Top 10 Canadian News Stories of 2008

Every year has its big stories, but this year had many that I think Canadians will still be talking about years from now. You may not agree with the top 10 Canadian stories I’ve chosen, but it’s hard to say each of these weren’t major stories when they hit and that most of these don’t still resonate. I’ve reflected on each one (some “reflections” I guess could be posts in themselves) and they are listed in rough chronological order rather than importance.

1) Chuck Cadman Scandal: You don’t hear about it as much now, but you can’t say it’s not huge news when you hear allegations (which seem to be backed up on tape) that the Conservatives tried to literally bribe an MP to vote with them. And don’t forget Harper’s libel case against the Liberals over this is still before the courts, but given how that’s fared of late I’m thinking Harper’s hoping we do forget about that one.

2) In and Out Scandal: The RCMP raiding the governing party HQ and the ensuing frantic (and failed) attempt to control the media spin over the Conservatives apparent over-spending and shady dealings with local ridings during the 2006 election was certainly a sight to see. Conservatives are STILL spending millions fighting this in court so obviously they realize how bad it will reflect on them when Elections Canada does finally rule officially AGAINST them

3) Maxime Bernier's Bungled Foreign Affairs Tenure: I’m someone who believes it’s extremely important for Canada to maintain a positive reputation in the world and so it’s big news to me that this year we came to fully realize that Stephen Harper had appointed among the worst (if not the worst) foreign affairs ministers in Canadian history. From not knowing who the President of Haiti was, to blowing private negotiations to get a troublesome Afghan governor to step down, to promising C-17s that didn’t exist for deployment, it was clear the guy was just not up to the job. Amazingly enough it took him leaving confidential documents at his girlfriend’s place to bring him down, but even then Harper wouldn’t fire him, Bernier instead resigned. This was also the first and only cabinet resignation I believe we’ve seen so far from this government. That’s not a good thing given how many of Harper’s ministers have done things that should have warranted their dismissal.

4) The Green Shift: Like it or hate it, it was the most bold policy proposal of the year. Sadly the Conservatives AND NDP smeared it with disinformation and the Liberals were unable to successfully combat the onslaught. I’ve still yet to hear one person credibly argue how a cap-and-trade system would be a superior approach to tax shifting for reducing GHG emissions over the next several years when a cap-and-trade system could easily end up being (in the words of Andrew Coyne) "just as costly...twice as complicated… and probably half as effective (as a carbon tax)" and when we know that Europe has had a terrible time getting cap-and-trade off the ground and that the Western Climate Initiative here in North America isn’t scheduled to start till 2012. Yet as of this time an exclusively cap-and-trade approach seems to be the approach all parties (except the Greens) now want us to head in.

I HOPE the Liberals show some courage again and revive the Green Shift policy in a different more saleable form down the line (certainly the Green Shift policy on the whole could stand for some tweaking). After all it was originally Michael Ignatieff’s idea when he was the only leadership candidate in 2006 arguing for it. I understand how given the results of the last election he doesn’t want to touch a tax shift with a ten foot pole and I guess I can’t blame him if he doesn’t go back to it, but to date I’ve seen ZERO evidence in polling or anything that Canadians were voting against us SOLELY BECAUSE of the Green Shift. Is there really more than 1-2% of Canadians who would have said “I definitely would have voted Liberal but didn’t only because they were proposing a carbon tax”?

I think it’s foolish to boil down the election loss to that policy (or just who our leader was for that matter) when people could have voted against us for literally dozens of different reasons (I wouldn't be surprised if some people actually went to the polls thinking the Liberals were going to ban the bible or some other crazy nonsense perpetrated by Conservatives) and such a simplistic view allows us to learn little. I think we lost much more so due to weaker organization and GOTV efforts, the smearing of Stéphane Dion with millions of dollars in ads that we were unable to combat (due to our weaker fundraising abilities) and Harper successfully (falsely) portraying the Liberal platform as planning to spend tens of billions more than was available in the treasury (e.g., the infrastructure policy was portrayed as $70 billion over the short-term rather than over 10 years).

I hope Ignatieff thinks long and hard about what’s best for the country in the long-term, because the environment may not be top of mind for Canadians now but in 2-3 years it will definitely be back and I fear cap-and-trade alone simply won't be sufficient to make the greenhouse gas reductions we need to make and to avoid being seen as a laggard in the world eye on this issue.

Liberals ought to take a look at Norway, an oil-producing nation with HIGHER GDP per-capita (highest in the world right now), economic productivity and living standards than us and yet who have a dreaded carbon tax (though the Liberal Green Shift was actually a superior approach to what Norway put in place as I believe they had too many exemptions). We can catch up to them or we can fall further behind (the environment isn’t the only issue we can look to Norway on either).

If we KNOW the Green Shift (or an improved adaptation of it) is the best approach for the environment (combined in time with cap-and-trade), how can we as the “natural governing party” just abandon it completely just because of one election? If we used one election as the basis for whether to discard different policies then that really sets a bad precedent for any party to be bold. Trudeau discussed implementing a new Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1979 and lost, it’s a good thing we didn’t abandon it in the next election. I hope we don’t so easily discard tax shifting once and for all.

But alas, I feel this little tirade will fall on deaf ears and tax shifting will not be proposed again by any major party in Canada for a long time to come…So then on to the next news story of the year….

5) 2008 Federal Election: I honestly believe that if the election were held a week before (when polls had it at 33 Cons -30 Libs) or a week after (when Nanos again had it 32 Cons – 30 Libs) October 14 the result would have been dramatically different, but Stephen Harper called the election for when he did for a reason and it paid off. He wanted to avoid by-elections losses while having an e-day before the economic downturn he knew and before Obama could be elected in the US. Harper was clearly going to lose all 4 by-elections (and from what I heard on the ground we were on the verge of winning St. Lambert on the eve of Sept. 8) and he waited till the very last day before the by-elections so he could run ads unopposed outside the writ (to do an end run around election spending limits), wasting the maximum amount of public money possible. That he could do that AND break his promise not to call an election before October 2009 and almost not even release a platform and not be punished at the polls for any of that still bothers me.

As for the campaign itself, it started off slow for us, but I believe we did eventually hit our stride and our platform had the right priorities (I’ve still yet to hear a single Liberal state any specific policy aside from the Green Shift that we shouldn’t keep in the next platform), but perhaps we promised too much (in $ terms at least) or perhaps we didn’t communicate well enough what we were going to do. As I said above on the Green Shift, it’s simplistic to blame that for our loss or to blame just Stéphane Dion. In the debates everyone praised his performances and to me that still represents the real Dion, but in the end he could not overcome the negative caricatures (bought my an unprecedented character assasination campaign by the Cons) that even he recognized had been cemented in Canadians’ minds. That certainly hurt us, but what hurt us more was being outmatched in organizational and GOTV efforts and simply not being in play in many less ridings than the Conservatives. We have a lot of work to do to fix that in time for the next election (I’ll propose some more thoughts on how to do that in the new year). Apart from that, I think a lot of voters by the time e-day arrived were just looking for a steady hand to manage the economy and a plurality for whatever reason thought that would be Stephen Harper. I’m sure he was helped by the strong final weekend he had and the major market rallies that occurred on the final two days of the campaign.

Even so, a MAJORITY voted against Harper and if we had a system of proportional representation then the results would have translated into the Liberals, NDP and Greens having a majority of seats between them without needing any support from the Bloc to have formed a coalition. Only the Conservatives and the Bloc won a greater percentage of seats than their percent of the popular vote and that’s the second election in a row that’s happened. I hope the time will have finally come for the majority of Liberals to realize that electoral reform is not only the right thing to do but is also in our own party’s interests (I’ll also have more to say about that in the new year).

6) The Economic Crisis: It’s not quite true that no one saw an economic crisis coming (in fact I give Garth Turner credit for making dire predictions well before the bottom fell out on the market), but I think the magnitude of it has taken just about everyone by surprise. If you had said a year ago that Canada would have a $30 Billion deficit in 2009 and that all parties would agree that a fiscal stimulus package getting us to that point would be necessary (not forgetting the fact though that if it weren’t for Harper’s reckless GST cuts the prospective deficit would be MUCH smaller) you’d have been called crazy. Thankfully previous Liberal governments ensured that our banking system was one of the most solid in the world and Stephen Harper has a minority or else Canada would be in a HUGE amount of trouble that might take a decade or more to get out of. Liberals can’t let Canadians forget that the Harper Conservatives brought in 40 year mortgages and other reckless practices (before abandoning them when it was clear how damaging they were) that were the original source of the financial meltdown in the U.S. that dominoed into a global economic crisis and we can't let them forget either how recklessly Harper and Flaherty and Co. frittered away a strong surplus that would be have been enormously useful at a time like this.

These guys don’t know how to manage the economy and the evidence is overwhelming, we just have to make sure Canadians understand just how bad they have been and how disastrous it would be if they got a majority.

7) Fiscal Update/The Liberal-NDP Coalition: Stephen Harper came into Parliament enjoying the good will of the opposition parties. Many people were predicting he would likely get to govern until at least 2010. It’s his fault alone that he squandered that and now has the lowest ratings for “Best PM” than he’s ever had. The fiscal update had no solutions for the economic crisis, proposed bizarre (e.g., a firesale of public assets in a horrible market) and offensive (e.g., weakening pay equity and banning public strikes right after a collective bargaining deal was reached) policies while having the central goal of crushing the Conservatives political opposition through the elimination of the per vote subsidy.

Had the coalition not come about I have no doubt in my mind Harper would have dug in his heels on the update, as without a coalition, voting down the update would have meant an election that the opposition parties weren’t prepared to face. In all likelihood with no coalition one of the opposition parties would have been very likely to cave. Thankfully, because of the deal Dion negotiated with Layton, Stephen Harper had to shelve every negative aspect of that update. But for putting it forth in the midst of a crisis and at a time when the opposition was willing to work with him, Stephen Harper should have lost power. The coalition in turn would definitely have brought in a strong and popular budget by now instead of us having to be the last western country to bring in fiscal stimulus to revive our economy. I’m confident that even though they would have started with only about 40%-45% public support (which is still more than Stephen Harper enjoyed) their policies would have proved popular over the year ahead. Unfortunately, the Governor General was put in the unprecedented situation of being asked to allow Harper to dodge the will of Parliament. Stephen Harper’s head would have exploded if Paul Martin had tried the same thing, but I don’t think there’s any doubt in anyone’s mind now that he will do anything to retain his hold on power.

Now the coalition looks unlikely to happen because Stephen Harper’s scare tactics and disinformation have knocked its popularity down to below what we would have hoped for (though I think it’s disingenuous of this Globe article to call 40%-45% support for the coalition “widely unpopular” without also calling Stephen Harper “widely unpopular” after receiving only 38% support in the last election) and because Harper now desperately wants to survive past January so he can regoup without the threat of any looming coalition (as that threat can't really exist past February).

Though I do hope that if Stephen Harper doesn’t take dramatic steps to show he’s changed (that go beyond just putting out a strong budget) that those worried about voting him down realize that we may live to regret allowing him to live another day and that the Liberals, NDP and Bloc decide to end his career right at budget time in January. If the Harper Conservatives won’t be a responsible government in the worst times our country has faced in decades then there is ample justification for the coalition taking on that role instead and every single precedent that exists would compel the Governor General to allow that.

8) Provincial elections in Alberta and Quebec: The status quo prevailed in Alberta, but it was definitely surprising and disappointing (I’m sure all the more so for any Liberals living in Alberta) just how resounding Ed Stelmach’s victory was. Now that oil is plummeting to lows not seen in years and it seems like Stelmch spent the cupboard and never planned for something like this, I wonder if Albertans will finally see that perhaps they aren’t being best served by Conservative government after all. I’m sure somehow all the problems Alberta is facing for low oil prices will be blamed in Trudeau somehow.

As for Quebec, Jean Charest completed his political comeback with a majority, but Stephen Harper’s Quebec/separatist bashing the final week of the campaign almost blew it for him and definitely has helped revive PQ fortunes. Had Charest only won a minority I think his career in Quebec would have been over (since the only reason he called an early election was to win a majority) and I wonder if he wouldn’t have tried to go back to Ottawa to end Stephen Harper’s. The things will never know since a majority is a majority and I’m guessing Charest will retire at the end of his term (has any Premier ever won 4 consecutive terms in Quebec?), but I won’t be surprised if he tries some bold initiatives in next 4 years to cement his legacy.

9) New Liberal Leader: I was I was sad to see Stephane Dion go and not got the second chance every one of our other past leaders received, but I do believe he played important positive role as our leader and even as interim leader with the creation of the coalition. I think he would have made an excellent PM and still could have grown into the job of party leader (as was evident in the last half of the campaign) , but as he recognized the Conservatives so badly tarnished him that it would been very difficult to reverse that impresssion and thus he felt the mountain would be too high to climb.

While the ensuing Liberal leadership race was much shorter than expected and cut out what likely would have been some valuable debates, Liberals are now able to turn their guns away from each other and squarely on Stephen Harper MUCH sooner than expected.

10) Senate Patronage Spree: Ordinarily Senate appointments by a PM are hardly big news, but that changes when it’s done by a man who’s spent a lifetime campaigning against Senate patronage and who just shut down Parliament to avoid a confidence vote and when it also happens to also be the largest number of appointments in a single day. There being no gender or partisan balance in these appointments and the overwhelming number of hardcore party loyalists being appointed just made all the more cringe inducing. Whether the galling nature of these appointments will turn public opinion against him remains to be seen, but it was a pretty dramatic example of Harper will abandon any principle to hold on to power and use all the perks that come along with it.

Honourable mention: The inevitable end of John Tory’s leadership of the Ontario PC Party, though it comes a lot later than I, and the poll I conducted, had predicted. But since it’s not official yet, technically it can be a story for 2009. My endorsement for their leader still has not changed though: Randy Hillier all the way! And here’s hoping Baird, Flaherty, Clement and/or Van Loan (the more of them better) also race back to try to grab the Ontario PC Party brass ring as well - they will be doing their country a HUGE favour by leaving Ottawa for Queen’s Park and going back to the opposition benches where they belong!

World News Note: Obviously the biggest worldwide story (that eclipsed all Canadian stories) was the was the 2008 Presidential Election and the election of Barack Obama as President, but Canadian politics is still where my heart is so that’s what I stuck to in this list just like I did last year.

Recommend this Post

New Historic Poll! Liberal Leadership Edition!

It's time for another earth shattering Galloping Around the Golden Horseshoe Poll! Always a big fan of democracy I like to give my readers their say. In past votes you voted on the future of John Tory (he's lasted a lot longer than you predicted) and made the ground breaking choice of a new colour scheme for this blog! Now you can make your voices heard on what I just proposed: "The FAIREST Approach for Liberal Leadership". This approach would see a leadership race till the 3rd or 4th week of January with public debates between Ignatieff and Rae, platforms released, and giving all members a online/phone consultative vote BEFORE caucus selects the leader so that the choice reflects the will of the membership in all ridings. Is it the best idea ever or something so horrible I should be shouted at for even suggesting it? (no there is no room for in between here). You can vote away in the top right corner. Voting ends 10 AM on Wednesday. Get to it!

UPDATE: I was unaware it was possible to move up the DSMs for Super Weekend to mid January and appoint an interim leader then based on the results but if it is possible to do that and still have a bit of flexibility on membership cut-offs (for the reasons I outlined in my post, ideally it should be a week before the voting) then I think that would be a fair solution as well since all members get to vote as DSMs and the voices of women, youth, seniors and Aboriginals would be protected just as well as in my proposal since the winner would be based on eleted delegates through the formula we've used in the past. I still think what I proposed is in line with the constitution but moving up DSMs would be more consistent I suppose. If you agree with that option OR the one I proposed in the past post, vote Yes for the poll in the top right corner.

UPDATE 2: The poll saw 65% vote in favour of my proposed solution, but as is well known to anyone who wasn't living under a rock my ideas were not adopted by the National Executive and the leadership race is now effectively over and Michael Ignatieff will be the next Liberal leader. Bob Rae clearly deserves kudos for showing to all how committed he is to this party and uniting it behind the Liberal leader against Stephen Harper. So now it's time to move forward and put the focus where it belongs on Stephen Harper's appalling government and at the same time on rebuilding the Liberal Party of Canada together.

Recommend this Post

The FAIREST approach for Liberal leadership

My expert solution that surely everyone would agree with is laid out below. So with LeBlanc’s exit the possibilities for the way forward have narrowed. Let me first say that I’m disappointed to see a race with only two contenders, I think we could have benefited from more, not less voices in this race (I think 4 or 5 would have been a good number). But I guess Dominic LeBlanc has become the John Edwards of this race (absent the torrid affair), bowing to the reality that he couldn’t win so dropped out early in the race. Has he been promised a jet ski by Rae or Ignatieff in order to get his endorsement? I’m sure we’ll know for sure quite soon.

But this leaves us with two key issues to resolve going forward:
- What should be the future of Stephane Dion’s leadership?
- How do we select the leader in time for the Jan. 26 return of Parliament as both Rae and Ignatieff seem to want?

Here is my gold 4 point solution that should satisfy EVERYONE.

1) Stéphane Dion stays on as interim leader until the permanent leader is selected in 3rd or 4th week of January when a permanent leader is elected.

The man has made many mistakes (which he has admitted to), but he has given the past decade of his life to this party and his whole life has fought hard for this country. He deserves some respect for what he has done. One could certainly make the case that anyone else might not have been able to put together the coalition that ultimately caused Harper to back down on public financing and leaves us with a chance to form government at the end of January. If we are going to elect a permanent leader in January anyway it seems unnecessarily cruel, not to mention ineffective to push him out sooner and replace him with an interim leader for a matter of 5-7 weeks. Parliament is not in session at this time and the organizational hassles involved in switching leaders for such a short amount of time simply because many people are upset right now just doesn’t make sense. I hope caucus can take the more rational and respectful approach here.

2) Hold at least 4 nationally televised debates between Ignatieff and Rae. Hopefully the major networks will cover them (the times and dates should be arranged for maximum coverage and ratings) and this will be an excellent way to get coverage for our party while Parliament is not in session (which is always a tough time to get the media to pay attention to the opposition)

3) Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff both release full platforms very early in the new year. I hope these platforms detail what they would do in their first 100 days as Prime Minister since that still remains a possibility should the coalition take power at the end of January or if we get an election should the government fall at that time where either will be running to be PM.

I will note that neither have answers my questions yet though! I have gotten assurances from the Rae camp that the answers will be coming soon and the Ignatieff contact said he “is trying to get answers to your(my) questions” so hopefully both will be up here soon.

4) Electing the leader through a One Member One Vote procedure that protects smaller ridings and the voices of youth, seniors, women and Aboriginals.

Here is how I envision this working:
- A date (or it can even last a whole weekend) is set in the 3rd or 4th week of January for when voting will take place by ALL Liberal members who have signed up ONE WEEK before the vote. Given that the dynamics of the leadership race have radically changed it seems unfair to set an earlier cut off. Everyone was under the impression the membership cut off was going to be February 6th so setting it for mid January seems pretty fair.
- Voting is done online, by phone or in person (I think we should follow whatever is done by other parties who use OMOV)
- Each riding is apportioned 100 points based on the percentage of votes received for each candidate in each riding. 50 points in each riding go to male members’ votes, 50 points go to female members, 33 for youth, 7 for Aboriginals, etc…. so that it matches EXACTLY the proportions that WOULD HAVE been given delegate spots to vote at the convention in Vancouver.
- Whoever has the most points “wins” and the other agrees to drop off the ballot for Super Weekend so the other is acclaimed in Vancouver at the leadership convention as per our constitution.
- That winner is appointed interim leader by the national executive as Stephane Dion steps down follwing the vote of the membership.

When we change the rules mid-stream I think it’s important that no groups voices are weakened as a result and this ensures that doesn’t happen. Some people may have problems with this arrangement for allocating votes (and in fact I’d hazard to guess it won’t even happen), but if this isn’t what happens I imagine it will end up the case that a smaller percentage of women, Aboriginals and youth will have a say in the leader than would have happened under the originals rules. This could in turn upset the Commissions. For instance, I recall the YLC opposed OMOV vote last time unless there was an agreement to apportion a certain percentage of votes for youth.

So this proposal doesn’t favour any camp over the other, and important to me, doesn’t weaken the voices of women, Aboriginals, seniors, or youth compared to the representation they would have had if we elected the leader in Vancouver as originally planned. I hope many others would agree with this modest, fair proposal.

It’s essential this be done right. This party needs unity which means having a procedure where EVERYONE accepts the results as an entirely fair way to decide the leader and so that Liberals can get behind the leader without any supporter of the other candidate or neutral Liberals having misgivings about how the race was done.

UPDATE 10:10 PM: Rumour is Ignatieff gave the jet ski to LeBlanc up front (as yet unconfirmed). Also, it appears that Jeff (BC'er in Toronto) would agree with my proposal

UPDATE 2: I was unaware it was possible to move up the DSMs for Super Weekend to mid January and appoint an interim leader then based on the results, but if it is possible to do that and still have a bit of flexibility on membership cut-offs (for the reasons I outlined above, ideally it should be a week before the voting) then I think that would be a fair solution as well since all members get to vote as DSMs. I still think what I proposed here is fully in line with the constitution but moving up DSMs would be more consistent I suppose. If you agree with that option OR the one I proposed in this post, vote Yes for the poll in the top right corner.

Recommend this Post

Getting to Know Bob

So I participated in what is now “that infamous bloggers call with Bob Rae” (rundown of the call is below). Rae does gets credit for being what I believe, is the first leadership candidate to officially reach out to Bloggers in this race. I could be wrong, but I believe any Liblog who listed their contact email in their blog profile got an invite. And the invites seem to have gone out AFTER the call was made public in the G&M, which did cause some unnecessary panic in Liblog world. Nonetheless, I’m pretty sure everyone who wanted to attend got to and that’s the important thing. And I have to say the conference call system was pretty effective and unique.

I’m beginning to notice how much blogs get attention - my stats show signs of Macleans, the Star, CBC, amongst others, and I’m sure we blogs are some good lunch time entertainment or a quick research for the media for inspiration, who are always looking for a good (or
pitiful) political fight. So it makes good sense the leadership candidates would reach out to us.

Anyways, Bob did say he would answer my questions that I previously posted (see the questions here), so I am gracious for that. I have gotten a similar response from LeBlanc’s camp as well, so only Iggy remains on that front (I’ll update this post when I hear from them). I’ll still give big props to whoever gets me actual answers first though. Below you will find out what was discussed on the call and Bob’s point of views on the issues.

Bob acknowledges that he has challenges in Ontario, but will be direct and honest on that front, and will prove that he is the right person for the job by talking about all of the experiences that he had the opportunity to participate in to make a difference in this country. He asks us all to pay attention to his Canadian Club presentation tomorrow, where he will dive more into this.

He believes the new Liberal leader and the Party must be physically much more present in all 308 ridings. This will help riding associations, and hopefully reach out to new voters and hopefully members. The party needs a systemic strategy based on where we can find new voters. It is going to take more than a fresh coat of paint for the leader to be able to really say they’re a leader.

Bob wants to support riding associations, and I believe he said that he supports some of the money from the per vote subsidy going to the riding associations so that they can use that to fund their activities and base. He supports the idea of a national, 308 riding strategy.

I really thought Bob got something else really on the nose, and it made me happy to see that people “high up” in the party like him realize that many of our members, perhaps those within it who already hold positions, suffer from “Title-it is”, that is, people want position, power and turf, rather than do the heavy lifting work needed and being an inclusive player in the party trying to build a broader base of support (without needing attention and glory to do it). So true.

Furthermore, the leader must be interested in fundraising and connecting with the public, and know about fundraising. I assume then Bob is inferring he has this expertise and experience fundraising and clearing his debts leadership race? I give credit for Dion for focusing his efforts on this as well.

Bob believes one issue that the Liberal party could have taken greater hold of during the last campaign, and can more in the future, is the issue of high drug costs, which I believe he said is a problem that is growing, particularly in the west. I think this definitely can be an issue we can use, along the lines of how the ndp used texting messaging and AMT fees are issues to mobilize voters. Bob also noted that he economy was the big issue, and while our platform was heavily focused and related in various ways to the economy, but we didn’t place emphasis on these specific economic planks. A party and leader must be able to shift focus in a campaign more effectively he said

Bob notes that the economy will still be an issue for some time to come. As a country, we must think about the future and how we can compete globally. While the Green Shift did focus on this last point, we must work towards the goal, and he doesn’t believe the Green shift can lead us to that goal. We must focus always have an end goal in mind with a strategy to get there and sales pitch to sell our plans. He used the example of Germany, a country known for its automobiles, which now has more jobs in the energy sector.

Lastly, he is in favour of one member, one vote (OMOV). This didn’t surprise me since he said this morning he supports free memberships. But free memberships can be threatening to a riding association, delegate selection meetings, and internal party races as insta-Liberals could play a larger role. Unless there are rules for how long you can be a member to invoke your membership rights and there is a very active join/renewal process or other membership requirements this may prove problematic.

And I have strong concerns about a strict one member, one vote system as I feel that would severely weaken the voices of youth (I believe the YLC officially opposed it last time unless a sub-amendment passed to allocate 25 out of 100 points per riding for youth), women, Aboriginals, and seniors unless there are measures to put in place to ensure their votes would count for a similar proportion to what they currently get in delegate spots. There’s also the concern that Toronto and other urban areas would always end up electing the leader (and the voices of rural areas, Francophone Quebec and the West where our membership numbers are weak would be severely diminished) without an appropriately weighted by riding OMOV system (I believe the proposal at the last convention that was voted down was at least a weighted OMOV system with 100 points given per riding). Personally, I also find something rejuvenating about going to a national convention, meeting Liberals from across the country who love their party and are dedicated, active members who want to be there with you. There may be exceptions (and I realize there are still cost issues), but for the most part I’d say the people who actually go to conventions are more committed on the whole than those who just attend the DSMs on Super Weekend. So one of my questions I’m following up with Bob on is exactly what kind of OMOV system he supports.

So thanks for having us Bob. I understand that LeBlanc will also be holding a conference call sometime soon for Bloggers, so I look forward to that one as well. My contact email is on the right, Dom. Same goes for Iggy if he chooses to do the same, I’ll be there.

Recommend this Post

My Questions for the Liberal Leadership Candidates and Other Musings on the Race Ahead

Grassroots Outreach

- Each Liberal candidate has talked about a 308 riding strategy for the next election, but what specific steps would you take from an organizational, membership and fundraising perspective to actually turn this new catch phrase into reality?

Balance of Powers

- Do you believe this country should have a stronger central government (i.e., more national programs with uniform standards) or stronger provinces (i.e., federal government sticks to its own constitutional jurisdictions) than we have presently? If you had to choose between one or the other which would it be and why?

The Environment

- The Liberals have seen many bold plans proposed on the environment in recent years. I was very pleased to see Michael Ignatieff propose tax shifting (taxing pollution and cutting other taxes to compensate) in his last leadership platform and put that issue on the table and later see Stéphane Dion adopt a similar Green Shift for the last campaign (with a promise to institute a cap-and-trade system at a later point). I, along with many other Liberals still support this approach, but what do you believe is the best approach for meaningfully reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and being a world leader on the environment: a cap-and-trade system, tax shifting, or a mixture of the two? When would you aim for such an approach to be put in place and how would you sell it?

Aboriginals

- What specific steps would you plan to take to improve the lives of Aboriginal Canadians beyond re-committing to the Kelowna Accords?

Women

- What specific steps would you take within your first year as leader to see the Liberal Party achieve gender parity in its election candidates, MPs, and internal party positions?

- Will you pledge to keep the commitment for Commissioner for Gender Equality in the next Liberal platform?

Poverty

- Will you commit to putting in place the 30/50 poverty plan (and finding the needed funding whether it comes from a carbon tax or not) contained in the last Liberal platform if elected Liberal leader and Prime Minister? If not, what you would change from the original plan and why?

Human Rights

- We all agree that Canada and its representatives should stand strongly for the protection and promotion of human rights abroad. Unfortunately, many Canadian mining companies operating abroad have been associated with human rights abuses in many countries in the developing world. I was heartened to see the Liberal platform contain a commitment on page 59 to “establish and promote a Canadian Corporate Social Responsibility Framework for all Canadian extractive-sector companies operating in developing countries.”

Will you pledge that such a commitment will remain in the next Liberal platform should you become leader? If not, why not?

Electing the Leader

As you know the way in which we currently elect our leader is through a delegated convention, in which approximately half the elected delegates are men and half are women, and one third are youth, and there are spots reserved for Aboriginals and seniors, in addition to ex-officio delegates. Do you support changing this system to that of one-member one vote? If so, how would you propose the system operate in a way that still protects the voices of youth, women, Aboriginals and seniors in the party?

Party Unity

- Should you be victorious in the Liberal leadership race, what specific steps would you take, upon assuming the leadership, to unite the party (and members of all camps) that were not undertaken by past leadership victors?
--------------------------------------------

With the Conservative Convention wrapped up and my official blogging duties from the ground coming to a wrap up, it's now time to go back to familiar territory - the Liberals. And all the Liberal news is about leadership lately. While its important, I hope it doesn't overshadow the issues at hand in the House of Commons. So in case you are wondering, the questions I've sent to friends of mine working on each campaign in hopes that each leadership candidate will answer them promptly, and with honesty.

Gold star to the candidate who answers them first, and all! I will post the responses the minute I get them. But I strongly request that the candidate at least reads them, and answers them, and that its not staffers/volunteers. I do in all reality know that a staffer will probably proof, or go over the questions with their leader, which I just accept.

As for my thoughts on the race so far, I have to say I'm surprised (and just a bit saddened) to see so many Liberals rush to support one candidate or another without those candidates actually spelling out many of the things they would actually do as leader to rebuild the party or what kind of government they would lead. I do fully respect all those who’ve already come to a decision and I know they’ve done so for their own honest reasons, but I also know I'm not alone in wanting to make as informed of a decision as possible before endorsing anyone. I also know I'm not alone in NOT wanting to decide based on who has the least baggage (nor will I be talking about such negatives on this blog) or base it on who is supporting who - friends or big Liberal names.

And I know I'm not alone in wanting this race to be about which candidate has the best ideas and abilities for the FUTURE of this party and this country. We tried to make an election in 2006 about Stephen Harper's past writings and actions and it didn't work, if Stephen Harper wants to try the same strategy against us in the next election it won't work either. So while inevitably others will be tempted to trash competing candidates, I'll do my small part to try to make this race about hope for the future rather than fear mongering based on the past. I hope others will too (I'd say Steve V sets a pretty good example here, apologies if I’ve missed others like this promoting all candidates, feel free to put a link to your own in the comments). For me getting the answers to the questions above is just the start.

And I hope we'll see the discussion in the months ahead revolve around reasons to vote FOR each candidate rather than reasons to vote against another one. But if someone wants to remain neutral in the end let that not be held against them either, as everyone will be needed to chip in to bring us back to power after this race is over no matter who they supported. And finally we can't forget that the process of rebuilding the party financially and organizationally needs to begin NOW, aside from this race, so let's not let that most crucial task fall by the wayside either.

This race and its immediate aftermath could leave us more united and stronger than ever before or the opposite, so let's get this right.

Recommend this Post

The Only Liberal Blogger Interviews the Only Liberal MP Present Here At Ice Shut Con Convention

Yesterday afternoon I had the pleasure to interview Marlene Jennings, the Liberal caucus observer (and current Deputy House Leader) here at the Tory Convention. She asked me to meet with her in one area of the convention centre, but I had to ask her if we could meet a slightly different location, because I, as “media”, was not going to be able to access that part the hall.

Jennings said that during this visit, she was expecting to watch the real Conservative Party in action – its grassroots membership - and watch the debate and discussion between the delegates and the Members concerning their policy issues and ideas, in the same way that she’s been able watch the said democratic process at Bloc, New Democratic and Liberal conventions. Instead, as an MP and an as observer, Jennings has been unable to do so due to the high security, paranoia barred access.

“The way we can protect our democracy is through openness and transparency, and when the important political debates take place in public. To close access completely to their debates on their policy issues, says that they are not proponents of democracy, and have no interest in being open and transparent, that their concern is controlling the message to the point of stifling democracy, even it is from within their party,” said Jennings.

Jennings went on to note that normally, the grassroots members are the true representation of the party, and that most parties try to reach out to all of their members in multiple ways, and that even includes the media to broadcast to the members at home. “Those that have not been elected as delegates, for whatever reason, even financial, have been able in the past to observe their party’s convention live on the TV or the web, or through accessing the news reports. They learn from these media sources what positions were on the table, the different arguments put forth for each of them, and for this convention, they are unable to do that, so the Conservative party is not reaching out to all of its members and doing so equally.”

As for the session of the House ahead it is no secret that the economy will play out to be a major issue in the House of Commons, and what will be important for Canadians to observe is what the government’s strategy is going to be to deal with the tanking manufacturing sector which has lost hundreds of thousands of jobs.

“Harper has said nothing is wrong with the manufacturing industry and that it doesn’t need assistance. It is actually in real danger of disappearing, along with many direct, and indirect jobs that go along with it. The Harper government must support Canadian workers to ensure social programs remain here and that they consider alternative scenarios.”

Furthermore, in two years time, Jennings believes that the conservatives will be shrivelling up even more when it comes to democracy, because democracy depends on honesty and transparency. The fact that there have been rumblings of disgruntled grass root members who want to see the party moved further right may be testament to that “Harper has a real problem on his hands. In order to achieve a minority government twice in a row, he has had to move the party more to the centre to achieve that. He has a tough balancing act on his hands, and he maintains power tenuously to do that. It’s interesting that while he’s moved his party more to the centre, he hasn’t succeeded to bring his party to a majority government since becoming party leader. The more mainstream the Conservatives become, the more the grassroots Conservatives will want to call that move into question, but they will not question his leadership because there are some deep divisions in the party that some people are afraid to let break through. They’re afraid for a leadership race because their division will break through and become known, the party will be seen for what it really is.” Jennings also added that the achievements that he cited on his Friday speech, such as the first woman MP etc., were all achievements of the previous old red-Tory party, the same party that Harper’s old party rejected for so long and did not see any pride in those accomplishments.

On the issue of leadership, Jennings said that the current Liberal leadership race may distract the media from Harper’s government actions in the House of Commons, but that she’s certain of her party’s ability to do their job effectively. “Today Dion announced his shadow cabinet, and we have an excellent team with strong players, some who are new and dynamic. Our team is effective and we’ll be able to drive the issues and maintain the media’s spotlight on the issues which really are important to Canadians.”

Many controversial resolutions that were on the agenda for the last session of parliament were being put forth at this convention as resolutions to give them new life. Jennings noticed this and said that if the Conservatives try to sneak them back in under the rug while much of the focus is on the turbulent economic situation, that that strategy will not work. “We Liberals are always paying attention, and will drive the media’s spotlight that way, especially when it comes to bills like Kenn Epp’s which found its way back to the floor today.”

Jennings is optimistic that in two years time the Liberals will be well on the road to being reinvigorated, with significant structural changes to its party, improvements to its capacity to fundraise (on that note please join the Victory Fund today!), recruit members and engage Canadians.

I thanked Ms. Jennings for her time, and I had to go outside and walk 2 sides of the block to go back to my area, because I could not walk the 10 metres that separated me from our meeting location to my media holding room.

Now get ready for some excitement as barring at last minute change of heart by the Conservatives starting at 9 AM central time, I’ll be covering the policy debates from the floor as the far right former Alliance wing of the party tries to take their party back! (and by back I mean 30 years!) Will they succeed, will they be trampled? Stay tuned!

Recommend this Post