can.

Did someone just shout Yes We Can! from the audience? Yes they did. Now I'll get to read 15 newspaper columnists about how Ignatieff is comparing himself to Obama, And Pierre Trudeau. And Ghandi and Jesus. Mon Dieux.

And there we go, Mi's done at about 32 minutes. His wife and caucus members join him on stage, lots of kissing, even Bob Rae gets a hug and a peck on one cheek. And there's the streamers and confetti.

i think I'm going to sign off for now. I've got one more video to post, and then I'll be back at some point, maybe Monday, with some overall closing thoughts on the weekend. Depends on my Web access over Sunday.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Crime...boy, I don't know (with video)

With, to the chagrin of the BC Tourism people, Peter Van Loan having helpfully labeled Vancouver as “Canada's gang capital” last week (I suggest we stick with 'Supernatural British Columbia' on the license plates), his boss Stephen Harper was in town today to capitalize on public concern about gang violence introduce considered legislation aimed at addressing the problem.

And, almost as importantly, appear tough and decisive on crime while painting the opposition, particularly those lilly-livered Liberals, as soft on crime pansies that want to hug thugs and, I don't know, bake them cookies or something.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper insists tougher sentences included in the anti-gang legislation the Conservatives tabled on Thursday will deter crime but said he expects opposition parties will "parrot" critics of the measures because they believe in "soft-on-crime" policies.

Speaking in the Vancouver area, which has seen 18 shootings in the past month, Harper said the Tories received the Canadian public's backing in the last election to ensure violent criminals face strong penalties.

"The truth of the matter is, those who say that the tougher penalties on perpetrators will not work don’t want them to work because they don’t believe in his kind of approach," he told reporters.

"We know that we’re going to hear these critics, and we know that we’re going to hear the opposition parrot some of these critics because they all believe in soft-on-crime policies."

Yeah, that's right, people that oppose conservative crime policies actually WANT people to get shot and what not so our philosophical beliefs can be proven correct. Ladies and gentleman of Canada, your Prime Minister. Be proud.

But wait, what's this, in the next paragraph in that CBC story:

Shortly after the prime minister spoke, the Liberals and NDP announced they would support the bill in principle, while also criticizing the Tories for not going far enough in terms of crime prevention.

Oh, snap! How do you like them apples, Steve? We'll see your tough on crime, and raise you a you should have done it sooner AND do something about prevention, you old crime softie you.

You know, I may still be surprised but from what I've read so far, I have no problem with what the Conservatives seem to be proposing in this legislation.

The proposed amendments to the Criminal Code would make any gang-related homicide a first-degree murder charge, as well as create a new charge for drive-by shootings that would carry a mandatory four-year minimum sentence upon conviction, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said.

The bill will also seek to increase sentences against those convicted of assaulting police officers with a weapon or causing bodily harm to a maximum of 10 years in prison.

Sure, why not. That's all fine with me. But if you think this is going to do anything to actually help the gang problem in B.C's Lower Mainland, you're on crack. Longer, tougher sentences. Sure. But are you under the impression gangsters don't know drive-by shootings, assaulting cops and running drugs is illegal? Do you think they're going to look at a longer sentence and decide 'yeah, it's not just worth it?' I really don't think so. They're aware it's wrong. They're aware of the risk. Make the sentences as long as you want. It may make the public feel better, but the impact on gang violence will be negligible.

It's not an either/or, prevention or tougher sentences, like Harper tries to make it. Why can't we do both? If we want to be truly effective, we need to. Ask yourself, would you rather throw the murderer in jail for life at taxpayer expense, or prevent them from turning to a life of crime in the first place. With the latter, not only do you save taxpayers the cost of incarceration but, well, you also save one taxpayer's life.

Frankly, a more effective thing that could be done to deal with BC's gang problem, and this is more something that needs to happen at the local level, would be to have one, single police force for the entire Greater Vancouver area. The mish-mash of different police forces, municipal and RCMP, that cover the area today is part of the problem. A single force would be more effective at dealing with a problem that crosses municipal boundaries.

Here's Liberal MPs Dominic LeBlanc and Ujjal Dosanjh reacting to the Conservative legislation. As a former BC Premier, and particularly as a former BC Attorney General, Dosanjh has some insight here.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

We're coming for you, Steve

I do feel a little cheated with the early end to this leadership race (didn't even get a Michael button, although I did get two snazzy Dominic ones), but while the process wasn’t ideal, I think the fact we’re now able to unite behind Michael Ignatieff as our (interim for now) Liberal leader is actually a blessing, and it’s an opportunity for the Liberal Party – if we seize it.

And it’s really an opportunity we have Stephen Harper to thank for. He united the right, he united the left, and now he has united the Liberal Party all together behind Michael Ignatieff to stand-up forcefully to the Conservative bullying, and quite possibly send his government packing next month. So thanks for that Steve. You rock, man.

A sincere thank-you though to Dominic LeBlanc and Bob Rae. I’ve already spoken of my respect and admiration for Dominic. And Bob really impressed me, and I think a lot of Liberals, with his selfless acts of yesterday. The odds may have been long for him but you never give up hope – look at Stephane’s improbable win in 2006 – so for him to put aside his own ambitions, and probably his last chance at the leadership, for the greater good of the party and the country was a truly noble act that I think gained him a lot of respect within the Liberal Party, including with some that maybe weren’t so sure about Bob.

I have some policy disagreements with Bob, but I got to see him a few times during the election campaign when he came out to B.C. to stump for our candidates and do a few Team BC press conferences. Getting a chance to watch him work a room or the media, I have to say he’s the most skilled and natural politician I’ve ever met. The man can campaign like no-one’s business. I think he and Michael will complement one another spectacularly, and I’m really impressed with the strength of our front-bench. Particularly compared to the lack of depth across the way.

While I’d have liked a full race, there’s actually a number of positives to this scenario. If it continued, this thing could have started to get really nasty; now the wounds will be easier to heal. Not that much money has been spent yet, so debt should be very minimal and we can now focus on party fundraising. We have a leader for the long-term ready to challenge, and potentially replace, Stephen Harper.

And we can now put the focus on the more important issue facing the Liberal Party: party reform and renewal. I’ve said all along that leadership wasn’t the main problem with our party. Was Stephane a factor in the last result? Undeniably. But the problems go much deeper, and they predate Stephane, Paul and Jean. I’ve written at length already about the reforms I would like to see, and I’ll continue to push them in the months ahead.

As Jason writes today, there is now a real and meaningful opportunity to use the Vancouver convention to deliver real and substantial party reform. And as a positive, I suspect it will be a little easier now to secure a delegate spot. So, if you want constitutional reform, if you want (weighted) one-member, one vote, then it’s not enough to just moan about the need for change. Push for it. Advocate it. Get specific: what change, how and why? And, most importantly, run to be a delegate and then come to convention in Vancouver so we can VOTE for it, and really make it happen.

We have a lot of work to do, but now we’re all able to come together and get down to the challenge. And we’re able to train our guns where they really belong: Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.

And don’t kid yourself if you don’t think they’re concerned. Look at Tim Powers, already furiously trying to raise expectations (and rather transparently and ineptly, at that). They were counting on us staying divided and fighting amongst ourselves for many more months. No longer. Let’s show them what a united Liberal Party is made of. As Michael said a little while ago: no more sitting on our hands.

We’re coming for you, Steve.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Dominic LeBlanc press conference

Dominic LeBlanc's press conference Monday announcing he was dropping out of the Liberal leadership race and endorsing Michael Ignatieff.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Dominic supports Michael

As expected, Dominic LeBlanc has dropped out of the leadership race to support Michael Ignatieff. As I've mentioned before I really like Dominic, I seriously considered supporting him in this race. I'm sorry more Liberals won't get to know him through a full-length leadership process, but I hope he continues to make his voice and views heard. Our party needs him.

LeBlanc out of Liberal leadership race (URGENT-Liberal-Leadership)
Source: The Canadian Press - Broadcast wire
Dec 8, 2008 15:14

OTTAWA - New Brunswick MP Dominic LeBlanc is abandoning the Liberal leadership race and formally throwing his support to Michael Ignatieff.

His withdrawal follows Stephane Dion's announcement today that he's ready to step down as soon as a replacement can be chosen, perhaps as soon as Wednesday.

The party wants a new leader in place before the House of Commons returns at the end of January for a federal budget and a critical confidence vote.

LeBlanc, 40, said he had been looking forward to the leadership campaign and renewing the party.

But, he added, it's important to find a permanent leader quickly.

Ignatieff, he said, is the consensus choice of Liberals and the best person to lead the party and the country.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Sundays are supposed to be a day of rest

While Sundays are supposed to be a day of rest (myself, I watched some football and played CivCity: Rome), but it seems assorted Liberal Party mucky-mucks didn't get that message, at least judging by the media reports filtering-out this evening.

According to the reports, all unconfirmed at this point, Dominic LeBlanc is going to drop out of the leadership race to support Michael Ignatieff. As well, both Michael and Bob Rae have spoken publicly of the need to speed up the race, and supposedly there is much behind the scenes negotiating going on around just how that can happen. The Liberal executive is supposedly also meeting tonight to consider how this could be done.

This follows reports yesterday that Stephane Dion will likely announce his immediate resignation as party leader at Wednesday's caucus meeting. All the activity this weekend is geared around getting a new permanent leader in place as soon as possible, certainly before the May convention, and possibly before the return of the House of Commons and the budget presentation in late January.

There is much speculation in the media and the blogs around what possible scenarios are being supported by whom, and how this may proceed. It's all unconfirmed at this point, and some of the reports are conflicting. Fact is, we don't know exactly what “Bob's people” or “Michael's people” are proposing, and we should wait until we do before getting too worked-up about such reports.

Speaking for myself, I reluctantly support the idea of speeding this thing up, but on two conditions:

1/ The constitution of the Liberal Party is respected.
2/ All Liberal Party members have a direct vote in the selection of the leader.

Let me also state something I've said before, for the record: the caucus cannot be allowed to simply pick the leader it wants. That would be an undemocratic process leading to an illegitimate leader, and I won't support such a process.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, LPC constitution or otherwise, but I'd think there much be a way to square this circle.

The caucus and executive have the power to appoint the leader on an emergency basis. What if every Liberal member was given a chance to vote for leader, perhaps by phone or Web or a meeting in each riding. This vote would pick a leader who would then be appointed by the caucus on an emergency basis. The decision could then be confirmed by the Vancouver convention, which would go ahead as a policy biennial (which we really do need, by the way).

I don't know how feasible or constitutionally acceptable such a scenario would be, but it would ensure the leader is selected by the membership, which must be at the core of whatever solution comes forward.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Michael, Bob and Dominic stand behind Stéphane

Unfortunately I'm not at home so I couldn't grab the video, but here's the transcript of the presser Michael Ignatieff, Dominic LeBlanc and Bob Rae just held following the Liberal caucus meeting that UNANIMOUSLY confirmed Stéphane Dion as the only choice to lead our party and our country in this future coalition government.

Don't believe the Conservative spin machine planting lies with friendly media sources: The Liberal Party is united behind Stéphane Dion.

Dominic LeBlanc: [Voice of translator]: We had a caucus meeting that was an extremely important one and two things came out of that meeting. The caucus fully agrees with the idea of a coalition government. The agreement that was presented received unanimous support -- and also from the members of the caucus and the other issue which is very important, that we decided that the only person and the best person to lead and form a coalition government is the leader of our party, the elected leader of the opposition, Stéphane Dion, and we support that and that's the best way to proceed.

The leadership campaign will continue and it will be a campaign that is positive and we have already had discussions and the process will continue and Mr. Dion will be the Prime Minister of this coalition government with the support of the unanimous support of the caucus.

Michael Ignatieff: [Voice of translator]: We will continue the leadership race in the normal fashion and I want to emphasize as my friend Dominic has just done and Bob as well, that there's total agreement within the caucus.

We're behind the idea of this agreement because it's based on fiscal responsibility, first of all, and on the national unity of this country as well. And it's a liberal document, it's fundamentally a liberal document, and that's why I support it enthusiastically. And I also want to say that the only leader who can lead us in this context is the elected leader of the party, Stéphane Dion.

I support the accord because it’s fiscally responsible and it provides responsible economic leadership in tough times and it also conserves the basic principles of national unity and equality that our party has always believed in. I've also made it clear and we are at one, the three of us, that the only person who can lead the country is the duly elected leader of the (party), Mr. Stéphane Dion. And, finally, the leadership race will continue in an orderly, civil manner as previously agreed.

Bob Rae: In my experience it was truly an historic caucus meeting and it was very positive and very upbeat and very moving, in fact. And I think that a recognition on our part that Mr. Harper has clearly lost the confidence of the House of Commons, that a majority of the House of Commons wants to form a new government, which is perfectly constitutional and legitimate.

And also an agreement that we also have a constitutional leader, Mr. Dion, who has every right to assume the leadership of the government until such time as a new leader of the Liberal Party is chosen and that date has been set for Vancouver at the end of April, the beginning of May, and the leadership race will continue in the same positive and constructive spirit with which it so successfully has begun. So thank you very much.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Michael and Dominic support 308-riding strategy

I think Dan had a pretty complete summary of yesterday’s informal Liberal leadership forum in Mississauga with Michael Ignatieff and Dominic LeBlanc, so I’ll just add a few things that stood-out from my notes.

In an early question on party reform, Michael made the point that too many Liberals didn’t come out in the last election, and that we need to get them back. When they’re back, he said, we’ll be back. He also called for a 308-riding strategy. We can’t give up on any riding any longer. We need to get the organizers out of Ottawa and send them into Northern Ontario, that’s one of the reasons the NDP made gains there. The leader needs to be closer to the ridings and meet regularly with riding presidents to hear from them what’s happening in the communities. Dominic also endorsed the call for a 308-riding strategy, and made the point votes gained in ridings we may not have a good shot at winning still mean more funds for the party via the vote subsidy, so it’s a good investment to make.

Both candidates spoke about breaking-down the silos between the caucus, the leader’s office and campaign staff. Neither were keen on lowering the voting age to 16. Michael said he wasn’t ready at 16; Dominic noted if the voting age was 16 provincially, Quebec would have separated. Both said they would insist MPs attend meetings like the LPC(O) executive meetings.

An interesting question was on how we allowed the Conservatives to define Stephane Dion with negative ads. Both candidates agreed that, in retrospect, not firing ads back was a mistake. They were asked how they’d respond to the likely attacks against them.

In Michael’s case, absence from Canada. Michael responded passionately, saying the Conservatives like to imply that living abroad for a time is somehow un-Canadian, but “Stephen Harper doesn’t get to decide whose a good Canadian. I’m proud of what I’ve achieved abroad, but I’m Canadian through and through.” He added a million Canadians are living abroad at any time, and we can’t let the Conservatives say people are second or third class Canadians.

In Dominic’s case, inexperience/lack of exposure. Dominic said we need to fight fire with fire. We allowed Stephane to be unfairly defined. We have no choice, we need to spend the money. “You never cede the battlefield.” He added people would know him much better after this race.

On Afghanistan, there was a little more light between their positions here (Michael supported the first extension while Dominic didn’t, both voted for the compromise to 2011), but both agreed 2011 is the firm end date. In a later foreign policy question, I thought Michael made a good point. If, as Liberals, we support sending our military on peace keeping missions to other parts of the world in the future, we have to acknowledge that we’re going to need to invest in our military to ensure they have the equipment and training they need, which will take money.

On another party reform question, Michael said we’ve got to stop trading on our past glory. We talked constantly about how we slew the deficit, but Canadians what to hear about the future, not the past. We’ve lost the last three elections (he’s counting the PM minority as a loss) and we’re not the natural governing party anymore, we need to realize that. He quoted Bonnie Crombie as saying she’s tired of always having to go into the past to explain why she’s proud to be a Liberal. We need to be proud for out future, he said. Ordinary Canadians are concerned about their jobs, the economy, their pensions, and “we’ve got to stand up for these people, and god dammit we’ve got to fight for these people.”

Let me inject a little editorial comment here for a moment. While we shouldn’t trade on past-glory alone, the face is we have a strong history and a strong brand that is an asset. In the first of those losses Michael mentioned (2004) we pretended that proud past didn’t exist. That was a mistake. It’s a fine balance, but I’m proud of our Liberal legacy, from slewing the deficit to the flag to medicare, and much more. We shoud definitely not lose touch with that past while we look to the future.

Back to the forum, and a question on the environment. Michael said he was very proud of the leadership Stephane brought to the environmental file, a statement I was glad to see drew strong, sustained applause. The voters have spoken though, he said, and our challenge is to mind a way to keep our commitment to environmental sustainability at our core while packaging it in a way that is electorally sustainable and retail saleable. We’ve got to listen to Canadians that want to be green, but have legitimate concerns about their businesses and livelihoods.

On NAFTA and Barrack Obama’s musings about reopening it, Michael said that Canada is an energy superpower. We’re not used to thinking about ourselves like that, but we are an energy power that exports more oil to the US than Saudi Arabia. “Without us, they don’t roll.” We need to use that power, he said. “If they want to reopen NAFTA watch out, it’s going to be a very different negotiation.”

Both candidates agreed the security and prosperity partnership process needs to be more public and transparent, and both stood firmly opposed to bulk water exports.

There were a few other questions, but my notes are a little messy. All in all, a very enlightening and amicable discussion with both Michael and Dominic coming off very well.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Much ado about a little, and an opportunity missed

I'm just back from Mississauga, where all and sundry now know there was an informal townhall debate between two of the three leadership candidates. Inside that room it was a very positive experience. I saw two candidates field dozens of questions from loyal and active Liberals from across the province of Ontario, that gave up their weekend to drive to Mississauga at their own expense to talk about how we volunteers can get our party back on track. Outside that room, it's a different story.

Inside the room, there was no acrimony. As Michael Ignatieff and Dominic Leblanc took took questions on a wide range of topic – reaching out to rural Canadians, fundraising, a 308 riding strategy, the environment, Afghanistan, Israel – they both displayed a level of mutual respect for one another that I hope sets an example for how this race should be conducted. There wasn't one negative thing said about any Liberal inside that room. Outside the room, it was a different story.

Inside the room, there was an empty chair next to Michael and Dominic. One of the first questions asked from the floor was the obvious one: Where's Bob Rae? The president of the LPC(O), Mike Crawley, took that one.

As Mike explained it, this wasn't an official leadership debate or event. Those will come. Indeed, we don't even have any official candidates yet. I was happy to get the chance to sign both Michael and Dominic's nomination papers last night. More candidates may still run. About three weeks ago, said Crawley, the party decided, since this large group of Liberals was gathering, why not invite the declared leadership candidates to participate in an informal townhall with the attendees. The ground rules set by the party were that, as is the case for all LPC(O) executive meetings, the media would not be invited into the room. Three weeks ago, said Crawley, all three current candidates agreed to attend, under those ground rules. If all three candidates were to later come to the party and ask to change those ground rules they'd consider the request but, said Crawley, all three candidates did not. So, it went ahead under the format originally agreed to by all.

That was the official explanation. Myself, personally, I see merit to both sides. I wouldn't have minded seeing the media in there, I'd have been fine with that. But I also enjoyed the more low-key, informal, intimate nature of the event. With the media present, there would have been a tendency to mug for the cameras, to try to score the soundbite.

While I have sympathy for both positions, what I don't have sympathy for is Bob Rae's decision to take this internal disagreement to the media. This could have been negotiated and potentially resolved within the family, without giving the Conservative war room clips for their next round of attack ads. And don't doubt for a second they weren't recording every soundbite.

After I got up this morning and wrote my earlier blog entry I went down to the pub to grab lunch, and then headed over to the hall where the forum was to be held, and was greeted by a swarm of media. They had a story now, and it was their favourite story: Liberal infighting.

Apparently Michael had scrummed while I enjoyed my Angus burger with provolone and bacon, but I caught Dominic's scrum, and he made some excellent points about how this kind of snipping is exactly what we don't need. He also said that, while he wouldn't have minded letting in the media, he wasn't going to “take his marbles and go home” either.

Then I was surprised to see Bob Rae walking down the hall. Great, I thought. He's had a change of heart and, having made his point (in an unfortunately public way), he was going to take part in the debate, and share his thoughts with the Liberals that have gathered from across the province.

Nope, he made it clear right away he was still boycotting the debate. Apparently, he flew all the way down from Ottawa just so he could have a press conference outside the hall and bash Ignatieff. He hadn't come to talk to Ontario Liberals, he had just come to talk to the media.

I was surprised, frankly. I thought it would have been a much better decision for him to attend, even if under protest. This was a room of grassroots Liberal organizers from accoss Ontario, and most of them are undecided and are looking to learn more about the candidates. This leadership won't be won in the media, it will be won on the ground with the help of people like those in that room that work tirelessly and thanklessly on behalf of the Liberal cause in their communities. Snubbing them doesn't seen like good strategy to me, but then I'm just a humble blogger.

As I headed back to Scarborough, my main thought was that it's a shame that the story tomorrow won't be the mutual respect and frank debate on the issues facing the Liberal Party and facing Canada that we saw inside that room. Instead, it will be round 58 of Liberals attacking Liberals.

I hope the example that Michael and Dominic set this weekend inside that room will be the norm, and not the example we saw set outside it. Because, right now, the only people smiling are Stephen Harper and the Conservative war room. Bob got himself on TV by making a tempest out of a tea pot, but the Liberal cause is weakened today.

I'll have more on the actual debate tomorrow. In the mean time, my friend James Curran was live-blogging from the debate, and he has much of the debates up at his place.

And here's a few pictures from today. These are from the scrums where the lighting was good. I have a few from the debate I'll post tomorrow, but it was a little dark in the hall.

ELSEWHERE: Warren has thoughts, Kady has an interesting theory about the CPC war room and bloggers's role, Wells weighs-in, and much more here.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Well that didn’t last long, did it?

I haven’t done the math yet, but it’s safe to say the supposed leadership détente between Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff didn’t last long, with Bob’s unfortunate decision to go running to the media to smear and unfairly attack his fellow leadership contender.

I came out to Mississauga Saturday afternoon to attend the leadership hospitality suites in the evening, and then the leadership forum this afternoon. As I attended Michael Ignatieff’s and Dominic LeBlanc’s parties and got a chance to meet them both, I found myself wondering where Bob Rae was. Then, when I dragged myself out of bed this morning (had a few glasses of wine last night) and got online, I found out.

This is all rather ridiculous, frankly, given that no one is an actual formal leadership candidate yet at this stage. The debate this afternoon is an informal one, organized as part of the LPCO executive meetings. Which isn’t some elitist gathering by the way as some have claimed, any Liberal can attend. And the debate itself is open to any party member for just $20, or $10 for Victory fund members. That’s how I’m getting in.

Executive meetings such as this have never been open to the media. That has always been the rule, agreed to by all. My understanding is that, last minute, Bob Rae wanted to change the rule to open the forum to the media. Dominic LeBlanc was fine either way, Michael Ignatieff preferred to keep it more informal and stick with the original rules, as laid down by the LPCO and agreed to originally by all.

And rather than work this out within the party and see if a compromise couldn’t be found, Bob Rae seems to have decided to boycott the entire weekend (I hear he was in the Chateau Laurier in Ottawa last night schmoozing Young Liberals) and go running to the media to break his pledge for a clean campaign and attack Michael.

As a Liberal who feels it is the internal snipping and bickering that has been the death of this party, I find Bob’s decision as more of that annoying crap that has been holding us down for too long. The initial pledge to keep this a clean race was the right one, and it’s a shame Bob has decided to be the first to break it by airing internal dirty laundry in public. And it’s a shame he won’t be here today to meet Ontario Liberals, as I was looking forward to seeing him debate.

We do have two candidates in Mississauga today though that actually do want to meet with Ontario Liberals and discuss the future of the Liberal Party with the grassroots, and I look forward to hearing Michael and Dominic’s thoughts.

And I’ll have full blog coverage on the debates later tonight.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Michael Ignatieff for Liberal leader

Although I'm making my decision far earlier in this leadership race than I did in 2006, I weighed the decision just as closely and to me the choice is clear: Michael Ignatieff is the right choice to be the next leader of the Liberal Party. Michael has the experience and the skill to lead this party now, and to win the next election and become Prime Minister.

I gave serious thought to supporting Michael in 2006. In the end, I decided to support Stephane Dion and that's a decision I've never regretted. Since that last leadership race though, I'm pleased to say the few lingering reservations I've had about Michael have been addressed. He's a much better candidate than he was two years ago.

Michael was already a learned individual and a charismatic orator with whom I have a lot in common on policy issues. My main concerns last time were that he had been out of the country to long and was still a relative newcomer to the Liberal Party and the political scene. That opened him up to unfair attacks and mischaracterization of his past writings. Now, that has changed.

Since the last race, as Dion's deputy leader, Michael has learned the craft of politics and has proven himself to be an able and effective performer in the House and on the stump, holding the Conservatives to account and making the case to Canadians for the Liberals. He has learned the retail side of politics, so important to success in an election. And I believe Michael personally has been a loyal supporter of Dion, and the Liberal cause, as our deputy leader.

I feel he brings a social policy thrust in line with the best traditions of Liberalism, and a centrist foreign policy focus that is informed, realistic, and in line with where most Canadians are today. Sure, we've disagreed in the past. Iraq (a lot of good people on the left supported that war initially), but he has come around on that. Quebec as a nation, but that seems like a dead issue now anyways.

I think we have (at the moment) two other excellent candidates for the leadership. Bob Rae is one of the most skilled pure politicians I've met, and I really like Dominic Leblanc and his take on the Liberal Party. Either would make able leaders, I just feel policy-wise Michael is closer to where I am than Bob is, and I just don't feel Dominic is the leader to take on Stephen Harper today. For sure, though, he's a future leader of this party and brings a needed voice to the debate.

Last campaign, Michael did a very good job of bringing new people, and a lot of youth, into the party and getting them involved in the campaign. I've been impressed this time at how he's been broadening the tent even further. Any campaign that has Mark Marrisen and David Herle on the same team as Penny Collenette and Warren Kinsella – that's a pretty broad tent, and it speaks well to Michael's ability to unite this party and bring us forward together to take on the Conservative agenda.

Party reform is an important issue to me. It was an important part of Michael's last campaign, and it will be again. Watching his launch press conference yesterday, I was pleased with his commitment to a policy conference within 100 days of the leadership, but I was also impressed at his desire to reach out and have a conversation with Liberals on reform. This clearly won't be a top-down exercise; Michael is looking to hear from the grassroots on how our party should be reformed. That's absolutely the right approach, and I'll be continuing to bring my ideas forward.

The Michael Ignatieff I see in 2008 is a man who came into the last race with already impressive credentials, and has learned and grown a lot over the last two years. I think he's more well-rounded, I think he's more humble, and is now more ready to unite this party and lead us forward. And he's an inspiring orator with the potential to bring more Canadians into the political process and into the Liberal Party.

It won't be easy. I think this race is a lot closer than many people think. Don't believe the media spin. Rae has quietly been building a lot of support, and will be a formidable challenger. Leblanc is attracting a lot of top-rank organizers, and could very easily come up the middle to win this thing. Whoever wins is going to do it by working hard, in the trenches, riding by riding, energizing grassroots Liberals.

When I examine the field though, it's clear to me that Michael is the candidate that's able to attract support from the broadest base of Canadians, is ready to go toe-to-toe with Harper and lead today, and has the best chance of bringing the Liberal Party together and enabling real party reform.

For these reasons, and more, I'll be supporting Michael Ignatieff for leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Leadership leaderboard updates

Martha Hall-Findlay is out:

Martha Hall Findlay, the appealing underdog candidate for the national Liberal leadership in 2006, announced Tuesday she won't be running for the office when the party holds its next leadership convention in Vancouver in May.

Denis Coderre is out:

Il y a longuement et sérieusement réfléchi, mais Denis Coderre a finalement pris une décision. Le député de Bourassa ne se portera pas candidat à la direction du Parti libéral du Canada (PLC). Son heure, croit-il, n'est pas venue, et il est en outre déçu que sa formation n'ait pas osé moderniser la formule de sélection du leader.

Gerard Kennedy is probably out:

Kennedy will issue an official statement later today, CTV's Roger Smith reported Wednesday. Although he is well known within the party, Smith reported the Liberals may not want a "third choice" contender after selecting current leader Stephane Dion the last time. Dion came from behind to beat out frontrunners Ignatieff and Bob Rae in 2006.

"I think Mr. Kennedy would face questions about his judgment considering how Mr. Dion performed as leader," Smith said. Dion led the Liberals to one of the biggest defeats in party history, after losing nearly 20 seats following last month's federal election.

And Michael Ignatieff will be in shortly:

Michael Ignatieff is poised to formally announce Thursday that he will run for the leadership of the federal Liberal party.

And, of course, Bob Rae and Dominic Leblanc have already signaled their intent to run.

It’s disappointing that Martha and Gerard are not running. I’m sure they have their reasons for making their decisions, which I respect. They’re bright lights in the Liberal Party though, and definitely leaders of the future. At the least, it will be good to have them in the House of Commons with Stephane Dion in the coming months, holding the Harper Conservatives to account. With Iggy and Bob out on the trail, it will be a chance for Gerard in particular to take a leading role in Question Period and on the Hill, and I look forward to seeing grow into the role and nail it.

The suspense has been killing me, so it’s good to see Ignatieff confirming he actually does intend to run. I was beginning to wonder if he has going to sit this one out…ok, not really.

It’s shaping up to be a very interesting race, with three strong candidates so far. Ignatieff is a charismatic orator with an inspiring vision that has learned a lot about retail politics since 2006. Rae is a veteran and skilled politician that is one of the best campaigners in the game. And Leblanc marries generational change with strong Liberal roots and a compelling focus on party renewal.

We’ll see if anyone else gets in, but that’s not a bad field at all.

P.S. I think Roger Smith is full of it on Kennedy and Dion. No one “blames” Kennedy for Dion, not that there’s any need for blame. Liberals voted for Dion for a variety of reasons I needn’t rehash here and now. WE voted for him. If someone wants to question judgment, they should question their own. Anyway, anyone who seeks to gain leadership support by attacking former supporters of Gerard Kennedy or Stephane Dion will find themselves up shit creek pretty quickly.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Good comments from Leblanc and Trudeau

With the election over, I’ve again returned to my sanity-saving habit of not watching shows such as Politics, Question Period and particularly Mike Duffy Live. I may still skim the transcripts though, and I liked these comments from Sunday’s Question Period by Liberal MPs Justin Trudeau and Dominic Leblanc.

JUSTIN TRUDEAU (Newly Elected Liberal in Papineau): I think a lot of people are jumping on the idea that we need to change leadership and that would suddenly fix everything. I think there's a lot of things broken within the Liberal party, there's a lot of rebuilding we have to do on party unity, on learning how to fundraise properly, on reaching out to our grass-roots and rebuilding an organization, and Mr. Dion is having a weekend of reflection right now to see whether he wants to be part of it, or how he wants to be part of it, and I'm all for leaving a man of integrity and honour and intelligence to decide what's best for him without pressuring him one way or another. I think the party's challenges are larger and more important than just leadership, and that's what we need to be focused on.

TRUDEAU: I think as far as ad scam and sponsorship, that's been completely put to the side. The challenge now is to rebuild the brand, rebuild ourselves into a competitive force on the ground as well, reach out to the values of Quebeckers that are so much more Liberal in so many ways than they are anything else, and strengthen the party from the ground up. That really needs to be the focus that we bring.

DOMINIC LEBLANC (Newly Elected Liberal in Beausejour): Well, Jane, it's probably a number of factors that were at play. There's no doubt that Mr. Harper's very negative campaign around the notion of the green shift, around the notion of taxing pollution and reducing income taxes created some havoc in terms of our ability to put forward what I thought was a positive message. It's not one factor. It's not just leadership. I agree with what Justin said, Jane. If the Liberal party is going to turn the page and look forward, there's no magic answer. We have to find a way to excite people about politics, to excite young people about politics, that they can make a difference, so it's a rebuilding exercise that doesn't start with just changing the siding on the house. We've got to go back to the basement and look at a number of factors, and that's what Mr. Dion is doing this weekend, and I think we should give him the time and the respect that he deserves to make that decision tomorrow.

LEBLANC: Jane, there's no simple answer. What I will tell you is that Liberals across the country, I think, are fed up, the Liberals I'm talking to, with us shooting at ourselves. We don't have enough ammunition to be firing on ourselves. If we want to behave like winners and act like winners we have to stop this sort of anonymous source or people questioning the leader every time something doesn't happen. It looks very amateur. Mr. Dion has deserved and earned the respect to make his decision. I will support whatever decision he announces tomorrow, and I think Liberals should do that. It's very premature to sort of do a
postmortem on the leadership. Let Mr. Dion have his say tomorrow. He's earned that. And I think the Liberal party then has to show more maturity than perhaps we have had in the last number of weeks.

And a reminder once again of why I dislike these shows, as gossip columnist Jane Taber keeps pressing them on Dion:

LEBLANC: I'm not going to discuss that today. Mr. Dion doesn't deserve that, and Liberals are tired of that kind of discussion until it's appropriate.

TABER: I'm not tired of it though…

Well as long as you’re entertained Jane, that’s clearly what’s important here.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Paging the Liberal platform committee...

Came across this article on Public Eye Online from a few weeks ago. It’s an interview with Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc, vice-chair of the party’s policy and platform committee, in which he promises the party’s platform would be ready in time for Harper’s speech from the throne…which, of course, is happening Tuesday.

In the interview, LeBlanc hints at a few likely areas of focus, such as health care, post secondary education, working families, child poverty, senior citizens, sustainable development and, of course climate change. I’ll welcome renewed attention to child poverty, as it’s an issue Dion talked about during the leadership campaign but hasn’t much since. Also, I’d be interested to see what they have on post secondary education, as when I interviewed Dion during the campaign he wasn’t keen on wading too heavily into an area of provincial jurisdiction.

I was particularly pleased to read this from LeBlanc:

… a national election platform can't answer every problem and speak to every regional issue. We have to come up with a number of coherent, cohesive national themes that reflect concrete policy proposals that can be understood by the vast majority of Canadians. Previous platforms - when the Liberals were in government - tended to look like Throne Speeches or federal budgets. A Liberal Party campaigning from opposition needs to realize that we're not tied to every department of finance memo that was ever sent around three years ago.

Hear, hear, Dominic. While a five priorities approach a la Steve Harper is simplistic and inadequate, the Paul Martin one million priorities approach leaves you appearing directionless and pleases no one. A middle ground is needed, and a focused platform guided by an overarching vision for the country is key.

After the GG delivers Harper’s throne speech tomorrow, I hope Stephane Dion and the LPC will be front and centre with the fruit of LeBlanc, Bob Rae, and the rest of the platform committee’s labours. Let’s put aside the strategy and the back and forth for a bit, and let Canadians judge us, and the Conservatives, on our ideas. Because I think, in that arena, we have the potential to really excel.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers