Ken Dryden says "NO" to Harper's secret plan to force open the Constitution

While most of the other candidates went along with it for no good reason, Ken Dryden showed leadership. What are we actually voting for in a leader this weekend? Is this someone who will just go along with something that does not feel right (perhaps out of fear), or someone who will stand up for what is not right and who will stand up against what is wrong. Do Liberals want a leader who will say "yes" or "no" because of what is right regardless of the status quo.

Laurence Cannon explained what this really is: it is recognising an ethnic nation and not a geographical or inclusive one - what is symbolic about that? That's a hierarchy. That means Anglo Quebecers, like me, are a little less important in our province right now. The gains of "francophone Quebecers" should not represent a loss for "other Quebecers". That is what everyone but 16 members of Parliament voted for today. What about the Charter?

Harper's key to insitutionalising conservatism in Canada is absolutely about re-opening the consitution, no matter what he says. He could never do that in public and hold onto his rural and Western "Canadian" support. So, he put it on the tee for the Bloc to drive it open. This is definately where this will now go politically.

After Meech and Charlottown, didn't Canadians swear we would not play with consitutional "fire" without being sure? Iggy either missed the point or was very imprudent.

Harper will now have "carte blanche" to decentralise, with the BQ blazing the trail to constitutional talks. Once open, Harper will have support to dilute the federation and to "give away the farm", if need be to hold the country together. That is far to much power for such an ideological conservative, if we want to maintain our current identities.

If Liberals can win the country back the federation will mean that much less. The writing was on the wall months ago that this is Harper's agenda - his anticipated legacy. This is very dangerous.

Which of the leadership candidates would stand up to this "garbage" on behalf of Canadians and Liberals? This became quite clear vith tonight's vote. Way to go Ken!

This will be a very interesting week. I look forward to experiencing this convention with my fellow Liberals from across the country in my home town. Welcome to this great city and I will see you on the floor.

EV

Part 3: Institutionalised Conservatism - Was Harper's Nation flip flop about forcing Liberals to vote?

Last week at this time, it looked like the LPCQ's Nation Resolution was about to be pulled from the policy convention because of bad procedure. The Bloc did not want to lose the opportunity to split hairs by watching this thing die with Iggy. To avoid a lost political opportunity, the BQ chose to put a tough question to the house. Fear crept in, and Harper duped members of all parties and the party leaders (except the Bloc at the time) to support his way of thinking. A massive flip flop for the Prime Minister it seemed to be at the time. The way this was being reported at the end of the week, Harper had saved Canada and Liberals were bowing to his leadership.

Did Harper force Duceppe's hand too? The Bloc flip-flopped yesterday and will now be supporting the motion tomorrow. Some say it is just a flip-flop. Others think this vote now represents something very different than what Bill Graham encouraged the leadership candidates that are currently a part of the Liberal caucus to support last Wednesday morning at the 9:00am meeting.

With Duceppe's flip flop, our Liberal caucus members are voting on something that is purely symbolic for now. And, symbolically, this forces Liberals to support or reject Quebec (the francophone nation). Thanks Ig!

Where this get dangerous is if and when the BQ and PQ are successful in swaying soft nationalist public opinion that this nation symbol means nothing without constitutional renewal. Next they twist Harper's rubber arm a bit, and now we have an election issue over re-opening the constitution or not (unless it is Iggy).

After that, constitutional discussions will amount to either successful repatriation or not. If not successful, nationalist sentiments would be fanned and another Quebec referendum could be on the horizon. Great. Thanks.

Or, Harper will transform Canada into a place that is more conservative by giving away the farm to seal the deal. And, at the same time, he will limit federal spending on matters of provincial jurisdiction to save money and set a trap for Liberals, who will find it hard to govern any differently in this new diluted Canada.

Duceppe's flip flop changes everything, so Liberal caucus might want to think about changing its tact tomorrow before the vote. If this becomes an unanimous love in, Harper will have gained in a series of very strategic chess moves.

Politics can be tough and Liberals need to perform better or the convention will represent a lost opportunity in the struggle for momentum leading up to a possible spring vote.

Part 2: Institutionalised Conservatism - why Harper would rather face Ig even though he denies it

It is very strange that journalists like Craig Oliver and Don Martin think Harper’s Nation motion will put Iggy over the top at our convention. This is either stupid or strategic. Both have their conservative tendencies, but that simplistic type thinking is just ignorant. The fact is that the other campaigns don’t want Iggy! This is because Iggy will represent the greatest attrition of delegates to “anybody but Iggy” campaigns on the floor next week. If these journalists actually checked to see what is happening on the ground, they would not say such things so flippantly. It is not at all that simple at all.

But maybe they do know. Maybe they are being aloof about the whole thing just like the one they admire most, Stephen Harper. But are they really that daft to think this thing is really that simplistic. To offer the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Oliver and Mr. Martin, I do consider both to be intelligent men - so this must be strategic or some type of big corporate media spin.

If I were Steve I would realise that many of the people in the Liberal Party who are against Iggy are steadfast and could leave the party altogether. No other candidate will make Liberals scramble and/or at least reflect on their ideologies, their loyalties and where they place their efforts.

Steve also knows that Iggy automatically moves the Liberal party to the right with his stands on Iraq and other matter. Students of Weber will know this favours Harper, the incumbent in the next election

Iggy also represents the one candidate who will help and not hinder Steve’s hidden addenda to re-open the constitution and dilute federalism. This reminds me of what it is like south of the border where states have so much autonomy.

While we are at it, why don’t we begin selling or giving away contol over our freshwater? We could also combine constitutions and start trading greenbacks.

What the hell is going on here?

Who is going to stand up and say “no” to this tomorrow! Even candidates who are Mps (and are bound to party discipline) could reflect on whether this whole ending is the latest thing cooked in the IggyNation's kitchen.

To control a Canadian federation with decentralised power in perpetuty is a small price to pay...it is still some power, right Ig.

Institutionalised Conservatism: Harper, the nation, constitutional change and Duceppe

When I was a grad student at English university in Quebec, to graduate, I had to write a French test on the eve of my graduation to show I am worthy to have a graduate degree from a Quebec university. These rules were made in Quebec City and the onus was on my university (and program) to have such hoops in place, as a condition of funding - a provincial jurisdiction.

For the other students and me, this was for all the marbles. I still remember the topic: "centralisation versus decentralisation", which is serendipitous perhaps in light of evidence this week that confirms to me that Harper's primary goal while in office is to institutionalise conservatism in Canada and by using the Quebec problem (the Iggy nation) to do so. At the very least, this would lay down the tracks for future conservative governments to more naturally govern in a diluted/decentralised Canadian federation.

Stated simply, decentralisation is typically consistent with traditional conservative values /and inconsistent with traditional Liberal principles. Harper's vision it seems is more of a neutonian/reductionist approach to the distribution of powers and the redistribution of revenues which reduces the federation to the sum of its component parts (i.e. the provinces).

If this is consummated through constitutional renewal (which the CPC is denying but it will be hard to put the genie back in the bottle), the Canadian political spectrum will shift forever. It will be impossible for Liberals to govern from the centre because the centre will likely have shifted. Will our children and grandchildren have to be ideological Tories to avoid being off the off the scale left?...much like many Democrats have evolved to become in the United States?

So, history could show that Iggy's nation thing was the catalyst constitutional renewal, after all.

To avoid sovereignty via this process, Harper may re-open the constitution himself (or at least he will lay down the tracks for doing so) and in so doing pave the road to absolute decentralisation of Canada's federation . This would accommodate the political motives of those governing in Quebec (many of whom ultimately have sovereignist objectives). This will be rolling the dice unless the federation is diluted. The soveignists will take advantage of Harper's preferencess to weaken the federation, as long as at the end of the day Canada matters less and Quebec matters more: or no deal. As such, Canada will have a federation that is weakened considerably by these negotiations . There will be no going back.

What about the Liberal vision of federalism that would involve a stronger federation because the component parts are also stronger? To me, that is the Canadian vision. This is not about "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", is it?

This is where other scary conservative objectives may rear their ugly blue heads. While the constitution is open, why not limit federal spending in areas of provincial jurisdiction. This would save Steve some money if he is still governing, and, if he is not, his legacy will have been to have institutionalised conservatism in Canada, and the rest will be history. If I actually were ideologically conserative, like Steve, I would consider that to be a fine legacy, even if he governs only briefly.

Whether it is to sweep this under the rug before the leadership convention (or to save Iggy's butt), Liberals should be very cautious before voting for Harper's motion. Gigantic "flip-flops" like this one are usually about political survival, and not about good or sustainable policy.

Liberals should not walk into this "booby-trap".

Is Iggy Responsible for Nation fiasco? Ask Michael Bliss

Is this nation thing Iggy's responsibility? I will reserve comment in favour of Michael Bliss, who writes:

"None of this would likely have happened if Mr. Ignatieff had not deliberately fanned the embers of Quebec nationalism in his campaign for the Liberal leadership. Without Mr. Ignatieff's publicizing of the issue, it probably would have simmered harmlessly. He is a classic example of the irresponsible intellectual who advocates what seem like good ideas, and only afterwards comes to understand and regret the unintended consequences of the positions he has taken. He did not learn the lessons of his ghastly Iraq folly. After making mistakes that would have humbled and silenced most thoughtful men, Mr. Ignatieff instead chose to bring his carpet bag of ideas back to Canada. Millions pay the price of the Ignatieff ego."

Liberals should think twice before allowing Harper to go this way without opposition, giving him a "red carpet" to limit federal involvement in provincial matters and to weaken our federation irreparably by institutionalising conservatism like the Borg sought to do in Star Trek - assimilate!.

Why are the leadership candidates being encouraged to go this way?

How to take advantage of gender discrimination in Canada’s family courts now: time is running out.

People who have experienced Canada’s family courts (including divorcing couples, the lawyers working in the system and the judges), if they were to be perfectly honest, they would admit that gender plays a big part in the outcome. Some argue that gender is the single most important factor in determining custody. This is the worst kept secret by members of provincial bar associations. Loyalty to the higher order (and sheer profitability of family law for lawyers) has mostly contained any whistle blowing by barristers and solicitors. Because it is their discipline, they are overwhelmingly the ones who best understand this.

Whether this is a violation of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms adopted twenty-five years ago, it is hard to know for sure (though logic would suggest...what ?). This question has not yet been adjudicated.

When it is, family law as we know it will likely change forever. This will be much to the disappointment of lawyers and other special interests who profit from the way the system is right now. Monumental change is happening, so, if anyone looking for ways to use the present system to estrange one's children from an ex-spouse one really doesn’t like, the window is slowly closing - one had better get to it!

If this is really important, there is still time. There is still no non-litigious way of resolving a custody disagreement for divorcing couples on access. In the meantime, one could collect the maximum amount of child support (because child support is a priority and will be dealt with in a short number of days, for the sake of the children). One could use the child support money for litigation (nobody will check - it is paid to the parent :)) and those monies could be used to grind the resolution of the access issue to a snail's-pace via the courts. One's kids may never have to see their other parent, the one who gets in the way, again!

Therefore, the status quo can be preserved in perpetuity and child support monies will still continue to flow. Awesome isn't it!

The best part is that most non-residential parents facing such a system, while paying after tax dollars for their legal fees and their child support (and in Ontario, that means the non-reses paying the max no matter how much residential parents make or have) will just give up. The odds of getting away with it and not being held accountable are pretty good – so why not just do it if it - if it is that important?

So, if anyone is steadfast in having his or her children exclusively and at the expense of an ex-spouse one does not like, the pre-emptive approach will still work – but only for a short time still. If this is important, people had better get in line now.

This way one could retain a hired-gun lawyer and begin denying access to their non-residential ex-spouse right away. It will take them 3 years and cost them tens of thousands of dollars to expose and resolve the access denial, even if it is purely frivolous. The consequences of such a pre-emptive strike are much less than the benefits, especially if one is truly committed to having their children at any cost. Even if it affects the children emotionally later or worse, it could still be worth considering depending on how important it is. After all, some people would rather pay to be absolutely certain there are no doubts as to who is the primary parent, the better parent. If it works, why not?

Where could one find a lawyer who could make this happen within the rules of the existing system? In all cities there are lawyers who will 'play for pay'. The ultimate objective is a matter of content and is it typically of no consequence because of the discipline and the process used by thes legal representatives to remain vigorous advocates. With the window closing, most lawyers of this ethical strain will probably be especially busy, so it might be best to call soon.

The only problem is that parallel forms of accountability emerge when systems are biased or out of balance, like family law in Canada. So, the clients of such lawyers are rumoured to be currently being tracked by social justice advocates and father’s rights groups who will make the information public shortly and from now on.

There are those who are insisting that such legal practices cease now and that the accountability of transparency begin now. They insist such practices are needed to bridge the gap between now and when the rules change, since nothing else seems to dissuade hired guns from crossing the line some say is "criminal".

That is neither here nor there!

Because client information is in the public domain once a Change of Solicitor document is filed with the court, clients of such lawyers may find themselves to become known to share the company of some of Canada’s most successful (or notorious) parents who practice the denial of access of their children to another parent.

If this objective is really that important, fame is a small price to pay.

Is Iggy the preference of Harper and other Tories?

In Chicago, the institutions are a reflextion of the political reality of cosmopolitan mid-west America.

In parliament today, it was the federalists against the separatists. Some say the federalists won.


Harper's political statement that Quebec is a nation within Canada will represent different things for all Canadians.

Conveniently, Stephen Harper could be accidentally or deliberately throwing Michael Ignatieff a "life preserver". With CPC's decision to handle the Bloc motion this way, Iggy's bad publicity could be contained yet.

The suspected very strategic leak by the CPC the day before before super weekend in September is now mostly confirmed: Harper would rather face Ignatieff in the next federal election.

Why? Most political scientists would agree that a lack of political separation between candidates heavily favours the incumbent, Harper. And, Harper and Iggy are the closest ideologically, which also favours the incumbent.

Even Jane Tavers was assumptive tonight with Iggy about how he and Harper could be seen to be ideological twins. She questioned Iggy about Harper's possible deliberate gesture today to help him off the hook, and Iggy vehemently denied he has anything in common with Harper. This is very convenient Iggy.

If I were Stephen Harper, I think I would most want to face Iggy too! Odds are, Iggy will find himself in trouble again, which is bad new for Liberals if he becomes our leader. I don't think Jane is pro-Iggy at all.

However, I also observed CTV's Craig Oliver's comment that Harper's decision to recognise Quebec as a Nation within Canada could put Michael Ignatieff "over the top" at our convention. FYI, I identified CTV's Craig Oliver as an ideological Tory when I was twelve, so I am not surprised to hear this.

I interpret the self-interested analysis by Craig suggesting that Iggy will gain from the CPC's stand on the Nation issue as purely "convenient" and reflective of Craig's pipe dream of a conservative Canada. Craig's "political analysis" raises red flags with me as far as what he is analysing, who he prefers, what he is spinning, and why.

The bottom line is that ideological conservatives like Stephen Harper and Craig Oliver would rather the Conservative Party of Canada face the Liberals in a soon to be election with Michael Ignatieff as leader, most of all.

When Tories/reformers line up behind one Liberal candidate they most want to face in an upcoming election, it is important to ask, why? The pattern I see has much to do with the ideologies of those making the decisions and the spin.

Some think Iggy is firmly contained: Is Rae the new target for desperate campaigns?

Iggy may have isolated himself over the last few months from the other campaigns. And, as such, he is less of a threat to win. If Iggy is less of a threat, my question is this: has the anybody but Iggy movement been replaced with the anybody but Rae movement recently?

This question is only relevant following Iggy’s latest errors (from a very long list), including the Nation resolution. This has definately cost him if not eliminated him. Rae has made fewer errors and has run arguably a near flawless campaign. Does this make Rae more of a threat to the other candidates than Iggy? Is Iggy officially off the "critical threat charts”. Can an anti-Rae movement be fuelled by desperate campaigns who might bluff that they will make Iggy a contender again if anyone considers supporting Rae?

My point is not whether Rae should or should not be supported. My point is that this possiblity sounds like the Liberal party’s version of the game "hand-grenades". This seems too dangerous to be anything but an extreme survival strategy by candidates with nothing to lose ... candidates with a belief that gains can only be made via pre-emptive strikes.

Candidates should only be bluffing to do what they are seriously prepared to do, unless selling out for personal gain comes easily to them. Could it be that Liberals will end up with a Leader borne under conditions further tainted by destructive self-interest and ambition? Where would be the promise for the future?

Keeping Montreal beautiful: why won't we let this Nation thing go away?

Montreal. Ahhh. It is a beautiful city is it not. Let's keep it that way following the convention.

Debating the Nation resolution on the convention floor could have dire consequences. Consequences on the political mood that will remain in this city and in this province following Convention.

Why then are some people still talking about fixing a broken resolution rather than helping it to disappear. I agree with "if it ain't broke don't fix it". But I tend to agree more with "if it will go away without consequence because of bad procedure, let it go". This is possible and very simple because of this.

In spite of the perfect way out, some Liberals seem to continue to want to do it the hard way and dilute Iggy's original idea into a lie that does nothing but create false expectations amongst some Quebecers. This is where some Quebecers will be waiting in perpetuity for consitutional changes (let's be honest in that these probably won't happen for a while). This will take away from any positive Liberal accomplishments in the meantime.

Perhaps the magic solution that is under our noses is not being discussed that much publicly because it seem too good to be true. I don't know. Perhaps it is also because there is a reluctance to let another Liberal candidate off the hook for a bad idea to start with. I can't say for sure.

Either way, it seems that La Presse and the media keep writing about this so-called compromise resolution and about changes to the broken Nation resolution amongst the candidates to help fix it before it gets to the floor. What will this do? Tone down the debate? What does a watered-down version that barely dribbles do? I am not convinced about this approach.

Also, it seems this article in error made a big deal about Jacques Saada's words because they report he is a Dion supporter. The last time I checked he was running Bob Rae's Quebec campaign. M. Saada is approximately as much of an asset to Dion's campaign as is William Hogg, who must have made a deal with Iggy for the nomination in the riding where he is president. There is no other plausible explanation, but I disgress.

What the candidates need to do is agree to support another resolution that will make this Nation disaster disappear because of flawed procedure, and hold LPCQ to account for these procedural errors, if necessary. The final version is other resolution circulating, but in the meantime, feel free to check out the draft.

I trust Liberals will come to their senses and will make the right choice here.

The perfect amendment to the Nation resolution is the one that makes it go away...

Right across this Quebec bay, on this coolish day, Libloggers were invited to play along with a perfect way they say of making the Nation problem go away. Is there a better way to send it along its way? No way. Playing with the issue on live TV may cause Liberals to pay if the Nation Resolution is sent away packing - to the moon - because gangs of Liberals say no f-cking way.

Then, Boisclair and Duceppe can have a field day each and every day after that reminding Quebecers about that infamous day when Canada came to Montreal, MAY day in November, to say no f-cking way to that Nation Resolution, and the Quebec way too. There may be spin...

After all, one day soon there will be a provincial election and many still offended Quebecers won't think the topic of Canada is that gay (in a happy or sad kind of way).

Why don't we just say to no-way to Iggy's big idea - LPCQ's big lay in an ivory tower. This Nation power play should just go away if LPCQ and others belly up now and say OK - send it along its way. This is because procedural mistakes were made along the way, which is lucky because this issue is way too hot to play with right now. Please just make it go away today!

Please help LPCQ say go away today and not on the Convention floor in 10 days, on live TV - by supporting this. Most people seem to say that it is the very best way.

Let's stop trying to fix a broken resolution, OK?!

So, let's send it along its way without overshadowing what most say is the real reason Liberals are coming to Montreal in 10 days to play and to lay the foundation for a brilliant future, the party's new way.

See you on the floor and have a great day.

CPC Failing Canada: It is still a beautiful planet...

Canada continues to be humiliated at UN meeting

It feels like it did when we did not win men hockey gold (or anything in men hockey) at the last Olympics. Or, perhaps, I feel a little bit of present shame. I hear the world rebuking Canada loud and clear!

Canada is the laughing stock of the world in the face of a global environmental crisis in global warming, especially at the UN climate conference. While people from around the world have rallied around our collective obligations to help save the planet (as have many Canadians) our federal government has not.

Meanwhile, most governments of traditionally polluter nations have enthusiastically followed their people and the science. They have shown that same commitment by supporting the principles of Kyoto. They get it! Meanwhile, Canada has been slithering away from Kyoto for the last 11 months or so and has clearly missed it!

Is Stephen trying to stay true to the mandate (he perceives some Canadians gave him) to back away from Kyoto? Is this to the pleasure of oil rich Alberta, his home province. Or, is this so that the United States does not need to stand alone on this issue? After all, why would Steve repeat what the Liberals chose to do in letting George go about it without us when Canadian troops were not sent to Iraq by Jean Chrétien?

Either way, Steve has thrown Rona to the wolves. Tonight she was visibly uncomfortable in an interview while in Kenya. Her voice was actually trembling. Either she is nervous about being on a world stage, or she is mortified for having been sacrificed by Stephen ... and made to look like a chump on a world stage or both.

Anyhow, I don't think the lot of them think this is actually the right thing to do, just what is politically necessary for some bizarre and unknown reason.

I assume whatever it is that is forcing the Conservatives to take this bizarre stand is more important than their popularity with Canadians, because the conservatives are going to pay for this one in the polls - BIG TIME - and perhaps for a LONG TIME ...

New poll shows EVEN STEVEN: none of top four Liberal candidates can grow with Canadians

A new poll shows none of the four leading Liberal leadership candidates will attract more support from Canadians than they will repel. For committed Liberals this leaves very few options.

It seems we can elect as Leader the candidate that will have the best chances at growing in popularity following a makeover that will happen only after he wins the Leadership. Who can be best reborn then? This should be the ballot box question, right? What would happen next?

Perhaps this scenario would give Liberals a moderate shot at winning the next election, given the polls today that show the Liberals are neck and neck with the Conservatives. Any boost to popularity of the party would be lost via the individual handicaps that hamper each of the Lib Four.

This option is OK, I suppose, though only mediocre to be perfectly honest. It is similar perhaps to the practice by some cultures, classes and our previous generations in accepting a spouse who one could likely grow to love.

It is too bad this our only option :(

Wait! I just thought of something, though it was a bit of a mind twister:

What if the other candidates and their delegates, including those in the Lib Four who cannot grow, would rally around someone else? Someone not in the top four?

Is this completely out of the question? If so, why?

This would mean disgruntled Iggy delegates going to the candidate they like rather than the three they don't like. This could also mean frontrunners 3 and 4 humbly making the collectively interested Liberal choice to throw their support behind someone else. Someone who did not match their political organisation, but someone who could this time around better capture the hearts and minds of Canadians and win the next election as a majority for the Liberals.

Think about it... who can win the entire country for the Liberal party, who has run a clean campaign and who has the most growth potential at convention?

Is this just a temporary pipe dream? Or, is it a dream the well positioned frontrunners had ruled out after super weekend, but need to now consider?

Unfortunately, nothing much has happened for any of the the Lib Four that is particularly good or motivating, especially since then. At the same time, at least one has made mistake after mistake and is "bleeding" delegates.

Is this a game only for frontrunners? Or, are others allowed to play? Are others allowed to play and to win? Or not? You tell me. Is anything possible? Anything is possible...

PQ won in Quebec thirty years ago: will LPC Voting schedule in Montreal help clinch next PQ victory?

La Presse reports today that thirty years ago this week the Parti Quebecois won for the first time (PQ in La Presse) on November 15 1976.

La Presse also wrote in another article published today how the Iggy's Nation resolution could pass because of how the convention's timetable is structured.

The vote later this month could pass like it did at the Special General Council in Montreal last month. The room was packed with Iggys and the vote was early in the day (before many Liberals arrived). At convention, Liberals are due to vote on this Wednesday, which is before many of the out of province delegates are expected to arrive in Montreal.

The policy vote is also scheduled to take placee at the same time as a Leadership activity. La Presse points out that this could also have an impact on the voter turnout.

Has anyone else noticed that some votes in Quebec that involve LPCQ seem to be tainted in some way? Should someone speak up or not? Beware, this Nation resolution could possibly become Liberal policy even though it is very unpopular in Canada and Quebec.

Further process manipulation? La Presse came short of accusing anyone, but certainly built a case. Steve MacKinnon is quoted (with loose translation) saying they are are making efforts ensure that as many delegates have access to all aspects of the congress. Good political answer, Steve!

Jean LaPierre is also quoted. His comments remind me more of Brian Mulroney when he tore up the Canadian constitution for the press prior to the vote on Meech Lake Accord to create fear and pressure to pass it. Lapierre, formerly a soft-nationalist, is quoted (a loose translation by me) as saying that it would be an insult to Quebecers if the nation resolution is rejected. I guess we have no choice but to vote for it then. Is this exactly the type of situation Jean Lapierre is trying to highlight as common with respect to some Quebecers who, in face of political uncertainty, either revert to soft nationalism or leave the province altogether?

Would anyone agree that Liberals with a stake in Canada should stand up against process manipulation? Is this playing with fire? Is democracy being served?

Certainly not Quebec, Canada or the Liberal party. I would guess that Nationalist sentiments in a provincial election year would benefit. Could this be the spark that will make sure the PQ govern again thirty years later and would get sovereignty back on the agenda in 2007?

What if all real Liberals were to push for disqualification of LPCQ 2006 resolutions because of bad procedure? This would allow more important Nov 2005 resolutions to be voted on at National instead. This would include the Resolution on the Rights of the Child to have Meaningful Access to both Parents, which became Liberal policy in November 2005.

While those who have a vested interest may ignore critisisms that are not expressly made to try to keep this time bomb train moving, it will slow right down if Liberals speak up.

The evidence is strong and the movement is growing fast. So, Liberals should bind together to stop this resolution in its tracks before it hits convention. Let's stop this before convention.

The Fix is in! Shocking Global documentary could trigger class actions and personal liability

I could not believe the documentary on Global tonight. It went farther than anything I have seen in the mainstream media as of yet in demonstrating how special interests have corrupted some federal and provincial decision making in important aspects of domestic Canadian public policy.

Apart from the acceptance of a broken system by decision makers, which makes this policy failure unique, the government could be at risk of liability in a way similar to the that which led to compensation for the victims of tained blood in Canada.

Although this issue does not need more delays to make change, another "Krever Inquiry" on this issue would ensure that those who turned a blind eye or who were "touched" by special interests while making decisions as public representatives might not escape this issue yet. If the doctrine of mnisterial responsility no longer applies, accountabilty in some form is now more likely than before. Who do you think will ultimately be held responsible?

Millions of families could be entitled to compensation eventually because of a deliberately belligerent system that puts money in the pockets of special interests and takes it from the pockets of men, women and children.

Who is accountable for a system that EVERYONE knows is broken? This system demotes those who inadvertantly qualify to becoming procedural and financial slaves to an "industry" that is known to not work or to be fair, in spite of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms adopted in Canada twenty-five years ago.

Because of blatant and deliberate delays in fixing what is commonly known to be broken, accountability for those in dereliction of their duties to uphold the public trust will be well deserved.

A vote-down will not do. Why raise it? Quebec will be offended if the Nation Resolution is shot down at Convention

I keep thinking that I have written my last post on this topic, but I unfortunately spotted Antonio's blog earlier today. As busy as I was, I could not help wondering why this is still being discussed. I had similar thoughts last night when I read about Senator Grant Mitchell's plea to Alberta Liberals about supporting Iggy's Nation resolution.

To set the record straight, the Nation resolution puts Quebec in jeopardy and was passed because of flawed processes at LPCQ.

Grassroots Liberals have put down their partisan responsibilities and have come together in the hopes of standing up for Quebec and averting the optics of Quebec being rejected by Canada again. This means protecting Quebec and Canada from the backlash that will certainly occur here when the rest of Canada arrives in Montreal for Convention and votes this down the Nation resolution. This is what many non-Quebec, non-Iggy Liberals hope.

There are however consequences. Quebecers will be insulted. The media will run with it. Bernard Landry and Andre Boisclair will try to adopt Iggy as one of their own and in so doing endorse the one who will get them what they want. Does anyone remember what happened when the Charlottetown Accord died and the Bloc Quebecois was born?

The province of Quebec is preparing for a provincial election that will be decided in large part by what success the Parti Quebecois can find in re-fuelling nationalist sentiment. This is a train wreck waiting to happen....

Quebecers will be emotionally disturbed by such a vote down that will be spun as Canada rejecting Quebec - again. No matter how they feel about Canada and Quebec today, many Quebecers will change their loyalties from a united Canada to a sovereign Quebec if the emotion or common interpretation is that the rest-of-Canada rejecting Quebec. These are the soft-nationalists who will choose Canada if there is sufficient respect but who also represent the difference - the swing vote - in any referendum on sovereignty.

For Canadians outside Quebec, the failure of this Nation resolution will fuel sovereignist sentiments here, so why risk it? To get Iggy elected leader? To "sandbag" the Convention? Take it from me and I understand what it is like to be unfamiliar will the uniqueness of this great province: if Manitoba Liberal gets his wish and votes down this resolution hard, there will be a backlash that will hurt the Liberal party, the stability of Quebec and Canada too.

Is that a reason to vote for the Nation resolution? Fear? How do we stop a moving train?

Or, is that a reason to do the honest thing and allow it to be pulled prior to convention because the process used to get it to the floor for a vote, and the vote itself was undemocratic?

The fact that the Nation resolution is flawed from both content and process perspectives is a either by coincidence or not. That depends on whether one considers the political stripes of those involved in these decisions to be a factor or not. Do process Iggys have a common approach with content Iggys? It is hard to say.

Either way, the very best thing for the Liberal party, Quebec and Canada would be for these resolutions passed via flawed process to go away. This could be accomplished easily if Liberal party members would encourage LPCQ to adopt the draft resolution when it is in its final form shortly, and replace the resolutions passed at the Special Council in Montreal last month with democratically passed resolutions from November 2005 Biennial Policy Convention.

Credibility would be restored and a lose-lose showdown in Montreal that would have overshadow the Liberal leadership Convention would be avoided.

My last post on this draft resolution will be when it is 'officialised' shortly and the ball is squarely in LPCQ's court. What happens next will be about salvaging LPCQ's reputation with credibility and as a body that respects fair process. Much would be done to restore that credibility if the "right" very releavent resolutions still are sent to convention --not those dropped in there inappropriately for the wrong reasons.

Miracle Resolution: History could show that Quebec women saved the country

In case you missed it, a draft resolution is circulating that questions the legitimacy of the LPCQ resolutions passed two weeks ago at the conseil général in Montreal. In short, there are no grounds to make those resolutions supersede other resolutions passed democratically in November 2005 at the LPCQ biennial policy convention.

In order to demonstrate a respect for democracy and the Quebec grassroots, the LPCQ must render ineligible the resolutions passed without a clear mandate two weeks ago in Montreal. No one appropriately considered that there were other resolutions ahead of these "johnny come lately" resolutions in the queue.

There are enormous implications riding on how this is treated by LPCQ. The challenge to the prioritsation of these recent resolutions is now in the public domain. Liberals across the country will know by what happens next whether democracy is a factor in how decisions are made by the Quebec wing.

As a by-product, Liberal delegates should not have to vote this month on whether to roll the dice in Quebec yet another time. That can be left for when saner minds have a say. What is the rush? Liberals can make mistakes too. And, Liberals can also take responsibility ... can turn lemons into lemonade, right?

Let's not make decisions about our Nation(s) because of the leadership race right now. We are definately playing with fire, right and possibly playing with explosives.

Let's take advantage of errors in procedure and move on. Doesn't this gift show there is a bright light shining on the Liberal party?

EV