"In the night all cats are gray."

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.

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

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.

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

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.

"I find my familiarity with thee has bred contempt."

Why does the Liberal Party repeatedly continue to dis its atrophying membership, paying lip service to its relevance and importance through examination of "change" and "renewal" while at the same time solidifying control by the (interim) (unelected) Leader, the caucus and unelected officials? It's a contemptuous attitude - contemptuous of the membership surely, but contemptuous of democratic principles more certainly.

First (or more correctly, recently first) was the selection of a "permanent" leader without membership involvement whatsoever, not even a consultation. And, it should be noted this selection was made by caucus members, themselves with little (or none, in the case of Senators) recent connection themselves to the membership either - most having either been "protected" from their membership given their status as incumbents in the last election, or appointed (by whom? not by the membership surely).

Next came the un-appointment (disappointment?) of the National Director and appointment of the new one by the IUEL when the Constitution clearly states that this is the role of the National Executive as the representatives of all members.

Amazingly, these acts were followed by the acclamation of 93% of the delegates to the upcoming "Leadership" Convention and another dissing of the membership - denied, in 278 out of 308 ridings their right to express their views on the selection of Leader.

While this is going on the Party enters its examination phase, looking at cultural and Constitutional change related to Leadership selection; the Party's structure; its Commissions; and, note this for later: "The development of a clear process and tools for connecting grassroots policy development to all levels of the party." It does not specifically examine overall membership rights and responsibilities, nor, in this context, the nomination process.

And, while that is going on the (unelected) Party leadership announces a new/old regime to protect incumbents. Tories try to do the same and this time the MSM (in addition to Quixotique!) wades in. Some argue that Parties are private organizations and the electorate don't notice these things or care. But others know that, as did Sancho Panza, you are known by the company you keep ("Tell me thy company, and I will tell thee what thou art." ). The Tories, surprisingly given their hammer-hold, top down, command-and-control propensities, bent a bit under the weight of democratic principle (or populism) and agreed that their membership will get some sort of say. The Liberal Party? Silent. Meanwhile, the MSM (voice of the electorate?) continue to call the parties on this antiquated, undemocratic practice as suggest that they might better be reigned in by public regulation through the form of some kind of registration. Hear! Hear! Elections Canada take note: somebody trusts you.

And, now, to cap it all off, the very body that is examining "the development of a clear process and tools for connecting grassroots policy development to all levels of the party," informs us that we're just a tad too untrustworthy and indiscreet to participate in the development of the Party platform. We don't understand the realities of campaigning and governing doncha know. We can have our little say, at great personal expense, but we're not to expect much, it's just not our responsibility to decide nor let the electorate know what we stand for:

"People are free to debate and voice their views and that's the way it should be and you deal with that. Whether or not a certain debate will be incorporated into the platform, or have influence on the platform is not for me to decide, it's the leader's responsibility"

So, why bother having a convention at all I say? Why bother having a convention when there's only one candidate interested in being President of the darn thing anyway? Why bother having a convention when virtually all of the delegates are unelected and therefore not arriving at convention with any sort of delegated mandate from anybody anyway? Why bother having a convention where the main question has already been decided and any others, whether policy- or change-oriented will simply be ignored?

Why bother period.

Building castles in the air...

For those of you as familiar as Quixotique with Cervantes' most famous passages, you will understand why I do not, yet, and hope to never have to, provide the complete, relevant quotation today. But this proverbial phrase which has come to describe something that is no more than illusory, or a futile flight of fancy, no matter what effort spent in building it, is quite apt in describing reform and renewal efforts in the Liberal Party, certainly over the last 30 years.

This weekend, those of us who are members will begin discussions on yet another reform effort through En Famille, (certainly one of the better efforts at soliciting grassroots participation that the Party has seen, so regardless of your motivation or wariness, you should be encouraged to participate), however this will be a discussion with the Change Commission, which will feed to the Renewal Committee, who will develop recommended constitutional amendments to the National Executive who can (will) amend, reject or put forward amendments/proposals to the Convention. Dizzy yet?

You will be asked (by the Renewal Committee, not the Change Commission, which has a similar but disparate set of parameters to examine) to review certain processes in light of changes made at the 2006 Convention and to better help the party implement them - I guess you can't disagree - just help implement . Isn't that what we elected you to do? Isn't that what we trusted staff you hired to do?

That aside, were the "reforms" enacted in 2006 as "real" as they could have been? History (look down, look waaay down) in our Party shows us that the exact time to make reforms is NOT when we are making major leadership or other significant changes. Prospective "leaders" are too shy, or too fearful of participating in motivating and participating in changes that might anger or alienate groups (read delegates) that they will need on one day, and then forever forward during their terms, regardless of their views of democratic principles and an understanding of the nature of "party".

Further, but sooo related, the interests that we have allowed to become vested in our governing documents, but more importantly in our psyche, will never give up those interests in the greater interests of democracy. But for the youth wing of the party, we would have achieved some form of OMOV in 2006. The resolution was sunk by under 20 votes - but more importantly, it was sunk by the whipping of the youth vote; less than 15% of eligible delegates voted on that resolution in the Constitutional session. Quixotique can't help but wonder, if this is yet another example of "teach your children well".

There were also calls and recommendations (coming again to a theatre near you) to examine the federated nature of our party and the vested interests represented by the Commissions; all in Quixotique's humble opinon, massive impediments to the party's ability to connect to the bottom of it's pyramid; to truly be representative. I bet you think I refer to the membership of the party (and of course I do), but I am really referring to the electorate.

So reform; renewal; change; growth - whatever. Been there, done that; seen that movie (read that classic) before.

How so? What follows is a very lengthy (and admitedly biased) discussion of previous reforms endeavours in our party. If you can get through all of that (and I won't hold you to it), let me know if you think I am the only one looking at yet another renewal and reform process with the proverbial grain of salt...

Ready?

A wealth of information has been produced on the topic of party reform in Canada. A series of articles, news stories and commentary from the early 1980s consistently through to the present bemoan the Liberal Party’s internal disorganization. There have been Liberal Party internal reform discussion papers and proposed constitutional amendments and three special “constitutional conventions” between 1981 and 1992. Party reform has also been advocated in academic treatises too numerous to count, in the four-volume Royal Commission examination into Electoral Reform and Party Financing, in a number of statutory reports to Parliament by Canada’s Chief Electoral Officer, and through several bills amending the Canada Elections Act since 1980.

Despite all of this, the body politic that is the Liberal Party of Canada has turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to virtually all of it, and paid lip service to the rest.

It may be useful, at this juncture, to review “recent” history of reform and reform initiatives in the Liberal Party of Canada. This history, related to the power or force of individual membership begins in 1919 with the “election” of Mackenzie King as a leader selected by delegated convention, as opposed to parliamentary caucus. And, at a 1966 Policy Conference, the Liberals amended their Constitution to include a resolution establishing a process for a future Leadership Convention – a review of current leadership (more on this in other posts). In support of this resolution, a delegate at the conference argued, “it is very easy for a Party to have democracy when the Party is out of office. The real test of democracy in the Party is when the Party is in office.”

While the Liberals were the first party to adopt such a measure, the first action on this front began with the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. In 1966, propelled by a desire to remove John Diefenbaker as Leader, the party instituted a review of the leadership by party members for the first time. Following that, as Andrew Coyne reminisces in a 2002 column, “[t]he ensuing years could be said to be the nearest thing to a golden age of party democracy. The conventions that chose Pierre Trudeau in 1968 and Joe Clark in 1976 were relatively open, unpredictable affairs; in both, the winner was the “outsider”, rather than the candidate of the party establishment. Yet both were clean races, at least by present day standards.”

In the Liberal Party, perhaps because of the lengthy tenure of Prime Minister Trudeau, perhaps because of the “champing-at-the-bit” ambitions of others, the next seminal reform-oriented event occurred at the 1982 National Convention, held at the Chateau Laurier in Ottawa. At that Convention, speaker after speaker - primarily from the youth wing of the party and primarily those employed on Parliament Hill – railed about the undue influence of caucus members and the Party elite in the affairs of the Party and government. According to journalist and author Susan Delacourt, this was Paul Martin Jr.’s coming out party. A young cabinet minister at the time, Lloyd Axworthy, was shouted down as he attempted to address a policy resolution at the mic. The key results of the Convention were twofold: the election of former MP and cabinet minister, Iona Campanolo, as the first (and only until, briefly, 2006-07) female President of the Party and the institution of the “Reform Commission.”

As the Reform Commission travelled coast-to-coast, examining the internal ails of the party, for three years or so, and before the Commission could report, two other, but just as seminal events occurred: the PC leadership in 1983 and that of the Liberal Party in 1984. Those who pour through newspaper archives – and those who simply lived it – will recall a deluge of stories about “drunks from the mission pouring off buses” and dead people showing up to vote at delegate selection meetings across the country. To paraphrase Andrew Coyne, the rot had set in.

The report of the Liberal Party’s Reform Commission at its special convention held in 1985 attempted to address, not only its mandated commission, but new exigencies imposed during this period related to the abuses reported in the intervening media stories.

The influence of “party elites” was removed from the governing document, the Party’s constitution. Unelected members of the Party’s National Executive were removed as “automatic” or ex-officio delegates to future conventions. The structure of the Party’s Executive was altered, discussion was held about the policy process, about national membership, in addition to many other related matters, but few truly substantive changes were made.

Many of the substantive changes that were made were, unfortunately, later undone. This process would repeat itself.

In 1987, as we approached an expected general election in 1988, concern set in. The need for, and pressure to find, candidates of high calibre, those who could present an alternate government to the electorate through their sheer impressiveness was great. Efforts to recruit such candidates across the country and had been quite successful, but in many instances the much sought after positive media coverage about the quality of the team being advanced was vastly overshadowed by the stories of huge meetings and shenanigans of the highest order in the effort for them to win their nominations. “Special interests” were beginning to understand the power of mass recruitment and instant membership in ensuring the selection of candidates that met their own, rather than the Party’s policy goals. Well organized “single issue” candidates such as Tom Wappel, who snatched the nomination from high profile social advocate Patrick Johnston (who beyond being recruited, had been groomed for candidacy) flattened the hopes of candidates like Johnston and the party alike. Tom Wappel would go on to contest the Party’s leadership barely a year later.

By 1989, following another electoral defeat and pressure from party militants and the media, the Party had once again determined that action was required to bolster the health of the party, and another special Constitutional Convention was called for that fall. High on the agenda for examination was the entire concept of membership in, and the nature of, the Federation that is the Liberal Party of Canada. John Turner’s resignation as Leader of the Party intervened and eventually the Constitutional Convention was postponed and held together with the Leadership Convention that elected Jean Chrétien in June of 1990.

As often happens with “intervening events”, with the attention of the Party organization, the public and the media on leadership and leadership processes, the focus for fixing the Party’s Constitution shifted to immediate concerns and once again, vested interest. In the lead-up process the Party held six “Leadership Forums” across the country, where workshops and debates amongst the leadership contenders were held on both policy and “Party issues”. Even at that time, the Party’s Forum Primer on party issues recognized the problems the party was facing:

“Hotly contested nomination meetings in recent years have, in many parts of the country, become controversial and often embarrassing for the Party. The current practise of the individual who is most able to sign up new members in a short period of time, generally winning a nomination, is fraught with problems. Is it truly democratic for large numbers of people to join a party only for one very specific purpose? Should more emphasis be placed on the member who has a proven commitment to the party? In a perfect world, a candidate would be chosen on the basis of ideas, ideology, societal representativeness, and organization; not purely organization.”

And yet, the most significant amendments adopted at the Constitutional Convention related to re-instating the ex-officio delegate status of unelected executive members such as the Financial Management Committee, and the creation of and provision of delegates to a new Aboriginal Commission. Both of these sets of amendments were in fact retroactive. In other words, the Constitution which did not recognize these individuals as delegates to the Convention when the convention commenced, did recognize them by the time they were ready to cast their Leadership ballots.

The first convention following the Jean Chrétien’s election as Leader was set for the winter of 1992. Another election was expected at any time. While complaints about the process which selected him as Leader and pleas for the Party to complete its unfinished business were important, the Leader, mindful of the one process that could impact his tenure the most, the nomination of candidates, created a third task force in 10 years to examine the Party’s Constitution. The task force was to make proposals to another Constitutional Convention to be, again, held in concert with the Biennial. From both a policy, and an organizational perspective, the convention was shaping up to be a battle between vested and special interests.

With over 100 proposed amendments to virtually every article of the Constitution, and an entire day devoted to its discussion, while the Party did institute a national “registry” of members (a compromise solution to a long sought after national membership with standard requirements across the country) it failed to make significant changes to the nomination process. Instead of entrenching the principles under which candidates would fairly be nominated, the party chose to move virtually the entire setting of parameters for, and administration of nominations from the constitution to “rules” which would be developed under the auspices of National and Provincial/Territorial Campaign committees headed by individuals appointed by the Leader. Some read this move as giving a Leader the flexibility required to respond to rapidly changing political circumstances. Others viewed it as a retreat from democracy in the Party and the protection of an ability to manipulate processes to suit circumstances. Principle gave way to consideration:

Out of 9 in the Party’s 2004 Constitution provisions to guide the Campaign Committee in carrying out its responsibilities, only one (provisions relating to financial limits for expenditures by candidates) could only be viewed as a requirement. The others can only be interpreted as guidelines, given the language used: to consider the establishment of cut-off dates, appropriate to the provincial or territorial organization, to consider making membership lists available, to consider holding all-candidates’ debates, to consider gender equity and minority representation.

Check out the 2006 version. Let Quixotique know what you think. If you can’t do that, then, well, I’d better see you over at En Famille.