A Study in Contrasts

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).

Recommend this Post

Congratulations Eric Hoskins!

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!

Recommend this Post

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

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.

Recommend this Post

Why the NDP Should Go Now

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.

Recommend this Post

The Case for Change

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

Recommend this Post

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

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.

Recommend this Post

A Dollar a Day Until the Conservative Ads Go Away

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.

Recommend this Post

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

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

Recommend this Post

LPC Biennial Convention in Videos

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

Recommend this Post

BC or Bust: Commission Biennials

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

Recommend this Post

BC or bust: attendance/policy thoughts and night one

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

Recommend this Post

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

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!

Recommend this Post

The Amazing Race: LPC Edition

"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...

Recommend this Post

LPC Biennial Priority Policies and Constitutional Amendments

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!

Recommend this Post

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

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.

Recommend this Post

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

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.

Recommend this Post