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

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.