Danielle Takacs: Galloping Around the Golden Horseshoe

Winning Back the Hearts and Minds

2009-10-30T01:11:00.022-04:00

Here are the results of the last several federal elections (click on the images for better resolution) across the Canadian electorate from two different lenses (wouldn't it be nice if polls always told us how many respondents actually planned to vote):

I'm hopeful that with Peter Donolo, one of the architects of the last Liberal revival, now put in charge of Michael Ignatieff's office, that a cold hard examination will take place of why the party has lost support over the years, where it went, and just how it can be earned it back, region by region, group by group.

I know that we can't over glamourize the "golden years", but Liberals would be foolish not to take lessons from just how under Jean Chretien they went from even trailing the NDP in the polls at one point to winning a landslide victory. With a focused, disciplined communication strategy based both on the failings of the government and their own concrete plans for the future (and yes a Thinkers Conference in Quebec) Liberals overcame the negative press and slowly built back up their support. By the time the election came Canadians knew what Liberals stood for and Liberals had a clear narrative for the campaign that appealed to a wide section of voters. They started out the campaign behind the governing party, but trounced everyone in the end.

That said, Liberals should recognize that the political climate differs in many fundamental ways now than then. There was no divided right, the PM will be in his 4th campaign vs. Ignatieff's 1st, the global economic crisis has led some voters cut the government slack over the deficit, the unprecedented government self-promotion ad buy, Chretien had 3 years to plan while Ignatieff may only have 5 more months, amongst other factors. Even so, the basic communications strategy from then can be applied to now to reverse the trends in the Liberals' favour.

But the message is just one part of the puzzle, who it is primarily directed to is another. Liberals would be wise to make a concerted effort to rebuild the winning voting coalition of 1993 (with some additions and subtractions here and there).

Many pundits have talked about the need for Liberals to win back women, minorities, and so called "mainstream Canadians" who have drifted off to other parties. This is definitely true, but I do hope it's not lost that it hasn't just been voters leaving to other parties that has cost Liberals support, but also the fact that many of the old supporters have stayed home in droves. A 12% drop in voter turnout since 1993 is nothing to scoff at - there were actually fewer total # of votes cast in 2008 than in 1993 despite the Canadian population growing by over 5.5 million since then. This represents a huge swath of voters that should not be given up on.

The Liberals' 1993 win was not only the best popular vote score the Liberals have received since 1980, but also the last time the winning party in a Canadian election received a larger share of the vote than there were non-voters. Stephen Harper wants to depress voter turnout further. He wants to turn off as many people as possible with relentless negatively and attempts to portray himself as being no different than were the Liberals. If he wins an election with only 20% of registered voters, that's fine by him.

But if Canadians who didn't vote in the last election think the Liberals are not all that different from the government then they'll be staying home again. They need to be convinced their vote would actually make a difference and that Liberals would truly represent their ideals. They need to hear concrete ideas on how the culture in Ottawa that Conservatives poisoned will be really changed for the good.

If Liberals can present themselves as a party unafraid of bold leadership on the issues of the day, and that will provide good honest government, this will provide an excellent contrast with Harper's way of governing.

It's clear that work has already begun to rebuild the winning coalition, but there is much more to do. Many Liberals have put forward ideas/advice in the past (including myself), some of which has already begun to be implemented, and some more practical than others, but no one should be under no illusions just how much work needs to be done both within the party and to broaden its appeal with the general public.

There are many months now to lay the groundwork for a narrative both about the party and for the next election and there will be an excellent chance to showcase the Liberal message and ideas at the Thinker's Conference in Montreal in March. It's going to take some major heavy lifting from the highest to the lowest levels of the party, but Liberals been in worse straights before and came out the other side victorious. I know they can do it again.

Standing Out from the Crowd

2009-10-16T01:46:00.009-04:00

The Conservatives' politicization of the distribution of infrastructure funds and government websites is a story that is hitting them hard on one of their biggest weaknesses. But it is not yet a story that is highlighting why the public should trust Liberals to be better. While Canadians across the board will cringe at images like these, many will unfortunately think "a pox on all their houses, I can't trust any of them." Liberals need to reach these people and convince them that they are the only party that will truly put a stop to the nonsense in Ottawa and restore faith in government again. And in fact the Liberals have put the ideas out there to do just that.

Liberals proposed expanding the Gas Tax Transfer program to distribute infrastructure funds. This would have allowed the stimulus funds to be distributed faster and under an already established system of audit, administration and evaluation. Instead, the infrastructure program was completely politicized and the money is distributed with virtually no oversight by comparison.

Conservatives have spent tens of millions on partisan government advertising, while the Liberals have proposed to end the practice by having an independent advisory committee vet all ads.

Conservatives want to spend money recklessly with no one to watch over them, while the Liberals would strengthen the Parliamentary Budget Office's watchdog ability by making it independent.

But the media stories about the Conservative cheque fiasco don't mention any of the Liberal proposals. In fact some lazy reporting has claimed Liberals did the exact same thing (not true) or haven't proposed how they'd do different (also not true). That needs to be changed.

Every time Liberals are hammering the Conservatives for inaction, mismanagement or excessive partisanship they need to also get the message out of what they'd do different.

When they are talking Conservative stonewalling investigations and appalling secrecy, they can highlight the pledge to improve access to information laws.

When they are talking about Conservatives abandoning Canadians abroad they can mention how Liberals have promised to pass legislation ensuring that what happened to Suaad Mohamud would never happen to another Canadian and that, unlike the Conservatives, Liberals don't support having a Canadian child solider in Guantanamo Bay.

When Liberals are criticizing the Conservatives on the environment they should point to the party's plans on clean energy and a cap and trade system with hard caps. How real leadership would benefit Canadians economically and Conservative inaction costs us.

You get the point. But it would great to see in the future any article talking about the latest Conservative scandal having at least a couple lines saying "The Liberals have said if they are elected to government they would....". The Liberals put the ideas out there in many cases, but the bulkk of the media aren't biting. That isn't necessarily the Liberals' fault, but they need to do what they can to address this perhaps by talking up their own proposals more forcefully in press conferences, speeches, or press releases, alongside the sharp critiques of the Conservatives.

Now there are many parts of the next platform that the party doesn't want to reveal before a campaign and that's perfectly understandable (and I agree with that), but in those cases where Liberals slam Conservatives for something and want their counter-proposal(s) kept under wraps, even just a quick sound bite from Michael Ignatieff saying something along the lines of "rest assured, this would never be allowed to happen under our watch!" is worth a lot and would find its way into the media coverage.

When Liberals are just critical it might help to shake votes loose from the Conservatives, but not necessarily driving them back to the Liberals. Pure negativity also risks feeding the narratives spread about the Liberals being a party that opposes, but that has no ideas or identity of its own to distinguish itself from the government.

I know it's tough to get the media and public to pay attention to your ideas when you are in opposition, but Liberals succeeded with this before in the early 90s and I know the party can again.

Government of Canada Quietly Changes Logo

2009-10-14T01:39:00.012-04:00

Government of Canada Quietly Changes Logo

OTTAWA - Last night every Canadian government website underwent a small, but quite momentous change. The logo of the Government of Canada appears to have been officially changed in a way that places the imprint of the governing party on it like never before. The "C" in the Canada logo has been altered to be virtually identical to the logo of the Conservative Party of Canada (see above).

The Prime Minister's press secretary Dimitri Soudas tried to play down the significance of the logo change, "It's really just a natural progression for the logo of the Government of Canada, it's only a change of one letter," he said.

Soudas further noted why he felt that the recent uproar about Conservative MP Gerald Keddy presenting a ceremonial Government cheque with the Conservative Party logo on it was overblown. He explained it was simply a case of Keddy mistakenly distributing cheques in this format before the new government logo was officially unveiled. Soudas indicated that, from this point forward, all ceremonial cheques used for government announcements and signing ceremonies will have just the C (that looks identical to the Conservative logo) from the new government logo imprinted on them. "It's just a short-form of the new logo of the Government of Canada so I don't see why anyone would have any problem with that," he said.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney was less guarded in his explanation of the logo change, "Real Canadians are all Conservatives, so this change in logo just reflects that reality," he said.

The change in logo has the political opposition parties fuming. Gerard Kennedy, Liberal Critic for Infrastructure, Cities and Communities, didn't mince words. "This is the most flagrant example of crass partisanship I've seen in my political career. This just goes to prove what we have been saying all along, that the Conservative Party only cares about serving their own interests, not those of Canadians. They can't help but politicize absolutely everything they do," he said

This may only be the beginning of what might be called the "re-branding" of the Government of Canada. Rumours have begun to swirl around Parliament Hill that the Government may soon place the $1 bill back into circulation with a surprising new twist. There's speculation that the new $1 bills would have a picture of Stephen Harper at a piano on them instead of the picture of the Queen that was on the bills when they were last in circulation.

Conservative strategists were buoyed by the positive reception the Prime Minister received for his performance of a classic Beatles tune at the NAC gala recently and it is thought they want to capitalize on this in a major way. Mr. Soudas would not confirm or deny the rumours, but did say that, were the $1 bill ever to go back into circulation, the Government would ensure it came back "in style."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCLAIMER: The story above is (of course) NOT real (in case the labels of this post weren't already a give away).

I think we can all agree that no governing party in their right minds would ever tie their party logo to the work of the Government of Canada. That would be outrageous. Right Conservatives ??

Putting Policy Centre Stage and the Thinkers Conference

2009-10-09T14:56:00.008-04:00

Plans are apparently in the works apparently for the Liberals to hold a "thinkers conference" in January modeled on the famous "Kingston conference" that Pearson organized in 1960 and that set the direction of Liberal party policy for many years to come. Obviously this conference will operate much differently than the one almost 50 years ago, but the Liberals stand at a crossroads today similar to then.

Even as a big policy person myself, I don't believe that policies or platforms actually win elections, but narratives do. Whoever has the best story to tell about why they deserve the reins of government and why the other parties don't stands the best chance of coming out on top as long as long as the public buys the narrative.

And bad narratives that you can't shake can certainly lose you elections. Today there seem to be 3 related narratives that are a big drag on our support levels even though to varying degrees they aren't actually true:

1) The Liberals aren't proposing any policy and yet want to be seen as a government in waiting
2) The Liberals don't sound like they'd govern significantly differently from the Conservatives
3) The Liberals don't stand for anything and don't really know what they are about.

Now Michael Ignatieff has been out there proposing policy in broad strokes, and in ads, speeches and Question Period has been saying where the Conservatives have gone wrong and how the Liberals would be different. I understand he's going to give a speech this Tuesday that will give more details on his plans for the environment. These are all good steps. But they haven't been enough to reach the people we need to win over. I've met many non-partisans who believe these three negative narratives in spite of the reality. We need to reach them better.

A "Kingston for our age" as Michael Ignatieff once described it represents an excellent opportunity to reverse the narratives bringing us down and show to the country that unlike Stephen Harper we want to bring the best minds and ideas together to address the big issues of our time. That you can't trust Stephen Harper with our county's future, but you can trust us.

It's not a guaranteed homerun by any means. There needs to still be sufficient Liberal party grassroots input into the conference as there does expert opinions or it could end up being portrayed as an elitist affair. And it can't just be a bunch of "position papers" or "think tank sessions" being presented and everyone goes home with no ideas actually being decided upon or it could be seen as just talking around in circles. Those sessions were worthwhile at the convention, but people will be expecting a lot more from something modeled on the Kingston conference.

When it's over the media and the public should know our overall narrative of what we are about and be able to say it in 10 words or less. And they should know some very specific things we'd do in government. They don't need to know where we stand on every issue, we don't have to give away the whole platform, but put enough on the table that no one can credibly say anymore that we don't have a plan for government or that we wouldn't govern very different from Harper. A similar conference helped Chretien and the Liberals come back from opposition in the early 90's, it can help us now.

If we are worried about ideas being torn to shreds by Conservatives outside a campaign, something that doesn't withstand scrutiny outside the writ could just as easily be slammed during the campaign. There are many directions we can take that the Conservatives won't be able to criticize (and wouldn't adopt either) and that the public (particularly those that have lost faith in all Ottawa politicians) would favour. We shouldn't be afraid to put them forward sooner rather than later.

Waiting till the campaign for any real policy specifics risks the negative narratives feeding a downward cycle that with each drop becomes harder to get out of. We can easily gain back any support we've lost now and it starts with being a party that doesn't just oppose, but also proposes. And getting in that pattern needn't wait till January either, it can start in the weeks ahead right in the House.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely believe we can win back government in the next campaign, but Canadians aren't going to be willing to give it to us until they know and understand why we want it and what we'd do with it. Between now and March our main goal should be to ensure they do.

Facts to Brighten Your Day and the Road Ahead

2009-10-06T12:11:00.003-04:00

So it seems that with the election speculation out of the way, many in the media have moved on to the next favourite past time which is obsessing about the latest polls. Since these stories are already getting a bit repetitive, here are some facts it would be nice to see some reporters bear in mind that might just add a little more context to those Liberal "doom and gloom" /"Harper can't be stopped" themes that are being peddled:

1) Liberals fall 2009 meet Conservatives circa fall 2005: The Conservatives started the 2005/06 election campaign farther behind the Liberals in the polls than the Liberals are behind the Conservatives now. NANOS/SES had them down by 15 points (41%-26%) 11 days into the campaign and the Conservatives were still down 10 points even 25 days into the campaign. Remember Harper and Co. did force a Christmas election "no one wanted". Well we know how that campaign turned out and NANOS was by far the most accurate in predicting the final result.

2) Voters are up for grabs right up till E-day: In the last election campaign the Liberals bounced between 21% support to 31% support and Conservatives bounced between 31% to 42%. The Conservatives even led 40% to 21% at one point, only to have the gap narrow to 34%-31% within just one week of E-day (only to see the Conservative lead widen after that infamous CTV interview). So it's safe to say what happens in a campaign influences public support a lot more than anything in between.

3) Massive leads have collapsed in past campaigns: Just ask Paul Martin or David Peterson (who didn't even come away with his own seat in the 1990 Ontario election that was supposed to give him another majority). Even Kim Campbell's PCs started out the 1993 campaign slightly in front of the Liberals (ending with 14% and 2 seats) and John Turner's Liberals led Mulroney's Tories when the 1984 campaign began (and the PCs ended up with 50% of the national vote). Which is why I don't put much value in non-writ polls (or ones any more than a couple weeks before E-day) to begin with.

4) Polling trends still have Liberals gaining seats and everyone else losing them: If you must listen to current polls, then even as the media tell us the Liberals are in deep trouble (and admittedly the Liberals have had a rough couple weeks) if you look at seat projection sites (that don't just rely on one poll), the trend still indicates that the Liberals are likely to win around 100 seats. Every other party is on pace to lose seats.

5) Ontario traditionally doesn't look too fondly upon a party that's dead in Quebec: That isn't registering now, but if E-day is nearing and the Conservatives are looking to lose all (or almost all) their Quebec seats, we will very likely see a shift away from them in Ontario.

6) Stephen Harper's career is still on pace to end with the next campaign: Harper's career depends on winning a majority in the next election and not a single poll since January has shown the Conservatives with the numbers that would actually translate into one (again see 308's projections). Remember Harper has to make up for the collapse of the NDP vote (which always helped the Cons more than anyone) and his horrible numbers in Quebec. If Stephen Harper thought he could win a majority, he'd have forced an election by now. He hasn't and it looks like he won't be. As the media talk about how "Conservative fortunes are on the rise" the Cons are still overall on pace to lose seats. Then we'll see who has the "leadership woes".

7) The NDP are down in the dumps and are truly horrified of facing the voters: As their finances, support levels, and party morale keep sinking, their leader has to explain to his supporters why he has "formed a coalition with Stephen Harper" and given Harper a "de facto majority" (Jack's words, not mine), while endorsing him as our representative at the most important climate change conference ever in Copenhagen in December. Increased NDP support in elections has helped elect a fair number of Conservative MPs as they came up the middle. As the NDP are down to their lowest support levels in many years, it seems we won’t have to worry as much about that next time.

8) Harper can't run from his record forever: Stephen Harper promised us no recession and no deficit and we have had the worst of both. He'll have to finally explain himself about that and so much more come campaign time. I'll give him full credit for his Beatles performance, but that will be ancient history once the writ drops and we will be back to the real issues he'll have to answer for. He won't have a piano to save him at the debates.

9) The Liberals will be looking more and more like an alternative government: Now that we no longer vote with the government, we can oppose their policies in House while simultaneously proposing alternatives or even formal amendments to confidence measures. The NDP would have to oppose popular Liberal alternative proposals and have to explain themselves later. The extremely lazy and false argument that "there's no meaningful differences between Liberals and Conservatives" will fade away with each passing example.

10) Liberals remain in excellent organizational shape for the campaign: The Liberals will go into the next campaign with considerably more money in the bank than last time (to spend $24 million instead of approx. $14.5 million), three times as many members (and likely more), more centralized/streamlined organization, better on the ground operation, excellent voter tracker software we never had before, many new star candidates, and as a party more united (right across the country despite some reporters' spin) than we have been in recent memory.

So some can keep up with their doom and gloom all they want, but it doesn't change these facts that leave Liberals with lots of reasons to hold our heads high. If Stephen Harper wants to believe the Liberals are finished like some (though far from all, to be fair) reporters are spinning, let him, Steve will be in for a surprise when the campaign gets underway.

So where does this leave us?
Are the Liberals experiencing a bit of a downturn lately? Do they still have some problems to deal with? Yes and yes. But as I've said before EVERYTHING must be kept in perspective.

Doesn't mean we should completely ignore the media, put our heads in the sand, and pretend that getting back into power will be easy or that the government will simply defeat itself. But stories and polls like those of the past week can be a blessing in that it reminds us that we must always have our A-game on and that we must act as if we are behind and needing to play catch up (even if we get ahead). We must always have in mind how we are best suited to win the next campaign and keep our eyes focused on gaining back supporters from the Conservatives..

We can't afford to let lazy spin win. We need to do a better job of conveying the strength of our party and our ideas and how we would govern much differently than Stephen Harper. We need to do a better job of reaching out to those middle of the road Canadians who have lost faith in our federal politicians and who opt to stay home at election time. We need to make sure all our messages resonate well outside the Ottawa beltway. We need to do a better job of winning over Western and rural Canadians who abandoned our party long ago.

That work is now well under way and I know it will continue in the months ahead, but it can't for a second be let up.

We now have lots of time it would seem to organize for the next campaign and promote our ideas, party and leader. And when the campaign comes, Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal team will present a strong positive vision for Canada that will put Stephen Harper's pettiness and lack of vision and ideas to shame.

It will be the campaign who will decide who wins.

We may start out from behind but I know we have what it takes to win the hearts and minds of Canadians and give them the government and leadership they deserve.

A Study in Contrasts

2009-09-20T13:16:00.010-04:00

Liberals: Positive hopeful ads portraying a vision for Canada's future
Vs.
Conservatives: Negative deceptive ads ranting about a coalition that has been ruled out (as they ally with those same parties themselves) and accusations of Liberals wanting to raise taxes as they raise them themselves.
NDP: Prefers to keep the later in government in return for what their own supporters and MPs call "paltry" and "crumbs". They certainly have a lot of explaining to do.

UPDATE: Speaking of ads and contrasts, Steve calls attention to another:

The Conservative government is spending more than five times as many taxpayer dollars on promoting its economic plan as it is on raising public awareness about the flu pandemic.

The TV spots are just the latest $4-million salvo in a $34-million media blitz trumpeting the Conservative's recession-fighting budget.

Meanwhile, with public health officials fretting over an onrushing fall flu season, the spread of the H1N1 virus and widespread public apathy about the need for vaccination, no television ads are in the works to combat swine flu.

Health Canada's home web page, however, does include a prominent link to the Conservative economic action plan website (www.actionplan.gc.ca).

Congratulations Eric Hoskins!

2009-09-17T23:13:00.006-04:00

Queen's Park and St. Paul's are lucky to have him! Eric's final share of the vote at 47.6% stands at even better than Michael Bryant's from 2007 when Dalton McGuinty was returned to office with a larger majority. I understand some pundits argued that this was a referendum on the HST (which in combination with the off-setting PST rebates and income tax cuts actually leaves more money in the pockets of 90% of Ontarians) and was supposed to be an omen for the federal Liberals . Well I have to say I'm now inclined to agree with their analysis and I'd hope these same pundits would too! ;)

Maybe some of those skeptics out there can finally come to terms with the idea that Ontarians actually do happen to appreciate McGuinty's strong leadership on the environment and the economy. Either way, regardless of how you feel about the Ontario Liberal Government, I think we can all agree that Eric Hoskins will make a fabulous MPP for St. Paul's!

Are Reforms You Call "Paltry" Really Worth the Price?

2009-09-16T15:13:00.013-04:00

So apparently the NDP have decided to prop up Stephen Harper till March (as the EI reforms go through committee, 2nd, and 3rd readings) SOLELY in return to what NDP MP Pat Martin flatly calls “paltry improvements to EI.” Well the NDP seem to have quite a sense of priorities because by propping up Harper till March (when he pulls the plug himself and perhaps before these EI reforms even receive royal assent) that means:
- There will be NO MORE significant enhancements to benefits or fixing regional disparities for the hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers NOT covered by the Conservative reforms (the reforms are said to affect at best 60,000 people a year) (so much for helping the little guy)
- Canada will be sending Harper the obstructionist to the most important climate change negotiations in history this December who will go with the goal of torpedoing the whole thing (so much for the environment)
- Canadian citizens will continue to languish in foreign prisons with no help from their government (so much for human rights)
- Government stimulus funds will continue to go predominantly to Conservative held ridings that actually have lower relative unemployment rates (so much for fairness)
- Harper will bring in ever more right-wing legislation knowing you will pass whatever he wants until the EI reforms are passed into law as you are promising (so much for principles)
- Harper gets an election at his preferred time and you will be giving him what you in your own words called a "de facto majority" (so much for electoral strategy)
- Harper will give you no credit for these EI reforms he was already going to do, he will throw in some mockery and more humiliations here and there and you will have no real accomplishments to go to the electorate with in March (so much for pride)

And that's just a short list and it's all so Tom Mulcair can hold his seat a little longer and Jack Layton can hold the NDP leadership a little longer.

When the two of them lose them both as a result of the election Harper triggers post-Olympics, I somehow doubt their supporters will look back on it and think it was all worthwhile. Even though I think the Liberals still stand a good chance of winning then too, it will be after more damage was done to our reputation and finances that will have to be repaired thanks to NDP short-sightedness.

Now these EI reforms that Pat Martin calls paltry are worthwhile, but I'm sure they could have been applied retroactively after an election and are far from all the reforms that should be made or even that the NDP said must be made. And it should have been obvious to the NDP that leaves Harper in office for the next 6 months means NO MORE "results for people" beyond what their own MP said was paltry while having all the negative consequences above and more.

But I guess protecting Jack and Tom matters more. That's really some leadership the NDP have isn't it?

The irony is that by extending the government till March and giving us an election on Harper's terms, IF Harper actually won I wonder if the NDP would even survive to fight the election after that? First chance Harper would get post-election he will cut public financing of political parties, which no doubt will be a big thank you to Jack from Steve for the 6 months or so Jack helped HIM survive.

In the meantime, should the NDP grassroots just fall in line with Layton and Mulcair's wishes and not force them to back down, then we must just resign ourselves to six more months of spiraling deficits, more debt, more unemployment (without any new significant assistance), more division, and no leadership or vision at home or abroad. And then we can get an election exactly when Harper wants.

I think we can do better.

Why the NDP Should Go Now

2009-09-14T19:35:00.011-04:00

It seems the NDP is between a rock and a hard place. While I don't feel so much for Jack Layton who helped to put Harper in office in the first place, I do have some sympathy for many NDP supporters who's hearts are often in the right place. So let me just give 10 sincere reasons why it's not in the NDP's interest OR Canada's interest for the NDP to be propping up the Harper government. I hope they are taking these things into consideration before making up their mind.

1) You prop up Harper now, he will pull the plug on himself right after the Olympics with a poll-tested budget with a poison pill or two (elimination of public financing perhaps) anyways. Don't believe me? Harper's strategists let that cat out of the bag months ago, and when Con House Leader Jay Hill's newsletter says: "History has demonstrated that voters are less likely to vote for change and against an incumbent government when feeling patriotic and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics in February will undoubtedly inflame a greater sense of patriotism and excitement across the country", you can rest assured they will do all they can to ensure that's when they get their election. Do you really want to go at the preferred time of the guy you voted against 79 times?

2) A six month reprieve is hardly much new time to fundraise and if opposing the Harper government constantly for almost 4 years didn't bring in new money, you really think propping up this guy your supporters hate will?

3) Playing into Harper's hands increases the risk your party will be killed by the end of public financing. The Liberals have shown they can survive without public financing. Your party clearly can't. If Harper wins the next election, public financing is gone. He'd rather go in March than now. The Liberals could still likely win then too, but why would you help Harper's chances even in the slightest when you know him winning would be the end of your party?

4) You've said yourself again and again, Harper can't be trusted. You will get nothing from him in return for your support he wasn't going to do anyway, because you know even moving an inch towards your real stated priorities would be toxic to his base. If he did give you something that looked like a past NDP priority, it's pretty likely it would die on the order paper when he pulls the plug in March. What would you run on then? "We tried to get results for people, but Stephen Harper fooled us and gave us nothing for the support we gave him." Not really a winner I'd say.

5) Copenhagen. The environment has been a major issue for the NDP for years now. Propping up Stephen Harper means HE will be OUR representative at the most important Climate Change Conference in history this December in Copenhagen. Michael Ignatieff has pledged his support for a REAL cap-and-trade system with absolute caps and a 1990 baseline for emissions targets. He will propose more of what I'm sure the NDP would agree with in the campaign. Isn't it obvious, Ignatieff would bring to Denmark a position that's much more in line with the interests of Canada, not to mention your party as well? The main obstructionists at Bali were Japan, the U.S. and Canada. The U.S. and Japan now take climate change seriously, so that leaves just one hold-out left. One can be enough to significantly undermine whatever consensus based agreement comes out of the conference. Wouldn't the NDP want to see Copenhagen succeed?

6) Putting Your BC Seats at risk. You know all those seats you hold in B.C. where the Conservatives have traditionally finished second? Well just where might Harper's Conservatives' see its greatest boost in support in a post-Olympics election?

7) You throw away your entire message of the last 4 years. So you were the "only party that can truly be counted on to oppose Stephen Harper" and now your message would be "we opposed Stephen Harper until that would actually have consequences and then we folded like a cheap suit". Not sure that would sell. You think after you called Liberals supporting a Conservative budget a "Liberal-Conservative coalition" (which it wasn't) wouldn't make it difficult for you to explain how you haven't just formed a "NDP-Conservative coalition"? Well I don't envy who would ever be left to do the explaining.

8) It doesn't pass the smell test for you to claim now all of a sudden you want to "make Parliament work." You've been voting constantly for new elections for the past 4 years. You think the public has that short of memories or that Stephen Harper won't mock you for it at every turn?

9) The proposed Con EI Reforms are nowhere near what you claimed would be essential needed EI Reforms. As Jeff and Steve note, they do not address eligibility, regional differences or access, and it's very hard to square why would you support these but so vehemently opposed the Conservative budget. You would take EI off the able entirely with a proposal that's nowhere near as comprehensive it should be and doesn't truly help the people you said you were fighting for. That's not the results for people you've been promising. By supporting these reforms WITHOUT asking for SIGNIFICANTLY MORE beyond them, you surrender all credibility on an issue you've fought on for years.

10) You know the only way to get real "results for people" is with a Liberal government. Facts are facts, Jack Layton has more in common with Michael Ignatieff in his views that he does Stephen Harper. You will NOT get a coalition with the Liberals, but at least you could have a government who actually listens to all parties and won't reject a good idea just because it came from a party who Stephen Harper's base calls "crazy socialists". On education, health care, the environment and foreign policy, the NDP can find far more common ground with Liberals than Conservatives.

So you want to actually make a real difference in the lives of Canadians? Let's help give Canadians the government they deserve now. You may worry about losing seats now, but you'd be likely to lose more in March, at least now you can hold on to your credibility and still have a good expectation of influencing policy with a Liberal minority government (something that really boosted your profile the last time).

The NDP deludes itself if they think they'd ever have any clout with a Conservative government.
I and so many others have already stated why it is in Canada's interests to have an election. I know in their heart of hearts, many NDP supporters agree with those same reasons. It's narrow considerations that are getting in the way - the party is broke, Jack Layton wants to keep his leadership position awhile longer, Tom Mulcair wants to keep his seat awhile longer, maybe some others want to save their pensions.

Well that's not good enough for Canadians and I would hope that's not good enough for the grassroots of the NDP either.

Now NDP supporters could flood this post with comments talking about how Liberals were propping up the Conservatives in the past (which I've said before was justifiable) as if that somehow absolves the NDP, but really how does that discussion help us forward?

Let's focus on the future now before any decisions are made: what is in the best long-term interests of your party and your country NDP?

Here's hoping they come to realize that theirs and the country's interests lie with ending Stephen Harper's reign in power now.

UPDATE 10:55 PM: If there was ever any doubt that Harper doesn't intend to embarrass the NDP with each new confidence measure, the actual wording of Friday's Ways and Means Motion should make his intentions pretty clear. You still think you can trust this man NDP? This is your ticket to filling your coffers? To vote for things you've given fiery speeches opposing before? Well get ready, Stephen Harper is just getting started with you.

UPDATE 2 Sept. 15 @ 1:45 PM: "the NDP says an email sent last week to Mr. Giorno by NDP Leader Jack Layton's chief of staff, Anne McGrath, has so far been ignored.
'It is telling. It is their modus operandi,' NDP spokesman Karl Belanger said. 'They don't want to work with other parties and they're trying to minimize the contact with other parties. That's been the case with the Prime Minister and his team since they got into power.' "
But yet seems like you will be supporting them anyway. I'm guessing at this point, Harper could come out and say "I will not speak to the NDP and I will offer them no concessions" and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

The Case for Change

2009-09-14T19:01:00.003-04:00

As Parliament returned today, so does this blog. And as the Harper government returned to Question Period for another round of evasive non-answers, ask yourself do we really need more of this? What does Stephen Harper have to show for his almost four years in office? Deficits, Debt, Division, Deception and Disarray.

Stephen Harper was so obsessed with banishing "surprise Liberal surpluses" and yet now he wants us to cut him slack for ever rising surprise new Conservative deficits.

Stephen Harper boasted about how much debt he was going to pay down, only to pile up more than had been paid in the last decade.

Stephen Harper said when he was first elected that his he would "govern for all Canadians" only to be the worst wedge politician Canada's ever seen as he writes off 60% of the population completely.

Stephen Harper said he would bring open, honest and accountable government, only to give us the opposite.
He promised us no recession and no deficit and we got the worst of both.
He tried to take credit for the lowest unemployment rate in 33 years, only to blame everyone else but him when he faces the highest.
He railed against Liberal patronage and cronyism and felt compelled to top it.
He promised sincere cooperation on EI this past summer and turned the whole thing into a charade.
He accused the opposition of wanting to raise payroll taxes on EI (which we were told would be a "job killer"), only to do so himself.
That kind of deception is tough to top.

And he's left our country in complete disarray with no vision or long-term domestic or foreign policy goals. Can someone point to anything Stephen Harper has planned for even next year? As every other major industrialized country makes targeted investments and restructures to compete in the global economy, Stephen Harper just puts his head in the sand. Does anyone still listen to Canada with Stephen Harper in power? When Stephen Harper says Canada is "back" under his leadership he must mean back of the pack.

It's really quite the legacy to leave behind and that's just the short list!
Well we needn't let him add to it any longer.

Canadians deserve better.

We face the toughest times in a generation with a Parliament Stephen Harper refuses to make work (Overdue EI Reforms still don't make the grade).

If you give Stephen Harper your hand, rest assured he will do everything he can to tie it behind your back (Jack Layton take note...).

Every day more Harper is in office our potential as a country is further squandered as he obsesses over crushing his opponents instead of governing the nation.

There is little positive to be gained by keeping this government in office any longer. We can do better.

We need a government willing to actually govern and make Parliament work rather than one focused entirely on electioneering and trying to come up with the best "plausible" lies about their opposition.

We need a government willing to lead on the world stage, rather than one that's happy to be a bit player.

We need a government with a team of strong capable ministers, rather than a one-man show who forces the rest into hiding.

We need a government that listens to research and science instead of one driven only be ideology.

We need a government willing to stand up for women's and minority rights and the disabled, instead of one that sees them as "left-wing fringe groups".

We need a government that protects Canadians abroad instead of abandons them.

We need a government that believes in our institutions, from public broadcasting, to the courts, to Elections Canada, rather than a government trying to tear them down.

We need a government that knows we must invest more in post-secondary education, instead of one who mocks those with a university education.

We need a government willing to show real environmental leadership at the largest ever Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December, instead of one that would go with the goal of being the biggest holdout.

We need a government that knows that good child care policy is good economic policy, instead of one that is seemingly proud not to have created a single child care space.

We need a government willing to level with Canadians and give straight answers instead of one that stonewalls and deceives at every turn.

We need a government that's fiscally responsible and has a social conscience to replace one that's neither.

We need a government that's focused on building the Canada of the future to take over from one that can't see beyond the next election.

We need a Prime Minister that unites Canadians rather than divides them.

Only Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party can provide this kind of government to Canadians. A Prime Minister and government that provides real vision and leadership we can all be proud of.

A majority of Canadians may say they don't want an election now, but that's because they are not yet convinced an election would change much or that there's no single defining issue. But an election can give us the real debate about our future we didn't get in the last and that we really need as economies restructure across the globe.

Liberals will present a truly alternative compelling vision for this country and Canadians will see we can be so much more than we are.

Stephen Harper was given another chance by Canadians almost a year ago and in every way, he's blown it. The stakes are too high to grant him another reprieve. These tough times demand better.

When Canadians are faced with a choice of positive change and more of the same, the choice will be clear.

Canada needs a new direction and it can't come soon enough.

------------------------------------------------
For more on why we need an election, see here

Compromise, Patience and Timing Will Get Canadians the Government We Deserve in the End

2009-06-17T16:20:00.004-04:00

In the larger picture of things today was a victory for both the Liberal Party and for Canadians. Stephen Harper has badly mismanaged the economy and failed to adequately look after unemployed workers. Once again when his back is against wall, he is forced to bend and at least move in the direction of doing the right thing - he's admitted the EI program needs to fixed to help the self-employed and deal with regional disaparities. By fall there is now a reasonable expectation serious changes will be made. It's not perfect, but an election would not have brought EI changes all that much sooner either and was really not the desired result from our party or Canadians perspectives. The media always says they want to see Parliament work, well in the context of a minority Parliament isn't this how it's supposed to work?

Now was just not the right time for Liberals to go to the polls. We go into an election to win, not because we'd look bad if we didn't. Our cards were played just right, Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals made the Conservatives cave in (Harper knew an election would have ended his career even if he barely eeked out the most seats) and we will get better policy and accounting of the nation's finances as a result. Just as important we will a chance to bring them down in the fall, something I was originally quite skeptical they would give us.

But just think of what the dynamic would have been if we had gotten a summer election. The Conservatives have 143 MPs and dozens more nominated who have been campaigning heavily since the last election in their ridings. I don't know how many candidates we have nominated right now, but my sense is with the exception of our 77 MPs, many candidates were only nominated in the past month or two. In the case of my riding our candidate (former, and soon to be again, MP) Lloyd St. Amand was nominated last night. If there was a summer election that would give these recently nominated candidates very little time to formally campaign in their riding against incumbents. You can't ignore the advantages incumbency affords the Conservatives, having the summer to recruit high profile candidates, and for our already nominated candidates, to become more well known and get some positive press in their ridings, can make a world of difference. In Brant, Lloyd would have won with an election this week I'm sure, but other candidates will certainly benefit from the extra time.

You can say we should have had more of our candidates in place sooner to be ready for summer, but you can't do that while at the same time saying you want a more grassroots based nomination process, and rushing nominations can sometimes lead to a potentially better candidate being excluded. Having a more drawn out nomination process also leads to more Liberal members being recruited in ridings across the country and more money being fundraised at the riding and party level.

I'm hearing some EXTREMELY positive things about our fundraising and membership numbers, more nomination meetings and the summer BBQ circuit are only going to help. Waiting longer to go will probably also lead to more ridings being familiar with Liberalist, our vote-tracking software which will prove key to winning close races.

I think in hindsight we might have been better served to have gone into the last election in May or June 2008, but that still would have been after over 2 years of election preparation - had we gone much sooner than last June we might well have seen a worse result than we actually got. Timing and election readiness are essential to have right. Stephen Harper knows that well, had he waited even a few weeks longer to call an election, I'm certain he would have lost (he received even more luck in timing by the fact that the TSX had two massive rallies the last two days of the campaign, very positive job numbers came out the Friday before voting day and the Dion hatchet job CTV piece came out the day before that). Just a couple weeks after voting day a Nanos Poll had it at 32% (-6%) Conservatives to 30% (+4%) Liberal support. We have to get our timing just right.

The record may show we waited a bit too long to go last time, but if we had gone now, while I do believe we would have won, the risk of the Conservatives still winning more seats than us would have been much higher . We will win more seats in the end by waiting and ensuring our election machine crushes the Conservatives when the time comes.

The only major downside is that while our ideal time may be this fall, it will tough to get the Bloc and NDP onboard with that. But it's hard for either of them to justify voting down the government now and making some side deal with them later just to save themselves from massive seat losses. At the least I don't see either of them supporting the next Conservative budget.

In the end, Conservatives are past the point of no return in Quebec, getting there in
Ontario, and hardly winning over any new supporters with their latest spin and theatrics to try to cover up their terrible record of mismanagement. Even if the economy is recovered by early next year I doubt Canadians will really give Conservatives all that much credit for it and that might actually take the economy off the table as a major issue and move to the wider question of which party represents your values and who can you trust (to improve our international reputation, to improve education and health care, to slay the deficit, etc..) which we will easily outpoll the Conservatives on (and right now we outpoll them on the economy as it is). This government also seems to have new scandals by the day which won't help them much either.

It doesn't change that Harper and the Conservatives have no vision and no plan to move this country forward. Their only progress comes when they are forced into acting. When the election comes our plan will put theirs to shame.

So while I'd like this government gone tomorrow, I'm confident they will be whenever we finally do go to the polls. So with compromise, patience and the right timing we will ensure Canadians get the government they need and deserve.

A Dollar a Day Until the Conservative Ads Go Away

2009-05-15T12:55:00.005-04:00

Stephen Harper's complete failure to read the mood of Canadians in these trying times will be his undoing. Canadians won't buy his latest attempt to distract from his failings and they will demand better. And Liberals aren't sitting idly by as Steve V noted, donations have flooded in since the Cons desperate ad buy hit the air. But I think we can do one better in making sure that the only purpose these ads serve is to fill our coffers. I'm reminded of a donation campaign started awhile ago in the U.S. to create an incentive for Republicans to give up their futile endless court challenges (which are still ongoing) in the race for the Minnesota Senate seat which Al Franken has won. The campaign is called Normdollar.com: A Dollar A Day to Make Norm Go Away. The idea is you can sign up to make donations of $1 a day that end the minute Norm Coleman finally concedes. The Democratic Party establishment didn't exactly take on this campaign themselves, but that's no reason the Liberal Party can't launch a similar campaign here.

Surely we can set up a recurring donation system equivalent to donating $1 a day (even if that's $30 a month) that ends the month after the Conservative ads go off the air.

What do you think, would you donate a dollar a day until the Conservative ads go away?

In the meantime, you know where to go.

Instant Run-Off Voting Must the Choice of Electoral Reform Advocates

2009-05-13T10:35:00.008-04:00

STV and MMP have been dealt essentially lethal blows in BC and Ontario - I think when it boils down to it people felt they were either too complicated, weren't sure how their vote would translate into who got elected, and/or that the system lacked riding level accountability. Canadians for the most part favour incremental change, and moving from First-the-Post to a PR based system may have been too much for electoral reform advocates to ask. It's unfortunate that electoral reform advocates pegged their hopes to provincial referendums when the case for changing the electoral system in any province is not nearly as persuasive as at the national level. In no province where a referendum took place does their provincial electoral system badly inflate regional divides, is leading to perpetual minorities (and elections every two years), and benefits a separatist party more than any other party. Voters like stability and elections every 4 years and the provincial systems have provided that, while the national system no longer does. But optics being what they are, with STV and MMP systems being dealt such overwhelming defeats at the provincial level they are clearly off the table for any national referendum on this issue. The sooner the electoral reform advocates (including Fair Vote) come to this conclusion the better and I say that as someone who would have voted for STV if I lived in BC.

So I would hope that anyone who wants to change our first-past-the-post system nationally (where the need is greatest) can now come behind the idea of holding a referendum on instant run-off voting. This system is extremely simple to explain and would dramatically empower the value of every vote cast in an election. We would still have 308 MPs, everything would be the same, except you would rank your choices for your riding. If someone doesn't have 50% of the vote, then the bottom candidate drops off and the 2nd, 3rd choices are re-distributed and so on until a candidate can legitimately be said to have 50% support in the riding. No more would someone who is the first choice of 35% of voters and the LAST choice of the other 65% be elected (like a good number of Conservative MPs).

PR advocates should realize that would be a major improvement and that were IRV adopted and Canadians liked it, it would at least open the door to national STV one day, but trying to move directly to a PR system would be doomed to failure.

This should also be easy for supporters of all the major parties to get behind. Liberals just overwhelming approved Instant-Run Off voting for our leadership races and the NDP and Conservatives have the same system in place for electing theirs. This is because it would be deemed unacceptable for a leader (and in the Liberal/Conservative case, potential PM) to win with only 35% of the support in a multi-candidate race. So why would we accept less for the election of each of our MPs?

It's also easily applied to the Westminister model of Parliament. Australia has the political system most similar to us and use Instant-Run Off voting to elect their lower house MPs, so why can't we?

The arguments against MMP and STV simply don't apply - it's not complicated whatsoever, it wouldn't lead to Parliamentary instability (Liberal majorities would actually be FAR MORE likely under IRV), and doesn't affect the riding level accountability we have now.

It will also carry many of the same benefits of STV such as enhancing the power of each person's vote (if you really dislike your MP but really like their party, you could register that view through your rankings), giving a voice to those who support smaller parties or independent candidates (no longer would your vote be irrelevant - a Green MP would have likely been elected in Guelph if we had IRV in place), enhancing accountability to constituent's in close ridings (35% will no longer suffice to win), and forcing candidate's to campaign beyond "getting out their base" and avoid negative campaigning so as to ensure they maximize their second choice votes. Just as importantly, no longer would parties come to power with little representation from some regions of the country. It should also increase voter turnout which become more and more abysmal with each national election.

Everyone knows our national electoral system is the source of major national unity problems (regional divides and being the lifeblood of the Bloc Quebecois) and is giving us unstable minorities as far as the eye can see, so the solution isn't to pretend these problems don't exist, it's to do something about it.

Just because provinces where the need for electoral reform wasn't that pressing rejected the idea, is no reason to ignore the problems our national system creates. What exactly are the counter-arguments against IRV other than using the provincial votes as an excuse not to act?

Want to increase the number of western Liberal MPs in future Liberal governments while simultaneously wiping the Bloc Québecois off the political map? Instant-run-off voting would be guaranteed to make it happen.

As the party of national unity here's hoping Michael Ignatieff the Liberals take the lead on this issue. We have to trust the intelligence of Canadians that they can see for themselves that the need for eletoral reform at the national level was always greater than it was at the provincial level.

The next election is very likely to give us a Liberal minority and so might the election after that. That would be 5(!) minorities in a row, something that has never even remotely happened provincially. I of course will be hoping and working for two Liberal majorities, but the math to get there is incredibly difficult so we have to consider what our response be to two more minorities.

We can lead in calling for a national referendum ourselves or have Canadians call for it because they have grown tired of the instability created by the current system. I prefer to see us lead.

Pushing for a national referendum on Intant-Run-Off voting is one clear case where the national interest and Liberal partisan interests are one and the same.

UPDATE: Scott Tribe has similar thoughts, Steve V takes an opposing view to mine

LPC Biennial Convention in Videos

2009-05-07T11:05:00.006-04:00

I knew I wouldn't get to blog all that much at a convention where I was a busy delegate so to make up for that, I had a less busy delegate video tape much of the proceedings to post here when it was all over. So I've compiled about 30 videos from across the 3 days of the convention for your enjoyment. Some of these (like Stéphane's 7.5 minute speech at the reception to retire his leadership debt) were not broadcast by the media. Though only about half of these are original and the other half are poached from other blogs to make for a more complete collection (source indicated in brackets - to give credit where credit is due those videos look much more professional). I haven't been able to upload all the videos I have yet, so please come back to this post later as there are still some really good speeches and debates that will go up. And within the next few days I will be sure to find the time to give my own thoughts on all the major happenings of the weekend of the Vancouver and maybe some other stuff going on on the Hill.

CONVENTION VIDEOS
DAY 1: Thursday April 30th

Council of Presidents

John Turner Speech (BC'er in Toronto)

Michael Ignatieff Speech (WAM0)

DAY 2: Friday, May 1st

Young Liberals of Canada (YLC) Biennial

YLC Presidential Candidate (and now President) Sam Lavoie Speech

YLC Presidential Candidate John Lennard Speech

YLC Representative to the National Women's Liberal Commission (NWLC) Monika Drobnicki Speech

Incoming YLC National Director Keith Torrie speaks to YLC delegates

Outgoing YLC President Cory Pike speaks to YLC delegates

Michael Ignatieff's Speech to YLC Delegates (Jennifer Smith)

Paul Martin Speech to YLC and Aboriginal People's Commission (APC) members

TO BE UPLOADED (This was an excellent speech! Come back later to see it)

Canada and the World Thinktank (WAM0)

Reception for Stéphane Dion to Retire His Leadership Debt

Paddy Torsney (former Burlington MP) and Don Boudria (former Glengarry-Prescott-Russell MP) Introduce Stéphane Dion
(Not sure why but this video is the only one uploaded that ended up being mostly blurry/choppy, but the audio is fine)

Stéphane Dion Gives Speech to Reception Attendees

Party Officer Elections

VP English Candidate (and eventual winner) Steve Kakucha Speech (Liberal Minute)

Convention Opening Ceremonies

Jean Chretien Speech Pt. 1 (WAM0)

Jean Chretien Speech Pt. 2 (WAM0)

Stephane Dion Tribute Video, Part 1

Paul Martin Tribute to Dion (WAM0)

Stephane Dion's Speech at His Tribute Night
TO BE UPLOADED

DAY 3: Saturday, May 2nd

Voting for Executive Positions Ended at 11 AM

Policy Plenary

Debate on "Removing the Ban on MSM Organ Donation" (Very pleased to see this pass so overwhelmingly, but was surprised and saddened by some of the things said by those opposed to this policy)

Debate on "Climate change" Policy

Introduction and Vote on "National Water Policy"

Vote on "Human Rights Commission" Policy (Closest vote of them all)

Constitutional Plenary

Debate on OMOV
TO BE UPLOADED (Will include entire debate from start to finish)

Debate on YLC amendment to ensure all policies put forth by commissions and PTAs are voted on by delegates before going to the floor (watch for a cameo by a famous former blogger)
TO BE UPLOADED

Debate on YLC amendment to establish an Outreach Secretary on the National Executive
TO BE UPLOADED

Leader's Speech

Bob Rae Nominates Michael Ignatieff Speech (Jennifer Smith)

Announcement of Results for Leadership Vote

Michael Ignatieff Makes His Entrance

Ignatieff Intro Video (LPC)

Ignatieff Acceptance Speech Pt. 1 (LPC)

Ignatieff Acceptance Speech Pt. 2 (LPC)

Ignatieff Acceptance Speech Pt. 3 (LPC)

Ignatieff Acceptance Speech Pt. 4 (LPC)

New Liberal Party of Canada Logo

BC or Bust: Commission Biennials

2009-05-02T14:23:00.000-04:00

So I think Liberals woke up yesterday morning, myself included, after getting settled in at the hotel, registered, and saying my hello/what's new's with Liberal friends, and realized that this
convention there are actually a lot of workshops and panels being offered, meaning, there's a bit of work, at least house cleaning to do.

The morning for me started off by seeing the YLC commission biennial and hearing the speeches of mainly the two YLC presidential candidates. I'll hopefully post some video later. The room was packed, the most packed room of all the commission biennials. So the youth, while yes only representing about 12% or so of the delegates, are some
of the most dedicated members of all members in the party, so I do not
begrudge them from them seeking 25% within a weighted-riding OMOV system, which is less than the 33% they get in current convention type events.
Especially considering this very same youth amendment passed last convention, to tell them they couldn't present it again is like
telling someone or a party to give up on a bill that passed 2nd or 3rd reading but died on the order paper.

I then walked into the Senior's commission - I did a quick count and I think there was about 35 people in there. Maybe they forgot about
the meeting and had a "senior's moment" because there are a lot of the
65+ crowd here, I just don't know where they were at that time. Maybe they're a little bit proud and consider themselves to be of "regular membership". The joke I hear about them is that they're a "skeletal
commission" - pun intended I don't know, that's up for you to decide. I believe in commissions and their purpose, but it's sad to see them not utilized to their full potential, especially when their numbers are there.

I was then off to the Women's Commission biennial. I didn't expect much conflict or negativity from that one - there were some common sense proposals on the floor and a panel scheduled, but I was in for a big surprise. There was some new updates to the NWLC commission on the floor, and I didn't think they were going to cause debate or controversy, but indeed they did. So much so, that that part of the proceedings went 1.5 hours over time, much to the dislike of the next workshop attendees. And even still, we were not able to discuss the meat and potatoes of the biennial as it took so long to discuss the appetizer.

I was quite disappointed in the attitude of some of the attendees, very clique-like among of those who were against the amendments on the table. After debate to one of the NWLC constitutional amendments was finished, and the vote was being conducted, these individuals stared down those voting in favour of it, and yelled out "Shame! Shame on all of you! You're taking away representation of the provinces!?" (in reality, we were proposing to keep the provincial women's commission presidents, and add additional regional representatives with 6 task based positions (VP Policy, VP Org, etc) - every province would have still have strong rep at the table via their provincial women's commission ).

The proposal didn't have 2/3 support (it had 65% - so close!), so it failed, and I guess in support of it failing, these women who voted it down left the room. So now the NWLC will remain with an exec of the national President, all the provincial commission Presidents, and 6 additional regional representatives (one from each designated region).

The NWLC is very effective as a commission and very supportive of women candidates and promoting women in politics, but for some of these ladies, time to get our act together, treat each other with a bit of respectful boundaries. Am I supposed to feel "shameful" for having an opinion and voting on it? Thanks for making me feel like my
voice mattered or that I was intelligent enough to grasp the issues like you clearly were.

There is a lot of events/workshops taking place, and for a convention that is seen as "only 2 days" perhaps we could have had 3 to space things out a bit more and to give us the opportunity to attend everything and not feel so rushed.

One thing I would like to attend but may not have the time, is attending the much hyped Liberalist (voter software) info session.
This is the new technology program that will be used across the party, across the country via ridings from the party. Some people are
hopeful, some people are doubtful. I'd just like to see for myself, even though it will be a demo and can't make a realistic impression -to judge for myself - to see if there is perhaps the magic there that we are hoping for. We all know we need better comms if we want to compete with the CPC.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

BC or bust: attendance/policy thoughts and night one

2009-05-02T12:51:00.000-04:00

So I heard that the word on the street last night - literally the word on the street - was that the Liberals had a pretty sad turn out to this event (I heard 1700 by that point). The media line was that no
one really cared - there is no leader choices, there is only about 3 exec positions contested, the location was pretty far for most of the
delegates (coming from Ont, Quebec, NS, etc.) and some people have honestly just thrown interest away in this convention as they feel that the policy was removed from this policy conference.

On the policy process there were some obvious problems with the way the policies got here - by a riding President vote that followed after
a "non-binding" vote on En Famille of whatever Liberal members happened to have an account. In reality, most people just don't care
enough to get engaged on En Famille (and some provinces are totally underrepresented), either they're not computer literate, feel its not
perfected or the debate never ends as every day someone will say the opposite of your point. As well, Liberal members didn't get a binding vote on what resolutions would be here, authors didn't hear if their policy was blended with others, authors didn't hear what happened with their policies, etc. Bottom line is, whatever you hear, most people aren't on En Famille - they may have an account, but some have never used it. So I think the policy process will need to be done a lot different next time around. There's an amendment on the floor Saturday at least that would ensure that it would be delegate workshops and not
riding President votes that would determine which policies would get to the convention floor.

I felt last night was a perfectly good opportunity for the Liberal Convention to kick off the 11 o'clock news. However, the Liberals did
have to compete with some pretty stiff competition. Instead, the 11 o'clock news kicked off with the Canuck's Round 2 victory.

Ok so on with the night's events:
Who ever decided to have a hospitality suite at the Lion's Gate pub and advertise it, was out of their mind! It was advertised in the
agenda that there was a Liberal meet & greet there at 8pm, and yet there was no room. They had a capacity of 150, and yet we know we
have at least 1700 delegates. Maybe they thought the majority was youth under 19 lol.

I also didn't quite understand what was up with the Equal Voice Experience Program social. I didn't see any prizes as was advertised,
and it was just like going to a restaurant as for any occasion. We got to pick our table, and got menus, and a bill. Didn't they just get
$1.2 million from the government and they're trying to find ways to
spend it? My martini cost $15! Very worthwhile program and I'm a
strong supporter of the organization, but to be frank the event was a let down.

I also made my way off to some of the youth hospitality suites which were fun enough to meet my expectations.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Tonight on E-Talk: Ben Mulroney Previews His Upcoming Career as a Liberal MP!

2009-04-25T21:52:00.006-04:00

So I hear a crazy rumour that Ben Mulroney may soon run for federal office, and under the Liberals no less! So crazy, this rumour may actually be true. I mean, it's no secret that there are divisions within the Conservative Party, between Harper loyalists and Mulroney loyalists. So getting Ben to run for the Liberals would be like a shot of tequila for the Liberals - the end result is a nice buzz, but the burn goes down hard, but it will signal a bigger burn to the Tories!

I had a vision last night of what we might hear from Ben in the House of Commons in Question Period, if he does run and win, based on his career experiences.

Here's just a good number, but feel free to add your own. Some may seen a bit repetitive or lame, but don't blame me because aren't all E-Talk interviews just regurgitated soft-ball questions? So if people thought this was a silly question...read below for what we may look forward to from a potential party star...

1. Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to know, which Canadian designer is the Prime Minister going to wear down our red carpet, on this year's final session of the House of Common's "Question Period"?

2. Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister tell us what his favourite thing is about being Prime Minister?

3. Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister tell us what it's like to work in
Canada compared to say, elsewhere?

4. Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister tell us how much he loves working in Canada?

5. Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister tell us what his favourite Canadian vacation spot is?

6. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to know what Prime Minister Harper did to
prepare for his role as "Sweater-vested friend" in the film, 2008 Federal Election.

7. Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister tell us what his favourite hot-spot is in Canada?

8. Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister tell us how he finds the Canadian fans - I mean voters - are responding to his latest movie - I mean budget?

9. Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister tell us when he will appoint William Shatner to the Senate so I can interview him for a Thursday night Special and host a documentary on his epic struggle from actor, senator and to Governor General hopeful.

10. Mr. Speaker, recently, Canada's favourite celebrity blogger, Perez Hilton, asked Miss California, the lovely Carrie Prejean, if every US state should legalize same sex marriage and why. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Prime Minister the same question about what he thinks our neighbous in the south should do so I can go back on E-Talk to give my outraged response to his answer!

11. Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister tell us what is favourite CBC films are, and how he feels they differ from CTV ones?

12. Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister tell us what it's like to be a celebrity, er, I mean politician - a Canadian politician - on the world stage?

13. Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister tell us what his plans are for CTV? Canadians need to know if I'll be able to make a triumphant comeback.

14. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to request that Question Period end early today, so I can go get a facial and manicure, and most likely touch up my roots. (ruled out of order)

15. Mr. Speaker, I'd like ask to the Prime Minister, what it was like get up in front of million of fans and viewers - I mean party supporters and voters - and give his acceptance speech for his role as "Minority Prime Minister: Part Two", and if he is planning a another sequel in the same role? Or will he be dropping out of the role because he knows his third time at it would be a bomb with the public?

And surely he'll get his own time on Don Newman's politics....
Don Newman: And tonight, my guest is the newly elected Liberal MP, Ben Mulroney. Welcome B-- *Ben shoves Don out of the camera shot*
Ben: Thanks Don! That's right, I'm Ben Mulroney - and tonight - on Politics, I'll discuss how I went from law student turned celebrity interviewer, who asks celebrities nonsense questions about Canada, to Liberal MP, all the while, keeping my dashing smile and characteristic, Mulroney hair. But first! Let's go to the studio to get an update of today's top stories, and after the break, we'll be back here with me, Ben Mulroney, where I'll conduct an exclusive interview with our very own, Don Newman, asking him the questions about what we all really want to know: the gossip which goes on behind the political scenes here, on The Hills, I mean, the Hill. *smiles*

Needless to say, it seems our party will have a lot to be proud of, and a lot of preparation work ahead of itself if we do get the pleasure of working with Mulroney Jr., and I'm sure PM Harper can't wait for his questions from him either.

Sure I've typecasted the Mulroney Jr., but I've never heard him say anything about politics before so what else do I have to go on? But who knows maybe he'll surprise and be the next Barack Obama!

Or!!! He could even become the next Liberal leader - up against Justin Trudeau in the leadership race, and it could be Trudeau vs. Mulroney on a whole new, exciting level with the youth wing divided over camps!

And I do suppose it's better that he become a Liberal MP than an NDP one..like a son of a former Mulroney cabinet minister, Robert Layton, did.

WARNING:
Note to Sandy and others who don't like reading post labels (or have no sense of humour), lest I be accused once more of "spreading false information", the questions above are not real questions - duh!

The Amazing Race: LPC Edition

2009-04-25T21:43:00.005-04:00

"Blogs don't matter, endorsements don't matter, only delegates matter!"

Those are the wise words a political advisor and friend once told me, which kept me grounded through and through, in a time long since past, and even as a blogger, I knew then that the comment had a real element of truth to it.

I won't say who said this quote (but many in Ontario might know who said it), but I think it's a pretty pertinent one for ANY LPC internal race, no matter the level. It's not saying that blogs and endorsements don't matter whatsoever in the literal sense (they do), but ultimately (and there's no constitutional amendment on the table to change it) internal party races for executive positions come down to who shows up and who votes for you at convention.

Sure, some things can sway them in the meantime in these races, but I don't believe it has ever been s a blog or blogger, and you'd be amazed how much people can be swayed on the floor to vote for someone (or something) else than they originally thought they would. I've never seen proof of a blog influencing how a person will vote (especially since now any non-blogger can post a facebook note that could easily be read by more people), but I have seen proof of blogs influencing the main stream media, which I think is more important as we're all on the same team, so I'm proud and satisfied about that.

And I'm also skeptical of the value of "big name" endorsements. They are certainly good to have, because any candidate without any looks weak and it gives you more credibility as a candidate, but I'd like to think most people decide based on who they think would do the best job, not just who else is supporting them.

But by the time convention arrives, endorsements from a week earlier (no matter how big of names they came from) can easily be forgotten when you meet the candidate in person and see their posters and literature up close.

I'm not making any predictions for who's going to win any of the given races in our great party, and I'll gladly congratulate everyone who wins the LPC exec position they're interested in, contested or not, at any level of the party. Anyone who runs deserves props.

But tonight, the blog-rumour mill is a turning - with predictions about a stream of blogs, which, over the next few days, will apparently release their endorsements for the party races, one race in particular, and that those endorsements might all line up along the same lines.

It would be more unfortunate though if all of the upcoming blog endorsements are for one particular race/individual, when there are several, very important party races going on at the same time that just aren't being given the same microscope or attention. And I would just say that I would hope all these endorsements are done after reading the full platforms of all the candidates (which I believe are now posted on every candidate's website) or even giving each of them 20 minutes over the phone to hear their plans/visions, and also a polite heads up of a potential 'blogosphere-rocketing announcement' that is in favour of their opponents.

But when it comes down to it, I'd just give some sage advice to the campaign workers on ANY team - spend 24/7 politely, respectfully (negativity is the last thing we need when we are all on the same team in the end), and fairly working on those delegates that you know will be voting on the races - that's your ticket to victory.

And as for the blogs - I guess we'll just have to wait and see...

LPC Biennial Priority Policies and Constitutional Amendments

2009-04-10T14:31:00.025-04:00

I haven't been able to blog much of late for good reason - hopefully I'll find the time to give my thoughts on recent events some time soon, but at the least you can rest assured that I'll be blogging live from the LPC Convention that is just around the corner. And since it doesn't seem to be posted elsewhere yet on Liblogs I thought I would do its readers a favour and let you know that the priority policies and constitutional amendments are now posted to the LPC website (policies here and proposed constitutional amendments here - both now found in the "Have Your Say" section under the Convention link on the Liberal website). It also seems that the program for the convention has been almost finalized (or at least it's more detailed than before). You can find that here.

For those who do not wish to, or are too busy to, check out the pdfs linked to above at the moment, I'll just list the names of the priority policies and constitutional amendments that will be voted on at convention. I promise to give my views on these sometime before convention, but you may all peruse them in the meantime.

PRIORITY POLICIES
The priority policies (I'll update this post later with their original sponsors) delegates wlil vote on are:

6. Vision of Rural Canada
16. Royal Commission on the Environment and Health
29. Improving Child Care and Parental Leave for Canadian Families
35. Aging with Dignity
58. Access to Information
69. Making Poverty History at Home and Abroad
75. Supporting Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples
91. Alternate Energy
95. Regional Development
110. Greening the West
111. Revitalizing Ocean Fisheries
112. To Address Global Climate Change and the Economic Crisis by Stimulating a Competitive, Sustainable Green Economy
113. Crisis in Agriculture
114. Profit Sharing
115. Poverty
116. Aboriginal Education
117. Care Continuum
118. Northern Sovereignty
119. Extending Existing Affordable Housing Programs
120. Reversing the Ban on MSM Organ Donation
123. Climate Change
124. Human Rights Commission
126. Economic Growth
129. Natural Resources
131. National Water Policy
132. National Housing Strategy
134. Internationally Trained Professionals
135. Development of an Integrated Transportation Policy
138. Reducing Child Poverty in Canada
140. A Policy to Support the Implementation of a National Child Care Plan in Canada

The above may not be the final list because as the Constitutional document indicates, "Emergency" resolutions can be added by as late as April 30th if they approved by a PTA, Commission, or National executive AND the LPC Policy and Platform Committee to go to the policy plenary. There may end up being no addtional emergency resolutions though.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSALS: (with very selective descriptions of some of them)

AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE
1. “One member, one vote” and Leadership Vote
Proposed to amendments to 1.:
1.1A Participation of youth in “one member, one vote”
1.2 Reducing the time for holding a Leadership Vote
1.3 Emergency shortening of the time for a Leadership Vote
1.4 Close of nominations for Leadership Contestants

2. Reduction of the number of EDA delegates

3. Changes recommended by the Governance Committee
3.1 Proposed amendment: In order to reflect that the National Director and not the
National President is the chief executive officer of the Party and to make changes to the
references to the “chief executive officers” of the PTAs and the Commissions so that an
inference cannot be drawn to suggest that the provincial or national directors of those
entities must be elected:

3.2 Proposed amendment: In order to implement the recommendation to rename
the National Executive to reflect its proper role, amend all references to the “National
Executive” to “National Board of Directors”.

4. Alternate representatives on the National Executive
Background: The proposed amendment makes clear the right to have “proxies” in the
case where a PTA President or chief executive officer of a Commission cannot attend a
meeting of the National Executive. The proposed amendment also deals with the
situation which arose when Mike Crawley was president of the Liberal Party of Canada
(Ontario) and the National Vice President. Paragraph (a) of the proposed amendment
deals with attendance at meetings. Paragraph (b) is broader and would allow the
additional voting member to, for example, also vote on consent resolutions (in which
case the National Executive would have 25 voting members rather than 24).

5. Recommendations of the Membership Working Group
5.1 National Membership Secretary; title and committee membership
5.2 Payment of membership fees
5.3 Associate membership
5.4 Party membership for Canadians living abroad
5.5 Suspension and revocation of membership

6. Miscellaneous
6.1 Liberal Party of Canada in Saskatchewan name change

6.2 Power of National Executive to change timelines

6.3 Membership of the National Election Readiness Committee

6.4 Commission Club financial control requirements

6.5 Membership of the Leadership Expenses and Leadership Vote Committees

6.6 Appointment of additional members of Leadership Expenses Committee

6.7 Presence at candidate and delegate selection meetings

6.8 Slotting of aboriginal delegates

6.9 Membership requirement for right to vote at Commission Club DSMs

6.10 Reduced convention fees for youth and aboriginal ex officio delegates (to ensure fees remain half of the adult fee as they've been for same time)

6.11 Spent provisions

AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA (ONTARIO)

7. Election of Officers of EDAs
Background: Paragraph 12(2)(c) does not provide for the election of individuals to
positions which are vital to the affairs of an EDA, such as officers primarily responsible
for fundraising or membership.
Proposed amendment: Amend paragraph 12(2)(c) so that it reads as follows:
(c) provide for the election of a chief executive officer of the EDA (the “EDA President”)
and officers primarily responsible for fundraising, membership and policy of the EDA (the
“EDA Fundraising Chair, EDA Membership Chair and EDA Policy Chair”) by a vote of all its
members;

8. Time for renewal of membership (give 3 months after expiry to renew)

AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE COMMISSION OF YOUNG LIBERALS OF CANADA

9. MPs, Senators and candidates serving on National Executive

9.1 Background: Currently, there are no provisions in the National Constitution to
limit sitting Members of Parliament, Senators or Ministers of the Crown from holding
positions on the National Executive. Concerns have been raised about potential
conflicts of interest in such situations.

Proposed amendment: Add to subsection 22(2) the following sentence: “Except for
the Leader and the representative of the Caucus referred to in Paragraph 22(1)(b), 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 [National Board of
Directors if proposed amendment 3.2 is passed].”

9.2 Background: Should a voting member of the National Executive be nominated
as a candidate, they would have to take a leave of absence from their position on the
National Executive during the writ period. However a member of the National
Executive will not be required to take a leave of absence should they seek a
nomination.

Proposed amendment: Add as subsection 49(3) the following:
(3) Upon selection as a candidate of the Party for election to the House of Commons, a
voting member of the National Executive [National Board of Directors if proposed amendment
3.2 is passed] as defined in Paragraph 22(1)(a) must take a leave of absence from the National
Executive [National Board of Directors if proposed amendment 3.2 is passed] during the writ
period.

10. Ex officio delegates

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. This amendment
would limit the number of parliamentary ex officios to sitting MPs and Senators and
reduce the overall numbers of ex officios versus elected EDA delegates.

Proposed amendment: Amend paragraph 62(1)(h) so that it reads as follows:
(h) each person who is serving as a member of the House of Commons or the Senate of
Canada at the time of the convention and who is a member of the Party;

11. Policy resolutions
Proposed amendment: Add as subsection 61(7) the following:
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 the convention before going forward to the floor for a final vote. (This one has great relevance to those who would have rather kept the policiy workshops as is this year).

12. Outreach Secretary (put an outreach secretary on Nat. Exec and give them voting status)

AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE SENIOR LIBERALS’ COMMISSION

13. Proposed amendment: Amend subsection 10(1) so that it reads as follows:
(1) A member of the Party has the right to receive newsletters, information, membership
services, and notices of general meetings and other activities from the Party, from their PTA,
from their EDA and from any Commission or Commission Club of which they are a member.

14. Proposed amendment: Amend paragraph 10(2)(a) so that it reads as follows:
(a) attend, speak, and vote at a general meeting of their EDA or any Commission or
Commission Club of which they are a member;

15. Proposed amendment: Amend paragraph 10(2)(b) so that it reads as follows:
(b) be selected as a delegate or an alternate delegate to any convention or general meeting
of the Party or any Commission of which they are a member;

16. Proposed amendment: Amend paragraph 14(2)(b) so that it reads as follows:
(b) developing on an annual basis, in concert with the members of the Party in its province
or territory, a strategic plan for its province or territory that proposes activities in the areas of
membership recruitment; finance and fundraising; policy development; EDA compliance; EDA
organization, election readiness and policy development; where a provincial or territorial section
of a Commission (a “PTA Commission”) is recognized, PTA Commission compliance; PTA
Commission organization, election readiness and policy development; administration of Party
elections (including a Leadership Vote, a Leadership Endorsement Ballot, candidate selection
meetings and delegate selection meetings); and election readiness;

17. Proposed amendment: Add as paragraph 14(3)(f) the following and renumber
the remaining paragraphs accordingly:
(f) provides that PTA Commissions are granted rights to participate in the affairs of the
PTA;

18. Proposed amendment: Add as subsection 14(6) the following:
If the Constitution of the PTA provides for the establishment or governance of PTA
Commissions, then the provisions of the Constitution must be consistent with Subsection 34(3).

19. Proposed amendment: Amend paragraph 17(1)(h) so that it reads as follows:
(h) the determination by the National Executive [National Board of Directors if proposed
amendment 3.2 is passed] of the sharing of membership fees and other revenues between the
Party, the PTAs, the EDAs and the Commissions.

20. Proposed amendment: Amend subsection 28(2) so that it reads as follows:

(2) In making appointments to a committee established by the National Executive
[National Board of Directors if proposed amendment 3.2 is passed], the principle of equal
participation of men and women and the recognition of English and French as the official
languages of Canada and geographic regions must be respected.

21. Proposed amendment: Amend the eighth unnumbered subparagraph of
paragraph 30(1)(a) so that it reads as follows:

One of the four chief executive officers [chairs if proposed amendment 3.1(d) is passed] of the
Commissions who are members of the National Executive [National Board of Directors if
proposed amendment 3.2 is passed] elected among themselves on an annual basis

22. Proposed amendment: Amend paragraph 32(1)(c) so that it reads as follows:
(c) other members of the Party, who may be appointed by the National Campaign Co–
Chairs in consultation with the Leader and the National Executive [National Board of Directors
if proposed amendment 3.2 is passed] respecting the principle of equal participation of men and
women and the recognition of English and French as the official languages of Canada and
geographic regions.

23. Proposed amendment: Add as subsection 38(4) the following:
(4) There shall be a provincial or territorial section of the Senior Liberals’ Commission
established in each province and territory which shall be accepted and recognized as part of the
PTA organization in that province or territory.

AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE NATIONAL WOMEN’S LIBERAL COMMISSION
24. Proposed amendment: Amend the first paragraph of the preamble so that it
reads as follows:
The Liberal Party of Canada considers respect for the dignity of each individual man and
woman to be the cardinal principle of democratic society and the primary purpose of all political
organization and activity in such a society.

25. Proposed amendment: Amend the third paragraph of the preamble so that it
reads as follows:
In accordance with this philosophy, the Liberal Party of Canada subscribes to the fundamental
rights and freedoms of persons under the rule of law and commits itself to the protection of
these essential values and their constant adaptation to the changing needs of modern Canadian
society.

26. Proposed amendment: Amend subsection 6(3) so that it reads as follows:
(3) All membership fees will be shared between the Party, the related Provincial and
Territorial Association (PTA) and the related Electoral District Association (EDA) as
determined by the National Executive [National Board of Directors if proposed amendment 3.2
is passed] in consultation with the Council of Presidents.

27. Proposed amendment: Amend paragraph 12(2)(c) so that it reads as follows:
(c) provide for the election of a president of the EDA (the “EDA President”) and an officer
primarily responsible for policy of the EDA (the “EDA Policy Chair”) by the majority of votes
cast by the members who are present at a general meeting of the EDA;

28. Proposed amendment: Amend paragraph 30(1)(a) so that it reads as follows:
(1) The National Management Committee consists of:
(a) the following voting members:
The National President
The Leader
The National Policy Chair
The Chief Financial Officer
Two of the PTA Presidents elected among themselves from time to time for a
term determined by them; one of whom must be capable of expressing
themselves in French, and the other of expressing themselves in the English
language
One representative of each Commission
One of the National Campaign Co-Chairs

29. Proposed amendment: Amend subsection 33(5) so that it reads as follows:
(5) No member of the Party (including a member of the Caucus and a candidate for election to the House of Commons) may represent in any way that a policy or platform is a Party policy or part of the Party platform unless the policy or platform has been approved by:
(a) a majority of the members of the National Policy and Platform Committee;
AND (Delete: Or)
(b) the Leader after consultation with the National Policy and Platform
Committee.

This one above would ensure that the National Policy and Platform Committee HAS to sign off on ANY element of the platform for it to be included or described as official policy, whereas it sounds like in the past that was optional.

30. Proposed amendment: Amend subparagraph 34(3)(f)(iii) so that it reads as
follows:
(iii) provides for the election of the president of the club and the officer primarily
responsible for policy of the club by the majority of votes cast by the members who are present
at a general meeting of the club;

31. Proposed amendment: Amend subsection 36(4) so that it reads as follows:
(4) The National President, in consultation with the National Women’s Liberal
Commission, is responsible to report to every biennial convention of the Party with an
assessment of the extent to which equal participation of women and men at all levels of the
Party has been achieved. If the convention determines that such equal participation has been
achieved, then the National Women’s Liberal Commission will be deemed to have completed its
primary mandate and the goals and objectives of the Commission will be reviewed with the aim
of determining the need for its continued existence.

32. Proposed amendment: Amend the paragraph designated 39(e) in the existing
Constitution (but re-designated as 39(c) if the amendment proposed under item 6.4C is
passed) so that it reads as follows:
(e) the club has filed with the National Office a copy of the current Constitution of the
club certified by the president of the club and the chief executive officer [chair if proposed
amendment 3.1(d) is passed] of its Commission.

33. Proposed amendment: Amend section 1 so that it reads as follows:
This Constitution establishes an association called “The Liberal Party of Canada”, hereinafter
referred to as “the Party”.

34. Proposed amendment: Amend subsection 14(1) so that it reads as follows:
(1) The Liberal Party of Canada is a federation made up of the following provincial and
territorial associations:

35. Proposed amendment: Delete the introductory subparagraph of paragraph
23(1)(d) (which now reads “with the consent of the National President and the Leader,
appoint”) and replace them with the following: “appoint, with the consent of the
National President and the Leader”.

This part also makes me wonder about whether they've made it more difficult to pass "Amendments to amendments" for constitutional proposals:
"Amendment Proposals. If a Constitutional Proposal (the “Amendment Proposal”) is an
amendment of another Constitutional Proposal (the “Main Proposal”), then the
Amendment Proposal will be considered and debated only if the Main Proposal is passed
by a two-thirds majority. The Amendment Proposal also requires a two-thirds majority in
order to be passed" (p. 8). Perhaps this only applies to amendments from the floor, though I was under the impression those weren't allowed. This could affect the much debated YLC amendment. For those don't know in 2006 the rulres were that amendments to amendments were voted on BEFORE the main proposal and required 50% support from delegates to be incorporated into the main proposal which was then voted on afterward and still required the 2/3 majority to pass. The YLC amendment passed on this basis in 2006 and then the overall package failed to get 2/3 support.

If I read these new rules correctly it seems to indicate that you have to pass the main proposal before considering any amendments and then those amendments still need 2/3 support. That would be a very dramatic change in the rules. I would have to say that at the least it doesn't seem right to be forced to pass an overall proposal before considering amendments and I would hope that even those who completely oppose any additional amendments to a main proposal would agree with me on that.

Admitedly I won't have time to read the full 40 pages today (as you can see above I was mostly just cutting cutting and pasting), so if someone is able to clarify that issue and whether I've misread the rules, that would be appreciated.

Happy reading!

Forget OMOV; We have bigger issues like THIS to concern ourselves with.

2009-04-05T19:33:00.006-04:00

While some people are up in arms of a OMOV (One-Member One-Vote) amendment, I'm just floored by this.

What has the world come to?? Shameful really, and do we just have ourselves to blame?

Apparently Vin is the new Tom. I'm so not impressed, that I'm thinking of not voting in the People’s Choice Awards this year.

Tory MP Phil McColeman's Taxpayer Funded April Fool's Joke

2009-04-01T23:00:00.019-04:00

It's extremely fitting that this arrived in the mail on April Fool's Day, except unfortunately it seems the joke is on us in Brant and with OUR money. The picture you see is a REAL completely undoctored scan of what was included in the April Householder (like a 10%er but much larger, on nicer paper, and which gets sent out to an MP's riding up to 4x a year).

The householder (the rest of which unfortunately just reads exactly like a blown up typical Con 10%er) likely cost over $130,000 in taxpayer money to send out (Click here for reference, as a regular 10%er apparently costs $45,000 to go to a smaller amount of people).

So our new MP is spending that to inform us that we can have a short hello with him on ONE SPECIFIC DAY ONLY. And a free cup of coffee, probably also paid for with tax payer dollars. But, note how the coupon says "Not valid at any other time" - so if I want to chat with him "any other time" he's not available? I'm sorry, but as a constituent, I find that small print very arrogant and insulting.

I would advise you to go and print off as many of these "coupons" as possible to get your time and coffee's worth, but perhaps we should care more about where our tax dollars go and how they are spent than Phil McColeman seems to be doing.

Until now I never realized I needed a "one-day only" coupon to have a quick "chat" (not a debate/discussion, etc.,) with my MP between a 2 hour window, but I guess that's what can happen when you elect a Conservative.

Stephen Harper Doesn't Get It, Never Will

2009-03-10T17:50:00.003-04:00

If Stephen Harper really wanted to be as "Mr. Hope" or a Canadian Obama imitation, perhaps he should have actually looked at Obama's most famous speeches. He might then have realized that Obama's best speeches resonated because they were unifying, not divisive, and were considered post-partisan, rather than partisan speeches.

If Stephen Harper really wants to reach out to supporters of other parties, perhaps he could just actually act like a Prime Minister for once and stand above the fray, rather than give yet another completely partisan speech, especially when his partisan arguments are so incredibly flimsy (as David Akin so easily points out - h/t to Jeff).

Mr. Harper, Canadians didn't give you a blank cheque in the last election, they gave you a minority. In case you don't yet understand our system that means Canadians wanted you to work with other parties to get things done.

Canadians want Parliamentarians to work together, but instead confrontation is what Harper has on his mind. He's the only one talking about causing an election over his unwillingness to have even a shred of accountability for $3 billion in new spending.

Mr. Harper likes to talk about other parties "not heeding the lessons of the last election," well look in the mirror Mr. Harper or break out a calculator because a clear majority of Canadians voted against you and the last thing they want is to give you unfettered spending power with no strings attached. And you talk about Canada coming out of this recession stronger than before but your budget did nothing to achieve that goal.

The irony is that if Stephen Harper actually acted like a Prime Minister and reached out his hand to the members of the opposition and ran his government in a more collaborative fashion, he'd actually be more popular with Canadians (I fail to see how his flimsy partisan attacks win over Liberal voters to his side), but he just can't help himself. The fact that he personally wrote today's speech really says it all.

It's just so clear now beyond a shadow of a doubt that Stephen Harper doesn't get it.

He didn't get that a recession was coming, so instead encouraged everyone to buy stocks just before they monumentally crashed.

He didn't realize he had a minority, so instead his first order of business after the election was to try to destroy the opposition while doing nothing about the economy and then delaying a budget by two months he now says must be passed immediately.

And now he doesn't realize that Canadians want more than anything to see politicians put partisan squabbles aside to address the economic crisis, so instead his "defining speech" about the recession is more about scoring partisan points than actually helping Canadians.

Stephen Harper is a Conservative partisan first and a Prime Minister second and in this economic climate that combination is toxic (especially when compared with the President across the border) and it's only a matter of time before it ends his career one way or another.

Oh Yes That Other Leadership Race....

2009-03-07T22:28:00.003-05:00

Congrats to Andrea Horwath. Good to see someone from the Golden Horseshoe region finally become a leader of a major party. And who knows with the lot running for the Ontario PC Party she may just have a decent shot at official opposition in the next election!

Good luck Andrea, just not too much!

Who Wants to be the Next Defeated Ontario PC Leader?

2009-03-07T14:49:00.014-05:00

UPDATED March 10 with more Hudak goodness!! Apparently his people are not fans of his own work! Slushy video mysteriously disappears.

-------------------------------------------

So with Ontario PC Party race about to get started, I thought I would begin my coverage with a run-down of all the likely contenders:

The Front-Runner: Tim Hudak

If he's elected Premier every hour will be comedy hour! In the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression he's EXACTLY the kind of serious politician we need! Here's his audition tape for Premier:

As a bonus he supported Jim "Mike Harris is the best Premier we ever had" (yes he said that) Flaherty for PC leader in 2002 and 2004 and was a featured speaker at a "Canadians for Bush" rally just before the Iraq war began! Serious and in tune with mainstream Ontarians, sounds like he'll be tough to beat!

------------------------------------------------
UPDATE (Tues. March 10):

Perhaps the Hudak people read this blog, because the video I originally posted above was mysteriously taken down all of a sudden even though it was originally posted even before the Ontario 2007 election.

Mr. Hudak are you not proud of your work? Does this video not portray exactly the image you want others to have of you?

In any case I found another link to the same video and saved this one to my computer just in case it "coincidentally" disappears again. I wouldn't want others to be deprived of seeing Tim Hudak's most brilliant piece!

So here it is again, Tim Hudak auditioning for Premier:

No wonder he's the front-runner!

On now again to the next candidate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Klees

Said to be the originator of Tory's religious schools funding policy and was the only candidate in the last leadership race to openly endorse two-tier health care!

What wonderful ideas will he come up with next?

Christine Elliott

Apparently she may want to be Premier of the province her husband said is the "last place to invest". Must make for interesting dinner conversation. I wasn't able to find too much written about her, but IF she holds views similar to her husband who is anti-choice, anti-same sex marriage, believes tax cuts "pay for themselves", wanted to lock up the homeless and return to the Mike Harris glory days, well then.....

Randy Hillier

Full disclosure: I endorsed Randy a long time ago and am just praying he throws his hat in the ring.

Because who else will protect us from the "nanny state" (or "police state" as Randy once called it) but him?

Is there anyone else in the running who's been arrested for civil disobedience? I think not!

Under his leadership of the Lanark Landowners Association there was apparently "blocking highways, barricading government offices, staging illegal deer hunts, and publicly breaking laws that the Landowners regarded as unjust" Wow.

And on the issues if you're looking for a right-wing candidate, there's NO ONE more right-wing than him!

He won't back down! Are you as excited for the Hillier Revolution as I am?

This guy is clearly the total package!

-----------------------------------
Ok so these are just the biggest names, there will be more but darned if Wiki tells me anything about the other names thrown out there. I hope some of the old Harris crowd returns from Ottawa though. C'mon Clement and Baird, you had so much fun in opposition last time and now you don't have to wait till the next federal election to experience it again! And Van Loan (or PVL as the cool kids call you) don't let those guys have all the fun, I believe in you! Go for it!

Reflections on John Tory

2009-03-06T18:27:00.012-05:00

"Kathleen Wynne will continue to do us proud...She deserved to win. Tory should have known better than to pick a fight with her."
Oct. 10, 2007, following announcement of Tory's defeat on Election night

"he didn't resign? He wants to lead from outside the legislature? Who will give him their seat? How will he get past a leadership review later this year? I still say he's done. I guess he's asking for the same treatment Andre Boisclair got in Quebec, he will be hounded out, would have been better to go out gracefully like Martin did I think. I think Tory can be useful outside of politics though,"
Oct. 10, 2007, immediately following Tory's concession speech

"If I had to guess, I would say he doesn't make it past the month."
Feb. 23rd, 2008, immediately following Tory's 66.9% approval at the Ontario PC Convention

"If Tory thinks he's a shoe in he might want to think twice. Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock residents might actually be looking for a real representative over the next few years instead someone who will immediately go looking for a new seat for 2011 and focus all his attention there. They might looking for someone that actually knows the riding not someone who's only there to save his career. And given that it's a fairly right wing riding they might actually prefer ending Tory's career in the hopes that someone on the far right takes the leadership of the party from him."
Feb. 4th, 2009, the day the by-election in HKLB was announced
-----------------------------------

Today John Tory officially stepped down as Ontario PC Party leader and left his career in Ontario politics behind. I don't believe in kicking someone when they are down, but I do believe that as someone leaves the political scene it is worth looking at the good (and John did have many good qualities) and bad of their tenures and the lessons that can be learned from it. John Tory is a good guy at heart who has contributed to some great causes in his private life, but as I think many would now agree, it was his political judgment that prevented him from succeeding in Ontario politics. Ultimately, his own choices did him in on Election night and then left him leading a party for the past year and a half that he now probably wishes he left on Oct. 10 or 11, 2007. In each of the quotes listed above John Tory could have made a different choice than he did - he may now always wonder what might have been instead. But even though I was never rooting for him to win (and I'm very happy for Rick Johnson), I can't help but feel some sympathy for him and his fate.

John Tory did have some commendable qualities that I think any partisan could recognize. I'm sure many Ontario Liberals would agree that he's probably the most progressive leader the Ontario PC Party could ever hope to have. If we HAD to endure another PC term in government I would have preferred Tory to anyone else they have in their line-up (but since anyone else in their line-up is FAR less likely to win than Tory would have been, that suits me just fine as a Liberal and leaves me more confident of another McGuinty victory in 2011 :) ).

After the horrors of the Harris years and the shameful ways they dealt with the most vulnerable in society it was amazing to see the PCs have a leader who actually talked about poverty and had credibility on the issue (having worked for the United Way) and that's something we certainly don't see from Tory's federal cousins. Tory was also moderate on social issues and environmental policy, and he was quite critical of the Common Sense Revolution and Harris/Eves' combative ways of doing government, all dramatic departures from his predecessor (and frankly anyone else in his party).

After the 2011 election perhaps the PC Party will finally learn that that's where they need to be if they ever hope to win again, but I doubt they'll come to their senses - again works fine for us Liberals - Liberal majorities are serving Ontario well - but I suppose a part of me thinks it's good for democracy to have a credible opposition and at least John Tory brought that - while I never wanted to see him Premier, you could at least picture him in the job and not absolutely shudder at the thought (except perhaps when you started to worry about the pressure his caucus might put on him on to go back in time...).

But John Tory wouldn't be finished now in Ontario politics if he didn't make many mistakes. I think five stand out.

For one I think he picked the wrong party. I don't think he could ever have been a leadership candidate for the Ontario Liberal Party but I don't think he would have seemed too out of place with some of the party's right-of-centre crowd, we do after all have a much bigger tent than the PCs. Tory certainly seemed to have more in common with some of the right-wing in the OLP than with pretty much any member of his own party. It's no surprise really that his party hasn't truly been behind him since Election night - they don't see him as "one of them" - why else would none of the caucus give up their seat for an entire year? You'll be hearing refrains from many of them now how their "magic solution" is to move further right now and be as far from Tory's mould as possible. We'll see how that works out for them. But any façade of a "moderate" PC Party is now out the window for sure.

Second was his negativity. John Tory vowed to raise the standard for ethics and integrity and that he would espouse a positive vision for Ontario. Instead, he spent most of the Ontario campaign being relentlessly negative. Worst of all, he chose the attack dog role for himself. It's a wise rule that the leader try to stay above the fray and leave the sharpest attacks to subordinates. You don't see Dalton McGuinty take on the role of prime attacker and I'm still puzzled why Tory thought it suited him. I think it turned a lot of people off of him and contributed quite a bit to his poor performance on election night.

Third was his platform. Of course everyone knows there was the religious schools issue, as I said near the end of the 2007 campaign: "He had not even considered some of the most fundamental flaws with his plan such as what to do about the inevitable court challenges by scientologists and so on, how could he claim that he was going to treat the religious schools just like the Catholics and still let those schools charge tuition, how would he monitor these schools, what would happen when they started violating the curriculum, and on and on. It just give the impression that he doesn't give great thought to his most important policies which is the worst possible quality to have if you want to be the Premier who is tasked with handling education and health care in our province." His backtracking on the issue near the end of the campaign made him look even worse. I resent when people compare the religious schools issue to the Green Shift, because no one has made a convincing case as to why the Green Shift isn't good policy (of course it didn't prove to be good politics), whereas Tory's religious school's proposal was both bad policy and bad politics which I think is a very important distinction. But religious schools wasn't the only problem with this platform either, his platform claimed it would have cut taxes (which would have been a disaster in hindsight) and yet increase spending. It sounded like a re-hash of what we heard from Mike Harris and created suspicions as to who was really running the show and making policy for the party. PCs will learn again in 2 years that we REALLY don't want another Mike Harris type leading the province especially at a time of increasing unemployment and poverty.

But all politicians make mistakes with policies and ideas they put forth and John Tory at least seemed to realize that he had (though he seemed to mistakenly believe the solution was to move further right), and he could have overcome the problems in his platform to lead his party in 2011, but I think ultimately his biggest mistake was choosing to challenge Kathleen Wynne. It was a dumb move and it certainly diminished the respect some Liberals had for Tory that he would choose to take on one of the best ministers in McGuinty's government and arguably one of the top women in Ontario politics. In the end he was trounced for it, only scoring 0.1% better than David Turnball who ran before him in Don Valley West in 2003. Had Tory chosen a more PC friendly riding and run against a non-incumbent or just stayed where he already was I think he would still be PC leader today. It was not the election loss that doomed him, it was the fact that he had no seat. It proved impossible for him to have much profile sitting outside the legislature and well now we know what ended up happening in the end. The biggest lesson for party leaders from this I think is make sure you are confident of winning your own seat, because I think Tory's case should prove pretty clearly that if you don't win a seat on election night and can't find a replacement extremely quickly then it's time to go.

Finally, John Tory should have realized his party wasn't behind him and called it quits on the earlier chances he had like Election night or after the performance review.

So on balance John Tory had the ability to be a great public servant, but too many of his decisions backfired and his party was just too right-wing to ever be able to truly rally behind him. John Tory is better off without the PC Party though. I think he could still make a very positive contribution to society and I hope he does.

I wish John Tory nothing but the best in his life post-Ontario politics.

Thanks for the Memories John

2009-03-05T23:37:00.007-05:00

John Tory is by most accounts a decent man, but tonight his career in Ontario politics has ended as I had thought it might. I'll have A LOT more to say about this later, but for now, in all seriousness I would just like to say thank you to John Tory for your service.

And of course congrats to Rick Johnson and Dalton McGuinty's team for their phenomenal victory tonight.

Obama's Budget Plan Shows He and Harper Really are Ideological Twins

2009-02-27T18:08:00.010-05:00

Because a "pronounced move to redistribute wealth" is a Conservative idea right? Darryl Wolk - one of the few Conservatives that actually supported Obama before he was elected President - has tried to argue that Harper and Obama are so alike and that Canadians will see this and give Harper a majority as a result. Well I think if Canadians actually looked at the actions of these two governments they just might come to a different conclusion. Let's take a look at what Obama's $3.55 trillion Budget Plan proposes:
--------------------------
"Mr. Obama's proposal signals a radical change of course by redirecting enormous streams of deficit spending toward programs like health care, education and energy, and paying for some of it through taxes on the rich, pollution surcharges, and cuts in such inviolable programs as farm subsidies.... The Obama administration will attempt to close the large fiscal gap even while starting a major health-care initiative meant to substantially extend coverage; to do so, it foresees increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans and using revenues from a new program: selling carbon credits (read: taxing carbon) to manufacturers as part of a cap-and-trade plan meant to slow climate change....The combined effect of the two revenue-raising proposals, on top of Mr. Obama's existing plan to roll back the Bush-era income tax reductions on households with income exceeding $250,000 a year, would be a pronounced move to redistribute wealth by reimposing a larger share of the tax burden on corporations and the most affluent taxpayers. "
------------------------
Sounds just like what Harper ran on in the last election doesn't it? Carbon taxes (coupled with cutting taxes for the low and middle income earners as the Green Shift did), raising taxes on the rich and corporations, redistribution of wealth from rich to poor, true blue Conservative policies.

Oh wait those are the sorts of policies Harper said would destroy the economy!

To be honest I think some of Obama's proposed policies go even a bit too far for my tastes, I don't support increasing corporate tax rates for instance, but I'm interested to see how the Blogging Tories portray this budget as in sync with the budget they put forth here in Canada.

I think they'll have a pretty tough time.

On the environment Canadians saw a budget here in Canada that completely ignored the issue, whereas in the U.S. it's seen as one of the central issues to address.

On human rights Canadians see a government still defending the "process" at Guantanamo Bay, whereas in the U.S. the government is shutting it down and banning torture.

On poverty Canadians see a government here that can't even bring itself to mention the word, whereas in the U.S. the government is taking major efforts to help the most vulnerable.

On post-secondary education Canadians see a government that treats it as an after thought (it received ZERO mention in their last election platform), whereas Obama is placing making his country a world leader on this issue a top priority of his first term.

On partisan co-operation, Stephen Harper can’t help but constantly pick fights wtih the opposition, while across the border Obama reaches out to his rivals for consensus.

On transparency and accountability Canadians see a government that becomes more and more secretive versus one in the U.S. that is opening more windows on how government is operating by the day.

And I could go on. So Conservatives can try to latch themselves to Obama all they can, but their actions (or lack of actions) speak far louder than their words and I don't think Canadians will be fooled.

If Conservatives like Darryl wish we were actually taking the kinds of bold of approaches in Canada as Obama is, I'd strongly encourage them to join them to join the Liberal Party to help make that happen :).

-------------------------------------
(h/t CanPolitico for the NY Times link)
For more info on Obama's Budget Plan for the 2010 Fiscal Year see here and here.

The Daunting Prospects of a Liberal Majority Under First Past the Post: Why Liberals Should Prefer a Preferential Balloting System

2009-02-27T12:24:00.009-05:00

Last post in this little mini-series (which is also the most comprehensive): So let's say in the next election (or the one after that after some time in govt) the Liberals get the following results:
Ontario: We equal Dalton McGuinty's seat count of 71 out of 106 (+33)
Quebec: We pick up 20 seats in Quebec and win 34 of 75. For context, Jean Chretien's high water mark was 36 seats with 44.2% of the vote (21.5% more than our 2008 numbers) and with the Alliance, PCs and NDP scoring a combined 13% of the vote at the same time (Conservatives, Greens, and NDP had 37.3% combined in 2008)
Newfoundland: We keep our seat count of 6 of 7 seats (NC)
PEI: We win back the 4th seat for 4 of 4 (+1)
Nova Scotia: Win 7 of 11 seats (+2)
New Brunswick: Win 7 of 10 seats (+4)
Manitoba: Win 5 of 14 seats (+4)
Saskatchewan: Win 3 of 14 seats (+2)
Alberta: Win 2 of 28 seats (+2)
BC: Win 12 of 36 seats (+7)
NWT: Win back the seat (+1)
Nunavut: Win back the seat (+1)
Yukon: Hold the seat (NC)
TOTAL: 154 out of 308

That's STILL shy of a majority (the other parties would ensure we would get speaker so our real number would be 153).

I don't worry at all about our ability to win a minority government in the next election, but I don't think many would disagree that the above would be an absolute ideal scenario in each province for quite some time and if we are really honest I would say those Quebec numbers will be extremely tough to obtain now that the NDP, Greens and Conservatives (Alliance/PCs in those days) don't score a combined 13% in Quebec like in 2000. In Ontario the McGuinty results were with 42.2% Lib, 31.6% Con, 16.7% NDP, and 8% Greens which compares with 39.2% Con, 33.8% Lib, 18.2% NDP, and 8% Greens in Ontario in the last election so that would require a pretty big turnaround (which I don't at all rule out) just to match that seat count but I would say McGuinty's result is probably the best we can hope for in the province for the foreseeable future. As well, the number of seats out West where the Conservatives won with over 50% of the vote is also huge and the NDP poll better than us in may parts of the West so the possibility of doing better in the Western provinces than those totals is very unlikely for quite awhile (though I'd LOVE to be proven wrong). In fact the province by province results above are probably out of reach for many more elections and yet they are still not quite at majority levels.

We won majorities with the help a divided right in Ontario that allowed to take almost every seat there. That reality no longer exists. In fact if you look at the 1993, 1997, and 2000 election results and knocked our Ontario seats down to the McGuinty count of 71 in those elections and left everything else the same, we would have had a bare majority in 1993 (150/295 seats) and minorities in the other two elections (1997: 125/301 seats and 2000: 143/301 seats).

At a minimum just to get 154 seats now would almost certainly require higher national popular vote totals than we ever received under Chretien in 1993 (41.2%), 1997 (38.5%), and 2000 (40.9%) since those majorities were obtained with a divided right, the NDP never scoring above 12% and the Greens being a complete non-factor (and even under those conditions in 1997 we only won 51.5% of the seats).

So given this reality, if we as Liberals believe that a Liberal majority is the best form of government for this country isn't it time we admit that an electoral system that benefits the Bloc Quebecois more than any other party (note how even in 2000 we beat them by 4% in the popular vote and they still won more seats in Quebec than us) and gives the Conservatives drastically more representation out West than they deserve (based on the popular vote) is no longer in our partisan interests (not to mention the national interest)?

Isn't it time we had a SERIOUS discussion about supporting electoral reform?

I wrote my thoughts making the case for electoral reform back in October (though only posted yesterday), but that was more from why this was the right thing to do from a fairness/good governance perspective and the last post was about why it is right thing from a national unity perspective. Here is why it's the right thing for Liberals to support from a partisan perspective.

The Liberals Would Win More Seats Under Preferential Balloting than First Past the Post and Conservatives Would Become the Permanent Opposition

Just as an example under IRV (STV is obviously more complicated to do the math to lay out), ANY riding (in STV it would be a designated region) where the winning party won with say less than 45% of the vote and we finished second would become easily in play for us. Strict partisans could still just cast their first choice for their party of choice and not make any other rankings while others could at least give their 2nd or 3rd choice a better chance of winning - so if you are a progressive NDP supporter you would rank Liberals 2nd (or perhaps 3rd to the Greens) and help them beat the Conservative (if you wouldn't rank Liberals ahead of Cons what were you doing supporting the coalition then?).

This way of electing MPs would work towards ensuring that every Liberal government had greater representation from rural areas, Francophone Quebec and the West than we've ever had in a Liberal government in over 40 years.

The alternative is hard feelings in the West each time a Liberal government comes to power because the Western representation in government gets cut by more than 1/2 and Conservatives continuing to win ridings with less than 40% of the vote (e.g., as David Graham noted, in Guelph Conservative Gloria Kovach came within a few percent of winning and she would have been the last choice of Liberal, NDP and Greens voters so she'd have no chance under IRV).

To be honest a Liberal majority would still be difficult under a new system and sometimes we may fare worse than under FPTP (though I think it would be rare) but if you believe that the current system makes it easier for the Liberals to obtain a majority than one based on preferential balloting I would say that belief is very difficult to justify. FPTP may have served us well from a partisan perspective when the right was divided and our opponents on the left could never gather more than a combined 10% but those glory days are well behind us now.

At least under a new system such as IRV or STV, while neither is truly proportional representation, the popular vote would take on more significance and coalitions would be more acceptable in order to provide greater stability when any one party failed to achieve a majority and the coalition would always be led by Liberals.

Conservatives would spend decades out of office unless they completely dropped all their right wing ideas (there is after all a progressive majority in this country who would never rank the current Conservatives as their 2nd choice).

We Elect Our Party Leaders (and Potential PM's) This Way, Why Not Our MPs?

The NDP and Conservatives may oppose IRV or STV for partisan reasons (the Liberals are the second choice of more voters than their parties' are), but if I'm not mistaken both of those parties elected their leader by IRV so if they are ok with electing their party leader (and in the Conservative case, the potential PM) that way, why not our MPs?

The same question could be asked of Liberals who support one-member one vote for our leadership selection since surely an IRV vote by all the membership (hopefully at least weighted by riding though) will be what will be proposed for the constitutional amendment on the convention floor.

What About Failed Provincial Referendums?

As well, using failed provincial referendums as a reason for not having a national debate fails to take into account that the reasons for electoral reform nationally are FAR different than those provincially. In fact the case is much less convincing provincially. For instance, in Ontario we don't have problems of Ontario unity (at least nowhere near the national scale), we don't have perpetual unstable minority governments, and we don't have a system that overly benefits a separatist party.

The Status Quo Doesn't Leave Partisan Liberals Great Options

If we don't hold a national referendum on changing the current electoral system (and if the referendum fails so be it) then I would say the only options left are:
A) Seriously considering another Liberal-led formal coalition down the line (though not necessarily right after the next election) as the only way to actually have a stable governing majority under First Past the Post that lasts more than 2 years
B) Simply just getting used to unstable minorities as far as the eye can see: having national elections every 1.5-2 years and always being on election alert.

Those who opposed the coalition probably don't like A, but B isn't exactly too appetizing in my view. So let's look for another way.

I see this as one clear issue where the interests of the country and our party are best served with another system where individuals are allowed to rank their preferences (e.g., IRV or STV) so that their vote counts no matter where they live. I don't like it that my party is resented in several corners of the country and I think the best way to remedy that is, as Michael Ignatieff has said, to gain more representation from those communities in government.

Any preferential electoral system would accomplish that much better than First Past the Post.

Canada deserves a truly nationally representative government and electoral reform is the best way to make it happen.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Notes: Yes I'm sounding like a broken record, but this should be my last post on this for some time. Since only a small number of Liberal bloggers discuss this issue I just thought I would do a little blog bursting of my own. And if you wonder why I don't take a clear stand for IRV over STV it's because I think either are a major improvement over FPTP and I believe the ultimate system on the ballot should be decided by broad consultations so I'm not going to wed myself to one approach over another at this point in time.

People first have to be convinced of the need to replace our current system before we move towards a consideration of the alternatives. They may reject the alternatives but I believe our current system is the source of enough problems it warrants an extensive debate on whether we want to keep the one we have.

I would hope no one argue that the people of this country should have the final say on the matter.

Electoral Reform Is a National Unity Issue

2009-02-26T13:40:00.008-05:00

The last post was written back in October - now for a post that better reflects my current thinking: Here's some unfortunate stats on Liberal results out West and in Quebec from the last 3 elections. Notice how not once in any of these regions has our proportion of seats been as high as our percentage of the popular vote, in many cases not even close. Meanwhile the Bloc and Conservatives get the opposite results.

2004 Election

Party	BC			Alberta			Saskatchewan			Manitoba			Quebec
Party	% vote	% seats	% Diff	% vote	% seats	% Diff	% vote	% seats	% Diff	% vote	% seats	% Diff	% vote	% seats	% Diff
LIB	28.6	22.2	*-6.4*	22	7	*-15.0*	27.2	7.1	*-20.1*	33.2	21.4	*-11.8*	33.9	28.0	*-5.9*
CON	36.3	61.1	+24.8	61.7	92.9	+31.2	41.8	92.9	+51.1	39.1	50.0	+10.9	8.8	0	-8.8
NDP	26.6	13.9	-12.7	9.5	0	-9.5	23.4	0	-23.4	28.6	23.5	-5.1	4.6	0	-4.6
BQ	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	48.9	72.0	*+23.1*

2006 Election

Party	BC			Alberta			Saskatchewan			Manitoba			Quebec
Party	% vote	% seats	% Diff	% vote	% seats	% Diff	% vote	% seats	% Diff	% vote	% seats	% Diff	% vote	% seats	% Diff
LIB	27.6	25.0	*-2.6*	15.3	0	*-15.3*	22.4	14.3	*-8.1*	26.0	21.4	*-4.6*	20.8	17.3	*-3.5*
CON	37.3	47.2	+9.9	65.0	100	+35.0	49.0	85.7	+36.7	42.8	57.1	+14.3	24.6	13.3	-11.3
NDP	28.5	27.8	-0.7	11.7	0	-11.7	24.1	0	-24.1	25.4	21.4	-4.0	7.5	0	-7.5
BQ	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	42.1	68.0	*+25.9*

2008 Election

Party	BC			Alberta			Saskatchewan			Manitoba			Quebec
Party	% vote	% seats	% Diff	% vote	% seats	% Diff	% vote	% seats	% Diff	% vote	% seats	% Diff	% vote	% seats	% Diff
LIB	19.3	13.9	*-5.4*	11.4	0	*-11.4*	14.9	7.1	*-7.8*	19.1	7.1	*-12.0*	23.7	18.7	*-5.0*
CON	44.4	61.1	+16.7	64.6	96.4	+31.8	53.7	92.9	+39.2	64.3	48.8	+15.5	21.7	13.3	-8.4
NDP	26.1	25.0	-1.1	12.7	3.6	-9.1	25.6	0	-25.6	24.0	21.4	-2.6	12.1	1.3	-10.8
BQ	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	38.1	65.3	*+27.2*

The argument that electoral reform would promote national unity is even stronger now than it was before the last election: If we had a system that more closely resembled the popular vote, the last election would have seen the Liberals, Greens and NDP have the majority of seats in House with solid representation from each province, the Liberals would have had more seats than they do now and the Bloc and Conservatives considerably less. The response to a coalition in a House of Commons that actually reflected more closely the popular vote would have been markedly different: no Bloc and much stronger Western representation. I think it’s pretty clear that it was the regional divides and presence of the Bloc that made the largest contributions to the Liberal-NDP coalition’s unpopularity. That’s why Paul Wells, once a major skeptic now has now recently come on board with the idea of electoral reform at the national level and I’m sure he’s not alone (The Globe and Mail , who opposed MMP in Ontario, is another such example). But we won’t see a referendum on electoral reform unless the Liberals support the idea and I think it’s now past time they do.

Michael Ignatieff makes many decisions with respect to how it will affect national unity and is particularly sensitive to the issue of Western alienation, so I hope he does no less when thinking about electoral reform. It should be clear to everyone that our current electoral system greatly exacerbates regional and urban/rural divides in this country.

I fully realize that our MPs are elected to represent their riding, not their province, and that obviously Liberals need to do much more (regardless of what system we have) to truly earn higher popular vote numbers out West and in Francophone Quebec, but our electoral system makes the regional representation issue much worse (particularly when so many Conservatives are elected solely because of a divided left that allows them to run up the middle) and it's a vicious circle - the system encourages us to write off more than 100 seats as unwinnable before each election - that in my view hurts national unity.

Whether Liberals like it or not, if we win the next election the West and rural areas will have far less representation in government than they do now and will likely be unhappy about that and even if we beat the Bloc in the popular vote in Quebec (which is a daunting task in itself) they could still easily have more seats than us there (we beat them by almost 5% in Quebec in 2000 and yet they still won 2 more seats than us and that was when all the other federalist parties scored a paltry 13% combined in Quebec).

But it doesn’t have stay that way at all.

If we are willing to hold a referendum on changing our system and it’s successful we would better ensure that EVERY government, no matter the stripe has significant representation from all regions and communities.

For those who dismiss the possibility of a successful referendum based on the results of MMP in Ontario you should realize that the justifications for electoral reform are FAR different than those in favour of it provincially - see the last post where 3 of the 4 reasons given only apply to the national context - and MMP is surely the least likely option to be put on a national ballot as it is.

As an added benefit, the promise of holding a referendum on electoral reform (following public consultations on the system to be put on the ballot) provides an excellent path to persuading NDP and Green leaning voters to support electing a Liberal government in the next election (remember where the bulk of our votes came from the last time we went from opposition to government) as we know a united right Conservative Party likes the current system fine the way it is and would oppose a referendum every step of the way. Interestingly, before Stephen Harper helped "unite the right" he supported proportional representation (see that last line of the article), now he's got no problems with our current system, I wonder why? Could it be that our current electoral system is the only reason his party holds together?

A Liberal government is the ONLY way we would ever change the system, and I hope that as Prime Minister Michael Ignatieff would allow people to have a say on this issue so we may choose between a system that would bring Canadians closer together and the current one that drives us further apart.

The Case for Electoral Reform from a Liberal Perspective

2009-02-26T10:17:00.003-05:00

This is something I actually wrote one week after the Oct. 14 federal election but never got around to posting (it's left unchanged). I've put off putting this up for some time, and I figure today is about as good of day as any to finally lay down my major thoughts on this issue. I think everything I wrote in Oct. has mostly stood the test of time and while my thinking on which system might be best to replace First Past the Post has changed a little, I feel just as strongly as I did then that our current electoral system needs to change. See below you can see my thinking before all the coalition business happened, I'll be following up with two more posts reflecting the current context and thoughts on the matter later today...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything below is what I wrote in mid-October and remains completely unchanged from what I wrote then (the last line of this post is probably the most outdated one):
Below are four good reasons why electoral reform from First-Past-the Post to a fairer system would not just be the right thing to do, but in Liberals’ partisan interests. Liberals at the federal level are overdue to have a discussion about this. Electoral Reform has been discussed and voted on in many provinces, some votes were complete failures (like MMP in Ontario), others qualified successes (like the 58% support for STV in BC, with another referendum coming in the May provincial election). But I think there is actually a much stronger case to be made for electoral reform federally, then there ever was in each of the individual provinces. So let me list four good overall reasons as to why Liberals should seriously consider pledging to hold a referendum on changing the electoral system to either Single-Transferable Vote (STV) or Instant-Run-Off Voting (IRV) (I would say MMP is off the table given the optics of sending that back to Ontario voters again). I will not be debating which is better of the two, though I recognize IRV is not really proportional representation and that STV does not guarantee proportionality but in practice STV has been far better at reflecting the popular vote than FPTP. Either way I believe the system that would end up a referendum ballot should be decided by broad public consultations. It is my hope that the progressive majority in this country can get behind the idea.
---------------------------------------------------------
Reasons Liberals Should Support Electoral Reform
1) Every Vote Counts:

People who want to vote Liberal in Alberta or in Francophone Quebec, or other rural communities consistently feel each election like their vote doesn’t matter. Sure there is the public subsidy, but not all Canadians are even aware of that, and for many they won’t venture out to go to the polls unless they feel their vote will matter to the overall outcome. We could put a stop to this with either STV or IRV.

You’d rank your choices and even if your top choice doesn’t win your ballot is never wasted as your other choices still contribute to the winner.

2) An End to Regional and Urban-Rural Divides:

I don’t think it’s good for national unity to see each election, the Liberals either wiped out, or severely diminished, in numbers in places like Alberta, Manitoba, Francophone Quebec, and much of rural Canada. When we form government in breeds resentment in all those areas where we are underrepresented. The current First Past the Post (FPTP) system however is a strong contributor to this. If we had IRV or STV any seat that Conservatives used to win with 40% or so of the vote due to vote-splitting would probably fall to the Liberals (or in some cases the NDP, since they might be the second choice of many Liberal and Green voters).

3) An End to Conservative Rule with less than 40% support:

I for one was saddened to see two elections in a row to see a party of the right win with still being opposed by over 60% of the population. Last Parliament the Conservatives governed as if they had a majority anyway and we’ll await what happens in this Parliament.

Reforming the electoral system to using IRV or STV would virtually assure that the Conservatives would never have a majority in the Commons and would likely always be unable to form a governing coalition, given that the Liberals have more in common policy-wise with the other parties than do the Conservatives.

Now I know some Liberals may be concerned that without FPTP we could then no longer appeal to NDPers and Greens to vote strategically for us to stop a Conservative victory, but even though I strongly believe in these appeals under our current system (as I happen to believe that those who voted Green especially have done harm to the prospect of a governing party adopting a Green tax shift again), there’s not much evidence that they worked much in our favour for the last two elections and working against a new electoral system on that basis would portray a lack of confidence in our own party to be able avoid bleeding votes further left.

Others might be concerned this would eliminate the change of the Liberals ever having a majority. Well Brian Mulroney’s PC’s got 50% of the nation-wide vote in 1984 (yes I know there was no Bloc then, but they might not be around forever), can we not equal that some day? The current system creates an incentive for parties to strive for only ~40% of the vote, a new system that is based more on proportionality would create an incentive for 50%, I think that would be an improvement. But with a system like IRV or STV, if we are the second choice of a majority of voters across the country we might actually stand a BETTER chance a majority than under First Past the Post. But we are looking at minorities at best for the next election, and probably the next 2 or 3 with the current system regardless anyway so the concern doesn’t have as much relevance for the short-term.

We remain the party that appeals to the broadest section of Canadians and I’m sure we could consistently win the popular vote within a new electoral system because a plurality agree most with our policies and approach to government. We also remain a party that would likely remain strong and in tact whereas the NDP, Greens and Conservatives would be much more likely to all break into separate smaller parties under a new electoral system.

4) An End to the Permanent Campaign – Giving Us MORE Stable Government:

I know one of the arguments against MMP in Ontario was it would lead to continual minorities, but federally minorities have become the norm with 3 in a row now with no end of them in sight. This has created an atmosphere of a permanent campaign where there are huge incentives for parties to all focus more on the next election than on providing good governance to Canadians in the meantime. This is a huge drain on party volunteers who are constantly forced to be in election mode and it diverts parties from providing the best policies for the lifetime of a parliament.

With electoral reform we could have informal or formal coalitions that could govern stably for 3-4 year periods. I know opponents of proportional systems say the coalitions are formed in backroom deals after the election but there’s no reason that if we had a new electoral system that coalition partners couldn’t be put out in the open in advance like most European countries with PR do. Far from PR creating unstable government, with the current pattern of unending minorities FPTP, government would be MORE stable. And if the Liberals got close to 50% of the vote as Mulroney did in 1984 under a proportional system or if they were the second choice of a large majority of voters in preferential balloting system there would be no need for a coalition either.
-----------------------------------
There are many more reasons for Liberals to support electoral reform at the federal level, but I hope that our party finally starts to take seriously the idea of giving Canadians a referendum on a system of electoral reform if they form the government next time. Obviously whatever system(s) are on the ballot would have to be decided based on wide ranging public consultations (not just a citizen’s assembly, and probably a citizen’s assembly is not the best route anyway). A referendum may not pass, but if we never let Canadians have a say in what electoral system they want I think Liberals and progressives on the whole will lose out in the long run.

Many Liberals will not agree with me on the need to change our current electoral system, but at the least I hope no one is opposed having a serious detailed debate on this issue.

Therefore, I strongly hope this will be a point of discussion among the leadership candidates in the months ahead.

Ontario PC's: Taking Pleasure in the Misfortune of Others

2009-02-23T02:17:00.008-05:00

This story really says it all:
“PCs see opportunity in hard times”

the rapidly deteriorating economy....is widely viewed as an opportunity

"People smell blood," said a veteran Conservative backroom operative

"From 2008 to 2009, it's like somebody flicked a switch," said party president Ken Zeise. "It's like, `pinch myself.' This is an amazing year."

So let's get this straight, the Ontario PCs are HOPING that this recession stretches out for another 30 MONTHS so that they'll have an easier time convincing Ontarians to accept a party they resoundingly rejected in the last two elections? The economy takes a dive, unemployment sky-rockets and that makes for an "amazing year"? Well doesn't this tell us everything we need to know about how much John Tory's party really cares about all those suffering in the economic crisis? Oh yes they care, I guess they're just hoping the poor and newly layed-off workers suffer awhile longer so their partisan ambitions can be more easily satisfied.

The Mike Harris fan club want to replace the McGuinty government? Fine. I've yet to hear any compelling reason why they deserve to be anywhere close to government, but is it too much to ask that their try another route to argue their case than one that relies on the prolonged suffering of others?

I guess I should expect no less from the guys that seemed to take pride in beating up on the poor when they were last in power.

And should we be so unfortunate as to still be in a recession in October 2011, in case the PCs haven't realized, the LAST guys Ontarians will want in power in a prolonged recession are the same people that horribly managed the public purse (and blatantly lied about it) and decimated our social safety net.

But sure carry on hoping for Ontarians to suffer for longer and engaging in more Mike Harris adoration as you did this past weekend - you're just showing Ontarians how incredibly out of touch you are.

Harper and Co. Reveal to Ontario PCs Exactly How They'd Like to Govern: Mike Harris Style

2009-02-23T02:05:00.006-05:00

Aside from Jason Kenney's troubling revelation this weekend (which many others have blogged about) that his colleagues (and perhaps himself as well) see his job as primarily wining and dining members of ethnic communities instead of actually helping them and providing sound immigration policy (which completely proves that Conservative "outreach" is a complete façade) , something else in his remarks caught my eye:
"But he reserved most of his praise for Tory's far-right predecessor, former Ontario premier Mike Harris, and his controversial "Common Sense Revolution" agenda".

We all know cabinet ministers don't say anything without it running it by the PMO so anything said by a cabinet minister can be reasonably assumed to reflect Stephen Harper's views.

So Harper and his ministers think that a recession where poverty and unemployment will rise dramatically is a good time to praise the Harris government that did everything it could to dismantle the social safety net?

And they think the Harris government provided sound economic management when they left behind a $6 billion deficit (and lied about it!) even after selling off every provincial asset they could get away? I guess Harper's easily on pass to top that.

Wow! Just one more reason why these guys could NEVER be trusted with a majority. Mike Harris did enough damage to Ontario, and as much Conservatives would like a national "common sense revolution" I have enough faith in Canadians that they will never give them the majority to do that with.

P.S. For those wondering more what went on at the Ontario PC Conventipon in Niagara Falls it seems Darryl Wolk is the only blogger who provided coverage (if you know of others add them in the comments).

When Egos Run Wild!

2009-02-18T20:45:00.007-05:00

Apparently when the most popular President in generations makes his first visit to our country since taking office the main concern is not ensuring the President gets to have informed meetings with the most important figures in Canadian political life. Nope, apparently the top priority should be to ensure that our incredibly insecure Prime Minister gets to be the SOLE star of the show.

Have we ever seen a Prime Minister so afraid of others taking attention away from him that he feels the need to banish them to unseen quarters on a day where the world will have its eyes on us? Can anyone even picture any of our previous Prime Ministers acting this way?

No we can't have video footage of President Obama meeting with the Governor General or the Leader of the Opposition because that might take precious seconds away from clips that might be shown of the great Stephen Harper desperately trying to cozy up to President who is more popular that Harper could even hope to be. I guess Harper really thinks that people might buy the idea that there really is only one person of importance in Ottawa and that it's him. I guess this is how he's dealing with all the hits to his ego he's taken since December, so that with a day more about him than the guest of honour he can tell himself "I'm the star here, no one else!".

Unfortunately for Stephen Canadians know better and will see through these petty stunts. He looks incredibly small compared to all of his predecessors.

Perhaps the next time Obama visits (which I expect won't be for many more months, perhaps even a year) we'll have a Liberal government and Obama can see how vastly different things are done for a Presidential visit when the Canadian Prime Minister doesn't have an inferiority complex.

Restoring Faith in Canadian Politics

2009-02-17T17:45:00.005-05:00

While I have the most FUN doing posts like my last one (thanks to all for the links! Over 2000 hits for that post and counting!) and teasing the CPC for their never ending failings, I've been meaning for awhile to get to some posts about what I'd like to see in the near future from my own party.

Canadians today are not impressed with what they've seen in Ottawa. They don't expect their governments to be perfect, they know governments make mistakes, they know not EVERY promise can be kept - it is politics after all. But at the same time, they expect a certain level of honesty, integrity and accountability. I'm very proud of many Liberal accomplishments from our time in government and believe we left behind a great legacy, but many Canadians came to believe (rightly or wrongly) that in 13 years of Liberal rule that we became too arrogant and out of touch. Yet in just 3 years, Conservatives have become worse than what they claimed to hate. Their only defenses today are "the Liberals did it too!" or "it's not much worse than what the Liberals did!".

Well in many cases it has been MUCH worse, I don't recall outright lies in the House of Commons from a sitting Prime Minister, and I don't recall the level of character assassination that was launched against Stéphane Dion (and soon I expect Michael Ignatieff) by a PM either. And I don't recall a party running on platform of being "holier than thou" and going and doing the exact opposite (and yet somehow seem proud of this complete reversal).

It's because of this negative trend that Canadians more and more are seeing politics as a dirty profession, where self-interest and dishonesty are necessary traits for getting ahead. They have little faith that politicians will do as they say or that they really have their interests at heart. But Canadians deserve better, especially in these tough times.

Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals must demonstrate (and once in government ultimately prove) that we've learned lessons from both past Liberal and Conservative governments and that we want to restore honesty and dignity to public service again.

That we want Canadians to have a government they can be proud of, instead of one Canadians see as being more interested in helping their own than helping them.

The last budget wasn't really a popular one, but the best Canadians could expect from this tired government, and whether we liked or not, they didn't really believe a coalition would do any better (in fact out West they thought a coalition would be much worse). Canadians have become accustomed to mediocrity from Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty and are just waiting for a better alternative to truly present itself. And it will, but Canadians aren't convinced yet.

In the next election and when we ultimately get back to power we will have a tremendous opportunity to restore Canadians faith in our party and our federal government. Conservatives have completely squandered their opportunity. We can seize ours.

So I hope Michael and his team will be putting together some proposals to "change the culture in Ottawa", because not only is it the right thing to do, it will resonate with Canadians just like it did with Americans last year.

Why not promise to set up an independent commission (perhaps similar to that used for deciding who receives the Order of Canada) to appoint Senators and make other public appointments (e.g., heads of Crown Corporations, boards, etc...) to get rid of the patronage the public thinks is synonymous with holding government? The Conservative promised it for non-Senate public appointments (and the Liberals I believe supported the process) but obviously Harper was never serious about it or he wouldn't have thrown away the idea just because he couldn't get first choice to lead it (someone I'm sure he knew was unacceptable to the opposition in the first place). We can get it done.

Why not promise to enshrine a code of conduct for MPs in the House of Commons? The Speaker could be greatly empowered to boot out MPs who made false statements, heckled or other types of behaviour that the public just shakes their head at.

Why not promise to eliminate the right of a PM to prorogue the House of Commons when he/she faces a confidence vote? What Stephen Harper did in December should be banned through legislation that would be very difficult to vote against or overturn later.

Why not promise to enhance Access to Information laws as opposed to trampling on them as Harper has done? Canadians shouldn't have to find out what their government is doing, or what knowledge it has at its disposal, through anonymous sources, trying to make sense of 50% blacked out reports or paying large fees up front.

Why not promise weekly (or bi-weekly) press conferences by the PM at the National Press Gallery so the press can finally do their job on the Hill?

Why not promise more transparency in how government dollars are spent? Quarterly reports shouldn't just be this year, but every year and perhaps it should even be more frequent than that.

Those are just a few suggestions, but there's much more that could be done and none of these cost much money (some cost none).

The biggest challenge will be convincing a cynical public that we'd actually carry out these promises, but it can be done. If we succeed, the country will be better for it and in fact I think it's the best ticket to boosting our popularity out West and in some rural areas where the term LIEberals is thrown around and actually taken seriously.

It's time for a government all Canadians can be proud of and that can be a model to the world. I'm hopeful Michael Ignatieff will give it to them this year.

UPDATE: Not sure how much press the initiative will get, but I would say this (www.recovery.gov) is a pretty good example of one of my suggestions in action (increasing transparency and accountability in government spending) that could be easily imported by the Liberals here.

UPDATE 2: I have to say that this Liberal website (onprobation.ca) is an EXCELLENT first step towards achieving what I was talking about in this post. Kudos to Michael Ignatieff and his team for putting this effort together!

Blogging Tories' Spin: Conservatives Score Monumental Win in Cadman Case

2009-02-06T23:13:00.018-05:00

A good source of mine (who shall remain anonymous) has leaked to me this e-mail chain to me of Blogging Tories' discussions that I think provides some good insight into why they've all been so silent on about Harper completely folding on the $3.5 million Cadman lawsuit that was supposed to be air tight. See below for all the details…
-------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Taylor
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 8:25:34 PM
To: Darryl Wolk; Christian Conservative; Angry in the Great White North; Blue Like You; Crux of the Matter; ChuckerCanuck; Small Dead Animals; Gay and Right
Subject: Re: Conservatives Score Monumental Win in Cadman Case

Ok fine I see some of you guys are being difficult so why don’t we all just agree to say nothing then? I’ve always been able to rely on you guys to do that in the past on Friday afternoon news dumps so thanks in advance! I trust the MSN won’t see this as news anyway. Thank goodness they aren’t as Liberal as we say they are!

Cheers,
Stephen

________________________________________
From: Darryl Wolk
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 6:45:23 PM
To: Christian Conservative; Stephen Taylor; Angry in the Great White North; Blue Like You; Crux of the Matter; ChuckerCanuck; Small Dead Animals; Gay and Right
Subject: Re: Conservatives Score Monumental Win in Cadman Case

Stephen it’s time to stop the bs, it looks like we lost this thing and our party looks stupid now for starting the case in the first place. I think the best we can hope for is the media just ignores the story and that the Liberals keep quiet about it too and they don’t re-start committee hearings on this. I’m glad I haven’t blogged about this since May of 08 but I really wish I hadn’t bought into your spin at the case at the time. (http://darrylwolkpolitics.blogspot.com/search/label/Chuck%20Cadman).

-Darryl
________________________________________
From: Christian Conservative
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 6:25:18 PM
To: Stephen Taylor; Darryl Wolk; Angry in the Great White North; Blue Like You; Crux of the Matter; ChuckerCanuck; Small Dead Animals; Gay and Right
Subject: Re: Conservatives Score Monumental Win in Cadman Case

OMG! Stephen I’ve swallowed A LOT from this party and have been a good soldier, even posting a lot of stuff I didn’t really buy that much, but this takes the cake! I”ll have no part of your HORRIBLE spin here!

Man do I feel dumb for listening to the party spin for so long on this and being so confident at the beginning (http://canadaconservative.blogspot.com/2008/03/harper-to-sue-liberals.html).
-CC
________________________________________
From: Stephen Taylor
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 5:38:08 PM
To: Christian Conservative; Darryl Wolk; Angry in the Great White North; Blue Like You; Crux of the Matter; ChuckerCanuck; Small Dead Animals; Gay and Right
Subject: Re: Conservatives Score Monumental Win in Cadman Case

Yeah I agree with Janke and Kate, we easily come out ahead here (and Kate I’m thinking of a Kinsella angle as we speak!), we can sell this as a win I know we can. I’m telling you the Liberals really thought they had us beat on this thing, they were hoping we’d actually have to give more testimony in court! And surely the media will see things our way.

Not to worry at all guys, I wouldn’t want to be a Liberal right now that’s for sure!
________________________________________
From: Angry in the Great White North
Sent: Friday, February 6, 2009 4:55:14 PM
To: Stephen Taylor; Christian Conservative; Darryl Wolk; Blue Like You; Crux of the Matter; ChuckerCanuck; Small Dead Animals; Gay and Right
Subject: RE: Conservatives Score Monumental Win in Cadman Case

Yeah please send some better talking points, I’m struggling to complete my post on this. I see how this is good you know we didn’t want the media or the Liberals digging deeper into the story, but I’d still like to get some better direction, so lil help pls!

-Janke
________________________________________
From: Small Dead Animals
Sent: Friday, February 6, 2009 4:47:14 PM
To: Stephen Taylor; Christian Conservative; Darryl Wolk; Angry in the Great White North; Blue Like You; Crux of the Matter; ChuckerCanuck; Small Dead Animals; Gay and Right
Subject: RE: Conservatives Score Monumental Win in Cadman Case

Stephen you did tell us this was in the bag and I feel pretty stupid for all I wrote about this because of what you told us. But I’m willing to bite the bullet and go along with whatever message the party wants if you just send some better frigging talking points please! I’m sure we’ll beat the Liberals flimsy spin on this either way.

But is there any way we can turn this into a story about Kinsella? I’m sure we can all think of something here.

-SDA
________________________________________
From: Stephen Taylor
Sent: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 4:37:13 PM
To: Christian Conservative; Darryl Wolk; Angry in the Great White North; Blue Like You; Crux of the Matter; ChuckerCanuck; Small Dead Animals; Gay and Right Re: Conservatives Score Monumental Win in Cadman Case
Subject: Re: Conservatives Score Monumental Win in Cadman Case

Ok guys I took Grumpy off, but why haven’t any of you posted on this yet? This is the best news we’ve had all week! We can’t let Liberal friendly CBC somehow put some sort of negative spin on this that works against us, we have to get in front of this thing!
________________________________________
From: Stephen Taylor
Sent: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 4:25:42 PM
To: Christian Conservative; Darryl Wolk; Angry in the Great White North; Blue Like You; Crux of the Matter; ChuckerCanuck; Small Dead Animals; Gay and Right; Grumpy Voter
Subject: RE: Conservatives Score Monumental Win in Cadman Case

Alright Grumpy you’re gone from this group. We don’t take kindly to dissent around here, why don’t you try go joining Liblogs again you obviously don’t fit in here. Now that the Green Shift is gone (where you stayed on message with us from start to finish) you've outlived your usefulness. Let’s stay focused here guys, this is a win for us. Period.
________________________________________
From: Grumpy Voter
Sent: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 3:46:05 PM
To: Stephen Taylor; Darryl Wolk; Angry in the Great White North; Blue Like You; Crux of the Matter; ChuckerCanuck; Small Dead Animals; Gay and Right
Subject: Re: Conservatives Score Monumental Win in Cadman Case

Stephen WTF! You say the LIBERALS dropped THEIR case against us? Are you on glue? We launched the case against them and YOU told us it would bankrupt the Liberal Party and be one of the smartest political moves the Conservatives ever made! You assured us that the case was air tight and that we could confidently predict victory! You said they'd be on their knees in the end just begging for US to let THEM go with by just giving US a retraction and apology! We didn't even get a frigging apology from them!

Even when Harper lost his lawyer YOU assured us all it was just because he was looking for a better one and that we “shouldn’t believe the media spin” that it was bad news for our case.

Unbelievable!

-Grumpy
________________________________________

From: Stephen Taylor
Sent: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 3:21:54 PM
To: Christian Conservative; Darryl Wolk; Angry in the Great White North; Blue Like You; Crux of the Matter; ChuckerCanuck; Small Dead Animals; Gay and Right; Grumpy Voter
Subject: Conservatives Score Monumental Win in Cadman Case

Hi guys,

I have awesome news for you all! The Liberals have agreed to drop the Cadman case and they didn’t even ask us to make an apology! This is complete and total surrender on their part!

The media are going to be ALL OVER the Liberals on this one for their frivolous lawsuit against us!

I expect to see you all posting about our great victory starting now so we can shape the news appropriately.

Cheers,
Stephen

______________________________________________
UPDATE: For those who aren't sure what to think of this post, I would invite you to read the labels/tags that were present the minute it was posted as well as the first comment to this post that I posted within minutes of when this went up. If you click some of the tags you might see this isn't the first time I've done a post of like this either, just this one got a lot more attention, but I'm glad most people enjoyed it!

Becoming Everything You Said You Hated

2009-02-06T17:33:00.003-05:00

“For those Canadians seeking accountability the question is clear: which party can deliver the change of government that’s needed to ensure political accountability in Ottawa? We need a change of government to replace old style politics with a new vision. We need to replace a culture of entitlement and corruption with a culture of accountability. We need to replace benefits for a privileged few with government for all.”
- Stephen Harper, Introduction, 2006 Conservative Platform

Political accountability and honesty in Ottawa?
“Auditor General says that feds hand out big bucks with no control”
“Budget overly optimistic about economy, Page (Parliamentary Budget Officer) says”
“Feds can't track green spending, says watchdog”

Old style politics replaced with new style? Benefits of a “privileged few” versus benefits for all?
“Tories bulking up own ridings with infrastructure funds”

How about say or do anything to get yourself elected?

And those examples just from yesterday! There’s A LOT more where that came from.

The Conservatives used to complain about wasteful spending and yet that's been the hallmark of their government! (yes paying Canadians to pave their driveways who were going to do it anyway is just what we need right now).

The Conservatives once believed in balanced budgets, now they have NO PLAN to get us back to one.

The Conservatives slammed the use of tax dollars for public polling to serve partisan interests and now they’ve done that worse than anyone!

The Conservatives complained about how too many benefits flowed to “Liberal ridings” and now gleefully promise to favour those held by CONSERVATIVES!

The Conservatives used to rail against an unelected Senate, now they’ve made the largest single amount of Patronage appointments to the Senate in a single day with MORE promised to come!

They fumed at “Liberal” appointments and promised to do better, but instead have done worse.

And I could go on…

The Conservatives Canadians thought they elected in 2006 are the polar opposite of what they’ve got. Since the 2008 election they’ve only abandoned what few principles they were thought to have left.

Is there ANYTHING Conservatives criticized that they haven’t now gone and done themselves?

So what do Conservative supporters “support” these days? I’d really like to know because it seems to me it’s just power and hatred of Liberals. That’s some political philosophy.

Mr. Tory's Last Ride?

2009-02-04T21:33:00.004-05:00

So March 5 is the day for John Tory. While I'm sure he's conforted in the knowledge that he's running in a place where his party got 50% of the vote in the last election and he certainly goes in the favourite, Tory seems to have a habit of falling below expectations. It Tory thinks he's a shoe in he might want to think twice. Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock residents might actually be looking for a real representative over the next few years instead someone who will immediately go looking for a new seat for 2011 and focus all his attention there. They might looking for someone that actually knows the riding not someone who's only there to save his career. And given that it's a fairly right wing riding they might actually prefer ending Tory's career in the hopes that someone on the far right takes the leadership of the party from him. We shall see, but I guess John Tory is already gonna half to skip away from HKLB to see his party in Niagara Falls this weekend. Something tells me there's not gonna be as many happy campers there as he'd hope.
-------------------------------------------------
John Tory learns his fate March 5

The Canadian Press
February 4, 2009 at 5:29 PM EST
TORONTO — Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has called a by-election in a riding that Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory hopes will be his ticket back into the legislature.

The premier's office says voters in the central Ontario riding of Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock near Peterborough will go to the polls on March 5.

Mr. Tory announced he would seek the seat after Conservative Laurie Scott stepped down last month to make way for him.

He's been without a seat since his ill-fated bid in the 2007 election for the Toronto riding held by Education Minister Kathleen Wynne.

Local school board chairman Rick Johnson will be running for the Liberals.

Three New Democrats — Lynne Boldt, Lyn Edwards and Stephen Woof — are each vying for their party's nomination.

Grading the Budget: Some Positive Short-Term Measures, but an Utter Failure to Invest in Our Future / Where Liberals Go From Here

2009-02-04T07:11:00.005-05:00

This week has not allowed me any time to blog meaningfully up until now, but with the budget now passed first reading last night I thought it would be a good time to finally add my two cents and where we go from here. I had fully expected the budget to pass and it seems polls have validated the decision as something that enjoys widespread public support, particularly with the quarterly reports amendment. That said, given that we know there are many flaws in this budget, I would have much rather seen 50 Liberal MPs vote against it (and the rest stay home) and still let it pass than see any Liberal MPs stand up to support it (I just don't like the idea of Liberals voting for a Conservative budget, I took the same position under Dion, and I'm not sure Liberals have ever happened voted for a Conservative budget before). I also would rather have seen the caucus vote as one because I'm concerned about the precedent being set of allowing one province of MPs to vote different from another on a budget vote. But I can accept I may hold a minority view on those two fronts and I suspect the public really doesn't care (and may have very soon forgotten) about those latter two distinctions anyway. Above all it seems the public just wanted to see the stimulus money flow and Parliament to get back down to work.

So on to the budget itself...

1) Protecting the Most Vulnerable Canadians: Grade: C +

I had said I was hoping for significant investments in social housing, aboriginal communities and poverty reduction along with enhancements to EI.

On the first three in truth there was more there than I would have expected a few weeks ago from these guys, and while I would have liked to have seen more significant investments on these fronts (and I know the savings could have been found by eliminating funding for other less-pressing projects and subsidies of which there were many in this budget), it's a long overdue step in the right direction and Liberal must keep pushing them further.

However, where the budget really does fail on protecting the vulnerable is with EI. Harper himself says this could be the worst downturn since the depression and he doesn't think that warrants extra help for the unemployed? He doesn't think they deserve to get their first cheque sooner when layoffs are increasing dramatically? It was positive to see him extend the length people could be on EI, but it was not enough.

I also have huge reservations over their revival of the pay equity attack from the fall fiscal update which seems like a slap in the face from a party that claims to be more conciliatory now, but since that I believe would be dealt with in separate legislation I won't get overly hung up about it, but when such legislation comes Liberals must vote against it.

2) Protecting Canadians’ jobs, today and in every region of the country: Grade: B-

I had said I was hoping for dedicated aid to the manufacturing sector and other hard hit industries to protect jobs in those areas, that there must be significant investments in job re-training, investments in infrastructure, the culture industry and new actions taken to address the credit crisis. I think the Conservatives did a reasonable/passable job on these fronts.

However, I'm not impressed with the scatter gun way it seems the infrastructure money will be distributed or that it will be need be matched by municipalities that may not be able to afford it.

3) Creating the jobs of tomorrow, and enhanced our competitiveness and productivity without leaving debt and deficit behind for future generations.
Grade: F

I said the budget should take major steps to begin greening our economy (though major investments in alternative energy and green infrastructure), provide greater aid for home retrofits, increase investments in early learning and child care (to invest in our children's future) and post-secondary education, and have a clearly mapped out plan to get us back to surplus that does not involve asset sales or ideological social program cuts.

With the exception of some money for home retrofits (that I believe only starts if you have $1000 to spend) the budget failed on all of these fronts. The investments in green infrastructure and the environment in general were paltry especially in comparison to what other countries are doing or even what past Liberal budgets have done. There was NO attempt to green the economy as our neighbours to the South it seems will be doing anyway in our absence.

There were no meaningfully investments in post-secondary education aside from helping build infrastructure on campus. Universities need much more than that to compete with the funding they get in the U.S. and to adapt to the reality of a growing percentage of the population seeking college and bachelor's degrees.

There were essentially no investments in early learning child care despite that fact that countries with national child care networks are greatly outperforming us economically right now and we were rated DEAD LAST in the western world in our investments on this issue.

The budget also inexplicably cuts funding for research councils and provided ZERO funding for the Genome Project (which Canada may now to have pull out of as an international partner) and other key medical research programs. That is a complete travesty and has to be addressed at the Finance committee. How do you justify taking away significant funding from key projects in the biggest spending budget ever?

And the plan to return to surplus was extremely brief, based on surely faulty estimates and did involve questionable asset sales. I have no faith in said plan to return to balanced budgets whatsoever. I do believe deficits were inevitable given the global economic downturn but the Cons terrible management of the public finances with reckless spending and their GST cuts (that few people have really noticed and haven't helped economic productivity) have made the deficit far worse than it ever had to be and it's appalling that they really seem to have no idea of how to get us out of it.

I'd love to hear a sound argument from anyone as to how this budget really helps "create the jobs of the future" or doesn't saddle future generations with debt. The budget is an monumental disappointment on that front.

Overall Grade: C-

This budget lacked any clear focus and was just so all over the map that they lose points for that because Canadians deserve so much better in these tough times. There's also many subsidies in there for people to do things they would already be doing and others will be out reach to those at the lower income spectrum. To boot there are modest middle income tax cuts financed by deficit spending (which never makes sense for funding tax cuts) that won't stimulate the economy and will make it more difficult to get back to surplus (much better as economic stimulus while also helping the poor would have been to increase the GST rebate). At the same time, the Conservatives went a lot farther on some progressive issues that I had thought they would so the budget wasn't a complete disaster. But given that I agreed with Michael Ignatieff's statement before the budget that the most important criteria to consider was "will it create the jobs of tomorrow?" I can't help but give that the biggest weight in the big picture of how good this budget is for Canada. It's for that reason I cringe where I hear this being called a "Liberal budget" as the Liberals would never have produced something so shoddy. While I'm sure the Conservatives really could care less what a lowly Liberal blogger thinks or how she grades their budget (or how Calgary Grit or economists grade it for that matter), we can't forget where this budget fails badly and have to keep reminding Canadians why they deserve better.

So given that the budget badly underperforms in key areas, but Canadians badly seem to want to see a budget passed ASAP that provides economic stimulus I hope we propose sensible, reasoned, amendments in committee after second reading (which is what I suggested as well before the budget was tabled). Committee votes aren't votes of confidence and there is no threat of bringing the government down there. The opposition has a majority and should set aside differences to get meaningful results and if the Conservative obstruct reasonable proposals and delay their own budget they will be the ones looking worse for it. If the other opposition parties refuse to support progressive committee amendments that's just as unforgivable.

We obviously can't overhaul the budget but we can fix many holes. For instance, funding can surely be found for the Genome Project it would be travesty not to when so many other projects were funded. The budgets of the Tri-Councils (SSHRC, CIHR, NSERC) for research should also not be cut. We could also remove the two week waiting period for EI and remove the need for matching funding from municipalities for infrastructure funds to be doled out. We could attach greater strings to ensure infrastructure money goes to more green projects to make up the budget's major shortfall on the environment. As well, I honestly believe the home renovation rebates should only be for green home renovations that increase energy efficiency and not for things like paving your driveway. That would SAVE the government tons of money to free up elsewhere while also being better for the environment. Those are just a few possibilities (though I know the last won't happen because there would outcries from people who had already gone ahead with plans for non-eco related renovations, but it would be far better public policy).

But regardless of what pans out with this budget, a very sad political reality remains: time and again, it seems is that to be successful politically means placing priority on the "here and now" well above any considerations of the long-term. I believe that is a major reason why a carbon tax, amongst other sensible policies (e.g., large investments in Green infrastructure projects), have been difficult to sell. And I believe it's why this budget that does reasonably well on the here and now front is popular, despite its failure to look beyond the horizon. But until we get a Prime Minister that has his/her eyes on the next decade ahead, and not just the next election, our country will remain in deep trouble.

So where do we go from here? If we are honest with ourselves we have to admit that with the passage of this budget (regardless of any amendments in committee) we return to a 1993 financial situation (I believe the deficit numbers will turn out much worse than the budget currently predicts: Bob Rae provided some good reasons why here). It took Liberals at least 5 years to be able to start making any major social investments again once we took power and it required very painful decisions in order to bring us back to that situation of being able to make such investments. The passage of this budget (and of course the economic realities that have decimated federal coffers apart from the budget) means our platform in the next election will likely only be able to promise a fraction over the next 4 years of what we promised last fall. So within that reality we need a long-term vision badly (and not one based on vagaries with specific ideas for the future and that won't be drop after just one election), but we also need the short-term ideas that win elections. People mocked the 10 year $70 billion infrastructure plan because of sticker shock but in reality 10 year plans are what the country needs, but it's a big job to convince the public of that, though it's not one we should shy away from.

So I hope the Liberal Party can find the right balance between short-term political gains and long-term policy goals in the months ahead, because Canada desperately needs it to. This government doesn't get it, they won't get it, and with each year they remain in power the further the rest of the Western world will be leaving us in the dust.

What Kind of Budget Does Canada Need?

2009-01-27T15:41:00.009-05:00

In a little under half an hour we will see if Stephen Harper has learned any lessons from the past several weeks and whether he finally realizes he has a minority government. I know the Liberals will face a difficult choice. I do not subscribe to the view of oppose the budget no matter, but nor do I think we should approach the budget as a blank slate, as we can’t forget all the deception and gamesmanship that preceded this. We have to ask not only is this a good budget but can Harper be trusted to govern responsibly and implement it appropriately in the months ahead. Harper has to send out very strong signals that he gets it. And the budget he puts forward has to be what’s necessary for the time ahead as the coalition document outlined last fall.

I think the Liberals have some pretty good broad tests of what’s acceptable, but within the broad tests, the budget should in my view have the following:

1) Protecting the most vulnerable Canadians:
- Investments in social housing. The $2 billion proposed is actually less than at least the provinces have asked for which is unfortunate, but this could be amended in committee.
- Investments in Aboriginal communities. A re-commitment to carrying out the Kelowna Accords (I don’t care if they use the name as long as the money and goals are the same).
- Investments in poverty reduction. Tax changes along the lines of Dion’s 30/50 poverty plan are more than appropriate in these tough economic times.
- Employment insurance must be enhanced and distributed more quickly.

2) Protecting Canadians’ jobs, today and in every region of the country
- There must be dedicated aid to the manufacturing sector and other hard hit industries
- There must be significant investments in job re-training
- There should be new actions taken to address the credit crisis
- There should be significant investments in the cultural industry which always returns more in revenue than government pays out and that Conservatives have badly neglected.

3) Creating the jobs of tomorrow, and enhanced our competitiveness and productivity without leaving debt and deficit behind for future generations.
- The budget must start the business of greening our economy and invest in alternative energy and green infrastructure, such as high speed rail and public transportation projects. I’m disappointed to hear that it sounds like there will only be $1 billon over two years dedicated towards green infrastructure. Isn’t that the same amount that has been in previous budgets? Hopefully the Liberals propose an amendment in committee on that front as well.
- The budget must help individuals retrofit their homes with greater aid that has been there before.
- The budget should have increased funding dedicated to post-secondary education.
- There should be increased funding given to the provinces for child care. Increased funding for early learning and child care allows more parents to enter the work force, but also enhances our competitivess for the future and helps build a brighter generation for the future. The Scandinavian countries with national child care programs are also doing better economically than us now, it’s time for us to start catching up and get serious on this issue and not stubborn ideology get in the way.
- The budget must avoid a structural deficit. That means no middle class tax cuts that don’t have a sunset. The Budget Office said that cutting $6 billion a year from foregone revenues (e.g., through tax measures) would create a structural deficit so that can’t be allowed.
- There must be plan to get us back to surplus that does NOT include asset sales or ideological cuts to social programs.

I don’t expect all these will be in here and I’m sure I’ve forgot some things (wanted to get this posted before the budget was actually released), but since I expect many of them to be in there and I don’t think Harper is so dumb as to put in the large middle class tax cuts Ignatieff said he would vote against, I expect the budget will pass. That doesn’t mean I think it should pass, but I recognize the difficult decision being made and that our MPs have been inundated with calls against a possible coalition and urging them to pass the budget, not to mention the last polls that say the same. On the whole I think the mood among Canadians is just to get a stimulus package passed as soon as possible so we must live within that context, but not forget that Harper alone was who prevented such a budget from arriving much sooner and that this is the most important budget in over a decade and can't be decided to vote up or down easily. We shall see very shortly how this will all play out.

If there are large middle class tax cuts that don’t sunset in a couple years (which would no doubt cause a structural deficit) then I think the Liberals will have no choice but to vote against though. Otherwise, I hope at the very least they propose amendments to include all those things above that Harper didn’t put in the budget. We have the majority in committee and if Harper is really going to be about “consensus” he should let the will of the majority prevail there and if he doesn't allow any such amendments then that would seem the like the same old Harper that hasn't learned the lessons he has to.

The Steady Hand for the Economy

2009-01-26T12:02:00.002-05:00

For a bunch of reasons I haven’t been able to blog much this month, but I should be back in the swing of it again with Parliament returning this week. With our MPs coming back today one issue will at the top of everyone’s mind: the economy. And is there a single remaining Conservative who can say with a straight face that Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty's party have been good economic managers?

The entire last election was about them convincing us that they would be “steady hand” to guide the economy through rough waters. Instead, they’ve steadily guided us deeper and deeper into a ditch and it’s still not clear if they’ve taken us to the bottom of it yet.

Can anyone name a single sound economic decision this government made? A single one?

How about their introduction of 40 year mortgages and other reckless lending practices that first triggered the financial crisis south of the border? Was that sound economic management?

How about cutting the GST by two points when ZERO economists recommended it and taking approximately $12 billion a year more out of general revenues? Does anyone really believe that benefited the economy?

How about Stephen Harper’s encouragement to buy into the stock market before it fell another 20%? Does this make you think he should be managing the country’s money?

How about Stephen Harper’s saying in September that “if we were going to have a recession we probably would have already had one by now” before later saying we could face a depression. Does this make you think that this “economist” really understands the economy?

How about pronouncing there would be surpluses in the four years ahead and turning around just a few weeks later to say there would $100 billion in accumulated debt (with $13 billion of that coming BEFORE any stimulus) instead? Does this make you feel confident in their forecasts for the future?

I won’t be surprised if we hear in today’s throne speech about how these guys “saw the storm coming” and are providing “sound economic management”. But that’s nothing more than a massive lie and Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty know it. You can read here on this blog and many others quotes from news stories predicting “worse than a recession” during the election campaign while Stephen Harper was still out singing from his “don’t worry, be happy” songbook. We’ve grown to expect our Prime Ministers to play politics now and then, but we’ve never seen them be so willfully dishonest. And in my book we don’t reward people who pathologically deceive, while being abysmal at the job everyone expects them to do.

We face the toughest economic crisis in a generation. The next six months of government action will play a major role in determining when Canada will see an economic recovery. The Liberals will face a very tough choice this week and will be under overwhelming pressure to pass whatever Conservative budget is put forward, and while I’m willing to see that budget before pronouncing it should be defeated we still need to ask ourselves, if we truly put the interests of Canada and our economy first, do we have confidence in Stephen Harper to get us out of this economic crisis?

A New Voice of Hope

2009-01-20T20:00:00.011-05:00

Today, 8 long years of mismanagement and disappointment came to an end and a new era has begun (see inauguration/speech video and other photos below). Barack Obama faces impossible expectations and no doubt he cannot meet them all and no doubt he will make some decisions that I disagree with and that he obviously won't still have an 80% appproval rating in 2012. But as I’ve been saying for a for a long time now the United States and the world desperately need a major overhaul from the approach of the last 8 years. But in these trying times the world also doesn’t just need change, but hope and optimism. And nobody embodies change and hope better than Barack Obama. As Nelson Mandela said today in a letter to the new President: “Your election to this high office has inspired people as few other events in recent times have done. Amidst all of the human progress made over the last century the world in which we live remains one of great divisions, conflict, inequality, poverty and injustice…You, Mister President, have brought a new voice of hope that these problems can be addressed and that we can in fact change the world and make of it a better place” I share the hope of Mr. Mandela and so many others today…

The hope that the United States will stand up for human rights and not against them.

The hope that the United States will engage the world and embrace multilateralism instead of unilateralism.

The hope that the United States will tackle the crisis of climate change instead of denying it.

The hope that the United States will provide health care for all its citizens instead of being the only western nation that doesn’t.

The hope that the United States will truly become an accountable government by and FOR the people instead of a government consumed by secrecy.

The hope that the United States will look after the impoverished and help left them out of poverty instead of seeing the poor as a burden to be looked down upon.

The hope that the United States will do its part to solve the economic crises instead of being an enabler of the policies that started it.

The hope that the United States President will work to heal the divides at home and across the globe rather than exacerbate them.

The hope that the United States will play a more positive role in the world than it ever has before.

I may not be an American but I can say I’m as optimistic about America’s new direction as I was the election night I won't forget in Chicago.

The Chase for Change is now over. Change has arrived and while actions will speak louder than words, I hold out hope that 4 years (and even 8 years) from now Barack Obama will still represent change we could all believe in.

A Faint Hope of Getting it Right on the Environment

2009-01-02T16:22:00.004-05:00

Happy New Year everyone! I hope the year for you is getting off to a good start! On the political side of things my spirits were brightened a bit to see this story on National Newswatch (which I’ve included below). One of the leading climatologists at NASA is openly lobbying the incoming Obama administration to impose a carbon tax, arguing (as Liberals did in the last election) that it is the ONLY feasible approach in the short term to make the reductions we need in greenhouse gas emissions. Even though I still think the odds are slim Obama will impose a carbon tax, this climatologist isn’t the only leading figure to call for a carbon tax, as both Al Gore and Bill Clinton have called for it recently too. IF Obama did decide for this more sensible and needed approach I would LOVE nothing more than to see the reactions of the Conservatives and the NDP.

A carbon tax in the U.S. would mean Canada would be STRONGLY compelled to have one as well (as we should regardless). Even though the idea is probably even a tougher sell in the U.S. than here, Obama will have an unprecedented honeymoon to bring in sweeping policies in his first 100 days. It’s either now or never for him for a carbon tax though, if he doesn’t move on it immediately, it won’t sell nearly as well later. However, if Obama opts for an exclusively cap-and-trade approach, I’m afraid we will be doomed to the same here in Canada for at least the next few years (even though I still think it’s a poor precedent for Liberals to reject a sound policy after just one election in which dozens of other issues and our own organizational weaknesses were big factors in our loss as well). Cap-and-trade over a carbon tax might seem like good politics, but it certainly isn't the best policy. But for now I’ll hold out the faint hope that Obama will get it right.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reality Bites
Halifax news, politics and snark, by Tim Bousquet

Hansen: Dion was right
January 01, 2009 04:34 PM

James Hansen is the NASA scientist who first testified to the US Senate on the climatic challenges facing the globe in 1988, and continues to be one of the leading climatologists researching the issue.

Today, New Year's Day, Hansen releases a letter to Michelle and Barack Obama:, in which he underscores the importance of taking quick action to address global warming. The letter's worth reading in its entirety, but of special interest to Canadians may be the section that deals with the need for a carbon tax. Hansen argues not just that a carbon tax is necessary, but also that a cap and trade system is not a viable alternative.

As you'll recall, Stéphane Dion campaigned on a carbon tax. Jack Layton condemned it, saying he would prefer a cap and trade system, and Stephen Harper ridiculed it as an economy killer. There were no doubt many reasons why he lost in the polls, but Canadians overwhelmingly rejected Dion and therefore the carbon tax. But here we are, three months later, and the man who arguably knows more about global warming than any other human tells us we can't avoid cataclysmic climate change without a carbon tax:
The physics of the matter, together with empirical data, also define the need for a carbon tax. Alternatives such as emission reduction targets, cap and trade, cap and dividend, do not work, as proven by honest efforts of the 'greenest' countries to comply with the Kyoto Protocol:

(1) Japan: accepted the strongest emission reduction targets, appropriately prides itself on having the most energy-efficient industry, and yet its use of coal has sharply increased, as have its total CO2 emissions. Japan offset its increases with purchases of credits through the clean development mechanism in China, intended to reduce emissions there, but Chinese emissions increased rapidly.

(2) Germany: subsidizes renewable energies heavily and accepts strong emission reduction targets, yet plans to build a large number of coal-fired power plants. They assert that they will have cap-and-trade, with a cap that reduces emissions by whatever amount is needed. But the physics tells us that if they continue to burn coal, no cap can solve the problem, because of the long carbon dioxide lifetime.

(3) Other cases are described on my Columbia University web site, e.g., Switzerland finances construction of coal plants, Sweden builds them, and Australia exports coal and sets atmospheric carbon dioxide goals so large as to guarantee destruction of much of the life on the planet.

Indeed, 'goals' and 'caps' on carbon emissions are practically worthless, if coal emissions continue, because of the exceedingly long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the air. Nobody realistically expects that the large readily available pools of oil and gas will be left in the ground. Caps will not cause that to happen – caps only slow the rate at which the oil and gas are used. The only solution is to cut off the coal source (and unconventional fossil fuels).

Coal phase-out and transition to the post-fossil fuel era requires an increasing carbon price. A carbon tax at the wellhead or port of entry reduces all uses of a fuel. In contrast, a less comprehensive cap has the perverse effect of lowering the price of the fuel for other uses, undercutting clean energy sources.vi In contrast to the impracticality of all nations agreeing to caps, and the impossibility of enforcement, a carbon tax can readily be made near-global.
It's hard to read these words and not think that Canadians have made a terrible blunder.

Adding: Hansen says more about the issue here:
"Goals" for percentage CO2 emission reductions and "cap & trade & dividend" are a threat to the planet, weak tea, not commensurate with the task of getting CO2 back to 350 ppm and less. Note:

(1) There must be a tax at the mine or port of entry, the first sale of oil, gas and coal, so every direct and indirect use of the fuel is affected. Anything less means that the reduction of demand for the fuel will make it cheaper for some uses; e.g., people will start burning coal in their stoves. Peter Barnes' idea to push the cap upstream to the extent possible is not adequate nor is a 'gas tax' suggested by NY Times and others. A comprehensive approach is needed.

(2) "Cap & trade & dividend" creates Wall Street millionaires and complex bureaucracy. The public is fed up with that – rightly so. A single carbon tax rate can be adjusted upward affecting all activities appropriately. With 100% dividend the public will allow a carbon price adequate to the job, i.e., helping us move to the post- fossil-fuel world.

(3) Supply 'caps' cannot yield a really big reduction because of the weapon: 'shortages'. All a utility has to say is 'blackout coming' and politicians and public have to cave in – we are not going to have the lights turned out. Will the public allow a high enough tax rate Yes, dividends will exceed tax for most people concerned about their bills.

(4) A tax is not sufficient. All other measures, such as building codes, are needed. But with millions of buildings, all construction codes and operations cannot be enforced. A rising carbon price provides effective enforcement.

(5) Wouldn't it be cheaper to let people burn the dirtiest fuel? No. The clean future that we aim for, including more efficient energy use, is not more expensive. For example, you may have read about passively heated homes that require little energy and increase construction costs only several percent. Such possibilities remain the oddball (with high price tag), not the standard construction, unless the government adopts policies that make things happen.

Tim Bousquet

Harper Leadership: Leading From Behind

2008-12-31T11:16:00.006-05:00

The end of the year is an ideal time to take a look at how you’ve done in various areas of your life and where there’s room for improvement. Unfortunately, in the case of our government, I’m sure Stephen Harper puts his fingers in his ears whenever he’s reminded of his performance so that leaves it up to others to give him his year end performance review on the major issues facing Canadians. For a guy who’s campaign slogan was “Harper Leadership” (a slogan that has conveniently been banished from the website since the election), his record sure doesn’t seem to be one of a “leader”. On issue after issue, he’s content to be at the back of the pack and only doing anything positive when he’s forced to. It’s why I’m not optimistic he can really change for the better and why Canada would be better off with him gone. But on to the review…
---------------------------------------------
On the Economy
- While Dion and the Liberals proposed economic solutions to get our economy rolling again in the last election, Harper offers no plan and said basically only "don't worry, be happy" when more and more experts were saying Canada had serious troubles ahead that need to be tackled. Harper STOLE the Liberals plan after realizing he was LAST to the party in realizing the economic crisis Canada faced.

- While every other western nation has put forward massive stimulus packages and are acting NOW to help their economies, Stephen Harper’s only response was to try to crush his opponents and pander to his base and then shut down Parliament for seven weeks. Stephen Harper is content to be the LAST western nation to bring in real solutions for the economic crisis.

On the Environment
- While every other western nation is focused on greening their economies and meaningfully tackling climate change, Stephen Harper has his head in the sand and prefers to obstruct than help tackle the problem. Stephen Harper is content to see Canada have the WORST record in the Western world on the environment.

On Early Learning and Child Care
- While other countries invest in early learning and child care and realize how conducive such investments are to a strong economy, Stephen Harper is content to literally have Canada be ranked DEAD LAST on our approach to this issue.

On Ethical Investigations
- When the more shady aspects of the Mulroney-Shreiber affair came to light, Harper railed against holding any real investigation before caving (but of course showed real leadership by stalling the inquiry until after the election). Stephen Harper only acted when outside voices were UNANIMOUS that he HAD TO. Hopefully he’ll be pushed in to doing the same for the In and Out and Cadman scandals.

On Foreign Affairs
- Maxime Bernier had to make a dozen mistakes before HE resigned as Harper couldn’t even bring himself to fire him. Stephen Harper is content to have incompetent ministers representing us on the world stage.

- Canada used to be a respected voice on the world stage. Under Stephen Harper we've pulled out of the race for a UN Security Council seat because Harper has made it so it's a virtual certainty Portugal would beat us. Stephen Harper is content to have us seen as being a Bush-like pariah on the world stage.

On Aboriginal Issues
- While virtually every other nation supported the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indiginous Peoples, Canada was one of the few countries opposed. While all 10 Premiers supported the Kelowna Accords, Stephen Harper tore them up. While other countries and provinces take dramatic steps to improve the lives of Aboriginals, Stephen Harper is content to leave them at the back of his priorities.

On Food Safety
- While every independent voice has called for a public inquiry into the listeriosis outbreak, Harper still insists on a private closed door one and staunchly defends his incompetent and horribly insensitive Agriculture minister (even re-appointing him after the election). Stephen Harper is content to be LAST to the party on food safety.

On Health Care
- While other provinces tackle wait times Stephen Harper has forgotten about it entirely. He promised wait time guarantees for 5 procedures and settled for one out of 5 (with a different one in each jurisdiction). For Stephen Harper, accomplishing less than 20% of what you promised is considered a major accomplishment.

On Human Rights
- As Barack Obama is about to close Guantanamo Bay and EVERY OTHER western nation has repatriated their citizens who were interned there, Stephen Harper is content to be the LAST supporter of Guantanamo. While EVERY western country that officially opposes the death penalty advocates clemency for their citizens abroad, Canada is now the ONLY country that doesn’t. Stephen Harper is on pace to see Canada have the WORST record on human rights in the western world.

On Culture
- While other countries invest in their culture industries to bolster their economies and promote their national identity Harper thought it wise to cut and censor them. Harper was eventually dragged to make an embarrassing reversal, but once again Harper was LAST to realize the importance of the cultural industry to our economy and identity.

On Gender Equality
- While other parties ran more female candidates, Harper ran less. To boot, Harper slashed funding for Status of Women Canada and weakened its mandate, his party passed resolutions removing gender equality as goal for the government, against pay equity and bring back Ken Epp’s “unborn victims of crime bill”. Harper had a chance to change course and instead brought in a fiscal update that attacks pay equity and then appointed an abysmal 4 out 18 women to the Senate in his history making patronage spree. While other countries make strides in moving towards gender equality, Harper is ALONE in having us move BACKWARD. Harper is dead LAST in his commitment to women’s issues and giving an equal voice and equal representation in the House of Commons and Senate.

On Poverty
- While an economic crisis ensues that could see poverty rise to historic levels and while our neighbour to the South is ensuring it does all it can to soften the blow for those hardest hit, the word poverty can’t even cross Stephen Harper’s mouth. Stephen Harper is content to be DEAD LAST in poverty reduction efforts.

On Plans for the Future
- While out campaigning for a majority, Stephen Harper had NO INTENTION of releasing a platform. He ONLY released one in the end when it became embarrassing for him not to. What he released has more photos than ideas and While running a campaign based on “leadership” Stephen Harper had (and in all likelihood has) NO REAL PLANS of his own to lead us into the future.
--------------------------------------------------
And that’s far from all the examples where Harper’s failed. We need real leadership from our government during the biggest economic crisis we’ve faced in decades and Harper has a huge mountain to climb to show he’s up to the times and deserves to govern in the year ahead.

We have to ask ourselves what kind of government do we want in 2009? One that leads from the front or from behind? We must demand much better of our government or it must go.