An honest man's word is as good as his bond.

Here's a piece I penned that appears in tomorrow's Ottawa Citizen.

The Liberal party sure likes things complicated

There’s an earworm and an allegory snaking their way around my head as I ponder the most recent drama in the Liberal Party of Canada. The earworm comes courtesy of Avril Lavigne: Why’d you have to go and make things so complicated? And the allegory? Why, it comes from The Scorpion and the Frog: “It’s my nature ...”

Having been involved with the Liberal party in the lowest and the highest organizational capacities over a really long period of time, I can attest to the endless machinations of reforming and democratizing, with an outcome that almost always disappoints or gets reversed when it no longer suits. It always seems to be one step forward two steps back. With luck, this time will finally be different.

In the early ’80s a group of Young Liberals pushed for a lengthy reform process that saw among other things a diminution of the weight of party elites in party decision making. For example, senators and members of the appointed revenue committee were no longer to be delegates to conventions. At the first convention where the delegation would have been thusly composed, the 1990 leadership, the party took the highly democratically questionable step of reinstating those delegates through a retroactive constitutional amendment. The day before the voting began, these people were not delegates. The day of the vote, they were.

Who this was fair to, or unfair to, didn’t really seem to matter. Average party members had made a decision that didn’t work for the elites and vested interests, and that just wouldn’t do.

After two extremely long and divisive leadership races in 1989-’90 and 2006, and another aborted one in 2008-’09, party members decided that future leadership contests would be reasonably short, and so when Michael Ignatieff decided two days after the election last year to step down, I and others thought: Finally! We know exactly what’s up, and everyone will be on an equal footing. We will have a leadership vote no later than October and then get down to the brass tacks of rebuilding, unfettered by leadership sniping and with a good four years to heal and strengthen.

But some didn’t think that was the right way to go, and constitutions hadn’t stood in the way before. It’s just that this time, according those in charge (the infamous “National Board”) the party wanted and deserved an “unprecedented” national consultation because the last democratic decision made by the party, well, just didn’t suit the current circumstances.

An “extraordinary” convention was called and held to change the timing of the leadership contest. But this is only part of the story.

It’s true that there were people calling for consultations on the leadership process and timing. But some were also calling for those consultations to include the appointment of an interim leader. It only made sense, if you are going to democratize major decisions beyond the constitution due to circumstance, this one should be democratized too.

Clearly, after the circumstances surrounding the appointment of the previous interim leader, Michael Ignatieff, which many felt had contributed to the tainting (or solidifying depending on your point of view) of the Liberal “brand,” this was the one area where a greater say from the party’s proletariat was called for. But here, the board chose not to consult, and to keep the process and decision to themselves, as was their entitlement.

And they did so with the inclusion of the famous “conditions,” two of which many believed were directed at excluding, specifically, the candidacy of one individual, Bob Rae: those of non-complicity with the NDP and agreement not to seek the permanent leadership.

At the time, when these two decisions were coinciding, Rae implored the party, saying that if he was to accept the interim leadership under the proposed conditions, he would need time to rebuild the party and basically make it leader-worthy. According to one report at the time, “Rae laid down a condition of his own. He said he’s only interested in being interim leader if the vote for permanent leader is put off for 18 to 24 months.”

And so Bob Rae became interim leader and the leadership was put off for gee — 22 months from the decision and 18 from when the leadership would have been. But circumstances changed. Jack Layton’s passing resulted in a leadership race of its own and increased focus on the NDP. People said the leadership was too far away. Bob Rae did such a superb job that the party brass were under intense pressure to change the process again. Media focus increased and the party became increasingly fragile and divided. And, then finally, someone decided for once to do the right thing and stick with the program.

Here another earworm invades. This time it’s Alanis. Ironic, isn’t it?

Sheila Gervais is former national director of the Liberal Party of Canada. She blogs at quixoterules.blogspot.com.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

 

"Within a stone's throw of it. "

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."

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”

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".

"Spare your breath to cool your porridge." II

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"

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.

---

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

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.       

Water Under the Bridge

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.