LPCQ Nation Resolution: not supported by Quebec membership...no matter what those who sleep in Iggy's underwear drawer have to say.

I have heard the spin at all levels and from people who represent all walks of life:

Antonio at Fuddle Duddle, a blogger and advocate of Michael Ignatieff, reassured all Liberals and bloggers last week that the process used to choose policy resolutions from Quebec to be voted on at convention, including the Nation resolution, was fair.

Ok then. I am sorry I questioned the process Antonio.

Chantal Hébert, a journalist for the Toronto Star based in Quebec says the Nation resolution is obviously reflective of the Quebec membership because it passed.

Of course, all decisions reached democratically are 100% pure and beyond reproach? Sorry Chantal.

Former astronaut, Quebec Liberal candidate in the last election and renewal commission chair, Marc Garneau, said today on Question Period that he expects the nation resolution to pass at convention because the commission he was a part of listened to Quebec Liberals and passed what they wanted via a fair and transparent process.

I guess it was because you say it was, right Marc?

Well not quite. I was there in June in Montreal when grassroots Liberals went to the mike in front of Mr. Garneau, Ms. Garceau and others on that commission. The period for deliberation was extremely short, people and topics were cut off throughout the “so called” consultation. Those who vehemently argued against the commission’s choice to exclude resolutions passed previously last November from the convention process were ignored.

How can Marc Garneau make such claims? What does Mr. Garneau think fair process is all about? Is this spin or a lack of experience?

There is a movement in Quebec, a backlash that could boil over. If so, I expect Mr. Garneau could be made to eat his words from this morning.

A basic lesson in policy making ... the optics of consultation is not what democracy is all about. Optics and claims of openness and transparency certainly do not make for good policy or pure policy outputs reflective of one’s membership, in spite of broad claims to the contrary.

As for Ms Hébert, I used to listen to what she had to say until it became apparent that she is either so indoctrinated by the Iggy nation that she is unwilling to acknowledge that the “fix” was in, or that she has lost the objectivity that is necessary for journalism to have any credibility.

She is aware that the LPCQ has a long history of pressuring highly organised parts of the membership to vote in a certain way. She was there and I cannot believe she continues to neglect the fact that the voting room stacked with Iggy supporters and that this resolution is reflective of the political preferences of a few who support Iggy. For those of you who watched on television, these are the same “members” who in an organised and strategic way in poor taste booed Stéphane Dion in his own province.

As for Antonio, I would like to know more about what you and the other Iggys at LPCQ think is fair process and what is not. At some point someone is going to have to admit that the process used to select the nation resolution was ‘controlled’.

Ignoring the backlash amongst the majority of Quebec Liberals will not make this go away. These are not by the way those Liberals who are controlled by the executive or those who are not blindly supportive of Iggy and the mistakes he has made along the way.

Let’s just face it. Iggy got drawn in by the soft nationalist media in Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois to make a comment on the Nation question early in this race. This was not smart but how would he have known to this extent given that he has lived outside the country for our entire modern history?

Rather than retracting it when it would not fit under the carpet, Iggy’s people have tried to use flippant remark to his political advantage by trying to force this resolution down the throats of Liberals through fear of a Quebec backlash. I guess they expected at least one or two of the other leadership candidates to follow. Who would have thought none would do so and that Iggy would be stranded on an island by this issue?

What should collectively interested Liberals do given that this could tear the party open again? One option is to do nothing and to just let this divide the party, as many sane onlookers can see is now happening. The other is to let Iggy save face by other Liberals quietly and gracefully allowing this time bomb to slip off the agenda before convention.

Let’s put down our advocacy for a second and let Iggy 'save face' by pulling the resolution now for the sake of the Liberal Party, Quebec and Canada, please.

Forgotten Quebec Policy Resolution: happy 10th Birthday wishes to a very young liberal

October 25th is the tenth birthday of a sweet little girl who likes soccer, gymnastics and books. She has worked on elections and she had fed the ducks in the picture herself.

Unfortunately, she has not seen one of her parents in more than two years. This is even though she still loved and wanted to see her lost/forgotten parent the last time they were together in 2004.

Why do they not see one another? Was she hurt or in danger? No.
Did the forgotten parent want to see her? Yes. Why then?

It has been the preference of another parent to make it this way. No judge had to be consulted to make it this way. This is quite common following marital conflict and/or a divorce as this article from the National Post explains. And, there is no accessible, timely or affordable way to resolve such a situation. Only the court has the opportunity to fix situations such as this and courts are slow and expensive.

It is not that hard to imagine how this could happen to someone you know, right? In Canadian family law, an absence of federal policy allows "primary caregivers" the discretion to remove their children from co-parenting situations without any immediate accountability. This happens even if there is an another motive. This is even if one parent has a vested interest in causing pain to the other parent for self-interested reasons (rather than the children's best interests). The State through the Court may verify they are acting in the children's best interest later, but only if someone is willing to pay.

In most provinces it takes years to get a family court date and/or an adjudicated decision by a judge to enforce the access rights of children and non-residential parents. Unfortunately, legal fees to fix such problems and child support, which needs to be paid in the meantime, are both due in “after tax” dollars.

Most forgotten parents just drop out, give up. Instead, they may possibly resume their relationships with these children when the children grow up and look for answers and to deal with the emotional problems that are commonly associated with this type of situation.

Who wins in the meantime? The status quo, the lawyers and other special interests.

How can this be?

The Liberal party (and now the Conservatives), have not made changes to the Divorce Act to help parents and children and blended families with their relationships after divorce, in spite of recommendations by federal commissions in 1998 and 2002.

In the honour of this girl’s 10th birthday, I republish Sinestra’s now famous policy resolution unanimously passed by the Quebec Women’s Commission. It became Liberal policy at the Quebec General Council in November of 2005 but it fell off the radar this time around even though children’s rights are in “limbo” and are not being holistically upheld in Canada.

Enjoy!

Resolution on the Right of the Child to Have Meaningful Access to Both Parents

Whereas the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child stipulates that children should have access to family members;

Whereas it is in the best interest of the child to have access to and strong relationships with both parents;

Whereas the federal government has not implemented policy that is in the best interest of the child or the blended family, despite reports in 1998 and 2002;

Whereas non-residential parents can be unilaterally and with no involvement of a higher authority denied access to their children without adequate, timely or accessible remedies.

Whereas the federal government had prioritized child support and remains inactive on child access;

Whereas children and their non-residential families stagnate under lopsided policy priorities;

Whereas the provinces administer and interpret the federal Divorce Act, with long delays and inadequate remedies to child access issues that hurt child-parent
relationships;

Therefore be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Government of Canada to implement policy prioritizing access and protecting the rights of children to have access to both parents.

be it further resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Government of Canada to implement policy giving equal weight to relationship support between parents and children as to financial support.

be it further resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Government of Canada to create standards and legislation to support provincial and territorial governments in the enforcement of child access similar to those set up previously to support the enforcement of child support.

Many Liberals still yearn for a just society. Happy birthday big girl! Maybe next year.

Policy Dictatorship at LPCQ: policy approved or not behind closed doors.

In the midst of all the excitement following the conseil général and in my long debrief yesterday, important information was lost in the shuffle.

People are very angry about LPCQ policy and the process used to determine what would be voted on last Saturday and what would not.

Most people by now have heard about the infamous "nation" resolution. Whether or not that is the right approach for the Liberal party in Quebec, the room was stacked by Iggy's group to be sure it passed and this group is backed also by much of the Quebec party executive. A few people got their way even at the expense of the majority, though the commission puts out lots of spin about renewal, consultation and transparency.

My point in this is not whether this is good or bad. Though, I see this as carrying too much risk for too little gain. Any appeal to soft nationalists will be lost to those who are adamant about not re-opening the constitution, and this is where it will be spun by our opponents the next time. To me, this shows a lack of true understanding about Quebec, which will be noted by "Joe Voter" and exploited especially by the Bloc Quebecois.

My point is that this resolution got there because of a small number of Liberals in Quebec insisted that Liberals support it, and because it made its way past the one person at the policy commission who has more than just a veto on ALL policy coming out of the Quebec wing of the party.

Yesterday, I wrote:

Also, since we are talking about process flaws, the process for choosing resolutions in Quebec at least is totally BAD (and I am being nice). At the end of the day, one person only, someone with a specific view of the world chooses which resolutions are voted on and which are not.

Resolutions passed at the Biennial Policy Convention ... last November were somehow "not eligible" even if they passed unanimously the last time. Most Liberals that I know (except for perhaps those who live in an ivory tower) are furious about this.

There is a very specific agenda here that is "trumping"
renewal in a bad way. Even if the renewal process appeared transparent and legitimate, it cannot work if so much power lies in the hands of one person. Kim Jung Il does not necessarily have anymore power in North Korea than this man does when it comes what can become policy and what cannot.

There is currently a backlash happening amongst many party members involved in policy because of the time and effort spent in 2005 prior to the biennial convention preparing policy resolutions, obtaining support and passing them through the processes outlined by the party's constitution. At the time, there were process flaws in that votes were held at "strategic" times and locations to ensure that only the resolutions that were supported by certain persons responsible for overseeing the process became priority resolutions. Process manipulation of this type was previously very common in party and it is our arrogance in thinking that nobody would notice that lost us the election that soon followed.

Because a couple "biggie policies" not supported by those at the top slipped through the cracks last time (because of movements within the Quebec section of the party), some very important decisions were made behind closed doors leading up to the vote last Saturday. The most important one, in spite of a "renewal process" was to "rule out" any previous resolution. This is even if the grassroots of the party were demanding that these same issues be considered again. This was ignored and Quebec Liberals are fuming.

The policy passed on Saturday reflects the preferences of a small group of individuals in Quebec who talk about fair and open process but who in reality have a need it seems to control the outcomes of everything they touch. This is rather than letting fair and equitable process lead the party to policy that is reflective of the membership and sustainable because the process used to get there has integrity. Good optics do not make for good policy. This will just hold us back at election time.

This is manipulative and not democracy and it is why the party is "broken" in Quebec. Are we going to risk the next election on the "same old same old"?

LPCQ General Council and debate yesterday: observations only available to someone on the floor

There are a few things I have wanted to say since I saw advocacy postings by Cerberus and others on Friday night putting out front and centre incorrect final (?) delegate numbers the night before the Conseil général in Montreal. The reason I couldn't blog - I was busy with things having to do with this gathering in my region.

First up, the reason the delegate numbers of the fifth, sixth, and seventh candidates - the non front runners - dropped at least 1% point each is because those numbers do not include backfill.

This is prejudicial to those "wind powered" campaigns - the ones without highly organised MACHINES. Why? The reason they have backfill yet to be placed is that none of these candidates ran very many delegates. Why? Because it is impossible for campaigns with less money to with credibility make any assurances to prospective delegates that their $995 plus expenses will be covered.

The big machines (I know this via reliable sources) either told prospective delegate candidates not to worry about the fees for now or, if you can't find the money, don't go - but sign this form to run as a delegate anyhow. But fundraising is still a common problem, right? Stephane had to take out a $500,000 loan to compete, right? Because of common fundraising challenges the subsidising of delegates strategies is being done on the cheap - many Montreal Liberals are representing the machine candidates in rural Quebec ridings.

The wind powered campaigns could not (and for ethical reasons by one highly ethical candidate) or did not offer to pay for any delegates. Pundits should check on the number of delegates run (particularly in Quebec) and compare that number with the number of elected delegates. They would find at least one non-front runner is possibly batting .400 plus in that department. Isn't that a better measure of who is leading this thing? Take the MACHINES, their funding and willingness to pass around "brown paper envelopes" out of the equation and another definition of "frontrunner" is what you are left with.

Also, since we are talking about process flaws, the process for choosing resolutions in Quebec at least is totally BAD (and I am being nice). At the end of the day, one person only, someone with a specific view of the world chooses which resolutions are voted on and which are not. Resolutions passed at the Biennial Policy Convention at the Fairmont Queen Elizabeth last November were somehow "not eligible" even if they passed unanimously the last time. Most Liberals that I know (except for perhaps those who live in an ivory tower) are furious about this.

There is a very specific agenda here that is "trumping" renewal in a bad way. Even if the renewal process appeared transparent and legitimate, it cannot work if so much power lies in the hands of one person. Kim Jung Il does not necessarily have anymore power in North Korea than this man does when it comes what can become policy and what cannot.

The same thing goes for the Quebec party executives. They are all endorsing (publicly or not) frontrunner candidates. They have all been promised something if they can deliver a victory. Riding association presidents supporting frontrunners will receive money for their ridings if they deliver a winner (or at least some believe this somehow). These are the same people in Quebec who had control over who was notified about about delegate elections. That is probably why delegate turnout was so low and the "frontrunners" with large organisation prevailed. But that is just me.

On outrageous items of logic and deduction like this one, I attribute blogger silence to either advocacy, apathy or fear. I am shocked more people are not talking about these unbelievably "kangaroo" process flaws. Is this about smoke and mirrors?

Some other observations:

Rae was not friendly to me, again (and almost rude). Yesterday, more than before, he reminded me of a certain type of "old boy" from my years at private school in Ontario that I also did not identify with very well when I was 15.

Iggy was very nice and friendly (as was his fantastic wife) though probably because he is courting my vote.

Stephane Dion was forced to defend himself amongst a band of highly organised Iggy supporters, mostly youth. I was close to his wife on the way to the press conference after the debate and she was upset (and I understand) by the way her husband was treated by the Iggy youth (in his own province). If Iggy loses, Pablo and Dennis may have a hard time living this one down. Mr. Dion and Ms. Kreber did not stay for the cocktail.

I told Gerard that I liked what he had to say about renewal. I overheard one person (supporting a frontrunner) say to him that if he does not win he will definitely be Deputy PM. Pandering or desperation?

Ken. Every Canadian should spend 20 minutes with Ken Dryden. I can't say enough good things about what he is like one on one. He performed very well yesterday and looked and behaved prime-ministerial, yet kind of altruistic and not ambitious like some other candidates. His French is much improved, many times better than in Quebec.

Martha is freakin' excellent. She has great policy, much courage and lots of ideas about renewal too. I would like to just hang out or be friends with her. She is fun!

I missed both Scott and Joe.

There are too many stories to tell about this, especially my either very friendly or very cold greetings by various party executives who I have known for some time. I can't figure it out apart from comments by someone on one of my previous blogs that the Quebec president should resign. Should I be held accountable for such comments when I said nothing of the sort?

Part 4: Broken Delegate Election System: NOW NATIONAL NEWS - Party not accountable for delegate elections and leadership process.

Does an isolated sample of 2 votes speak on behalf of an entire riding? What does 22 votes cast in Beauce really measure?

Throughout October I have written a series of blogs designed to report process flaws in our current leadership process. The purpose of this dialogue amongst Liberals has been to force us to face the fact that we will be evaluated moving forward by voters in part on the integrity of our processes. The magnifying glasses are out and Liberals are being watched.

Sadly, it seems to me we have learned nothing from our having been tagged with a scandal. The party did not anticipate that this leadership contest would have to be different, transparent and completely above-board in order for it to have credibility with the public. As such, several campaigns have used every organizational trick in the book in the book to gain an advantage. Are the people benefiting from this the people we really want leading the party when the next ballot box question in a federal election will likely revolve around trust and integrity?

The national media is reporting on it, such as yesterday’s article by Graeme Hamilton in the National Post. And, it will just get worse from here in spite of recent polls that show some hope for Liberals in the next election.

Here are some quotes from the National Post by some of the people who are authorized to speak on our behalf by the party:

“Tait Simpson, a national spokesman for the party, said the party considers the voter turnout an internal matter. "It's none of anybody's business. We don't have to release it and we're not going to," he said.

He denied that low turnout in some ridings undermined the system's validity. "This does not, in any way, call into question the legitimacy of the delegates," he said. "It was very clear that people could vote. It was up to members to vote."

"In spite of 17% Liberal member turnout at the polls, Fabrice Rivault, a spokesman for the party's Quebec wing, is holding on to the argument that this process till means something and carries legitimacy:

…Liberals are "very happy with the general participation" in the delegate elections. Asked about the riding with two voters, he replied: "Those things happen in all elections. There is no system that is perfect. We can't have a 60% participation rate in all the ridings in a province. That would be dreaming."

Times change and so do habits that involve manipulating process outcomes if they no longer sell with voters. Let’s market RENEWAL and maybe they will buy it.

I guess we are betting everything on the belief that sweeping everything under the rug is the honourable, ahem … I mean most effective and sustainable, approach.

In my opinion we should be acknowledging that we have made mistakes in the past and demonstrate by taking responsibility that Liberals care about honour and integrity of democratic process. This way our recent record will not be used against us.

Our adversaries are watching all of this very closely. It is naïve to think they will not notice if we simply shut up or deny it.

Gender Discrimination in Ontario Family Courts: #1 public policy failure in Canada today

It is really too bad that in a progressive society with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms - the envy of the world - that grave injustices frequently occur to parents and children.

Believe it or not, gender discrimination currently exists in Canada's family courts. Many people laugh it off rather than deal with the hypocrisy. Others are simply not surprised.

Ontario is particularly bad. The rules that govern the judges and the institutions that get funding at the expense of forgotten priorities make it so that parents are treated differently because of their gender, and children suffer.

A few weeks ago I wrote how this bias in Ontario could affect Tie Domi and his children in a very negative way. Today, I am saddened by the Toronto Star's article Wednesday suggesting that two children would still be alive if it weren't for such a recklessly patriarchal system.

Canada's family policy and laws have failed and are brutally out of balance. Family policy is Canada's BIGGEST international embarrassment undermining the sheer credibility of our dearest Charter.

Perhaps Dalton could do his part to help reform the laws that negatively affect more than 50% of Ontario's population even though powerful lobbies still demand the status quo.

Family law is a joint jurisdiction: justice is administered by the provinces. At a later date I will focus on the federal responsibilities. For now, this blog is long enough because this article that reports this tragedy is all important and why those who long for a just society must speak up.

Part 3: Broken Delegate Election System: Where is our credibiltiy in this Liberal leadership race?

Even though we Liberals have ignored the critisism on the blogs and behind the scenes so far about the integrity of our leadership selection process, as Liberals we need to ask ourselves serious questions about the fairness of the process being used to elect our new Liberal leader - and the legitimacy of this leader. What are we actually voting for?

The candidate with the biggest machine? The candidate who is able to raise honestly or dishonestly the most money in spite of stringent and unfamiliar fundraising rules? The candidate who can get early endorsements from elected Liberals and ex-officios? What does this race really measure and how credible will be the next leader given the "kangaroo" nature that some leadership candidates have earned their delegates who are voting at our convention.

These delegates will represent the candidates they were elected to endorse in the first ballot of the leadership convention. After that, it is the leadership candidate who captures the hearts and minds of Liberals at convention who will win, right?

That depends on to what extent Liberal membership and in particular those voting at convention believe there remains any credibility in this leadership race following the blatantly undemocratic election of 10 Rae delegates in Abitibi-St James yada yada yada with only 2 votes cast. What does that measure apart from process manipulation and a severely flawed leadership process?

Furthermore, the extent certain frontrunners are embarrassing the Liberal party by making odd comments about Israel or by forging signatures on membership forms further reduces the legitimacy of the leadership election. Who is going to take seriously the results at convention after all this taint, these flaws and scandals? How is this going to help us beat Harper?

Is this why Liberals (from Belinda to bloggers) are talking like 2006 is the last leadership contest that will involve delegate elections? Why? The mainstream now knows in part due to the (Rae 10 delegates with only 2 votes) leak that these elections were manipulated. Canadians, not just Liberals, now know that those who are represented by machines, not those who have the most integrity, will do better in the current format of the Liberal leadership process, than they would if the process rated integrity higher than resources and organisation.

Short term embarrassment might arise if Liberals hypothetically agree to abort the current leadership election process. We could blame the need to abort on tainted election processes that emerged along the way (even though many political parties in other countries have election processes that are far more tainted than the Liberal leadership) and our need as Canadian Liberals to be the very best at democracy. Let's rid ourselves of the taint created by the sponsorship scandal and also by the tactics used by some leadership candidates and their machines.

Would this taint, this "ring around the collar" be mitigated by Liberals admitting now, not in January, that a one vote per Liberal member would be most appropriate in this leadership process? If a one vote per Liberal member would bring about a more positive and representative outcome to this process, why would Liberals concerned about beating the Conservatives in one election rather than two not try to recover by admitting this and choosing a democratic format now?

This would show a movement by the majority of Liberals (clean Liberals) to overcome the corruption that has been following the party since Gomery. This would send a strong statement to those campaigns who might because of habit seek to fix/manipulate the outcome of the leadership process.

Let's win our Canada back by pointing the "way" rather than the "finger" and the extent to which we as Liberals truly stand up for a just party and "a just society".

Part 2: Broken Delegate Election System - blogger advocacy makes it business as usual

Ok. The pundits have been investigating it and it seems that the magic number in Quebec is 10.

No, not Guy Lafleur, I am talking about the 10 delegates that were reportedly earned by the Chairman from one of those Abitibi ridings in Northern Quebec with only 2 votes cast. One pundit also suggested that he had even uncovered the names of the 2 Liberal voters - allegedly Pauline and Jean-Paul Martin (no known relation to anyone known or unknown).

If we were to agree that the four stages of collective decision making are: (1) agenda setting; (2) policy design; (3) policy implementation; (4) evaluation, this issue considered by some to be really wrong took us from the agenda setting stage to policy design ever so briefly.

When the breaking news hit, bloggers were so shocked they were skeptical. After all, a claim from out of the blue that a frontrunner had earned 14 delegates (I stand corrected for the drop 14-10 but it was very fresh news) with 2 votes in one rural riding seemed implausible. This anomaly in democracy was met with a rash of comments, mostly anonymous. Most suggested this was wrong without revealing their identity and couple others were quite upset that this had been raised on Liblogs.

Curiosity Cat and others were getting quite creative when it came to alternative delegate election systems.

However, after Thanksgiving weekend and a lot of turkey, it may have died as an issue.

Why? One answer is that there are those who seek to both patrol and control the blogs. Sometimes this is done by devoting alot of time to advocacy threads and comments on other peoples' blogs. There are also those who try to muzzle the discourse with threats and name calling.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that these visitors are the blogging world's answer to Duplessis' Henchmen. Those who buy into to pure advocacy are best at law and sometimes politics, in spite of the fact that objective criteria trumps blind advocacy every time. I presume these anonymous critics are amongst those associated with the machines - because they have the most to gain from the current broken system- que bono, still. After all, whether they are being paid to blog (cyber wardens of political blogging space) or because they could be paid later through rewards (patronage) it is still blind advocacy. However, those sensitive to resilience of objective criteria will know deep down what is tolerable and what is not acceptable in a leadership contest, in spite of the patrols that profess otherwise.

When it comes to electing their guy, even when the rules that are being broken to the point that it is embarrassing for the party, these cyber wardens patrol Liblogs to be sure nobody dares challenge their candidate or the tainted process being used to get them elected - no long term agenda setting, minimal policy design musings, no policy implementation and no need to evaluate. Should Liberal policy not be subject to the same process used to create successful public policy? Or, with Liberals, is it more about using Liberal policy process to "control the outcome"? Quo bono from that?

Is their goal is to also ensure that Liberals do not pay attention for very long to the atrocious violations built into this process to elect our new Liberal leader? Is it really true that there is such apathy to what is right and what is wrong? Are Liberals so caught up in their candidates that they cannot lend their voice to fixing up the process and fixing up the party?

If this essential step is missed this time around because of Liberal's individual self-interest, the demon will rear its ugly head at the time. Are we going to let this important issue fall off the Liberal agenda?

Broken delegate election system: 2 votes earn Rae 14 delegates in rural Quebec.

Typically, highly organised campaigns that have deep pockets and a long reach benefit most from ridings that are rural and sparsely populated with Liberals. Is this by accident or is it contrived?

There is information circulating that suggests Rae has gained 14 delegates from two votes cast in one rural Quebec riding. Would anyone disagree with me that this is at least not helpful to fair process and at most insulting to the Liberal leadership process and to democracy?

Does anyone think the Party does not have an obligation to create systems that prevent this from happening? Are those who make these rules sloppy or strategic?

In a sense, the current system for choosing delegates, which has much influence over who will become leader favours those with resources and those who are organized to know that many delegates can be picked up in rural regions.

If the Liberal party can build a successful country like it has since 1993, it can build a system that does not allow things like this to happen at the expence of some very good candidates with fewer resources. After all, we are not electing their organisations, eh?

Karma or Accountability? Quebec recount a premonition for who should lead a pure and fair Liberal party.

Approximately 59 out of 75 ridings in Quebec have changes in delegate numbers after yesterday’s recount.

Who lost delegates? The big machines. All of them.

Who also lost? Those smaller campaigns in Quebec who sought to replicate the sometimes dodgy organisational tactics of the powerful and wealthy campaigns. Unfortunately the example they followed seems to be that of those same organisational machines that emerged when the party split years ago. Arguably, this split has never healed. It is why there was a Liberal scandal also why the Party lost the last election. Let's be honest about what is and what isn't true renewal.

Who won? The leadership candidate who is running on his own merits and who believes and demonstrates through action the purity and fairness of process.

What do Liberals really represent and what will Liberals really be voting for at convention? The Party will be better off if Liberals ask themselves that question and answer it honestly.

A very strategic leak: Iggy is the CPCs dream candidate

I was shocked to read that multiple bloggers actually bought the CPC leak (purposeful more so than sloppy) to the Toronto Star about them fearing Iggy. You could see that one coming a mile away.

Politics in general, and especially this race is about spinning, and Harper's gang knows full well that there are many Iggy supporters who would be all over this alleged leak, especially two days before super weekend. Some will buy it and some won't, however, the CPC might think they can influence our process to even a small extent by strategically putting forward their own self interested preferences and trusting that the Iggy spin doctors will do the rest.

An election campaign between Iggy as leader and Harper would be much like changing dirty underwear, and a great way for the incumbent Tories to minimize the differences between Liberal and Conservatives. Any student of Weber knows where the political advantages lie in such a situation, in spite of Iggy's claim to be "left of centre".

This is different information from the real leak that I heard in a roundabout way via some reliable CPC insiders in Ottawa in May about Rae being the CPC's choice at the time, because it represented to them an ability to govern with majorities for the next 20 years due to of Rae's unpopularity in Ontario and those vulnerable seats in Southern Ontario.

In contrast, the week after Ken Dryden declared to be in the leadership race, Harper came out with some spin on Hockey Night in Canada that he is one of Candada's most accomplished hockey scholars. At the time it seemed to me that he was trying to take away from Dryden's popular appeal by attempting to play in the same league. To me, this reveals in a subtle way the Liberal candidate Harper is most concerned about.

Be careful of what you buy into and why.

Tie hopes relationship with Belinda sticks: otherwise gender bias in Ontario will ruin him ...

If Tie Domi ends up with Belinda, few would argue he is more set financially for life than he is even after making millions in the NHL over a 1000+ game career. However, one week after announcing his retirement, it could all come unravelled because of the divorce application filed this week by his wife Leanne. Leanne is going after all the money the law will allow - hard - possibly because the law says she is entitled to it and possibly because she is looking for revenge following Tie's alleged affair. That is neither here nor there, but for men with an angry ex, the system can offer a harsh reality check.

The National Post reports that until child and spousal support is settled, Tie Domi is to pay for any costs related to the home, schooling and recreational activities; $25,000 for Leanne Domi’s legal fees; and $10,000 so his total worth can be calculated. She is seeking $15,246 in monthly child support, $30,000 in spousal support, and $250,000 to hire lawyers and experts for the divorce proceedings.

Unfortunately, this is a man who just retired and will experience a "huge" drop in income next year and will unlikely, unless he becomes CEO of Magna, make that much again.

Unfortunately for Tie, the system is not on his side because he is a man. Gender is still the most important factor in determining custody, in spite of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms adopted almost 25 years ago. The impact of gender preference in the awarding of custody creates other problems in family policy, affecting both child support and access, and often compromising the best interests of children of the marriage.

The principle of “best interests of the child” is important in awarding custody, but should always be applied in ways that give due recognition to the rights of both parents. Current family policy does not ensure that this happens. Non-custodial parents are often unfairly burdened with inequitable support responsibilities, supported by punitive enforcement regimes. As well, non-custodial parents are often left with hollow access rights, whose enforcement tools are as benign as support measures are punitive. This access imbalance can often prejudice the relationship the children have with the non-custodial parent. Because of systemic gender bias, in most cases this is the father

The Divorce Act is federal, but because justice is administered by the provinces changes in family policy can be difficult to achieve and implement without full federal-provincial cooperation. This can be a challenge, given inter-governmental relations and the constitutional implications that are associated with inter-jurisdictional issues. This is especially so with respect to the subtle, frequent and recurring gender imbalances in the awarding of custody in provincial courts. Furthermore, there are those, predominantly women, who benefit financially and otherwise from how the system works right now and there are strong lobby groups that support the status quo. As a result, there is both reluctance and resistance to making changes that would achieve more equity as between parents, and encourage more cooperative co-parenting relationships. The policy as it is now designed and implemented is failing society, and is failing the best interests of many of its children.

Under current policy, custody dictates who pays and who receives child support, as well as who is adversely affected on access issues – mostly non-residential parents and children of divorce. Gender preference in the awarding of custody causes related policies like child support and access to fail directly as a result. Gender preference is insidious, exacting a psychological toll on the excluded parent, exacerbating an already deteriorated relationship between the parents, exerting unneeded pressure and stress on children, kindling alienation of the excluded parent, and leaving vulnerable children to make loyalty choices, all of which eats away at the “best interests of the children.” Successful family policy will only be achieved if gender preference is removed from issues of custody and complimentary steps are taken to ensure fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of parenting (barring unusual or threatening circumstances).

Tie is about to be introduced to the realities that are known best of all by Canadian men affected by divorce. It is no accident that most applications for divorce are filed by women (75% in Canada), perhaps flippantly because some argue that all men are scum and deserve to be "taken for everything they are worth". Policy analysts might find otherwise that current family in policy in Canada creates a financial incentive for women to divorce, especially if their husband's income is about to drop, and that is the real reason for these lopsided statistics.

I wish Tie and his ex his family and all the best in resolving this issue fairly and equitably.

I'm back on line: Warning about Beta Blogger upgrade

After five weeks I am back on Liblogs with a new URL. I will try to integrate my previous blog into this one, however I am not optimistic that it is possible knowing the limitations assosiated with the "rocket scientists" who made Beta Blogger. That blog address is: http://edgewaterviews999.blogspot.com.

Curiosity and a written sales pitch promoting all the great features available through Beta Blogger led me to attempt an upgrade of my blog. Big mistake!

Once I went part way, there was no turning back and no evident atom/rss link for Jason to link to. So in spite of a couple attemts (thanks Jason) my posts still did not appear on the blog roll. Frankly, the reasons they suggest for upgrading to Beta.Blogger contain about as much spin as I have been reading about the Liberal leadership contest and the 'self-appointed' frontrunners. It seems like it is pretty much the same thing, though one needs a Google account to activate. I am sure it is all about Google acquiring more members more so than added features yet.

Please beware, this upgrade is not worth the hassle. In the meantine I have had plenty of time to look out over the water and to reflect on the Liberal leadership contest. Things are heating up for the home stretch... the vulnerabilities of the various candidates are emerging as expected and in a way that could have a large impact on the final results. There will be some surprises.

Powercorp and today's Ekos poll: a vested interest in Rae?

While the sun sets on the delegate selection meetings, there will other days between October and December to consider who should be leading the Liberal party.

Powercorperation who is behind Bob Rae in this race owns Gesca Ltée, which holds a 100 per cent interest in the Montréal daily newspaper La Presse (which co-sponsored today’s poll along with the Star) and six other daily newspapers in the provinces of Québec and Ontario. To what extent do we trust the media and their polls when some have a vested interest in showing trends in a certain way at a crucial time? What will they want from a Bob Rae led Liberal party?

I think I am going to pull out a copy of C. Wright Mills' The Power Elites tonight in order to try to understand all of this better and I will get back to you. I recommend the same for those interested in having a better understanding of what information should be trusted and what information should not in this race where some have profit and influence as their vested interest.

All of this is in spite external mechanisms of accountability, such as the Lobbyist Registration Act and newly adopted campaign-financing rules. Is it that hard to shake the influence of the large corporation?

More Iggy Spin: two thumbs up makes him "Frontrunner"

I have been wondering for months how anyone, including the media, could speculatively appoint Iggy the 'frontrunner'. I started looking for evidence and could not find any, except for signs that a number of campaigns including Iggy's were being run by the same 'machines' that had assisted out previous Liberal leaders win their leadership processes.

In some ways it is these 'power organisations' that taint the party still amongst Canadians. Issues of party integrity have been ignored or swept under the rug in spite of a renewal and/or Leadership process that has the potential to fix many things if allowed to be accepted, grieved and rebuilt organically. These big organisations fielding slates driven by the head start naturally afforded to opportunistic party executives is a bit like "exchanging dirty underwear" with what made the party previously sick and contributed to its defeat the last election.

Without containing if not eliminating what is 'tainted' about these machines, the Liberal party will not heal, the next Leader will feel the effects and the Liberal party may not have a chance to overtake Harper in one election. Even though no one is talking about the corruption in the past, it is bound to resurface later if it is not dealt with through renewal and/or Liberal leadership. Should Liberals in the for the long run not be trying to distance themselves from
these types of political organisations?

To me, who has the biggest machine and/or the most money is not necessarily congruent with who is the 'frontrunner' from a popularity perspective. After all, what are we really measuring here.

More evidence of just how deep these machines go are has surfaced in recent days with the questionable "Gandalf Poll", which has been a "hot topic" also with bloggers. The poll that put Dryden as a frontrunner amongst Canadians and amongst Liberals is being discounted by many bloggers who support candidates who have those 'machines' working on their behalf. This makes me wonder where lay the priorities of many Liberals.

Maybe I am just a romantic but my fantasy would be for there to be a rebirth of the Liberal party via organic healing, without taint for the past. That organisation would emerge to be victorious because it is "good" and because the merits, appeal and integrity of the candidate would supersede "the big money machines" against all odds. Would a candidate who wins because of the dedication of its people, their belief in that candidate and their ability to show that to others not be a better ending to this story than Iggy winning because he gets out 40% of the delegates in round one or losing because he was only able to pull off 35%.

I don't see Iggy as having any chance for growth, so round one will be the peak and it will not be enough. I just hope the Liberal who can best win nationally and reunite the party come up the middle.

A Big Canada - A big day in Quebec ... leadership debate later today from Quebec City

Will there be some surprises at the Liberal leaders' debate later today in Quebec City? Will the winds will shift in a direction few would have anticipated? Why is the question for Liberals not about who can really win nationally and/or who can beat Harper in one election?

Isn't this what collectively interested Liberals should be voting for? The scrutiny Liberals are using to endorse their preferred candidates often seems similar to how one would act upon a stock tip - don't buy the stock because of how it will perform but buy it because of how others anticipate it will perform. Such decision making, which is present in this leadership campaign is not much better than owning a crystal ball or having a friend who reads tea leaves.

Most Liberals seems to want to be supporting the winner at convention. In many cases this is out of self-interest more so than who will with the most integrity lead the party. What about carefully considering who is best for the Liberal party at this point in time given the questions Canadians have about trust? If the Leader is decided because too many self-interested Liberals think they can guess a winner, and blindly follow the trail of "spin", the opportunity for the Liberal party to renew itself this time around will be lost. This what CPC hopes will happen.

Is this more important than the number of "trigger happy" party executives and ambitious caucus members who on Week One of the campaign last spring felt like they had to anticipate with very limited information guess "who would be the (wo)man"?

This is a bit like ordering Dim Sum - you never know what (or who) is going to show up next and with what.

The Supreme Court and Child support: Another "one hit wonder"

Although I am not surprised that the Supreme Court of Canada today upheld the recent phenomenon of provincial family courts to make child support even more enforceable, I am disappointed. Now "retroactive child support" is the law and support paying parents - i.e. parents who have their children less than 40% of the time - are now officially responsible to pay more as their income goes up and retroactively if it is not reported. Unfortunately, there is a lack of federal policy on "parent child access", which makes this particular Supreme Court ruling magnify the complete absence of policy with respect to "parent/children access". This absence of policy on access becomes a gender issue because gender is still a factor in the awarding of custody by provincial courts.

With all other things being equal, gender is the single most important factor in the determining of child custody by provincial court judges who preside over the administration of the federal Divorce Act. This is in spite of the fact that Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms has protected since 1982 gender equality and has rendered inappropriate the expired patriarchal principles of the "tender year’s doctrine" that protected the "special relationship between mothers and their children". The appropriateness of "tender year’s doctrine" wore off with the entry of women at equal levels into the workforce, the frequency with which men care for their children while their wives work, the discovery that special relationships also exist between children and their fathers.

How can it be? The statement "best interest of the child" trumps any obligations to uphold gender equality according to the Charter in the awarding of child custody because it can become "spin" that makes the best interest of the child congruent with awarding custody to the mother. This typically means "standard visitation", which means that the mother would have the child(ren) 75 % of the time and the father would visit 25% of the time of every second weekend and Wednesday night. This tendency for there to be a "gender bias in sheep clothing" tainting the equitable administration of custody by gender has an exponential negative impact on men when it comes to the two priorities of the Divorce Act: child support and access.

Child Support: this is because child support is due to be paid by the father when the children live with the mother more than 60% of the time and with the father less than 40% of the time. Child support is "rarely" paid by women to men in those cases when men are awarded access because of a common fear by men in that position to enforce it for the perceived fragility of male custody of children.

Therefore, standard visitation preserves the patriarchy of money flowing from fathers to mothers in the form of child support regardless of the respective incomes of the parents involved or the extent to which there are second families and other children involved. Second families come second is a further message sent by this Supreme Court ruling. The irony is that second families are comprised of women and female children, who could be starving and without protection if dad falls behind his child support obligations to his first family. This is not a gender issue - it is about who benefits from lopsided family policy and who does not.

Access: because men typically do not have custody, they are the ones who have the most need for policy on the Divorce Act's other priority - "child access". Unlike child support, which has strict enforcement in place to motivate father's to pay child support to their children's mother, a principle strengthened by today's ruling, there is no non-litigious remedy to help parents who are denied access to their children to enforce that access. Instead, it can take years and tens of thousands of dollars via the courts to remedy a fairly common injustice, whether is it called "malicious mother's syndrome" or "parental alienation syndrome". Most offenses of this type are never proven because the jurisdiction is the family court and fathers would have to pay after tax dollars to retain lawyers to do a "private prosecution". Few have the financial wherewithal, especially after they pay their child support, which is also set in net dollars.

Ironically, the failure of the policy on custody to protect against gender bias creates as a result tainted child support policy that is also gender biased and preserves the flow of monies from men to women. The same is true with respect to access which is seemingly a lesser priority because of a lack of policy yet and delays that are attributable to the powerful lobbies that promote the status quo.

The Supreme Court of Canada should not be setting the policy agenda for Canada’s family policy because the government is too afraid of the lobbies who profess that “changes to the Divorce Act hurt women and children” to pass bill C-22. As such, the gap that exists between where we are now and equitable family policy widened a little bit more today with this ruling when compared to the absence of any clear message on the importance of access as a priority of the Divorce Act.