Tilting at Windmills

"Fair and softly goes far. "

2011-12-07T21:47:00.001-05:00

That seems so true for any conversation.

Do you know - appropriately I guess - that there are very few quixotic quotations or headers of a positive nature? Surprisingly, I think this one actually works for the subject at hand.

Today, fellow Liberal Party of Canada member Paul Summerville and I made a submission to the Party which we think would help rebuild the Party by strengthening the relationships between the Party’s membership and its Leadership, and onward to all Canadians by enabling a constant conversation through the Liberal Party of Canada. We have submitted this proposal to the Party, as members of the Party and hope that its specific proposals will be put forward by the National Board on our behalf as proposed amendments to the Party’s constitution. Let's at least have the conversation.

In our proposal you will see a call to, as Paul puts it: Kill the veto!, meaning get rid of the Leader’s little-known veto over the Party Platform, and other proposals that would see relationships redefined and representation enhanced in the development of the Party’s key public positions.

Here it is. In full. Pulleese wade in:

Relationships and Representation – Proposals to Improve Policy Development in the Liberal Party of Canada

For a political movement there can ultimately be no greater activity than the proposition of a governing program. A program effectively articulated by leadership and embodied by the proponents. For pragmatists then a political party, to be an effective political movement, requires layers of supporting structures, facilities, and supplies – an organization. Or, as we often prefer to characterize it in the Liberal Party, an institution. In a pure sense, that organization is there to enable and develop the capacity of the proponents (members, voters and representatives (Leaders, candidates, MPs and Senators)) to effectively communicate its policies, positions and platform and win influence and governance over the affairs of the country. And to do that effectively it needs to manage these relationships.

In short, political parties are about relationships and representation. This is what we think of when we hear the term “engagement”.

Roadmap to Renewal purports to reform the party’s structure and processes and modernize its operations. While it correctly, in our view, states that organizational trust must be re-established in all activities of the Party and “includes” policy development in that, it focuses most of its proposals for better engagement on its representative selection activities (Leadership contests and local candidate nominations). It is not so much about what we think as a party or movement defined by its common values and sets of values. While we agree that these processes are at the heart of directly engaging the Party and electorate and forging a stronger relationship, we are concerned about the scant attention given to strengthening the party’s ability to act, react and feel like a movement and to properly provide for the increased trust, transparency and accountability that would come from an overdue rebalancing of the political relationships within the Party’s various entities and actors themselves.

The one specific proposal in the Roadmap related to policy development, Recommendation #10, is part practical process (using technology for ongoing policy development) and part management of the process. We can’t argue with the first, but have concerns that the second is ultimately the opposite of broader engagement and involvement and in fact moves in a contrary direction to the enhancement of relationship within the party by giving that management over to the Caucus instead of being rooted in a dynamic, constant conversation between members and elected representatives while taking advantage of leading edge and readily available technologies.

Managed this way, our Caucus – instead of being the gatekeepers of our political expression – would become the advocates of policies and programs championed by the membership.

Accordingly, we are not in favour of this proposed affirmation.

We would like to therefore propose three changes to the Party’s organization through constitutional amendments that we believe would strengthen the Party’s ability to be nimble, representative, transparent, accountable and respectful of relationships:

1. Removal of the Leader’s veto over the Platform;

2. Altering the mandatory review of the Leader from occurring only after losing elections to occurring at each Biennial Convention of the Party; and,

3. Ensure that the key principles of gender balance, respect for Canada’s official languages and balance between the key actors on policy development are maintained.

Collaborative policy development should not require a veto

The Party’s Constitution already gives heavy weight to the concepts of policy and platform development with respect to the overall work of the Party. The relationships between the various entities of the Party with responsibility for policy in some way shape or form are well defined throughout article 33, and seem fairly well balanced between (generally) policy development (membership – accountable through National, PTA and EDA policy chairs – and the members-at-large appointed by the Leader); positions-of-the-day and extension of development to legislative proposals between elections (Caucus – accountable through the Vice-Chair and 4 Caucus members on the committee (one of whom is the caucus accountability officer)); and , Platform development (traditionally viewed as accountable through the Leader).

On this latter responsibility, the constitution clearly envisages a link between the membership’s role in proposing and developing policies and the Leader’s political role in ensuring that they are platform worthy through 33 (2) (b):

Coordinate the policy development process in all provinces and territories with a view to maintaining a current written statement of the policies of the Party (the “Party policies”) that will, together with the contributions from the Leader and the Caucus and subject to the approval of the Leader, form the basis for the platform of the Party for use in the next general election (the “Party platform”).

Its language invokes collaboration but this clause also clearly ensures the Leader’s imprint on “non-Platform-related” policies at the same time. To repeat, then, at this point the Leader must approve the policy’s entry into the platform at any rate.

Further 33 (5) provides for a “Policy Approval Subcommittee”, indicating that no one (including Caucus members) may state that a policy is a Party policy or platform unless it has either been approved by the Subcommittee or by the Leader (after consulting with the Subcommittee). The Sub-Committee is a quartet made up of the President and the two National Presidents together with the National Policy Chair. One can only assume that the two VPs are on this sub-committee to ensure appropriate consideration of official languages (more on this later). It is unclear to us as members of the Party if in fact this process has ever been utilized on our behalf, but we assume it is intended as some sort of validation process when public policy pronouncements veer from the Party’s publicized “Party policies”. Nonetheless, this gives much (and we believe appropriate) weight to the Leader vis à vis any Party policies that might find their way into the Platform.

Given all of this we are unsure as to the requirement for a full veto on every aspect of the Platform also being given to the Leader. It does not seem to be in keeping with the Party’s basic democratic values as expressed elsewhere in this article or the full constitution. Frankly, it is unlikely that most of the “membership” is even aware that the Leader has a veto, probably because they are under the errant opinion that the Leader has sole constitutional authority for its development as it is.

While 33(2) in all of its sub-clauses describes the full responsibilities of the NPPC, it is 33 (2) (e) which gives to the Committee the responsibility to draft and publish the Party platform:

Subject to veto in whole or in part (including a veto line by line) by the Leader, draft the Party platform and, upon its release during an election, publish the Party platform on the public website of the Party.

Perhaps the entire section was written to deal with some of the mistrust that has increasingly developed between the “membership” and the “leadership” on political matters generally, but we believe that it may have, since its inception, institutionalized the “we versus they”, or in other words non-collaborative view of Platform development in the Party’s ranks. Of late, the Party platform has been held under guard – even from its own membership, the constitutionally assumed co-authors.

Finally, in the current context of one-member-one-vote (even if extended through a voter registration process) one must assume that the Leader’s mandate on platform development is the same mandate given to the committee. For a Leader to veto the membership, the relationship would have to be soured indeed.

Roadmap asserts that “[t]he future health of the Party requires it to re-establish a framework of organizational trust”. We suggest that one way to accomplish this is to amend the Constitution through article 33 (2) (e) and propose:

Delete the words “subject to the veto in whole or in part (including a veto line by line) by the Leader,”

The Leader as the Speaker of the Party

The Leader’s position as the Party’s main political actor is clearly established in the Party’s Constitution, and in fact is heavily oriented towards policy- and platform-related responsibilities and powers, as opposed to operational ones. In fact the first such responsibility given to the Leader through article 48 is to “speak for the Party concerning any political issue”. Of the other 8 areas of the Leader’s responsibility and oversight over party matters, 5 are directly related to the policy and platform development and implementation, completely reminiscent of article 33 described above, further stating specifically that the Leader shall “be guided by the Party policies and the Party platform”.

We find this incongruous to the prevailing notion – one strongly enforced in Roadmap through its proposals on more broadly engaging the public in influencing the Party’s policy positions and directions through participation the selection of the Leader – that a Leader receives a mandate on policy and political matters through the Leadership selection process. Regardless of what is written in the Constitution, this is clearly the reality.

However, Leaders are chosen from time-to-time and not on a regular policy development cycle – in fact Leadership selection in the Party is no longer attached to conventions or conferences of the party where policy and other political matters are contemplated. It is through the very notion of the one-member-one-vote leadership selection that the membership and their chosen Leader are at the time of selection, clearly in sync on all matters political. The question therefore is when does this mandate subside, or in other words deplete? From the point of selection, the Constitution only contemplates a collaborative effort on these matters and we can only envisage the next check-up at the next – and subsequent – Biennial Convention(s) of the Party where this collaborative process culminates.

Yet, however the Leader’s mandate is defined, it is not subject to any form of formal review unless the Leader has failed to become Prime Minister. The assumption is that an unsuccessful platform is the Leader’s sole responsibility, and further that it is only at election time that a Leader’s political views should be in sync with the general party’s views. We know that in this the Constitution does not agree.

We believe that a review of the Leader’s performance with respect to their ongoing role as Speaker for the Party should occur at the same time that the Party contemplates new policies and political directions. We therefore propose that the “review” of the Leader occur at every Biennial Convention of the Party and propose that article 64 (1) which reads in part:

“… that a ballot (referred to throughout this Constitution s the “Leadership Endorsement Ballot”), … is voted on at the meeting of every EDA for the purpose of selecting delegates to attend the first biennial convention held after each general election in which the Leader does not become the Prime Minister.”

be amended by deleting “the first” and inserting in its place “each”, and further by inserting a period after “convention” and deleting the remainder of the sentence.

However we also believe that the Leader will require a commensurate and more direct ability to influence policy and even though the Constitution does not formally prescribe who may propose policy resolutions – just that it must consider them (61 (4) (d)) – believe that this power should be given specifically to the Leader. We therefore propose that article 48 be amended to add:

(x) propose policy resolutions for consideration by the Party in accordance with Subsection 61 (4) (d).

Representation and relationships

It is our view that the Constitution through article 33 (1) which describes the composition of the NPPC, quite correctly provides for an appropriate balance for input and influence between the various actors on policy and platform development, who are broadly, the membership, the Caucus and the Leader. It also, specifically through 33 (1) (b), and 33 (1) (h), provides for adherence to the key Liberal principles of gender- and linguistic-balance; and through 33 (5) (1) infers adherence to linguistic-balance.

33 (1) (b) is particularly important because it inserts these notions (combined with the insinuation of the Leader’s views) into leadership of the NPPC itself, by ensuring that the Policy Chair and Vice-Chair (appointed by the Leader) complement each other by way of these characteristics, each of a different gender and language, one drawn from the House of Commons where the other is not. It is this latter requirement that concerns us, following the results of the last general election and given the current contingent of members running for the position of National Policy Chair. Given that no member of the Senate is running for the position, and only one woman, it is conceivable that the provisions of this clause may not be able to be met as written or contemplated. Should the Nationally elected Policy Chair be a man, there is no female, Francophone MP to assume the Vice-Chair position. We are concerned that in interpreting how to fill the position that one of the key principles may take precedence over the other and that this could cause some organizational and representative conflict.

We understand that the provision is likely as written to ensure that the elected representatives of the Party are equally represented as they are ones who have both run on the Party’s policies, and propose legislative initiatives, but believe in this instance that the principles of gender and linguistic balance are more important, and that the Party would be better served by the appointment of a member of the Senate only under such unfortunate circumstances. After all, the Caucus itself can somewhat rectify that imbalance through the four members of Caucus it is to appoint under 33 (1) (h).

Article 33 (1) (b) (iii) currently reads:

if the National Policy Chair is not a member of the House of Commons, the National Policy Vice-Chair must be a member of the House of Commons

We propose that article 33 (1) (b) (iii) be amended, by adding:

“ and only in the instance where no such individual is a member of the House of Commons, a member of the Senate of Canada.”

While this change will go a long way to ensure the linguistic and gender-balance contemplated by the Constitution in the oversight of policy and platform development, the current makeup of the “Policy Approval Sub-Committee” as described in article 33 (5) could result in a linguistically- but non-gender balanced body. The addition of the Policy Vice-Chair, in full understanding that the original concept was likely to provide a balance between members with a national elected mandate on policy with the Leader, would ensure a slightly better representation on a key and influential body of the Party.

We therefore propose:

that article 33(5) (a) be amended by replacing the word “and” with a comma and adding the words “and the National Policy Vice-Chair” and the end.

We note that the current circumstances related to the position of National Policy Vice-Chair are the same for article 33 (3) which calls for the responsibility for the drafting of the Party platform to rest with whichever of the Chair or Vice-Chair is a member of the House of Commons. We suggest that for all of the reasons noted immediately above, in addition to those related to the nature of the Party-Caucus-Leader relationship described extensively earlier, that responsibility be additionally given to the National Policy Chair.

We propose that article 33 (3) be deleted and replaced by:

The National Policy Chair and the National Policy Vice-Chair shall be jointly responsible to coordinate the drafting of the Party platform.

Finally, we understand and agree full well with the reasoning behind providing for the addition of up to 4 Party members-at-large to the NPPC by the Leader (33 (1) (g)), believing it to primarily revolve around the provision of specific expertise, but would like to ensure, in keeping with the forgoing that consideration is given to the key representative principles of the Party. We believe that the Leader could use these additional members to correct (to a degree) any natural imbalances that occur through the constitutional makeup of the committee. We therefore propose

that article 33 (1) (g) be amended by adding at the end “respecting the principle of equal participation of men and women and the recognition of English and French as the official languages of Canada”

We welcome the invitation of the National Board to individual members of the Party to directly propose alterations and enhancements to the governance of the Party at this seminal point in its history.

Respectfully submitted

Sheila Gervais and Paul Summerville

Member Ottawa South and Associate Member Ottawa West-Nepean, and, Member Victoria respectively

reach Paul Summerville at www.excellentfuture.ca

"Let every man look before he leaps."

2011-06-18T09:53:00.000-04:00

At today's Extraordinary Convention, I will support a "2013 option".

On May 3, after Michael Ignatieff informed us that he would be resigning, I thought: well at least we know the path we are on for once: we'll have a Leadership vote in 6 months. Boy was I wrong. I am still of the view that would have been the best path for the Party, a swift and surgical Leadership race (al la BC Liberal Party) combined and followed with a collaborative rebuilding effort. But once set on the path to this Extraordinary Convention, with some of the twists and turns it has taken along the way, I no longer feel that is a viable option, so one way or the other, I will be supporting the Board's Resolution to move the Leadership Vote to late 2012/early 2013.

However, I do have some opinions on the "one way or the other" now that we have proposals (sub-amendments) that would alter the timelines proposed by the Board. As I read them, the sub-amendment proposed by Guptill/Cameron (PEI/Yukon) would keep the earliest option for a Leadership Vote in the Fall of 2012 and move the latest to June 30, 2013; the Jedras/Klunder (Ontario/Ontario) option would ensure the Vote was held in the Fall of 2012, between September 1 and November 30; and the Noormohamed (BC/Quebec*) option would see the Leadership Vote held in 2013 only - between March and the end of June.

I am impressed by the rationale and planning for rebuilding proposed by Gregg Guptill and Kirk Cameron. They clearly describe how the Party would benefit from a longer collaborative building process, while leaving two-and-a-half years (or more) with a new Leader before Election 42 in 2015. I hope all delegates have an opportunity to read it before this afternoon's vote.

Conversely, I am concerned that Jeff's proposal, which by limiting the flexibility in timing to 2012 and moving up the first possible date for a convention would ensure that we would be plunged into a Leadership race right now. Today. I get that in some measure it's "on" now anyway, but the further the practical race is from now, the greater discipline the Party will be able to exercise on true rebuilding freer of the usual Leadership shenanigans.

In this morning's in box I found a memo prepared by Taleeb, which I gather he had hoped to send to all delegates, but doesn't know who they are! I thought he was going to post it on his website, but it is still kind of early in BC, so I've decided to reproduce it here. I do so because it very succinctly explains my concerns with the 2012-only option - and I think we need as much information and discussion as possible.

TO: Delegates to the Extraordinary Convention of the Liberal Party of Canada

RE: Important Convention Update

DATE: Friday, June 17, 2011

Dear Liberal Friend,

While the rationale for my own sub-amendment is available here, I think it appropriate for me to explain why I decided to propose it. As a long-time member and recent candidate, I thought that the best thing for the Party would be a lengthy period of calm and rebuilding before we satisfied ourselves that we had a developed into the type of movement worth offering to potential Leaders and the Canadian public. The resolution offered by the National Board just met my parameters on timing. When the full process was revealed earlier this week I became aware of the general content of a sub-amendment since submitted to Party Headquarters that would force an early leadership vote and significantly restrict the Interim Leader's time in which to make progress with the task of rebuilding.

As a Liberal committed to the rebuilding of our party, I want you to know that I and others strongly oppose this sub-amendment and would urge you to vote against it during tomorrow's teleconference (which begins at 3:00 pm ET).

This sub-amendment, from Mr. Jedras (Scarborough Centre) was undoubtedly submitted with the best of intentions but unfortunately, in our view, has the worst of consequences.

The sub-amendment would require that a leadership vote be held as early as September 1, 2012 and no later than November 30, 2012. Because the notice required before the vote is at least five months, which could mean that a formal leadership campaign would be underway as early as April 1, 2012 (less than ten months from now).

The picture worsens when you look at this sub-amendment’s impact on informal leadership activities, especially on membership drives. Because the Liberal Party’s National Membership Rules provide that a membership sold any time after September 1 remains current all through the following calendar year, the sub-amendment would be an incentive for leadership hopefuls to start selling memberships on September 1 this year (a bare ten weeks from now).

None of the other amendments or sub-amendments, including my own, create this problem, because they all contemplate the possibility of a leadership vote taking place in 2013, in which case there is no incentive for leadership organizers to start selling memberships now, only to have to renew them later (while there are multi-year membership options available, they are at least twice as expensive and therefore a tougher sell for the big membership drives that leadership involves, especially when you are talking about multiple members in any one family).

If there is one thing the recent federal election made clear, it's that we have a lot of work to do in terms of rebuilding our party and reconnecting with Canadians right across the country. This means we should be focused on rebuilding and not allow ourselves to become consumed by leadership politics. Nor do any of us want to see various leadership organizers running campaign-related membership drives in our ridings within a few weeks time.

On the other hand, if you share THE belief that we need to take eighteen to twenty four months to focus on rebuilding our party, I urge you to join in voting down the sub-amendment in question and supporting the main amendment (even as amended by my proposal or that of members from PEI/Yukon) providing for a leadership vote no earlier than November 2012 and ideally in 2013.

Please make your voice heard on tomorrow's call!

It's too bad that we've got such a brief period to really chew all of this over, but we'll just have to make the best of it. And do look before you leap!

" He has an oar in every man's boat, and a finger in every pie. "

2011-06-17T14:00:00.000-04:00

Allrighty then. We're off to the races!

I've been having a fun time over the last week or so chatting mostly with new Liberal friends I've met through Tilting at Windmills, Twitter, Facebook and most importantly the recent election campaign - as well as of course all of the old dogs I know and enjoy kibitzing with whether we agree or disagree (we all seem to agree on a value set, so...).

Curious thing about the newbies is that they are really adamant about helping to "rebuild" as has become the catch phrase, but they are extremely dismayed at the organizational state of the party.

Dustin is one such new member who I correspond with on Twitter about all matters Liberal. He has told me that since he joined the Party in April (in a GTA riding just recently lost to the CPC - he comes from out west) no one has been in touch with him other than at his own instigation and that was only once. He has not been invited to any meetings, events or discussions since before the election, during or since. He is befuddled by a lot of the "process" he sees out there and fussing about this Extraordinary Convention. He is anxious to participate in the rebuilding and has just this week again contacted the party to offer his help in the riding in away he can. We're very lucky that there are people out there like this.

It's such a shame that these people need to get all of their information and discussion through remote sources like Facebook, Twitter and the blogosphere and not through face-to-face meetings and discussions (although LPC just very recently added a decent and transparent discussion board on this weekend's resolutions to it website - people really should check it out if they're not aware of it).

On the other hand, thank goodness we at least have that. A few weeks ago, among others, Liberal blogger Jeff Jedras, who blogs as A BCer in Toronto, wrote that he wasn't much enamoured with the impact of the Party's proposal on the timing of the Leadership Vote and he very much hoped that the Party would find appropriate mechanisms to allow a greater range of options or counter-proposals if you wish. Well on Tuesday (very late in the game, mais en tous cas!) Jeff (and many others) got his wish when the Party issued the rules for the weekend's tele-convention. The process for the Extraordinary Convention allows for sub-amendments to be proposed with the support of 25 delegates submitted by Noon today. Jeff developed such a proposal (which would, if successful, shorten the period between now and a Leadership vote from the 18-22 months proposed by the Party) and began the process of finding supporting delegates via, what else? his blog, his Facebook page and Twitter. Funnily enough, when you don't have a delegates list getting 25 supporting emails when you basically have 48 hours isn't as easy as one might think.

Even though the Party discouraged actual DSMs, where some discussion c/should have taken place, the riding that I participate in, Ottawa West-Nepean, decided that it was important to bring together delegates and interested members of the general membership to discuss the Party's proposed resolutions and ensure everyone understood the impact of their adoption or defeat. We did so Wednesday night - while the Stanley Cup final was on - with a near-full house. The consensus on the timing of the Leadership vote was a preference for an 18 to 24 month interim period - actually longer than that anticipated by the Party's resolution. While there wasn't really a consensus on the timing of the Biennial a plurality also favoured putting the Biennial Convention off even further (I personally do not support that). We had already heard rumours that there may be proposals other than Jeff's coming forward, but wondered about scrambling to put some of our own together to ensure more options on the table.

In the end several of us were contacted throughout the day yesterday about other proposals and as of this time of writing it is confirmed that three sets of sub-amendments (including Jeff's) have indeed been accepted by the Party and will be posted shortly. I have supported two of the proposals related to the leadership vote (one that would see the Leadership Vote held in 2013 and one that would see it be able to be held late in 2012 and later in 2013 than the Party proposal), even though they would compete with each other again, because I believe it is important to have more discussion - more healthy discussion, and more transparency. I think too that whatever the final outcome, it will have more legitimacy because of the options and the debate. It's too bad that the debate will come so late in the game, however; many delegates will not really be aware of the full options before them and while there are provisions for discussion on the teleconference itself - there won't be opportunity for a lot of it - certainly not that afforded by the hallway discussions that normally take place at face-to-face meetings and Conventions.

Former long-term MP Marlene Catterall put it very well in a communication to delegates earlier today urging support for these two sets of amendments getting to the table:

I want to thank you all again for a thoughtful and passionate discussion at our meeting on Wednesday evening. Whatever our various opinions on the issues that will be discussed and voted on tomorrow, we obviously share an unfailing commitment to the Liberal Party and the values that have been its foundation and inspiration.

We also share a desire for free and open debate and do not want to feel we are being manipulated and not given choices on the issues before us.

I let you all know at the meeting that I support a later Biennial convention to allow the renewal process to be well underway and to allow for the fullest possible involvement of the members across the country in determining the direction of the Party and the choice of the people who would be responsible for carrying out what we the members determined.

I also support a later leadership selection vote to be held in 2013.

I have emailed the party to indicate my support for three amendments that have been submitted, two from PEI supported by the Yukon and interestingly one from BC: perhaps a cross-Canada consensus developing here?

The three resolutions are attached. The rationale is similar and I found the introduction to the one from Greg in PEI especially worth reading.

If you feel either of these is consistent with your thinking, please consider sending an email of support to the party at convention@liberal.ca. These resolutions can only come forward for discussion tomorrow if at least 25 delegates indicate their support for them. This in no way binds you to vote for them if the discussion persuades you otherwise but it does open up the discussion and give us options.

Tomorrow’s conference call convention should be interesting and maybe an exciting first step in the grass roots flourishing.

Marlene

All of this is so much closer to democracy in action. With any luck some of the culture change many of us are seeking is beginning to peak through the fog.

Oh - and for the record (I hope to be able to put up my own rationales in some sort of timely way, but in case I can't) - I favour both of the Party's proposed amendments, but would prefer resolution number 1 (Leadership Vote) be improved by the BC: Rebuild First sub-amendment and failing that the PEI/Yukon: Sub-amendment Three.

Happy deliberations, and ...

"I shall be as secret as the grave."

2011-05-20T14:07:00.000-04:00

I'm not totally sure it's purposeful, but it sure is cultural, that the LPC has a tough, tough time communicating with its members in a consistent, full and complete fashion. Today's communique with some details about the upcoming "extraordinary convention" seems to have been posted on the party's website, but not sent around to members - well not this member anyway. I'd venture a guess that most members of the party are not twitterholics or cruising the party's website on a regular basis. With all of the attention paid to this process, you'd think that a full-member email blast might have been in order.

The note does contain some useful and timely information that all members should have, about how to be apply for delegate selection, some deadlines and so on. But the critical piece of information - what people will actually be voting on with respect to leadership vote timing is missing. I guess it's just me, but when you are encouraging people to "have their say", you would think you'd tell them what they'd be talking about at the same time. If the proposal isn't ready, the communique shouldn't have been issued. Probably, they will issue another one, or a revised one. Maybe that one they'll send it around to all of us? Sigh. There's enough confusion out there already.

It's kind of like the exchange on Wednesday's Council of Presidents teleconference between one of the riding presidents and the Party President about how devoting 45 minutes out of a two-hour meeting to verbal briefings could have been avoided and allowed for more discussion and feedback if only some documentation had been sent in advance. The President indicated that he was concerned, given recent incidents, with the potential for leaks to the media. To which the riding president replied: "Well, if it wasn't for the leaks to the media, I wouldn't have a clue what was going on."

I do have one specific beef with the information in the communique/note/blogpost with respect to the delegate selection process. One of the notations, under "Key dates - and How to participate" is:

Saturday, June 11, 2011/Sunday, June 12, 2011
Delegate Selection meeting date. You will be contacted if a delegate selection meeting is required in your riding.

As I've noted elsewhere, in my view, it is not acceptable to not hold a delegate selection meeting when less than the required number of potential delegates indicate their "intention to stand". I understand the party finds it burdensome to organize unnecessary meetings. It's just that I don't see them as unnecessary, but opportunities for interaction. These meetings are likely to be the only opportunity for members to question the delegate candidates on how they intend to vote and to ensure everyone understands the impact of the result of that vote. To me, even if a delegate is to be acclaimed, the membership that they will represent, a membership that will have "delegated" their views, have the right to know what those views are even if they cannot impact them. At any rate, these meetings might also be the only opportunity for members to get together to discuss the proposals period. Surely what we need is more openness, more discussion and dialogue in the party, not less.

"I begin to smell a rat."

2011-05-18T17:33:00.001-04:00

Thought the new cabinet would be the news of the day? Think again.

UPDATE: The new taxpayer funded per vote subsidy:

Fabian Manning: $9.00 per vote

Larry Smith: $8.50 per vote

Josée Verner: $6.25 per vote

"Within a stone's throw of it. "

2011-05-14T13:31:00.000-04:00

We're getting somewhere. LPC sent out a decent note to (I am assuming) actual members of the Party today, finally providing some information about what's going on. They also released it to the public so one has to read some of the contents as not purely informational and in the vein of member relations, but public relations as well.

For example, the following excerpt, particularly in this first direct-to-member communication does not seem entirely neutral as an explanation for this special process:

"However, so many members like yourself have called, written and emailed your Board members, asking that this Leadership Vote be delayed. According to your feedback, the overwhelming reason to delay the Leadership Vote is to allow for meetings throughout our ridings, regions and provinces in the upcoming months so we may together discuss and decide upon our future as a party and focus on serious policy and organizational rebuilding work before we turn our attention to our leadership choices. Your Board has heard almost unanimously that this is best done free of a Leadership selection process."

For my part, I'd rather that we were already in the process of holding "meetings throughout our ridings, regions and provinces in the upcoming months so we may together discuss and decide upon our future as a party and focus on serious policy and organizational rebuilding work" instead of these delays and distractions. En tous cas...

Unfortunately missing from today's note are the actual amendments themselves (perhaps they are not entirely finalized?) and a call for riding level and other discussion of them in advance of the delegate selection meetings.

To repeat what I have written elsewhere, I for one would like to know that a potential delegate understands fully the implications of an amendment passing or failing and their position before I vote to send them or others as delegates. After all they will be expressing the will of more than themselves. (Some people do simply put their trust in delegates to "do what they think best" and that's AOK for them, but that shouldn't be the norm on which these things are predicated, in my view).

I'd rather they didn't seem so forced into it, but this communication is a step in the right direction.

"The more thou stir it, the worse it will be."

2011-05-11T15:38:00.000-04:00

Like that Sinatra song says: you can't have one without the other.

Sorry to do this, esteemed National Board of the Liberal Party of Canada, but looking at the Statement That No One Seems To Have Or Admit To Have Except the Media, I'm not so sure that everything is entirely Kosher in what's being proposed (as I began to wonder a couple of days ago).

Like others, I've been wondering why putting off the the biennial for a month to January 2012 was so critical to all of these existential discussions. At the same time I think it's a large part of the reason why people are beginning to oppose all these shenanigans. It's not that there isn't sympathy for the view that maybe the leadership vote should be put off somehow, but people seem to really, really want an early biennial to change the current Board and get on with the rest. And, they do not trust their trustees much and so question their motives.

So what's the rationale? The Party is required to hold a biennial convention every 30 months, but at any rate within two calendar years. Given that the last biennial began April 30, 2009, the next biennial has/d to be held before Dec 31, 2011, and had been called for June 17/18, 2011. When the election was called, the LPC President issued a note saying that the Convention would not be held in June after all, and that "a new date will be set shortly, as per our constitution, to take place within six months of the original date."

So far so good. Regardless of the reason then, it would appear that the Board is correct in requiring a constitutional amendment to move the biennial to January 2011. And to get the required constitutional amendment adopted, they require a convention, so they have to hold an "extraordinary" one.

Here's what that section of the constitution says:

61 Types of conventions
(1) Subject to this Constitution, the convention of the Party is the highest authority of the
Party.
(2) Except if rescheduled in accordance with Subsection 65(4), the Party must hold a
biennial convention of the Party at least once in every two calendar years and not
more than 30 months after the previous biennial convention of the Party.
(3) At any time except within six months of a biennial convention of the Party, the Party may hold an extraordinary convention to deal with any issues of extraordinary
importance.

Note these words in particular: "except within six months of a biennial convention". Let them sink in.

They have to hold the biennial within six months of the original - mid December. (Rumour had always been that they had set a date for December 14, when the Ottawa Congress Centre had been secured.) They cannot hold an extraordinary convention within six months of a biennial, and June 18 is within six months of a mid-December date, so they need to move the biennial to a date outside of six months (January 12-13) to hold the extraordinary. But they they cannot move the biennial without an amendment which can only be passed at an extraordinary. Let those words sink in.

I know it makes the brain bust. But I'm pretty darn sure (and have consulted) that the extraordinary or "special" convention as they are describing (at which they will also propose to amend the constitution to change the leadership vote provisions) cannot be held on June 18, 2011.

“Let every man look before he leaps”

2011-05-11T12:31:00.000-04:00

Members of the Liberal Party of Canada: inform yourselves so you can express yourselves.

Regardless of where they net out on when a new leader should be chosen and why, it appears as if the mood of the membership is not comfortable with the process defined by the LPC Board. I say "appears" because no one really knows what the membership thinks because no one has asked them. I'd venture a guess that many of the non-day-to-day active, but nonetheless committed party members aren't fully aware of the discussions about a "special convention" and all it entails (they are likely aware of the interim/permanent leader intrigue, but not of the other machinations).

I say that because all of the evidence is anecdotal. Many people expressing their opinions in public, on social media and so on, but I haven't been able to find very many who have actually been asked formally, by those who purport to represent them, their opinions and none who are just lowly average members.

Party President Alf Apps, in many public comments, and in a rat-a-tat blast of emails to yours truly (and others I gather) yesterday in reference to my own comments about "negative option consultation" has stated repeatedly that a wide consultation was conducted by voting members of the Board.

" I have received submissions from well over 1000 Liberals and my PTA Presidents have consulted with almost 100 percent of riding presidents, ..."

Well, I've been unable to find one riding president in Ontario who has been consulted formally or informally by anyone from LPCO. And of those that I am aware of who have been in other provinces, none of them were requested to even canvass their own riding executives, let alone poll their full membership.

I don't know how they can purport to "represent" the views of the membership when they don't ask the membership. These are big issues, they require transparency and accountability for credibility.

Reports are that caucus members weren't consulted either, even though they had representatives at the Board meeting who expressed views and voted where eligible to do so. I guess they were personal views.

While this is concerning in and of itself, it does not bode well for communications with the membership on the conduct and work to be done at the actual special convention.

For example, given that the "statement" from the National Board was apparently sent to caucus (and the media) but not to members of the party or riding presidents, how many people are aware that they will need to be members of the party by May 20, in order to vote for delegates to this special convention? A note from a riding president might be one way, but I guess that's rather hard to do if they don't formally know. There are also the many volunteers that flooded into campaigns across the country who may not yet be members. I'm sure someone would like to inform them.

People need to know and understand the work that will be done at this special convention and how it will be conducted. It's being said that it will be a "virtual convention", with an "internet ballot". How will pro and con discussion of the constitutional amendments be conducted? When you have virtual line ups at virtual microphones it's difficult to know if the first in line is really the first one to get to speak. How will quorum be determined?

Then there are the delegate selection meetings themselves. People need to know very quickly just how to put their name forward to run to be a delegate - what needs to be filed with whom and by when?

But more importantly, if I'm going to vote for someone and delegate my views as a member to them, to express on my behalf, I want to know in advance what their positions are on the amendments proposed. The party should be doing all in its power to facilitate meetings at the riding level for discussions of the amendments and to question delegate-candidates in advance of DSMs.

Constituional amendments require a 2/3 approval. It is important that we know the views of the delegates we are sending.

Ridings and riding presidents can be found by going to www.liberal.ca and clicking on the tab "Liberal Party".

"Truth may be stretched, but cannot be broken, and always gets above falsehood, as oil does above water."

2011-05-09T22:39:00.001-04:00

So, we are being told by the apparatchiks that run the "party" that we need to have an "extraordinary" convention, but not necessarily what those extraordinary circumstances are.

We have a party president telling us that we are exorcised by the circumstances under which we find ourselves: election loss and leaderless, while those are exactly the circumstances that the party Constitution already contemplates and addresses in Chapters 14 and 16, amongst others. In fact all of the circumstances anticipaed by the Constitution with respect to leadership are in play without any "extraordinary circumctances".

Over the years, in trying to make it is thus and so, the membership (thought it had) put in place procedures for a swift succession process for every situation including all sorts of electoral emergencies outside of war. I'm not sure the opinion of a largely unelected elite cuts it as an "extraordinary" reason. All of a sudden, we find ourselves in a situation that doesn't suit the powers that be and so yet again, there's an attempt to find a way around what the membership, the people have decided.

The documents leaked to the public explaining the "reasoning' behind the purported neccessity to call an extraordinary convention mention the section of the constitution to be used but not the reason for the "extraordinary" nature of the circumstances: Chapter 16: article 61, paragraph 3:

CHAPTER 16 – CONVENTIONS
61 Types of conventions
(1) Subject to this Constitution, the convention of the Party is the highest authority of the
Party.
(2) Except if rescheduled in accordance with Subsection 65(4), the Party must hold a
biennial convention of the Party at least once in every two calendar years and not
more than 30 months after the previous biennial convention of the Party.
(3) At any time except within six months of a biennial convention of the Party, the Party
may hold an extraordinary convention to deal with any issues of extraordinary
importance. ...

The Constitution doesn't talk about what that extraordinary importance is, but I would venture a strong guess that that a petition of members in certain numbers might do it under available jurisprudence. The Party doesn't publish membership numbers, let alone claim to correspond with them, and as I and others have screamed for, cannot provide empirical evidence of party "sentiment" regardless of what it claims. It's all anecdotal.

I dare the Board and the secretariat to produce such evidence. Otherwise, hearsay just doesn't cut it. The only other reason could be timing and/or availability of a suitable venue. While the constitutional provisions provide for conventions to be held within 2 calendar years of the last (May 2009), and there are several sources indicating he convention originally scheduled for June would be held in early December because of the availability of the new Ottawa Convention Centre, one has to wonder if the proposed commensurate move of date to January 2012, by the NB (tonight's) motion isn't somehow tangled up in all of these machinations. (They'll say it has to do with donation time periods but, yet again, it's all rather convenient, no?) This leads one to believe that the use of the "extraordinary Convention clause" is a crafted ruse.

It's late. I'm tired, just like everyone else. But there are decisions being made tonight on our behalf in and in our name - and purportedly at our request - that just don't wash.

I don't know why, if the NB can't explain them to us, that we need to accept them.

"Here is the devil-and-all to pay. "

2011-05-09T13:01:00.004-04:00

Okay, Liberal Party. The time has come. Rise Up!

Negative-option accountability in the Liberal Party has just got to go.

We do not have a problem with leadership from our Leaders. We have a problem with leadership period. Over the years, the vast majority if positions of authority in the Party, from riding presidents, to candidates, to incumbency protected MPs, to Provincial and National Board members to the Revenue Committee, Election Readiness and Campaign Committees and senior officials - even delegates to most conventions (Big donor? You’re in!), have been acclaimed or appointed to their positions – basically they’ve been installed.

Rather than some great big open air tent, the Party is a bolted-door club house where you have to know both the secret password and the secret handshake to receive entry. And once inside (if you are smart enough to gain entry) you discover just what a formidable fortress it is: the walls are super thick. So thick In fact, they’re sound proof.

The only consultation that occurs in the club is “talk amongst yourselves”.

Every now and then, when uprisings amongst the proletariat rear, little bones of reform get thrown their way. More often than not, however they are snatched away even before their implementation; think Lucy, Charlie Brown and football.

Over the years in a variety of media and pieces I’ve described how the Liberal Party has tended to honour its constitution in the breach. When that hasn’t worked, it’s issued odd interpretations, or changed interpretations. And when that hasn’t worked, it’s changed the Party’s constitution. Once it even did so retroactively. Yup, retroactively.

The Great Reform Convention of 1985 ™ removed Senators and members of the appointed Revenue Committee (and other non-elected officials) from the list of ex-officio (automatic) delegates to party conventions. At the 1990 Conventions (three-in one – a constitutional convention, a biennial convention and a Leadership convention), these positions (in addition to a significant contingent of delegates representing the newly created Aboriginal Commission – a whole other but related story) were added back to the delegation the day before the vote by way of retroactive constitutional amendment. They registered at the Convention as contingent delegates and left as full voting delegates having exercised that vote to boot.

And then there is the 2008/09 “Leadership process”... don’t get me started (although you can read about it here and here).

The Party’s been through enough. It has been repeatedly reported and rumoured over the past week, the Party Board is proposing another similar process without a proactive consultation of the full membership. For me a feeling of "sentiment" is not consultation and is not accountability. Is someone is going to finally be called up to pay up?

"Spare your breath to cool your porridge." II

2011-05-05T21:18:00.002-04:00

Interim or permanent. Where does the twain meet on leadership?

If the interim leadership of the Liberal Party is going to turn into the ipso facto Leadership of the party for several years, there’s a whole different set of criteria and questions that need to be addressed. An interim ‘mandate’ of stewardship in the House of Commons with a side glance to the Senate is completely different than the type of mandate a Party gives to its Leader after a race that encompasses a whole host of positions.

As a member of the Party, under normal circumstances, I might ask the potential interim leader:

What kind of deportment do you see your MP’s exhibiting?
Given the seats we won and the platform we put forward who will you put on which committee and which will you place the most priority on?
What will be the general focus of the issues you will raise in the House: issues of the day, or positions from the election platform?
How will you work with the National Board to ensure that members’ voices are heard by Caucus and taken into consideration?
How will you ensure that Liberal voices from non-held ridings are heard in the House and the Senate?
How will you prepare the discussion that needs to be held between the Caucus and the membership on the future of the Party? What type of mechanisms for consultation will you propose?

Note that none of these really involve the potential interim leader’s positions on substantive issues, party values or principles that would normally guide discussions. They are very stewardship in their orientation.

If given the opportunity, I would think members would like to ask the potential Leader:

What are the values you think Liberals share; how many of these and which are unique to the Liberal Party?
What will you view and/or accept as your mandate from the Party to accomplish and in what time frame(s)?
What are the steps you will take to rebuild the Party?
What are your short, medium and long term goals in this regard?
What is the relationship you envision between the Parliamentary wing of the Party and the membership; who makes which type of decisions and why?
What is the relationship you envision between the Party and the electorate/citizenry
How do you propose to achieve gender balance in all of the structures and organizations of the Party?
The Liberal Party is a federation of provincial organizations. Do you think this structure remains appropriate in the current communications era? How do you view the relationship(s)?
As per above, what are your proposals for efficient use of LPC resources?
How do you view policy and platform development in the Party? What roles and what responsibilities should be assigned to each level/position?
What are your views on the collaboration between parties at various points in the electoral and governing process?
What are your views on our electoral system?
Should we be examining our various political processes in conjunction with each other; i.e. electoral, election-procedural; campaign and party financing; party-exclusive; parliamentary; constitutional and conventional?
How can we ensure accountability at various levels in the Party?

I've got my own ideas on most of these, but I’m guessing that many other people also have a different set or subset, but nonetheless these are the types of things we should be looking at. And, I continue to think that these are not mutually exclusive activities, but should be enacted by exclusive individuals.

It is past all controversy that what costs dearest is, and ought to be, most valued"

2011-05-04T17:12:00.000-04:00

Let’s elect a steward as the Party’s next Leader.

We’ve got a lot to do to rebuild and one of those things, an important one but not the only one is to pick a new Leader. Let’s not once again over-inflate the critical nature of this choice by trying to get around process. We have too nasty a legacy of that as it is. The precedents aren’t pretty.

For years, I’ve been arguing that the Liberal Party has placed too much emphasis on the personal characteristics of our Leaders and not enough on their values. After all I’ve argued, when we choose our leaders at whatever level, we should be seeking those that best articulate our shared values, not those who make them up for us and then deliver them to us.

For years the membership was ignored or bypassed while the views of donors and outside experts were sought first or exclusively. Members were told to wait, anxious and drooling for the platform tablets to be delivered from the mount. Very few discussions were held on policy matters at the riding level, and in recent times, not even at the national level. Conventions were rah-rah affairs, scripted and too expensive for average people with thoughts to share to actually participate.

Some of us suggested that we shouldn’t be discussing policy specifically, certainly by way of policy resolutions at Conventions anyway. What we should be discussing are our values and belief structure in a modern context and providing a prioritized subset of those to the Party’s leadership to go away and craft a platform and programs with, and then come back for some sort of ratification.

In other words, the Party should be providing a mandate to its leadership, not the other way around. These discussions, consultations and ratifications would be ongoing and regular, assisted greatly by today’s technologies and social media. The Leader and the caucus would of course continue to provide leadership on most issues of the day, but they would benefit from the guidance provided by the party; by a more intimate relationship so to speak. The same is most certainly true with respect to the important organizational and structural matters facing the Party.

This type of process would have stood us in much better shape if for example we had used it to discuss democratic notions such as coalitions and pre-election cooperation, together and consensually as a party.

It could serve us decently now, if the Party executive, who are after all supposed to be accountable to us the membership - the people who “elected” them - deigned to ask us our thoughts and seek some guidance on the choice of an interim leader. After all, the caucus only makes a recommendation. The people decide.

I think that most Liberals agree on changing the relationship and taking more control, but are now saying that we should wait to have this discussion “amongst ourselves” before entering into a leadership race to determine who best could take this sort of direction from the Party. Not so much wait to have the discussion I guess as to put the selection of a new permanent leader off while we do this work.

There are no saviours after all. That I agree with. But aside from the fact that my reading of the party process doesn’t allow for this – and I would hope that we have learned that adherence to the process does matter; after all it is hard to argue about prorogations and contempt in Parliament and then turn around and dis your own party’s processes just because you disagree with them due to unanticipated circumstances – I don’t think the party will ultimately benefit from a lengthy interim leadership. Lengthy periods of interim leadership tend toward lengthy and divisive periods of pseudo leadership races, and interim Leaders, even though they have all of the powers of permanent leaders tend to focus more on caucus leadership and less on the organizational side. Where I might concede on the process side of this discussion is if the full party was consulted in some sort of vote or guiding straw vote, as alluded to above.

Tom Axworthy has argued quite eloquently for some of the things the party needs to do and the length of time that may be required to do it, and concluded that a side benefit of waiting until a year before the election to choose our new leader, will be less time for their “demonization”. Many, many others are echoing those thoughts, primarily on the rebuilding front. I tend to think that we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and that we will be better off doing this work alongside any candidates, having deliberative discussions with them instead of making them debate themselves seeking divergence and division as the determinant of intelligence or leadership ability. They’re Liberals too. Presumably they share our values, and what we should be seeking from the “race”, is as I say a determination of who best articulates them. Then we work together on a jointly developed plan in a networked organization.

Also, are we so sure that the other parties will be able to demonize every single person capable of leading the party that we need to shyly bring them in at the "end"? Maybe the problem has been as Tom says that we have elected those leaders with the expectation or their own stated goal of becoming Prime Minister as the sole raison d’être of their leadership. If the one we elect has pledged to rebuild the party in a collaborative way, why would they be pressured to leave if they didn't win? Pearson didn't leave after one loss or even two. He was a steward.

The biggest thing the party needs to do is to define its sense of purpose. We need to do this together.

When the head aches, all the members partake of the pain

2011-05-03T09:41:00.001-04:00

Why Michael Ignatieff will have to give up the leadership of the Liberal Party.

Last night Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff seemed to know what needs to be done in the Party's best interests when he said: "I will play any part that the party wishes me to play as we go forward to rebuild, to renew, to reform the vital centre of Canadian politics. I will serve as long as the party wants to make me serve or asks me to serve and not a day longer."

While some Liberals debate just how long and under what circumstances that continuing service might be, the Leader is really boxed by the realities of process. No doubt, more important is the question of moral authority, but over the years the Party has gradually moved to put in place some checks on the misguided reading of that authority.

The plain facts of it are that Mr. Ignatieff failed to win a seat and it will be four years before another one may open up. He cannot lead the Party for long even as a medium term measure without a seat in the House of Commons and there is not one out of the 34 we've got that could or should be risked in a resignation-based by-election. That would be blatantly contrary to the democratic will just expressed, in both the positive and negative senses. In other words, there would be no moral authority to support either action. Everyone likely agrees this is just not on.

So why couldn't he just wait a while to resign, say a year or so? This is where the process kicks in.

When the election was called the Party rescheduled its Biennial Convention originally scheduled for June to mid-December, on virtually the last date that the Constitution allows for the holding of said Convention. It has to be held within two calendar years of the last convention which was held in May of 2009, so December 2011 it is.

The Constitution also says that at the first Convention following an election at which the Leader fails to become Prime Minister, an automatic review vote or "endorsement ballot" will be conducted. All well and good one might say, he can hang in until that Convention and face the music there, perhaps bringing a plan for rebuilding the party to the party for discussion and ratification.

Problem with that (and there are many more) is that the review vote is actually conducted well before the Convention - by all members at the delegate selection meetings held between about one and two months before the Convention itself, in other words in September and October. Mr. Ignatieff will not win that vote and the Party should not be wasting its energies fighting a review battle or even simply going through the motions of conducting a review process at any rate when it needs to get on with rebuilding.

Nonetheless, if he chose to option his right to that vote, and he loses it, a vacancy is created immediately. On the spot. A Leadership will have to be held by mid-June 2012 and an interim Leader chosen. The ironic result of that? An ipso facto year-long Leadership battle in two stages.

The Liberal Party knows full well how harmful and divisive lengthy (or endless) Leadership battles are. That's one of the reasons Leadership votes must now be conducted within 6 months of a resignation or intention to resign.

The experience of the recent Leadership race that selected Christy Clarke as Leader of the BC Liberal Party (they have the same one-member-one vote process that their Federal cousins now have too) should be a positive lesson for Liberals. Swift and surgical, with minimum bleeding. In fact an amazing ability to bring in new blood.

The Party may be surprised at just how many Canadians are actually prepared to help rebuild the Party having participated in giving us the breathing room to do so.

So, the only logical route for Mr. Ignatieff and the Party to take is for him to announce his intention to resign when the Party chooses his successor. The Party should then set the date for the Convention it must have this year for late October/ early November, and conduct its Leadership balloting over the same weekend, and the Party can give its new Leader a proper mandate.

"It is past all controversy that what costs dearest is, and ought to be, most valued"

2011-04-29T14:37:00.000-04:00

As my very first post on this blog a couple of years ago attested, Peter Russell has been inspirational.

I repeat:

“Spare your breath to cool your porridge.”

2011-03-30T21:33:00.001-04:00

Way back in 1992 I participated in negotiations with the Broadcasting Arbitrator (who?) as the Liberal Party’s representative to statutory “negotiations” on the divvying up of broadcast minutes for a future election. These meetings in the past had been completely perfunctory, but this time, there was a twist. Well several actually. We had a new arbitrator, number one. Number two, we had a(nother) new political party flexing its (national) muscles: Refooooorm! And, number three, these were the first negotiations conducted since the multi-million-multi-year Lortie Commission on Electoral Reform (sic) and Party Financing had delivered a four volume report upon which the government had yet to act (and frankly never did).

Here’s what was interesting about these negotiations (aside from being scrummed for the very first time). No one really knew this, or rather I should say few were cognizant of this, but at the time the Canada Elections Act, which barely recognized and contained no effective definition of a political party, nonetheless contained references to a formula upon which advertising minutes would be divided amongst the various parties.
Basically (I’m doing my best to simplify, so no one jump down my throat for the generalities) the Act recognized that broadcasting (television and radio) were the primary media upon which political parties could get out a message fairly universally to all citizens, but also that these were expensive mechanisms and so an element of fairness should be inserted into the electoral process to ensure that those who had the money couldn’t simply over-buy the airwaves (sound familiar?).
In other words, to provide a bit of a level playing field. Keep in mind that while we had quite a number of political parties back then (around 12 if memory serves me), there were only three (ok! I’m leaving out Creditistes) that had ever participated in crafting and amending the Act and its provisions and also which had ever formally participated in these negotiations. So they were really only interested in the playing field amongst themselves.

Soooo, the Act said that the arbitrator needed to meet with the parties to divvy up at total of 390 minutes (6.5 hours) of paid advertising time. “Free time” advertising would be allocated based on the “agreement” on paid time. In place was a statutory formula for the divvying up of these minutes and if the parties couldn’t agree, the Arbitrator would decide. In keeping with the above-mentioned, the Arbitrator had never had to well, arbitrate; everyone (the big three) always agreed on the formula’s outcome. No Question Asked.

The formula, bless its little soul, used for the allocation of paid time was based largely on the application of factors that gave equal weight to the percentage of seats in the House of Commons and the percentage of the popular vote obtained by each of the registered parties in the previous general election, and half-weight to the number of candidates endorsed by each of the registered parties as a proportion of all candidates so endorsed. So, if that lost you – read it again – you will note it is based on previous performance – including, but not exclusive to the number of or even having a seat in the House of Commons. In short, it was was based on some principles.

Sooo, I, the little Opposition party person arrive at the usually sleepy meeting of party reps and who’s there, but The Media, yeah, THE MEDIA, and the REFORM Party – those upstarts – they joined our private little meeting, AND THEY CALLED THE MEDIA!!! After we all calmed down and the Arbitrator explained everything we got down to business. But a lot of the business wasn’t what everyone expected. We chatted a lot about public opinion and not a lot about democracy or equality of opportunity in the democratic process, but, I digress – or do I?

The Reform Party rep – actually a good man and a good political friend to this day, began by challenging, as had his party in court, the application of the provisions, which, without doing the math, one could see would diminish their relative weight, simply because of the paucity of seats they held in the House, and the number of seats they had run candidates in, even though they had performed relatively well on popular vote in the ’88 election. At one point he mused that because his party was at 18% in public opinion polls; his party should be allocated 18% of the advertising minutes. Being in opposition at the time and really, really badly in opposition to boot, I jokingly shot back that we, the Liberal Party, should then get 35% of the time because that’s where we stood at that very minute in the polls (even though we were little munchkins in terms of our relative weight in the house).

The Tories (real Wheatbix Tories they were in those days too) really didn’t know what to make of all of this. Their performance in the last election meant that they were entitled to well over 50% of the available prime time minutes, but everyone and I mean everyone (cause remember, my party had been in a majority situation before) knew that even though it was impossible without busting the expenditure limit several times over to purchase prime time advertising to a limit on each station in the country, you agreed to the allocation in order to hoard minutes so no one else could use them.

Soo, the little opposition person with nothing to lose and a democratic bent fomented from the Lortie hearings just ended, offered that piddling as they were, the Liberal Party would be prepared to “donate” some of its minutes to the emerging parties, because it would be good for the public debate, on the basis of the principles of the statutory formula (combination weight of % seat in the House, % of popular vote and proportion of candidates run).

The Arbitrator (with some edification by the courts admittedly) agreed that the allocation formula had a discriminatory effect which tended to favour the existing parties at the expense of new or emerging parties. He concluded that the statutory factors as applied to allocation “unduly fettered the ability of emerging parties to purchase enough time to make a meaningful case to the Canadian public”. So, two thirds of the time was allocated using the statutory factors and the remaining one third was allocated equally among all the registered parties. The result of this, as was put at the time a “hybrid” approach, was to significantly increase the time allotted to smaller parties, while continuing the predominant weight given to previous performance of “successful” parties. It wasn’t perfect, but it was a great Canadian compromise.

So fast forward to today’s debates about “the Debate”. It’s a debate that encompasses several similar parameters. It discusses legitimacy for inclusion as witnessed or contemplated through previous performance and public expectations or increasingly importantly sentiment. Some, but not all of these principles are being discussed. If you really think about they are challenging our tenets and precepts.

We used to do that behind closed doors and without formal change. But when the public is involved it is often hidden too. That’s called convention. But it is really about vested interest. In Canada, even though we’ve been given a lot of opportunity, it’s rarely called public intervention or public legislation. For some reason, we prefer to let convention – for have no mistake, that is what Elizabeth May, when she speaks of opportunity, or Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff, when they yearn for one-on-ones are talking about.

For sure. Let’s have a discussion in this election about who should be included in a debate. But could we please have the bigger discussion about why? And what’s fair? And what’s in the public’s interest? And a better definition of a national party? And how we should codify it? And most important of all, on what bases?

Every election, we seem to discuss what is in the perceived interest of the various parties, because we think that is what ultimately is in our own interests. And then we hear that so rarely are our elections about something. Or something real. When might we have a debate – in an election - about how we want to be and how we should be represented? In an election that people are already calling a Senfeld Election – an election about nothing, why don’t we turn it into an election about something that counts?

"They can expect nothing but their labour for their pains."

2011-03-09T11:46:00.000-05:00

Herewith, my op-ed on women's progress in the Canadian political area, published on International Women's Day in the Ottawa Citizen:

Women's (lack of) progress through the decades

By Sheila Gervais, Ottawa Citizen March 8, 2011 5:24 AM

I am feeling my, um, demographics in this week that we mark the 100th International Women's Day. I'm a first-generation, middleaged, mixed-race, Canadian woman who has yet to see gender balance (note the politesse in this term; it's as if gender equity is just too unattainable, or perhaps too scary) in any legislative body in her country, in her lifetime, so far.

I'm feeling it, frankly, in a year when women elsewhere are making a difference in decision-making -where as we are told by Naomi Wolf in the Globe and Mail there is a feminist revolution happening in the Middle East, and that women have been courageously leading the way in Egypt, and also that while the circumstances in Afghanistan are increasingly challenging for women, there is nonetheless a greater percentage of women in the Afghan parliament than in Canada's.

And that's in this year, 2011.

All of a sudden it strikes me that years ending in "1" have some sort of significance for women. Well Canadian women at least.

Not always positive significance, but significance, nonetheless. It was 90 years ago, in 1921, that the first woman, Agnes McPhail was elected to the House of Commons, stating about her reasons for running and representing, "I want for myself what other women want."

Geesh. Who the heck wouldn't want that, regardless of just exactly what it was they wanted represented?

Especially when, no doubt and everywhere, gender is the only natural 50/50 split that exists. Interestingly and surprisingly timely, among other things, McPhail was an early advocate for prison reform.

Go figure.

It was 40 years ago, in 1971 (following the report of the Royal Commission a year earlier) that the first Minister of the Status of Women was appointed and 10 years after that in 1981 that the first female (and there have only been women since) Minister Judy Erola, was appointed, and not coincidentally that equality entered our Constitution.

And, thank goodness.

In the election after Judy became Minister, our ranks rose to a whopping 9.6 per cent of the elected House. By the time the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing (Lortie Commission) reported in 1991 (a mere 20 years ago) we had pretty much doubled -a major and unmarked milestone -achieving 13.4 per cent in the election of 1988.

Taking a timeout to remark on the Lortie Commission's recommendations and legacy in this regard is warranted, particularly given the "1" year of the report. It just seems to take decades for change to occur in Canada, while elsewhere, it occurs at breakneck speed -(sigh, I digress).

The Commission had examined circumstances related to elections and representativeness around the globe and included proposals for increasing equity in the Can-adian Parliament based on those experiences and accomplishments. It noted, for example, how some countries that had already achieved gender balance had 40/40 rules: both women and men had to be represented to the level of 40 per cent.

In addition to other important incentive-mechanisms, the report recommended a regime that would kick in, in the next election, should "equitable" gender representation not reach 20 per cent in the House of Commons by the election following its tabling.

In simple terms, what Lortie recommended was that parties receive an increased reimbursement (or public subsidy) based on the numbers, proportionately, of women that they elected.

It recommended that this regime stay in place for at least two elections following the 20-per-cent achievement.

Readers should note that the generally accepted "rule" is that gender-based decision-making is impacted when a (national) legislature reaches what is called a critical mass; the UN sets this at one-third or between 30 and 33 per cent. At the election following the Report (1993) Canadians did indeed elect more women to Parliament, but missed the Commission's target by two percentage points and elected 18 per cent women.

The results since then, without the adoption of most of the Lortie Commission recommendations related to gender balance, or otherwise, are as follows: 1997: 20.6; 2004: 21.1; 2006: 20.8; and, 2008: 22.1.

It is accepted internationally that achieving gender balance makes changes in decision-making in national legislatures. Examples abound, but in South Africa, for example, where the 30-percent threshold has been exceeded, women legislators introduced gender-based analysis into the national budget process; studies in Costa Rica indicate that female representatives have an 80-per-cent success rate in getting legislation introduced and passed compared to a 48-per-cent success rate for men; and in Rwanda -usually at or near the top in gender balanced national legislatures -laws prohibiting women from inheriting land have been repealed.

Canada clocks in at around 50th place in terms of female representation in the world's national legislatures, depending on the year. So on the 10th anniversary of the founding of Equal Voice, a non-partisan organization dedicated to achieving gender balance in Canadian institutions, in this year 2011, where the power of women is making itself the power of the world and when Canadians are likely to elect a new government, how likely am I, given my demographic, to finally be represented?

Sheila Gervais, a former national director of the Liberal Party of Canada, sits on the Equal Voice advisory committee. She has written extensively on political party development and gender and politics.

"Why do you lead me a wild-goose chase?" Byelection syncronicity: Power to the people

2010-12-03T15:26:00.000-05:00

Most of the posting and punditry analysis of the three federal by-elections held this past Monday has focused on the deep meaning or not of possible immediate and longer-term electoral trends that might be indicated by the different results. Discussions, not unexpectedly, centre on traditional by-election turnout levels, profile of the candidates, the rural/urban "divide" and some bits on the resonance of messages or perceived political party ideologies.

I see another set of patterns in these by-elections with implications for all of the political parties and while this may sound counter-intuitive given the poor turnout, these are related to a desire by the public - in the sense of the grassroots, the plebs, the masses - to be closer to the action.

What are these common threads?

Local is where it's at. All three by-elections were called when their federal representatives chose to take a run at municipal politics. While I don't have the stats, this appears to be part of a trend in recent years of elected officials seeking positions at a "lower" level; a level closer to the people, viz. Joe Fontana, Dawn Black, Jim Watson. Municipalities in Canada, be they large cities like Winnipeg, mid-sized and fast-growing ones like Vaughan or rural regional service centres like Dauphin, have the most direct impact on our quality of life, on our environment, on our welfare and on our economy.

It is interesting in light of Samara's latest study of the motivations of MPs, that some of our most seasoned chose to offer to serve where they believed they could have a greater impact.

Now, while the low turnout in the by-elections could be simply be a result of voter fatigue stemming from back-to-back elections in those municipalities, I'd posit that it could just as easily be as a result of voters giving more import to and therefore interest in who represents them at the local rather than the federal level.

Grassroots are not involved in candidate choices. Here by "grassroots" I mean both the political party partisan member and the civically-minded engaged citizen.

In Vaughan, both of the leading candidates, Julian Fantino for the CPC and Tony Genco for the LPC were appointed and regardless the stated reasons there was deemed to be no need for a meeting of the membership. In the case of the LPC, there hasn't been a meeting of the membership related to the choice of a candidate in over 20 years, the incumbent having been uncontested or "protected" in six general elections. Some have suggested that Mr. Genco (and this is no reflection on his calibre as a candidate whatsoever) was appointed because the Party was unable to convince several others, including former National Director Rocco Rossi to take the plunge. Shame if that is so, but it also makes one wonder about the state of the riding association if their lack of ability to identify and convince - with much notice - good candidates with local roots to run. I don't know the circumstances, I admit, but one has to wonder just how engaged the association is with its own citizens relative to its engagement with its MP or national party. Open nominations are great ways to engage the public. LPC often seems to want to shut them out.

In Winnipeg North, the NDP chalks up their stunning loss of a flagship riding to the fact that their candidate Kevin Chief, while also of high calibre, was less known than the Liberal candidate and ultimate winner, Kevin Lamoureaux. But they fail to mention, as widely rumoured that their own grassroots refused to participate or participated lamely having been shunned from selecting their own candidate themselves. Kevin Chief was the choice of the outgoing MP and the party "elite". Glad to know the NDP have one too.

And guess what? Not that it would or did make much of a difference in Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette (CPC could probably run a stick of wood and still win), Stephen Harper too chose to effectively appoint the candidate, Robert Sopuck, so angering the former MP, Inky Mark, a former Reform MP to boot, that he endorsed the Green Party candidate Kate Storey.

Used to be that local associations of political parties acted to some extent as brokerages for the institutional party with the population both in terms of political expression and representation. Having a say on policy matters and in the choice of candidates was a way to balance power between Party and Public. What these by-elections illustrate to me is that the public already know where the real power lies. It lies with the people.

In the immortal words of John Lennon: right on!

"Many go out for wool, and come home shorn themselves".

2010-11-17T17:38:00.000-05:00

I really don't get it. I am usually the first in line to criticize my Party - and especially the Caucus purporting to decide/speak for the entire party all the time - for not consulting or at least finding some way to do a real values-oriented validation on the big policy directions of the day. (Not talking issues management here.) I for one am getting pretty darned tired with the "You Propose, therefore I Oppose" modus of political debate in this country (well not just this country, but I digress). Sounds silly, I know, but some issues are just too important for politics. So one question for the LPC Caucus members and other Party members and pundits now vocally opposed to Leader Michael Ignatieff's position on assistance to Afghanistan but who (presumably) approved of the foreign policy program announced in June and fleshed out earlier this month: If this were all happening for the first time today, what role is it exactly that you would propose Canada take on? What role, given our historical outlook and historical strengths?
I'm not usually a betting gal, but I'd venture a wager on this one that the answer, from a military perspective would likely be along the lines of peacekeeping and training. Particularly as we right now probably have the best, and freshest experience and expertise in the world to impart.
Where I will (must) agree, though is that the Canadian public is surely owed a public and open debate and discussion in the interests of public order and good government and in that vein, the Party is too. I guess what goes around, comes around.

I am warningly mindful though, as I often am, of Sir Edmund Burke's poignant commentary on representation: Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

"A little in one's own pocket is better than much in another man's purse."

2010-11-12T20:20:00.000-05:00

It seems that when it comes to reports about political fundraising in Canada we see the same headlines and stories recycled quarter after quarter year after year - at least when it comes to the Liberal Party and at least since 2004. "Cash-strapped Liberals". "Liberals lag behind." Virtually every such headlined story contains a line or two suggesting that it is simply mind boggling how the party has been unable to "adapt" in over 7 years to the "new regime" of limits on donations and sources of funds. The usual excuses are trotted out. We had a Leader who was "dumb as a bag of hammers" (not); we never got over losing access to the corporate teat and continue to look for ways around it; we're doing okay, the Tories are just better at it; we've had problems (in this day and age, sheesh!) developing or buying the proper database; those mean old Tories used those nasty 10 percenters. The one that hits closest to home is that the Tories inherited a more grassroots-oriented system or rather culture from their Reform wing.

I would tie to this Liberal Party cultural shibboleth the unfortunate structure of the organization itself. The Liberal Party of Canada remains a federation of "Provincial and Territorial Associations". Until 2006 the constitutionally defined members of the the LPC were these "PTA's". Actual individual membership in the party was not held at the national level, there was no standardization with respect to dues, privileges, and the like, other than the most basic (not a member of another party, etc.) and the PTA's, having wrested "control" of the lists away from the riding associations, guarded their membership lists fiercely from the national party. While successful in creating (on paper at any rate) a "National Register of Members" in 1992, the national organization was not to fundraise from these lists, if given, and the biggest budgetary consultations each year occurred around "revenue sharing agreements" between the various levels.

Even with the obvious impact of the 2004 and subsequent changes to the Canada Elections Act, and with the move in 2006 to a real national register of members, the party continues to constitutionally vest power and authority for operations to the PTA's (real power and authority however is vested with appointed officials and bodies in the party but that's for another post) and separate revenue sharing arrangements are negotiated each year with each PTA.

This federated structure made sense in the days when there were closer and in fact unifed relationships between Liberal "Parties" at the national level contesting for seats in the House of Commons and Liberal "Parties" at the provincial level vying to form provincial governments. In today's world, the BC Liberal Party for example has no ties related to members, policy, funding or frankly ideology to the Liberal Party of Canada. Provincial Leaders and MLA's have no standing at National Conventions or within the LPC constitution for any purpose including consultative. Some of the smaller provinces retain some ties, mostly related to cost-sharing for secretariat operations, but the CEA and similar provincial acts have made financial and other ties virtually obsolete.

So who can, and who does raise money from whom remains an annual and individual matter of negotiation. Individual members, while being members of the national organization through their local organization are organized by their PTA's and subjected to the commensurate loyalty/affinity tuggles and jealousies.

The main outcome of this is an ingrained culture of members giving at the local level and influencers giving nationally, although members will give when they are charged up and stimulated either by policy or passionate advocacy or both. I think that this impression also influences the perceived voting preferences amongst the populace at large. In other words, rather than Canadians giving less to the LPC when polls decline, the polls decline when Canadians see that the party's own membership either declines, or reduces its own vocal and financial support.

Like most things in the Liberal Party, organizational change occurs at a snails pace. In some sense this is understandable for a party that "knows" that if it can just wait it out until it's back in power, things will all be right once again. But the required cultural change will not in my view occur without it.

Cultural change and organizational change. It's like love and marriage. You can't have one without the other.

Remember the old saying, "Faint heart never won fair lady."

2010-10-27T12:03:00.000-04:00

I'm seeing a bit of red over this front page story in today's Globe, particularly the beginning of this sentence:

"But more specifically, insiders said the Liberals will abandon nanny state proposals like universal child care and put forward boutique proposals that would cost relatively little and target areas where many Canadians are hurting – such as their family-care plan, which would give family caregivers a six-month employment-insurance benefit similar to parental leave and a family-care tax benefit for low- and moderate-income earners modelled on the child tax benefit."

Insiders say the Liberals will abandon universal child care do they? On a day when I'll be attending an event for Liberal women with members of the Liberal women's caucus and former female Liberal luminaries, billed as an opportunity for women to participate in the Party's policy development we read this?

It is also rather galling coming so swiftly after Person's Day when at a panel discussion following the ceremony we heard the Governor General's Person's Award laureates speak about the importance of universal child care to the cause of women's equality.

Although I am sometimes referred to as an "insider", and it can certainly be a useful moniker from time-to-time I'll admit, in reality I am not. As a member of the LPC, I shouldn't have to be, or become, an "insider" to effectively influence policy.

It will be an interesting discussion tonight, no doubt.

"Rome was not built in a day."

2010-10-01T13:08:00.000-04:00

If you want collective smarts, include women in your group.
If you want collective smarts, include women in your group.
If you want collective smarts, include women in your group.
If you want collective smarts, include women in your group.
IF YOU WANT COLLECTIVE SMARTS, INCLUDE WOMEN IN YOUR GROUP.

Sorry to shout at you House of Commons and Canadian political parties, but sometimes you can be a little thick headed. No matter how you read it or where you put the emphasis, this headline (and article) in today's (New and Improved!) Globe and Mail contains an important message for our democracy. To make the Canadian Parliament(s), political discourse and decision-making work better, we need more women - preferably in equal numbers to men at the table.

The aspect I find most interesting in the article and the referred-to study -- one which I myself have pontificated upon -- is the concept of decision-making and the impact of gender on it. (Of course as the study is published in the journal, 'Science', I predict one party to ridicule and dismiss it, quickly, harshly and often. But that would be a partisan aside.)

Here are some relevant quotes from the article:

"“The individual intelligence of members is not a very strong predictor of collective intelligence,” said lead researcher Anita Woolley, of Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania.
Researchers divided 700 people into groups of two to five, and set out to measure their ability to perform tasks such as brainstorming, solving puzzles and making moral judgments. The goal was to assess collective intelligence, dubbed the “c factor.”
They found that groups that worked well were ones where members interacted and participated equally. They tended to include more women.
“We didn’t expect that the proportion of women would be a significant influence, but we found that it was,” Prof. Woolley, an organizational psychologist, said in an interview. “The effect was linear, meaning the more women, the better.”"
...
"Tiffany Paulsen, a Saskatoon lawyer and city councillor who sits on numerous working groups and committees, has found that women tend to take a collaborative approach to decisions and weigh issues from different perspectives.
“When you have more thoughtful and intelligent discussions, the quality of your decision increases,” she said. Men tend to be more aggressive in their statements and interactions, she said, while women tend to be more “reflective.”
“It does increase the group intelligence. The more thought you put into what you say, the more likely it will improve what comes out of your mouth.”"

My view is that it is literally only natural that men and women, who (without other societal impact) exist in equal numbers and who are obviously different, complement each other in the system sometimes referred to as humanity.

In other words "the system" works best when we work together, the way we were intended.

WWCS?

2010-07-22T10:51:00.000-04:00

Michael Ignatieff meets with former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien today. So many things to discuss! Quixotique would love to be a fly on that wall! But seriously, one should assume that the StatsCan imbroglio will be a hot subject for both. It's well documented that Chrétien held many portfolios in his years in government before becoming Liberal Leader and Prime Minister and that each time he was offered a new department he would seek out and/or demand the most capable Deputy Minister be brought in or accompany him. So his advice in this affair will be inavluable. And given previous commentary, he knows something about facts and statistics.

So, What would Chretien say? Why it's obvious:

"A proof is a proof. What kind of proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."

No statistician worth their salt would argue with that.

Water Under the Bridge

2010-06-22T14:49:00.000-04:00

It was a strange scene on Calgary’s Electric Avenue: gangs of Liberals, mostly young and virtually all inebriated, more Liberals at one time than Calgary had seen before or likely since, and most of them happily oblivious to the black arm bands they sported. Twenty years ago, on the eve of St-Jean Baptiste Day, in Quebec City’s twin city, the Liberal Party of Canada elected Jean Chrétien as its new Leader and the Meech Lake Accord was laid to rest.

I was National Director of the Liberal Party at the time and had been the chief convention organizer. Truth is the logistical organization of the Convention and process itself was a lot easier to post-mortem than the politics and its long-term impacts. To be frank, I’m not sure that the “lessons learned” from that period have been overly positive ones for the Party, or the country, or democracy in general for that matter.

A little more than a year before this, John Turner had signalled his intention to resign as Party Leader having weathered two electoral defeats, a fractious and contentious leadership “review”, public scuffles over his leadership with Party President Michel Robert, an attempted mid-election “coup” and divisions amongst his caucus and between his caucus and party grassroots over the principle-based issues of free trade and the Meech Lake Accord.

As the Party Executive prepared to meet on June 16, 1989 to consider how to proceed, much of the die had already been cast. The Party already had a constitutionally-overdue Biennial (policy) Convention slated for that fall in Calgary at which, incidentally another leadership review was required. Years later, following more and equally contentious “reviews” the Party changed its process to allow for “Leader endorsement votes” to be held only after a losing election. Calgary was deemed a strategically important venue in the Party’s efforts to increase its presence in an increasingly influential, resource-, economically-, and vote-rich province. With the country’s attention fixed on Quebec and tensions surrounding the Accord, a Liberal Convention in the heart of the West would send a positive message to the rest of the country. Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin Jr., the main putative contenders, were both seen as supportive of maintaining Calgary as the venue for these and obviously other political reasons.

Much like the scene on Electric Avenue, the meeting had a surreal element to it. Staff scrambled to find seats for the full house of voting members in attendance, many of whom had not previously either attended or voted; the balance tipped in favour of supporters of Mr. Martin (and Mr. Turner). It was obvious to a blind man that a Leadership Convention in Calgary would cost the Party, which was already in financial difficulty, candidates, and delegates alike significantly more. Never mind, it was strategically important. It was also prevailing wisdom was that a shorter leadership campaign would favour the perceived frontrunner, and that (any) other candidates would benefit by more time to become known and to sign-up supporters and delegates. Holding one Convention only and putting the timing off further would be a further breach of the Party’s Constitution and give short shrift to policy development. Never mind, the public didn’t care about such things and a new Leader would deliver a policy agenda.

The only logistically feasible available dates in Calgary for the mounting of a Convention of this size were June 18-25, 1990 and when Quebec Party President and known Martin supporter, Francis Fox vehemently pointed out the folly in securing a date that could see the actual vote occur on the exact deadline for the approval of the Meech Lake Accord – June 23, 1990 – there was understanding, but, never mind, it was inconceivable that the process would run the full course, and we’ll create a “Meech Lake Strategy” Committee to deal with it just in case. It was far from as cavalier as that, and in the end the decision was made without a recorded resolution; we just sent out a little puff of consensual smoke.

Shortly after the decision to put off the Convention, we began to hear rumours that Mr. Turner, having expecting that the originally planned October Convention would be turned into a Leadership would resign in November. This would place the Party in a bit of a pickle according to the Party’s legal advisors. The Party Constitution did not contemplate such circumstances and had no provisions for the selection of an interim Leader and the law required we have one. Only the Party assembled in Convention could make such a choice. The Caucus however, was free to choose whomever they wished to lead them in the House. The caucus chose Herb Grey to assume the legislative responsibilities of Leader and Mr. Turner retained responsibility with respect to Party, legal and electoral matters. It was in this capacity that Turner let it be known that he considered the appointment of Party President, Michel Robert as Convention Co-Chair, an unnecessary “slap in the face”.

There were several other issues for the Executive to decide, many which presaged further and ongoing debate and discussion in both party and nation. We decided to allow leadership candidates the use of the “tax credit” for donations under certain circumstances; and instituted some basic transparency through limited disclosure of donations and donors. We made attempts to standardize procedures and regulations in an effort to clean up the notoriously hideous process of signing up “instant members” and the obscene amounts of money circulating “outside of the system”. It would not be until 2003 when then outgoing Leader Chrétien would make changes to the Canada Elections Act to govern both leadership and nomination races and recognize in law the concept of party membership. In 2009 the Party finally instituted a national membership.

There had also been some unfortunate long-standing delays regarding the formal recognition of Aboriginal People’s within the structures of the Party formally and the Liberal family informally. This was an area of both personal and political concern of long-standing for candidate Chrétien. The putting off of the convention would once again thwart such efforts which included an intricate proposal for equitable involvement in what was deemed to be the most important decision possible – the choice of a Leader.

Problem was the proposal, out of desperate necessity, would involve the consideration in the opening sessions of the Convention itself of what would be in effect, “retroactive” amendments to the Party’s constitution. According to a complicated formula, based on relative Aboriginal populations by province, territory and riding, delegates of statutorily-defined Aboriginal heritage would be elected as “contingent” delegates. If the Convention voted to amend the constitution at its opening plenary (as it eventually did) these delegates (200) would be upgraded to full delegate status.

Already aggrieved on the issue of convention timing, the Co-Chairs of the Party’s Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee, resigned. The Party executive promptly decided to include another set of “contingent delegate” – the non-elected, appointed members of the Party Executive, its Revenue Committee and Senators, all of whom had been stripped of their automatic delegate status at the previous convention.

Given the length of time before the Convention, the Party wisely decided to hold six “Leadership Forums” across the land beginning in January in Toronto, moving through Yellowknife, Halifax, Winnipeg and Vancouver before delegate selection closed and to Montreal, the largest venue at 3000 participants in early June. These for-the-most-part highly successful, full-day deliberative forums arrived on the scene as Canada launched its first 24-hour cable news channel, CBC Newsworld, and as a result these debates, and the Convention itself later in the year, were for the first carried live, gavel-to-gavel. Leadership candidate and former Quebec Environment Minister Clifford Lincoln, withdrew from the race shortly after the first Forum so that he could run in a recently called by-election in Chambly. A rally was being organized for early February. I was informed by a party organizer that Martin and fellow leadership candidate Sheila Copps, both “Meech supporters” were welcome to attend. Mr. Chrétien, however was not.

While the country was watching this unfold, Chrétien, not so quietly, was sewing the Leadership up, Meech or no Meech, debates or not. Historical connections and the advantages accorded those with years of service and notoriety in Government and the Party, combined with access to formidable funding and a lame Canada Elections Act, helped as much as Chrétien’s popular nature. By the time delegate selection began in March, it was well known that according to (unverifiable) membership sales, Chrétien would likely have a first ballot victory in June. The Party was preparing to unite behind a new Leader, but the Meech Lake Accord would continue to divide.

Francis Fox proved prescient. Not only did the Convention vote ultimately coincide with the Meech deadline, but the last Leadership Forum held in Montreal occurred, in a rather dramatic fashion on June 10, during the same weekend as last-minute and mammoth negotiations to save the Accord, involving three new Premiers, including Newfoundland Liberal, Clyde Wells a former constitutional lawyer viewed as an Accord opponent who had quickly assumed iconic status with respect to this national debate. Scads of Martin’s supporters, many from out of province, joined with Quebec MP, Jean Lapierre in pillorying Chrétien for being out of touch with Québecers with shouts of “vendu” (sellout). It was a nasty scene and a furious Robert had to intervene a scant 8 days before the commencement of the Convention. The shouting squad moved on to Ottawa and Clyde Wells, the next day.

Each morning and each evening during the convention my staff and I would meet with the representatives of the candidates, Mr. Turner and other party notables. On the morning of June 22, with the rest of the nation fixated on the Accord’s pending demise that very day, Turner’s representatives began to express concerns about how the denouement on stage would unfold the following day, particularly with respect to who might be joining him as outgoing Leader and what that would say to the Party and the nation.

That evening, as the Leadership candidates’ speeches took place on stage, some of Mr. Martin’s supporters solemnly sported black arm bands to mark The Accord’s passing. Clyde Wells, arriving after the close of registration, greeted Chrétien with a widely publicized smile and embrace.

At the morning meeting the following day, June 23, the day of the leadership vote, we continued our negotiations with Mr. Turner. A bit later in the day, but before the balloting and results of Leadership vote itself, the Party was ready to announce its new executive. Don Johnston, a former Trudeau and Turner cabinet minister, who had resigned from the caucus to sit as an “independent Liberal” in 1988 over free trade and the Meech Lake Accord had just been elected Party President. I’m not a large person and cell-phone technology at the time was not designed for convenience. My phone, about as large as me, rang immediately. As we met for the first time, behind the stage in the centre of the Saddledome, Mr. Johnston asked me how the announcement of the Leadership vote would proceed. “Well, Mr. Johnston”, I said, “we’re not sure about that. Perhaps you could bear with me for a bit.”

As the results of the first and only ballot were read confirming Jean Chrétien as the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, two Quebec Liberal MPs, Jean Lapierre and Gilles Rocheleau, sporting their black arm bands announced they were leaving the Party. The other candidates, Pierre Trudeau, Herb Gray, Michel Robert and Don Johnston joined Mr. Turner on stage in welcoming the Party’s new Leader.

Calgary’s Electric Avenue is now known as the Red Mile. Coincidence? I think so.

"Those who'll play with cats must expect to be scratched."

2010-06-09T11:23:00.002-04:00

I'm getting very sick and tired of unelected, unaccountable people in the Liberal Party of Canada purporting to speak for me. Just as tired as I am with the Party leadership refusing to discuss things with me. I'm not saying that every member of the Party isn't entitled to their own opinion and to express it - and I do think we shouldn't be shy of discussion, even difficult discussion - but I don't recall anyone (serious people!) being given a mandate by anyone, let alone the Party membership to go off and have serious discussions about anything.

For those musing about dating, living together, shot-gun weddings and birthing babies I gotta say - you are missing the point. It's the changing nature and role of political parties that we should be examining. Shouldn't technically, parties have some semblance of being movements of political thought? Shouldn't technically we govern ourselves in a manner indicative of how we would govern the country? In an interview in the Hill Times about his new book, Power: Where is it?, Donald Savoie articulates my thoughts exactly.

"Part of the overall problem, as well, Prof. Savoie said, is that political parties "have lost their soul" and politics has been taken over by professional politicians. He said there was once a time when the core values of political parties never changed, but now, all parties are the products of their leaders and not based on public policy ideas and values for which Canadians can vote for.

"They've been captured by the election day, the need to organize around elections. They've been captured by cronies and lobbyists and in the process they've lost their soul," he said. "If you've lost your way, if you've lost your soul, you've lost what the party's all about, then personalism takes over. The Liberal Party of today is Michael Ignatieff's party, tomorrow it will be someone else's party. The Conservative party today is Stephen Harper's party. In a few years it will be someone else's party and the core values will not matter all that much."

Prof. Savoie noted that parties today have focused more on gaining power than about offering ideas, something that has been made easier by the MPs who come to Parliament with no experience in anything other than politics. "They're there to gain power without really spelling out what set of core values drives them to gain power. Power becomes an end in itself. The goal of the game is to secure political power so that your gang of lobbyists and your gang of cronies will do well," he said. "They don't bring a knowledge of other sectors to bear. They bring a knowledge of politics and they play politics. And it's not a process of ideas, it's a process of tactics.""

I hate to say it, but I think it so I may as well, but it is the embrace of this "process of tactics" by Leader Ignatieff and those who trained him that may now do him and if they have their way - ?? - our Party in.
Concerned Party members should be writing and petitioning their elected (or acclaimed or appointed, because that's most likely what they've got) representatives from EDA Presidents on up to the top, requesting if not demanding an extraordinary meeting to have a big, long discussion about values, principles, ideas, programs, platforms and democracy and to consensually and democratically decide the path the Party should take in its quest to better serve the nation, not itself or its personalities. We shouldn't be relegating our own responsibility to "party insiders". We should be doing this work ourselves.
Otherwise, I'm not interested in joining the Kicking Ass Party. If the smartest people in the room think that's the way to go, fine. I'll go my own way. The way of the increasing hoards of people who just don't vote, because if you don't know what you're voting for, how the heck can you know why you should.

"Plain as the nose on a man's face."

2010-06-03T18:15:00.002-04:00

Or is it? Avid readers (sic) of Tilting at Windmills will know that the blog found its genesis mostly in the post-2008-election discussions about minorities, coalitions and such. To be more precise: minority governments, coalition governments, and such. There is lots and lots of evidence to this effect if anyone has the stamina to peruse the archives (I suggest copious quantities of caffeine prior to the attempt).

Liberal friend Rob Silver tweeted yesterday something to the effect that the word "coalition" has come (rather quickly, I add) to have at least 6 different meanings. Somehow, over the past little while, the word (and concept of) "coalition" in the political context has become synonymous with "collaboration", "merger", "cooperation", "discussion", "arrangements", and "accords", to name a few (I'm kind of chuffed that I actually came up with six!).

This morning I was tagged in an earnest Facebook note by another Liberal friend, whom I am sure, means the best and cares deeply about his party, its electoral prospects, its Leader and so on, basically the whole nine yards, but was riddled with confusion about just what people are, and likely should, be discussing. And then I read a piece by David Mader (Tory alert!) in The Mark, which I have come to enjoy, largely because the pieces are just out there and no one, other than the commenters editorializes much. On the other hand they don't correct the record either.

Just look at what Mader says in the first paragraph:

The partisan reaction to whispers of a Liberal-NDP coalition, or even a formal merger, has been predictably predictable. Hopes of such an arrangement revived when the British Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties recently entered into a formal coalition, and Liberal MP Bob Rae – himself a former NDP premier of Ontario – further fanned the flames with his reminiscences of the 1985 Liberal-NDP coalition in that province. When the president of the Young Liberals of Canada added his voice to those calling for a proper coalition, pointing to a poll that suggested such a coalition would be at least competitive with the Harper Tories, an air of momentum seemed to develop.

So he links "whispers" of a coalition (keep in mind my bolded word/clarification, government) to a "merger", incorrectly calls the Ontario Liberal/NDP accord of 1985 a coalition, and states that YLC President Sam Lavoie called for a "proper coalition". Frankly, Lavoie did no such thing. Lavoie called for discussions on collaboration and cooperation in a pre-electoral context, hinting, but never stating that those could/might eventually to some sort of merger and most certainly not a coalition government.

For my part, I've become a tad (not a lot, but a tad) concerned that any little interventions I may have made are being viewed in this state of collective confusion. So allow me to, er, um, clarify.

I would like my party to discuss and recognize the democratic nature of the possibility of a coalition government, in Canada, given our Westminster-styled parliamentary democracy. I would like recognition that given an agreed upon set of circumstances that such an outcome - after an election - would be a legitimate consideration. (Aside - I am not personally interested in pursuing other pre-electoral collaborative arrangements, unless I see that we have drifted so far from Liberal principles that a new movement might be palatable, but I surely see the need for my Party to not be afraid to sit in a room and discuss it).

I'm tired of this concept being demonized by PM Harper and his hoards, and sorry to say, by our Leader as well. I do not think that his categorical statements reflect the nature of our democracy very well. In constantly referring to "the" coalition, which I take to mean the attempt in 2008 by Messrs Dion and Layton, as opposed to "a potential coalition government", the Party falls into the same trap as M. Dion did back then.

It's rather obvious that a coalition government can only be entered into after an election given that pollsters aside, no one really has a crystal ball that can confirm what the final outcome will be. I am in the camp that says there should be some conditions to legitimize the option should it come to that. For me, a most important condition includes the fact that the possibility should be contemplated by the electorate, so that it can take it into consideration as it deliberates about its reasons for voting the way it does. This is done in most European elections (where I might add the longevity, therefore stability of most governments is in excess of three years regardless of majority, minority or coalition status) and was most recently witnessed in the general elections in Germany and the UK.

This, for me, and for many academics and practitioners is the main reason I view the Dion/Layton attempt as, how to put this politely: not terribly legitimate. That's because, during the 2008 election, M. Dion (and I believe Mr. Layton too - I'm just too lazy to search out a reference) categorically ruled out considering it. In fact he used identical wording to current Leader Michael Ignatieff, just days ago: "Liberals will campaign to form a Liberal Government. We aren't interested in coalitions."

I don't think this is in keeping with democratic principles and I don't think it is particularly wise, and, I do not think that it serves Canadians very well.

“Fear is sharp-sighted, and can see things under ground, and much more in the skies.”

2010-06-02T10:28:00.001-04:00

Like I said here last week, I don't know why we fear a good and healthy discussion and debate in our party.

Yesterday there were reports that some members of the Party are interested in discussing possible collaborations between progressive parties, and others basically saying no discussion required, the position is clear. Well, speaking as yet another member, I'm just not so sure this is true.

The entire last session of Parliament was defined by the tugs, tears and stretches of our democratic institutions, processes and conventions, written and unwritten, contorted and explained. From prorogation to prorogation (well actually from breaking of a fixed election law …), the country was seized with discussion of about the state and functioning of our democracy – and the changing nature of politics and politic discourse.

But in our party, not so much.

These are no little issues. These are big important things that people in the Party want to discuss, member to member, friend to friend. Like MacLeans’ Paul Wells noted in a tweet yesterday by pointing to this post on independent site Punditsguide.ca, there’s certainly enough evidence out there pointing to the facts we should have been discussing for a very, very long time. They indicate that this Party has been most successful when we reach out, when we seek like-minded citizens and voters.

From all of the op-eds, blog postings, discussion boards, Facebook groups, notes and links, tweets, roundtables and academic treatises out there over the past 18 months or so, many of them by Liberals and liberals known and not-so-known, people want to discuss this. And there are many opinions. Many, many opinions. But a discernable consensus position?

Personally, I’m not so keen on paid officials and pundits inferring that any member of the Party and an elected officer to boot, can’t speak for the Party in those capacities and yet they do.

Better that we not, as Cervantes says, see things under ground, but examine them in the light of day.

“It is good to live and learn.”

2010-05-30T11:59:00.000-04:00

I was intrigued by the advice that Chantal Hébert had for the Liberal Party late last week, in the middle of a series of polls showing the Conservatives generally trending up and in particular widening a gap in seat-rich Ontario. Hébert suggests that Liberals would be wise to embrace electoral reform as a national party-building survival mechanism. :)

In answer to a question on this at a townhall in March of 2009, then interim Leader Michael Ignatieff was cool to the idea, saying that he was “not yet convinced” on PR, preferring the stability provided by our current system and that he wouldn’t want to “turn this place into Italy”. (Go to about 8:45 of this clip.)

One of the first jobs I had at the Liberal Party Secretariat in the mid-80’s was in the Organization Department. I developed a predictive polling model for the Party. It was the early days of “desktop” computing. I had a tower the size of a small car, and a screen the size of a CD. We ran an operating system and stored data on floppy disks the size of an iPad. I personally inputted the results for 282 ridings into a Lotus spreadsheet, because of course, Elections Canada did not provide (or even record as far was we knew) the results in electronic format. We had to refer to the blue books. Because the Party could not afford a “pollster of record” at the time, I used data from public opinion polls published in the newspapers.

Taking into account a lot of provisos, my little model proved surprisingly accurate for the ’88 and ’93 general elections, including the prediction of a clean sweep in Ontario in ‘93 – which even the Party mucky mucks at the time, could barely believe.

Prevailing wisdom at the time was that with three competitive parties, 42/43% would get you a majority given the first past the post system. With four competitive parties, things begin to change. So it was in 1993 when with 53% of the vote in Ontario (a true majority rare in Canadian politics) the Liberals captured 98 out of 99 seats,and with them one-third of the available seats in the country - period. The one other seat went to, wait for it, Reform, which captured 20% of the vote in Ontario; the PC’s were at 17.6% and the NDP at 6%. (Change some party names and you start to see the similarities to today.)

Flash forward to last week’s series of voter intention polls and the trends they project for Ontario, par example and Hébert’s words of advice become even more poignant.

Seat predictor site ThreeHundredEight.com, takes the Harris/Decima’s 5-point gap in Ontario and turns it into a 13- seat gap (CPC: 39% = 54 seats; LPC: 34% = 41 seats) and EKOS’s 8-point gap into a 20-seat gap, (CPC: 39% = 56 seats; LPC: 31%= 36 seats). With Friday’s Leger Marketing poll result showing a 14-point gap in Ontario (CPC: 42%; LPC: 28), it doesn’t take much arithmetic genius to imagine the devastating result.

Convinced yet?

“It is a true saying that a man must eat a peck of salt with his friend before he knows him.”

2010-05-26T23:15:00.000-04:00

Yes, let’s chat a bit, chew the fat, hash a few things out.

I must admit that when I saw the Liberal talking points on the “coalition fear-mongering”, I had exactly the same reaction as this guy’s musings.

Last week I sent the letter that follows to the Chair and Vice-Chairs of the LPC’s Policy and Platform Committee, copied to responsible board members and officials at LPC and LPCO, as well as some in OLO.

“Last Friday, exactly one month before the date of the “Policy Matters” conference scheduled for Ontario, I received a “notice” for it contained in an email note from the Party’s Membership Secretary. I do not know exactly on what basis I received the note (as an “insider”, as an email subscriber, as a donor, or as a member) but assume that it did not go exclusively to actual signed up members of the Party as the notice itself contains a plea to join, in order to participate, going on to say:

“Liberal members have a key role to play in shaping our party’s policies. Between the point where the broad ideas and priorities are identified, and where our policy platform is presented to Canadians, members must weigh in with their views, to ensure those policies reflect the values and vision of grassroots Liberals in all corners of Canada.”

This is an excellent sentiment, but I can only view the process that accompanies it as not much more than lip service.

As a very long-standing member of the Party, I have to say that I am extremely disappointed on several fronts.

· Some of you know that it is my personal view that the leadership of the Party should be having policy and value-validation discussions with members before going to the broad public as well as after, and on a regular ongoing basis. I believe that this lack of ongoing discussion, debate and consultation is a key factor in the appearance of a lack of surefootedness on the part of our Party and its leadership.

· As far as I can tell the date for the conferences was “announced” by the Policy Chair on En Famille on March 24, and while some of the very few active participants on En Famille have discussed various aspects, there have not been any updates on process, subject areas or otherwise posted there or elsewhere since. If these conferences were not in fact after-thoughts to somehow try and engage the membership one would have assumed that all of the general preparation for them would have been already in place immediately post- (pre- actually) Canada at 150 itself, so that active discussions and preparation could take place. Even with a great deal of understanding it is difficult to comprehend no further communications in over 7 weeks.

· As part of the premise or positioning of the conferences appear to be about membership engagement, and hopefully encouraging the development of more activity at the level of the EDA in anticipation of an election, again, it seems to me that one of the better ways to do this is to encourage a lot of activity and opportunity well in advance of the conferences themselves. I do not know how EDA’s can be expected to call assemblies or other gatherings of members to discuss these issues in order to properly present their association’s – or further – their region’s points of view. You will therefore most likely end up with a bunch of individual opinion presented at the conferences; I do not know how this advances a collaborative, coherent (and perhaps brokered) party platform.

· It is very difficult to glean from the agenda (which was difficult to access for several days) exactly what will in fact be discussed. The agenda simply contains the broad subject areas. If, as the agenda indicates, the plenary will provide the “set of statements from Canada at 150 Conference”, “Questions for themed breakout sessions”, and the “Regional topic presentation”, I do not understand why those could not be “presented” or available in advance. We only learn that in the case of Ontario, the regional topic is “Municipal Infrastructure” by peering further down the agenda to the breakout sessions. Personally, I do not know if I would be able to participate properly without the ability to research and review a bit, and gather my own thoughts, opinions and positions, let alone discuss them with others as per above. I am sure many others would be in the same boat. And, just how are we to discuss the subject areas? Will we be accepting or rejecting, or improving upon a set of proposals? Will we be applying a “Liberal-value test”? What exactly is the form of the input the marvelous statement above actually requests or expects?

· How did the regional subject areas get assigned? Wouldn’t it have been better for the party members to actually have been asked for their input? I don’t know that municipal infrastructure would have been on my personal list but perhaps there might have been consensus in the membership on that, we just don’t know. In the context of platform development and the future of the country (at 150 recall) I personally would liked to have seen us discuss the future of our democracy – a pretty hot substantive and political area of national discussion these days and there are tonnes of party members discussing it in all sorts of public and private arenas, but no one asked. I do not know how this Party, the Liberal Party of Canada could contemplate going to the electorate without some sort of discussion about the state of our democracy and what type of democratic institutions and systems we believe the country should have when it reaches it’s 150th birthday.

You should expect that this email has been blind copied to someone somewhere. Thanks for listening.

Sheila Gervais”

I did not receive many formal responses, but that fact and the content of those that I did are not the point of my posting this letter here. The talking points referred to above are.

Now that it’s out there, I expect there will be “debate” in the Party about this statement as WK points out:

We aren’t interested in coalitions.

Just not formal debate. And that’s a darn shame. Isn’t that exactly the type of thing that the Party should be discussing when it gets together to discuss stuff in June? Isn’t that the type of rather big, principled stuff you consult on or at least seek some guidance on before making such a categorical and definitive statement? Why do we allow ourselves to fear a good, healthy, principled debate? I’m just asking.

"Time ripens all things. No man is born wise."

2010-05-04T13:30:00.005-04:00

Focus, people, focus! I must admit, I am scratching my head a bit at this, this, this, and this. Do a search of today's media - main and social - and you will find many more opinions and pontifications on Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's very public, deliberate and obviously controversial comments about the selection of our next/current Governor General. Just when I thought we were starting to push a few hot buttons and connect the dots on the theme of Harper's Juntaesque tendencies (we're gonna smoke 'em out), towards democracy and human rights we make the oddest, rather indiscreet, intervention. Why even the crazed musings of an obviously conflicted and confused Conservative Senatrice, which fairly nicely make this point all on their own, get overshadowed by this unnecessary distraction. Please, can we focus on what really matters? Can we just stick with ~~our own~~ the program?

"A close mouth catches no flies."

2010-04-28T14:05:00.001-04:00

Okay, well I've used that quotation before, but it just seems to fit. I've been dark for almost a year now. There were reasons. One of the more appealing ones was loyalty. Well, loyalty and tradition, I guess: You don't, er, um, defecate on your own Party, especially when you're a committed, known partisan. And I was in that sort of mood waay too often back then. But more and more recently, as I've observed along with the rest of the Canadian electorate, diminished by choice as it seems to be, I've come to feel that my loyalty to the Liberal Party of Canada is exactly that - a loyalty more (to be fair) to the ideals I think I share with some other activists (thinkers and doers, some like to call them) than to the concept of "party" that exists on Parliament Hill and most certainly than to the personalities who do not simply purport to "run" it, but to "be" it.

If I am a bad little Liberal in the eyes of some from time-to-time so be it. I am claiming the courage of so many others and speaking my mind. Right or wrong. And I am not so foolish as to think I won't be wrong more than I am right. But I've got some stretch in this game and right now, today, in 2010, I'm not an altogether contented bear (or bunny, bear is kind of male - but, hmmm, bunny ain't about to work either is it? anyone have a more gender-neutral animal analogy? would chicken work?). I promise, I will do my best to speak only for myself, unless otherwise authorized.

All that said, beating up on LPC is NOT an impetus for the resurrection of Tilting of Windmills at this time. Other goings on just a few short clicks north of me definitely are.

"Never look for birds of this year in the nests of the last."

2009-05-22T14:39:00.002-04:00

So the hot topic these days is the Harper "attack ads"; most observers and pundits commenting on the veracity of the ads themselves, i.e. is their content truthful and honest?, as opposed to the veracity of the strategy behind them, i.e. as one element in a political strategy are they a truthful and honest tactic?

What they are, most definitely are an attempt by Harper to re-employ a strategy that he perceives to have worked in the past. Unfortunately for the voting (or non-voting) public that "successful" strategy was one launched against democracy in Canada, not against a political opponent, be that an individual or an organization. It was a crass strategy targeting the voter as a consumer. His means to his end (obviously winning the last election) was not the presentation of a positive platform or vision of the country, not even wanting to govern for some reason, or with some purpose than simply being the smartest strategist in the free world; it was winning through control, containment and manipulation.

Straight from the (Karl) Rovian playbook, itself originally based on the successful William McKinley campaign of 1896, which applied business principles to politics for the first time, Harper embarked on a strategy of winning through voter suppression. Rove's own underlying strategy in the (Bush) Texas gubernatorial contest of 1994 of segmentation and balancing persuasion with motivation, had morphed by 2000 and the Presidential contest of Bush/Gore to segmentation and balancing motivation with anti-motivation. "Business principles" became honed to "marketing principles".

In the 2006-2008 period, Harper employed his Rovian techniques mercilessly: segment the "market"; treat voters as consumers of a product; define the other product as unpalatable to certain consumers; flood the market with specialized appeals to your own loyal consumers; and, don't worry about, and in fact encourage, consumers who don't like your product either, to simply go without. There is no other explanation for the conduct of Harper's cabinet and caucus in the last Parliament; they simply didn't care how many voters were turned off period, as long as their "core" remained motivated; having the rest anti-motivated was simply according to plan.

The "success" of the strategy is borne out by the disastrous turnout figures of the 2008 election. Out of the slightly more than 1,000,000 voters in 2006 who did not vote in 2008, more than 75% of those - close to 850,000 - were formerly Liberal voters. Canadian politics had reached the acme of anti-motivation. Voting motivation and democratic principles suppressed.

Michael Ignatieff wants to "do politics differently" (and I think he's made a decent start at it) and believes that voters want politics done differently too. I agree that many might, but that many more have already slipped into ambivalence, and in order to stop the slide, politics will have to be done very differently indeed. If we can present our party as about caring more about Canada and our flailing democracy, than about the Party itself, the contrast will be compelling. But it's a very tall order: complex and time-consuming (and admittedly rather academic), and (sigh) one that will pragmatically have to be thinned somewhat by the true realities of politics.

But as the old adage attests: "charity begins at home". In marketing circles there is a difference between marketing products and marketing organizations and ideas. A product doesn't really have a "relationship" with it's audience, but an organization does. Brand management is about customers; relationship management is about reputation. The electorate is not inured to the Liberal Party's own deportment in the past, otherwise Harperovian strategies and tactics wouldn't work as well as they have. They come by much of their cynicism honestly. But we can begin by letting voters know that we don't simple view them as consumers of a political "product". That we are not simply marketers, but developers, innovators and public-service-providers. Proceedings in Parliament and conduct in between and during election campaigns will be indicative.

Let's turn the Harperovian strategy on it's head. Not voter suppression; but voter expression.

"Fair and softly goes far. "

2009-05-15T08:46:00.002-04:00

This is the best letter to the editor I've read in a long time.

"Michel Facon

One key to understanding the attack ads against Michael Ignatieff is the accusation that he is ''sure of himself.'' This shows that the Conservatives are lacking in self-confidence and identify themselves as uneducated, uncultured, inferior provincials.

The mere description of the anti-Ignatieff ads produced by the Tories has led me to an action that I have considered but never done. I am joining the Liberal Party of Canada."

Thanks, Stephen Harper, for helping to grow the Liberal movement. Keep it up.

"Those who'll play with cats must expect to be scratched."

2009-05-08T11:52:00.005-04:00

Ooh la la! This is good.

All Parties in Canada should take note of the sentiments expressed and adjust conduct accordingly if you want to see voter apathy diminish, citizen (and member) engagement rise, and respect for our democratic institutions return.

h/t Liberals for Electoral Reform

"A word to the wise is enough. "

2009-05-06T15:26:00.001-04:00

In a strange twist, change recommendations proposed by the Change Commission may have received more support from our Leader Michael Ignatieff (ILMI no more!) and our new National Executive than from the representatives of the "grassroots" assembled as delegates to the weekend convention and contributors to the report. It's not that they don't or wouldn't necessarily support the report and recommendations, it's just that the report didn't get much exposure at Convention, other than amongst the Party leadership, who apparently nonetheless see the writing on the wall that the membership will be ignored at peril.

The blunt, well written and representative report was released with little fanfare just days - hours, really - before delegates began arriving in Vancouver for the Convention about ... hmmm, well, 'nuf said.

Council of Presidents, which was held Thursday before the official convention began was not formally briefed on the report and its recommendations, although outgoing Party President Doug Ferguson, also a Commissioner did use his remarks to speak about the report and his comments were very well received. Unfortunately the room was not full of many riding presidents - some not having yet arrived, and others representing their presidents who were not attending. Workshops held later that day on the report, were sparsely attended by riding presidents/designates (mostly because there were several competing workshops and one could not be everywhere at once), but again the report and its recommendations were enthusiastically received by those who were able.

Our printed Convention agendas told us that the Change Commission Report would be first up at the morning session of the Constitutional Plenary, but alas that presentation and discussion never occurred. The presentation was apparently switched to the afternoon to allow for the important debate on WOMOV and other amendments to occur first, and then only "time permitting". Needless to say, it never happened, and there was concern in certain circles that some "deep sixing" might be underway.

But apparently not. The Leader is reported to be very supportive of the report and its recommendations, and incoming President Alf Apps enthusiastically so. Apparently Apps held an extensive NE meeting following the close of the convention (as opposed to the traditional meet and greet) where the report was discussed, approved in principle and set on a course for implementation and monitoring. That is very good news.

So good on the former Leader and Executive for commissioning the work. Good on the Commissioners for the valuable work they performed on our behalf. Good on the members who participated and who clearly saw themselves and their opinions reflected in the report, and good on the Leader and the new Executive for moving forward with the recommendations.

As Quixotique stated in this space just before the Convention, the most important recommendations about change in the report - perhaps really the entire report - are about membership engagement at various levels and activities through out the party: policy development; party processes such as nominations; adherence to the LPC Constitution and provisions as a recognition that they represent the will of the membership; and, accountability mechanisms.

Too bad really that we moved ahead before the Convention and the report however, with mechanisms such as incumbency protection and unvetted appointments; but with any luck, such things are about to change.

"Let us make hay while the sun shines."

2009-04-28T11:45:00.002-04:00

The Report of the Change Commission, Advancing Change Together: A Time to Act, if it is given appropriate play at Convention has the potential to make the Convention a "Convention about something" after all.

The report is the first seen in many a year that is about real renewal and change. And, about what plain, old, average members of the Party really think about what needs to be done to return our Party to movement status; about changing our deportment in front of the electorate, but more importantly in front of US. Changing the culture of our Party.

The report develops into a story what Quixotique and many members of the Party have been thinking and saying for quite a while. We care deeply about the Party and its values. We care less for how remote we have become. I cannot link to the document yet as it is on En Famille, but not the LPC website (yet)...so I will attempt to help in the telling of the story through some copy and pasted quotes (and my own emphases in bold).

“... The central objective of reform should be to enhance the party’s capacity to perform its core functions, and the key to doing that in our view is to put the sidelined membership of the party back on centre ice.

We also need leadership from leaders. From the top of the party, from the caucus and the parliamentary leadership, from the National and PTA Executives, and from the staff, and, closer to home, from EDA Presidents and Executive officers, members should hear recognition of the difficulties facing the party and a powerful commitment to renewal or reform. There is a need for inspiring language that will reassert the importance of the membership. Likewise members need to hear an affirmation of foundational values and a commitment to honour the constitution. Members will need to see all levels of the party working together on this. The Leader’s message of unity is very timely for the project of renewal. For members from east and west, north and south, the urban centres and the rural ridings, new Canadians and Aboriginal Peoples, unity means that everyone has a sense of belonging and being valued. What starts with the party membership will spread to Canadians as a whole – the Liberal Party of Canada will be the party of unity and belonging. “

“We believe, as you do, that the Liberal Party of Canada needs to rebuild from the ‘bottom up.’ It is clear that we must ensure the culture of the Liberal Party of Canada is not ‘top down’ but has a genuine respect for the values, ideas, and the contributions of time and energy of its members and supporters in the trenches. Liberal Party members and candidates in all 308 ridings in this country must feel that they are valued and can play a role in winning back the Canadian people’s confidence of in our party. But it is also clear that culture change has to be more than reassuring rhetoric.”

“Any revitalization of the party structure must embody our Liberal principles... The core definition appears in the Preamble to our Constitution... The participants in our consultations across Canada made frequent reference to these core values, calling for the party to champion and embody transparency, openness, inclusiveness, high ethical standards, engagement in communities, social responsibility and fairness, a focus on human rights, fiscal responsibility, international orientation, listening to the grassroots, and treating people – members of the party and members of the public – with dignity and respect.”

“The isolation of party members from policy input is a major factor contributing to cynicism. Yet the pathway to better finances lies right through this territory. As one member stated in an online contribution, “As a Canadian and a Liberal, I am not going to be inclined to lend financial assistance if there’s no 2-way dialogue between me and the party. There has to be a motivation, one has to feel as though he has a stake in the direction the party takes.” The party’s current experiment in policy development for the Biennial Convention has shown promise but it will need to be reviewed in terms of how well it succeeds in allaying the cynicism of members who wish to contribute. In an analysis of the present system, Ron Hartling, a wel lregarded party volunteer and the founder of En Famille, suggests that it does not provide sufficient opportunity for reasoned debate. There is no systematic process for engaging subject matter experts or drawing in information about the policy context that could be helpful in shaping sound proposals. We must continue to develop mechanisms, online and through meetings, to enable members to contribute their concerns, insights and knowledge to the party’s policy development process. ...

Review of the policy process. A review of the policy process should be undertaken with these objectives in mind, aiming toward the substantive re-engagement of interested members and Canadians in the process and respecting the provisions of the Liberal constitution. The National Policy and Platform Committee could review and recommend to National Executive a new process whereby party members can vote on policy issues between conventions. More specifically, we recommend that the policy development process should be done both online and by mail for those who do not have internet access. The party website should contain an explanation on how the party policy process works and how members can get involved.

Recommendation 36: Policy process review. A review of the policy process should be undertaken by the National Policy and Platform Committee.

Use as many resolutions as possible. No matter what the process, the party’s election platform must use as many party resolutions as possible – otherwise the policy process is meaningless. This has been a source of considerable disillusionment in the past.

Recommendation 37: party resolutions in the platform. Every effort must be made to maximize the number of party resolutions in the election platform.”

“Liberals want their values to infuse the party, but they also want these values to be reflected in the formal processes which shape the party and facilitate its performance. Along with the formal policy development mechanisms, members wish to see all aspects of party governance become fully transparent, accountable and responsive. ...

Any issues with our Executive are not restricted to transparency and accountability to the members. There is a general lack of clarity of roles and responsibilities in the party. This applies not only to components of the structure manned by full-time staff but also to various volunteer based committees and task forces, of which there seem to be a lot.”

“The problems identified with the party structures were not simply matters of pure organization. Participants spoke about the need to increase the level of trust between different elements of the party; for instance between EDAs and PTAs, or between PTAs and the National Office. ...

Perhaps the most important issue of trust concerns the feelings of the broad membership about their place in the party. The Constitution states that a fundamental purpose of the party is to “provide a forum for members... to have their say and influence the policies and platform of the party.” Many members who communicated with us do not feel that they are being provided with the opportunities that are their right under the constitution. They have been disenfranchised. This in turn has not build the necessary amount of trust within the party. Linda Julien expressed the desire for change during our consultation in Laval: “Activists cannot be used as instruments for the party; the party must be the instrument for its members.”

Disenfranchisement has had far-reaching effects. As Tim Roy of Wild Rose put it: “The most critical challenge facing the party is the disenfranchisement that grass roots members feel with the party Executive and elected members. I believe this has resulted in party members becoming inactive due to their realization that they have very little input into policy formulation. It’s also meant they’ve held back on their regular financial contributions, which is evidenced by the current incredibly low number of regular contributors to party coffers.” "

“Too often, the constitutional procedures of the Party are neglected, only adding to the distrust and frustration. The issue most frequently raised during our Commission’s consultation in Laval was the need for the Party and its executives to observe the constitution.

Our Party must work hard, not just to update our Constitution, but to ensure it is respected by PTAs, EDAs and the membership, and that every assistance is given to ensure that it can be, and is, followed. Members felt very strongly that infractions should entail consequences.”

“Nominations and Appointments Committee. We recommend that the National Executive form a Nominations and Appointments Committee to review the procedure and to monitor these processes in the future. This committee could look at the determination of winnable and unwinnable ridings. It could also be involved in debriefs from unheld ridings, the determination of the viability of the losing candidates, and the mechanisms of incumbent protection.

Candidates who do not win elections should have a serious conversation with the riding association as soon as possible after the election. The sooner a decision is taken the better. An early decision for the candidate to stay will allow the candidate to work to maintain their presence in the riding, helping maintain and rebuild the EDA in an unheld riding. those ,for whom there was ‘ not a fit’, be able to get on with their lives and decide how they can best make their contribution to the party.”

If you are going to the convention, please review this report before you go. Chat with your fellow delegates before you go and with your riding president if they are not going. Come with a mandate and participate in these discussions on real, true renewal and culture change.

Sometimes, "all that glisters" IS gold

2009-04-27T21:52:00.002-04:00

Quixotique is about half way through the Report of the Change Commission and it is a fabulous document. It is blunt and sincere in its committment to the institution of the Party. It's a Party first document.

More to follow

"Don't put too fine a point to your wit for fear it should get blunted."

2009-04-24T16:42:00.002-04:00

Max Bernier II: just as dumb; not as cute.

"In the night all cats are gray."

2009-04-22T17:26:00.001-04:00

I have been tardy in finishing up my posts on proposed amendments to the LPC Constitution. There is one last, little, wee, inoccuous, housekeeping one that rots my socks. Not because it should be defeated, it shouldn't be; but because of what it indicates about our current administration (and here I am not talking about ILMI or his or the Party staff), and how carefully all of us delegates must scrutinize the candidates seeking office to the National Executive and to hold them to their words in the future; to hold them accountable to us, the membership, and to us through upholding of the Party Constitution, whether we or they agree with what is in it or not.

The amendment is to amend subparagraph 54(3)(e)(v) (Appointment of additional members of the Leadership Expenses Committee) which is currently inconsistent with wording elsewhere in the Chapter and to other Chapters, to read (additions emphasized):

(v) any number of other members of the Party appointed by the co-chairs in consultation with the National Executive and respecting the principle of equal participation of men and women and the recognition of English and French as the official languages of Canada.

Avid readers of the LPC Constitution will note that this amendment would make this subparagraph virtually identical to that currently contained in the Chapter on the National Election Readiness Committee (Chapter 32) except that in the case of the NERC, the consultation is intended to be with the Leader and the National Executive.

My problem is not what either subparagraph says or does not say, but with the way in which the clause has been (as have several others which Quixotique has pointed out in other diatribes) dishonoured by the NE and its constitutional advisers.

Just before the last National Executive meeting, members of the NWLC were concerned that the National Election Readiness Committee had been announced with a membership that was 2/3 men and 1/3 female. While no member of the NERC was present at the NE to discuss the issue with them, it was raised, and the answer? That the intention of the words "respecting the principle of of equal participation of men and women..." was unlikely to have meant 50/50 in all instances. I get that, but 2/3-1/3 is pretty far off from the "principle of equal participation" and in this day and age, particularly when the women's vote is so bloody critical to the Party, it's not a grand message to have an Election Readiness (Campaign) Committee that is so old, white and male. But that's not even the most critical "breach".

The fact of the matter is that this clause requires the NERC Co-Chairs to consult the Leader and the NE, and while the (interim) Leader may have been consulted (actually you can bet your booty he was), the National Executive most certainly was not. They were told, like everyone else. And not even formally so, they had to ask, well after the fact of the appointments/announcement. Apparently the youth were equally concerned with the composition of the Committee. Not with the individuals themselves or their caliber, but with the overall representativeness of the composition of the Committee. This aspect was not addressed.

So, one wonders what the point is of having constitutional instructions, when those instructions are not abided, or worse, ignored.

The Renewal Committee in doing its very fine work, while not placing sole responsibility on the PTA's, nonetheless said this with respect to their obligations: "Put succinctly, one can easily come to the conclusion that some PTAs have failed to live up to their new constitutional obligations, and that the transition from administrative and membership functions to a more proactive organizational role has been slow." They often admonished the full administration since the 2006 revamped constitution for not adhering to or implementing intended changes swiftly enough. After all, that new Constitution represented the will of the Party.

The addition of a consultation with the National Executive on the appointment of the NERC was a conscious one. We should expect the Co-Chairs to have then consulted - I would say specifically with the NWLC, but most certainly with the full Executive. It is an obligation that the Party has imposed on them, not one that can or should be ignored in the guise of tradition or prerogative.

So while we are all swept up in Constitutional change, I certainly hope that there is as much discussion at Convention, and concrete action post-convention for cultural change in our Party.

"The pot calls the kettle black."

2009-04-08T18:58:00.001-04:00

Ignatieff lacks 'moral compass': Harper. Or as Constant Vigilence says: That pot's got chutzpa!

Some more more things...

2009-04-08T15:00:00.007-04:00

...the YLC proposes: no MPs, Senators or candidates on the National Executive; policy resolutions to be debated by delegates; and, an Outreach Secretary.

Concerned about potential conflicts of interest, the YLC proposes that "Except for the Leader and the representative of Caucus ..., no person who is currently serving as a member of the House of Commons or the Senate of Canada may serve as a voting member of the National Executive", and that a voting member of the National Executive who becomes a nominated candidate would have to take a leave of absence from the Executive during the writ period.

I'm kind wondering what those conflicts of interest might be. Or, is there concern about the undue influence of Caucus in the affairs of the Party?

Not even any background discussion was required for this one: "All policy resolutions which are duly sent to a biennial convention by a PTA or a Commission according to the rules set out by the National Policy and Platform Committee must be considered by delegates at a convention before going forward to the floor for a final vote."

The next one, on the addition of an Outreach Secretary to the National Executive and Management Committee, I've got a bit of a problem with. I think the background, as opposed to the amendments themselves will suffice here, with one exception. My concern is in bold.

"The Special Committee on Party Renewal recently found that to be successful electorally, the Party needs to engage more consistently and more strategically in reaching targeted groups. This report recommended that EDA's, at their discretion, add outreach directors to engage the targeted populations of each of their commissions. These outreach directors would liaise with national commissions to collaborate on ensuring that strategic objectives are realized. The effect of the proposed amendment is that an Outreach Secretary is constituted as a voting member of the National Executive and as a voting member of the National Management Committee."

One of the related amendments: "Include the ORS in the list of appointments made by the National Executive under paragraph 23(1)(d)."

In the report of the Special Committee on Party Renewal, the Committee reviewed the revised composition and size (reduced from 64 to 25 voting members and 8 non-voting members) of the National Executive, stating:

"This reduction in size has been positive for the Party. National executive meetings used to be prohibitively expensive and, by virtue of the numbers involved, unwieldy. The new structure is far more apt to generate meaningful discussion and better decision-making. Efforts to “re-grow” the national executive should be resisted."

The voting members all have some sort of electoral mandate. The non-voting members of the NE are all appointments made by either the National Executive itself, the Leader, and/or the President.

There are some, like Quixotique, who have argued that all appointments to the Executive, and presiding positions of Standing and ad hoc committees should also be subject to some sort of ratification, or at minimum review by the membership (much as is done now by Parliamentarians for key government appointments), perhaps by the Council of Presidents.

Even if one disagrees with Quixotique's position or views it as unrealistic, it seems odd to suggest that a new executive/officer position, not dissimilar in type of mandate to the Membership Secretary should not be a nationally elected position. Otherwise, given the close relationship of the proposed position with the Commissions, one can see the battle lines drawing at the first NE meeting now. Candidates would most likely still have to campaign for the post, it's just that their electorate would be reduced from several thousand delegates to 25 colleagues.

So, I say if there is merit in adding the position to the National Executive, so be it. But if it is to be an appointment, it must be a non-voting position. Otherwise, the incumbent should receive a national mandate in return for their vote.

Some more things...

2009-04-08T09:50:00.003-04:00

...of a constitutional amendment nature. In addition to the OMOV amendment to the amendment, the YLC (and this is not to pick on the YLC, it's just that they have put forward some of the more interesting proposed constitutional amendments) have proposed a couple of sets of changes to the composition of the National Executive which are worthy of debate. They have also proposed one regarding ex-officio delegates at Convention which might raise some eyebrows given the "other" discussions about influence going on right now. Let's start with that one.

The amendment itself is simple. It would remove the words "has served" and replace them with "is currently serving" in paragraph 62(1)(h)(in the section right to attend and vote at conventions), so that it would read: "each person who is currently serving as a member of the House of Commons or the Senate of Canada and who is a member of the Party."

The thought process is very interesting. Here is the background paragraph provided in the amendment document (highlights are mine):

"Background: Concerns have been raised about the influence and number of ex-officio delegates versus that of elected EDA delegates. This does not suggest that certain elected positions do not warrant ex-officio status, however, under the current rules some individuals have virtually a life-time ex-officio status. Also, it should be noted that a proposed amendment that will be considered at the Convention will reduce the number of EDA elected delegates from 20 to 14 (and youth from six to four). Should it pass, the influence of EDA elected delegates will be diminished even more so. The amendment would limit the number of parliamentary ex-officios to sitting MPs and Senators and reduce the overall number of ex-officios versus elected EDA delegates."

To Quixotique this is a good amendment, very much in keeping with the overall premise of the move to OMOV in leadership selection that the member is ultimately supreme, and real-time participation in the Party is more important than historical, and is certainly more democratic than the current (new in 2006) delegate structure. (As an aside, the prevailing wisdom for the upcoming leadership convention is that former MPs and Senators, whether or not they are former Liberal MPs or Senators, as long as they are current members of the Party, will be allowed to be delegates.)

It's just that I can't square the thinking on undue influence with the "other" amendment. Are the youth not arguing here that "delegates for life" are an artificial enhancement of the influence of a faction (elites?) within the Party? Maybe someone could explain (rationalize) it to me.

"There is a time for some things, and a time for all things; a time for great things, and a time for small things."

2009-04-06T16:51:00.001-04:00

There is a good and intelligent debate going on about the YLC's proposed amendment to the National Executive's proposed constitutional amendment to institute a universal vote in leadership selection. Good that the debate is occurring a few weeks before the Convention so that members who are not delegates can make their views known both publicly and to the EDA delegates who will (should) be carrying their views to the plenary. But what about the rest of the proposals? How will they fit with what the membership may or may not wish to see in the context of renewal?

Quixotique has received the draft of the full set of proposed amendments and other than the leadership selection proposal(s), sees not much renewal, a fair bit of housekeeping and a couple of items that while perhaps well intentioned should also receive scrutiny, debate and discussion well in advance of the Convention. In general the proposals seem to fit with the Renewal Committee's stated premise in their report that not much really needs to be done, other than a more aggressive implementation of the 2006 changes:

"This report is, of necessity, more tightly focused than the Red Ribbon report. Many of its recommendations will urge speedier implementation of the provisions in the 2006 reform. However, some fine-tuning is required."

Every Voter Counts: the 308 Riding Strategy, Report of the Special Committee on Party Renewal

Here's one that might provoke some discussion. A set of amendments (a related amendment is brought forward from 2006 by a Quebec EDA) related to the "Suspension and revocation of membership".

While it is reasonable to expect that an organization have the right to suspend or revoke a membership under certain circumstances, those circumstances should be clearly defined and penalties or remedies commensurate. The proposed amendment does not appear to provide for reasons for the consideration of termination by the National Executive (it does require notice be given to the member, the right to address the NE, and a 2/3 vote):

"The National Executive may terminate the membership of any member of the Party whose conduct is considered by the National Executive to be detrimental to the Party..."

It does also not appear to address how the consideration of termination might reach the NE, in other words, whether a complaint needs to be filed, who can file such a complaint if required or request a hearing into a member's conduct (i.e. PTA, EDA, any other member?), nor provide guidance to the NE as to what might constitute "detrimental conduct".

The proposal also would allow for a terminated member to apply to join the Party again after 18 months and the re-application would be decided by the Membership Secretary:

"A person whose membership has been terminated under subsection 9(2) may apply to join the Party again only if 18 months have passed since their membership was terminated. Their application must be considered personally by the National Membership Secretary and may be rejected by the National Membership Secretary for any reason. If the membership application is rejected by the National Membership Secretary, then the person may not apply to join the Party again for another 12 months and this subsection applies to that further application."

If a 2/3 vote of the NE is required to terminate a membership, is it appropriate that the reinstatement decision be given to the Membership Secretary? Not taking a position here; just asking.

The amendment goes on to describe "suspension" as opposed to termination, indicating that in such instances, the Leader or National President may make the decision to suspend (again no guidance), although if the NE does not confirm the suspension, it will die.

"The Leader or the National President may suspend the right of any member to participate in the affairs of the Party and its organs for a period of no more than six months if the member whose membership may be suspended under this subsection has received notice...

The Leader or the National President, as the case may be, must report any suspension under subsection 9(4) to the National Executive at its next meeting, and if the National Executive does not confirm the suspension, then it will cease."

If I were the Leader or the President (both scary thoughts), I'm not sure I'd want the responsibility for suspension, but then again, that's probably why it's proposed that either have that responsibility in the first place, so that the consideration is taken very seriously.

It is likely that consideration was given to the seriousness of "detrimental conduct" requiring a booting out period of 18 months, versus a 6 month suspension for "less detrimental conduct", but it would be kind of nice to have some further explanation of the thought process behind the proposal, in particular the vagueness of the "why and the how".

Quixotique has actually just become quite concerned about her continuing status as a paid up, card carrying member of the Party!

More to follow in subsequent posts.

"It is the part of a wise man to keep himself to-day for to-morrow, and not to venture all his eggs in one basket. "

2009-04-05T13:22:00.002-04:00

Quixotique is once again confused. Debate springing up over the weekend in the youth wing of the Party shows us that our youth are both amongst the most progressive and the most conservative elements in the Party at the same time. This weekend the YLC put forward an amendment to the proposed National Executive sponsored constitutional amendment to institute a riding-based-weighted one-member-one-vote system for leadership selection.

Many have already weighed in appropriately on this debate with well-reasoned arguments. Youth in favour of the status quo?? Youth for youth? or Youth for a strong party?

While Quixotique favours the proposed OMOV process, she has consistently been concerned about the over-emphasis on this change as the key reform that the Party can make. This one change is not a panacea for all that ails the party, but a start based on and illustrating the democratic principles that should permeate all of our other processes and governance.

Now, what has been held out as seminal change runs the risk of being bastardized; debased, in the name of vested interest.

And not for the first time. The 2005 biennial is a case in point. What was striking as the Convention moved through its agenda of policy discussion through to matters of structure and process was just how absolutely the vested interests remained in control in the Party.

Early on, the Youth wing of the Party engineered a defeat of a policy resolution proposed by the Women's Caucus and the Women's commission to state, as a matter of party policy (there was no accompanying, binding Constitutional amendment), that the Party was committed to gender equality in all of its structures and that it would put in place an action plan to move towards at least 50% female candidates for the next Federal Election. As the preamble to the resolution stated, women represent 52% of the Canadian population. We were told that the Youth representation at the Convention was close to one-third of the registered delegates, yet Statistics Canada told us that the population of those in the age group eligible for membership in the YLC (14-25) stood at around 16% of the Canadian population. The motives of the Young Liberals in defeating this statement of principle could only be related to their desire to maintain an inordinate control over Party matters. To Quixotique, this most certainly represented a vested interest.

In 2006, while the youth were successful in whipping their (over-represented) delegation to obtain a similar amendment to the OMOV proposal at the time, they were somehow unable to whip enough votes to have the main proposal adopted. Was the amendment to the amendment a poison pill? Would OMOV be in place now had the youth not protected their own flank?

It would be a shame to yet again have OMOV fail at the convention while this concept was the most ardently debated at En Famille and in presentations to the Renewal Committee and while there appears to be such a wide consensus of support for the notion throughout the Party, but I think it even worse that it pass in the gerrymandered form that it would take should (some of) the youth be successful this time.

"The proof of the pudding is in the eating."

2009-03-28T16:14:00.004-04:00

And if the soupçon of revelations provided by Pierre Trudeau Is My Homeboy on the report of the Renewal Committee that the National Executive will discuss this weekend are truly indicative, the pudding may prove itself to be fairly sweet.

Quixotique has been both buoyed and concerned over some of the discussions at En Famille particularly the overwhelming preoccupation with the potential change to a OMOV system of leadership selection (which Quixotique supports) as the panacea for greater, or "ultimate" membership engagement in the affairs of the Party, as while such a move is assuredly advisable, Leadership contests should be fairly rare occurrences in the life of a Party, and the membership most certainly must be continually engaged in (and in fact, drive) all manner of Party processes and decisions.

I am anxious to consume the full report and recommendations, particulary discussions around the concepts of engagement and delegation and the role of the Leader and others in the Party leadership in the institutional conduct and relationships, but generally like the tidbits that have been offered so far.

Implementation, of course, will be key.

"Make it thy business to know thyself, which is the most difficult lesson in the world."

2009-03-28T12:10:00.005-04:00

It seems that Quixotique's most recent musings (okay, rant) struck a chord in certain circles and was both well- and ill-received depending on which of those circles one runs in most. Issues of loyalty and concepts of constructive and destructive contributions were raised; Quixotique was requested to examine her motivations. A tough, but ultimately positive thing to do.

Quixotique counts herself fortunate to have learned at the feet of masters of Liberal Party politics and has taken many lessons from some very principled people, including, frankly, her parents. Parents instill the values that form our personal belief structure, the structure upon which we deport ourselves, the foundation upon which we base our motivations in whatever we do. There's no right or wrong on the emphasis our personal values lead us to on the (long, convoluted and complex) continuum between self- and global societal-interest in the context of motivation.

In the context of "party", it is basic shared values that bring us together, but our varying emphases on the continuum that make a party strong, whole and complete; all motivations are valid and all are needed.

One of those Quixotique considers amongst the masters is former Senator and Party President, Al Graham, a grand, grand democrat. Hansard excerpts from the time of Senator Al's retirement from the Senate in 2004, speak volumes, much more eloquently than Quixotique could, about these concepts of values and motivation.

Senator Jack Austin: "From 1975 to 1980, Senator Graham served as president of the Liberal Party of Canada. Out of this time came his deep commitment to the democratic process and his determination to spread the ideas and practices of democracy to the emerging societies of the world system. He took that message around the world in his leadership work with Liberal International and the National Democratic Institute. His book, The Seeds of Freedom: Personal Reflections on the Dawning of Democracy, promotes the power of the individual to effect positive change."

Senator Lynch Staunton: "Senator Graham succeeded as well as he did because Al is, first and foremost, a traditional parliamentarian who recognizes that the proper functioning of the parliamentary system depends on both government and opposition respecting each other's roles and responsibilities. When one resorts to bullying, or the other to obstruction, the system can break down, sometimes resulting in mistrust which seriously hinders the working relationship that is so essential at the leadership level."

It is Al Graham who first spoke to me about these values, relating his philosophy and approach to partisan politics through a simple catch phrase that continues to resonate:

"Country. Party. Leader."

That's my motivation in this little endeavour. That is the order in which my loyalties lie when it comes to my own political life. I don't view the choice between loyalty to Party and loyalty to Leader as a binary one. In fact, I don't really view it as a choice at all.