The debate’s not over

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 8:30 AM - 0 Comments

The Conservatives have moved to limit the pension debate as it pertains to the government’s own legislation, but the House will now spend Thursday debating the following NDP motion.

That this House rejects calls by the Prime Minister to balance the Conservative deficit on the backs of Canada’s seniors by means such as raising the age of eligibility for Old Age Security and calls on the government to make the reduction and eventual elimination of seniors’ poverty a cornerstone of the next budget.

Separately, Liberal backbencher Sean Casey has tabled a private members’ motion that the Liberals figure will come up for debate in March. Continue…

How deep a hole did the Liberals dig?

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 1:25 PM - 0 Comments

Eric Grenier tries to put the Liberal party’s current standing in perspective.

When Canada last had a change of government, the Conservatives under Mr. Harper had turned a vote-share deficit of 7.1 percentage points in 2004 into a 6.1-point lead. But overcoming that 7.1-point margin in 2006 paled in comparison to the two previous changes in government. The Liberals had placed 11.1 points behind the Progressive Conservatives in 1988 before winning in 1993, while under Brian Mulroney the Tories had overcome an 11.9-point margin between the 1980 and 1984 elections.

But with 18.9 per cent support in the last election, Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals finished 20.7 points behind the victorious Conservatives. If the Liberals overcame such a margin in 2015, it would be the greatest comeback in a federal election in Canada’s history.

The numbers underneath are maybe even less encouraging. The Liberals finished first, second or a strong third in just 114 ridings in the last election. By comparison, the NDP managed to finish first, second or a strong third in 232 ridings, the Conservatives did so in 240.

Or consider the splits on ridings in which the party’s vote increased in 2011 versus ridings in which the party’s vote decreased. The Liberals went up in 20 and down in 287 last May. (The NDP, by comparison, went up in 289, down in 19. The Conservatives improved in 208, fell in 99.) And the Liberals finished on the negative side of this split in each of the three previous elections, mirroring a steady decline in the popular vote that has seen the party go from 40.9% to 36.7% to 30.2% to 26.3% to 18.9%.

Strombo v. Rae

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, January 20, 2012 at 3:47 PM - 0 Comments

The interim Liberal leader sits down with George S.

‘To the benefit of large corporations’

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, January 20, 2012 at 11:55 AM - 0 Comments

The Liberals are unimpressed with the Conservatives’ use of foreign aid funds.

“The Liberal Party supports the efforts of Canadian companies working abroad to fulfill their corporate social responsibilities. We also support those who have chosen to work with Canadian NGOs in meeting these responsibilities effectively. However, it is inappropriate for the Conservative government to use taxpayers’ money to fund these projects when the companies should be paying for these projects themselves. The Conservative government should be putting Canada’s precious foreign aid dollars to help alleviate poverty and not to the benefit of large corporations.”

Have you ever really looked at your hand?

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, January 20, 2012 at 11:17 AM - 0 Comments

Bruce Cheadle harshes the buzz on legalizing marijuana.

Among the questions policy-makers must ask: What sort of branding, if any, and packaging would be permitted? What would the age limit be for consumption? Who would be permitted to grow marijuana, and in what quantities? Would only licensed growers be allowed to produce pot? What would be the distribution point, public or private enterprise? Would there be volume limits on individual purchases, unlike alcohol and tobacco? A tax rate would be required that is high enough to discourage consumption but low enough to deter the black market from undercutting legal sales — a balancing act tobacco regulators continue to juggle.  How would Canada manage crucial border issues with a prohibitionist United States?

The Commons: Save the Liberals

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 2:31 PM - 0 Comments

“We need to save Canada,” said the woman at the microphone.

A line of people stood behind her, waiting their turn at this Friday afternoon open mic session on the present and future of the Liberal Party of Canada. A man in a suit stood just behind her, taking notes on a large white pad of paper propped up on an easel.

The next woman talked about Paul Martin and balanced budgets. Liberals need to remind people of those days, she said. “That’s how we’ll go forward,” she ventured.

An elderly lady fretted that the country was losing its compassion. The Liberal party needed to bring back such virtues. A Lynden Larouche disciple took the mic and lectured the few dozen listeners on the Glass-Steagall Amendment and the need to overhaul the monetary system.

Consider these 15 minutes—whatever they amount to—in the context of a weekend (whatever it amounts to). Continue…

Change?

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 12:50 PM - 0 Comments

Delegates have elected Mike Crawley—seemingly the choice of a certain contingent of younger Liberals—over Sheila Copps for the post of party president. If he does his job properly, you’ll never hear of him again.

In other news, an amendment that would’ve limited the party leader’s ability to appoint candidates did not receive the support sufficient to be adopted.

Toke the vote

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 10:24 AM - 0 Comments

Liberal delegates voted in favour of a policy resolution this morning that recommendation the legalization and regulation of marijuana. So there’s your easy headline.

But, shortly before that vote, delegates endorsed an idea that one can actually imagine seeing in the next Liberal election platform: preferential balloting.

WHEREAS it is recognized that first past the post voting systems do not properly reflect the will of the people in a multiparty country;

WHEREAS the current system does not produce clear electoral victors (candidates seldom win with more than 50 percent);

WHEREAS the Liberal Party of Canada already uses a preferential balloting system in its own leadership and riding nomination contests;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada implement a preferential ballot for all future national elections.

Progress?

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 12:26 AM - 0 Comments

So this evening—after some amount of fussing over the technology that resulted in an electronic vote, two votes to conduct a manual recount and then a decision to redo the electronic vote—the Liberal party decided to open its next leadership vote to those who are not members of the party. Non-members can now register with the party as “supporters” if they wish to vote in the next leadership contest.

Delegates then voted down a proposal to extend this measure to the selection of riding candidates. And delegates then voted down a proposal that would have eliminated the party leader’s final say over the party’s policy platform.

Make of those events what you will.

Sunday morning delegates will vote on a constitutional amendment that would limit the leader’s ability to appoint candidates.

The Liberals: Controlled flight into terrain

By Paul Wells - Saturday, January 14, 2012 at 8:03 PM - 0 Comments

Photograph by Blair Gable

“A party needs seven years to come back from an election defeat,” Martin Cauchon told me, index finger jutting forward to push his point at me. “I lived through 1984-91. I saw it. Things are really starting to happen now. This party is coming back.”

Cauchon, you will recall, was the federal minister of justice under Jean Chrétien. His seven-year thing will sound like a misprint, because in 1991 the Liberals were still two years away from winning power back, but it made some sense. It took most of 1991 for Jean Chrétien to stop being a really bad opposition leader and get his sea legs back. After that, his party was on a pretty steady road to victory. And since Cauchon was transparently trying to come up with some reason why today’s Liberal party should be any different from the ones that lost 37, 32, 18 and 43 seats in the elections of 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2011, this was relatively harmless as number games go. Seven years from 2006 is…oooh. 2013! Just in time for victory!

Of course the whole thing is horse poo. I lived through 1979-1980. I saw the Liberals come back from defeat in nine months. I lived through 1980-1984. I saw the Progressive Conservatives come back in four years. I did not live through 1935-1957, but there are books and they tell me the Conservatives took three times seven years to come back from defeat. It takes an arbitrary number of years for a party to come back from defeat, unless it can’t. The best thing that can be said for Cauchon’s thesis is that it helps illustrate how anyone can believe in astrology.

But then, a party that refuses to believe Canadians aren’t buying what it’s selling will cast about for mystical explanations for events. Bob Rae consoled Michael Ignatieff on Friday night by telling him that elections are “a crap shoot.” This sounded to some in the press stands like contempt for democracy, but I think it’s closer to incomprehension of it. Damnedest thing. People vote and then, I don’t know. Something. Here’s a list of the people in Canada who, by virtue of their biographies, would be likeliest to view elections as a crap shoot:

1. Joe Clark.

2. Bob Rae. Continue…

Bob Rae is back

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, January 14, 2012 at 6:28 PM - 0 Comments

And now a word from the National Citizens Coalition.

The question of the weekend

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, January 14, 2012 at 4:37 PM - 0 Comments

Liberals are spending much of the day discussing the concept of “evidence-based policy”—this curious and revolutionary and courageous notion that the government’s actions and promises should acknowledge demonstrable reality. Munir Sheikh, the former chief statistician, addressed the convention this morning. Delegates have spent the rest of the day in sessions dedicated to discussing this novel approach in the context of various policy areas.

One of these sessions was to deal with the environment, which thus seemed like something of a test: could the Liberal party have a discussion about evidence-based environmental policy that didn’t deal with the preferred prescription of the vast majority of expert analysts?

The answer is: almost. But with a few minutes to spare in the hour a young man from the riding of Mount Royal stood and put the Liberal soul up for discussion. Continue…

A show of hands

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, January 14, 2012 at 1:16 PM - 0 Comments

Presuming that a method of counting votes can be found, Liberal delegates will spend some of this afternoon evening voting on proposed amendments to the party’s constitution. Jeff Jedras seems to have the definitive guide.

Tomorrow morning delegates will convene to vote on various policy proposals. Once again, Jeff is the one to read.

What David McGuinty is thinking

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, January 14, 2012 at 12:41 PM - 0 Comments

The Liberal MP for Ottawa South wandered into the media room a moment ago and was shortly thereafter surrounded by reporters. He confirmed that he is considering a run for the party leadership.

I’m not ruling out the leadership. I’m giving this serious consideration. I have an obligation to do this. If I’m going to stay in public life, I’ve got to figure out what’s the best way to serve. And that’s what I’m considering.

He was also asked about Bob Rae’s interim status and whatever leadership ambitions Mr. Rae might have.

I have every faith in the good faith of Bob Rae. Bob’s a great guy. He’s very talented, he’s very experienced. He’s a huge net asset for the Liberal Party of Canada. And for that matter, he’s a huge net asset for Canada. A person of that quality and calibre to be in public life today? It’s hard to get good people into public life and keep them there. So Bob will govern himself accordingly. I’m sure he will always do what’s right by him and what’s right by the party and what’s right by Canadians.

Mr. McGuinty joins Mark Holland and Marc Garneau as those who have publicly confirmed that they are considering a leadership run.

The Commons: ‘I didn’t get there’

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, January 13, 2012 at 10:19 PM - 0 Comments

After a nice story about Michael Ignatieff’s willingness to listen, the man’s disembodied voice filled the room as a montage of still images hovered on screen—little moments when it must’ve seemed he was bound for a better fate.

The soft-focus retrospective continued as the voice intoned about the vastness of the land and the vastness of the party. A few dozen young people then bounded on stage. These, explained a young man and a young woman at the lectern, were some of those inspired to join the Liberal cause because of Mr. Ignatieff. He was duly described in fawning term. Indeed, the politician they were here to honour sounded like a fine one: passionate, caring, courageous, substantive, generous. A good listener. A visionary. A man blessed of a devoted wife. It was announced that a scholarship would be created in his name.

Shortly thereafter the man was welcomed to step forward and explain himself. Here the Liberal party has gathered to discuss the extent to which it can be described as “dying.” And so here it would hear from the man who (at least nominally) put it in this place. Continue…

Primary problems

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, January 13, 2012 at 4:41 PM - 0 Comments

Former Liberal MP Maria Minna is circulating a letter outlining her concerns with the workings and ramifications of moving to a primary system to elect a party leader. She has nine points, but I’ll excerpt number eight here, which seems relevant both for the philosophical concern and the specific complaints.

The primary system would give the Liberal leader and his/her office more power over Caucus and the Party. As a recent Member of Parliament with almost 18 years of experience, I can say with first-hand knowledge, that, most of the time caucus is not considered or listened to by the leader and especially his office. There is very little accountability to caucus members. Especially during our years in opposition, we could have avoided a great deal of pain and losses if the leadership and their offices had listened and taken into consideration the expertise and advice of caucus members. Therefore, I am convinced that a Leader who is so broadly elected will feel even less accountable towards caucus let alone any accountability to the party at large.

By the numbers

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, January 13, 2012 at 3:54 PM - 0 Comments

Liberal party president Alf Apps has delivered his report to the party membership. The key portion would seem to concern fundraising.

Notwithstanding the improved financial position in which the Party finds itself today, its ability to compete politically between elections at the national level continues to be crippled by the fact that its basic fundraising capability is dwarfed by those of its principal opponent. As figure 2 shows, the Conservatives raised a total of $80 million in donations over the period from January 1, 2008 to September 30, 2011 and are projected to raise more than $24 million this year alone. Our Party raised only $32 million nationally over the same period, or about 40% of the amount they raised, and approximately $9.4 million for the 2011 year. Our donor base has been growing steadily over that period but, at only about 40,000 donors today, is estimated to be about on-third the size of our opponent’s. More troubling, the gap is continuing to widen. Perhaps most troubling, fewer than 30% of Party members today are also Party donors. While progress is being made on this front, it has been far too slow. The Party is still a long way from achieving an organizational culture where ‘membership’ translates into ‘donorship’.

In the context of the ‘permanent campaign’ environment which has persisted since well before the 2006 election to the present day, the Party simply has not had adequate resources to fund a modern and technologically-enabled political outreach infrastructure to communicate effectively with Canadians and activate their support.

Raefest 2012

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, January 13, 2012 at 12:06 PM - 0 Comments

Bob Rae addressed the Liberal caucus on Wednesday and scrummed with reporters afterwards. On Thursday, he spoke to the party’s council of presidents.

According to the itinerary released by his office, he’ll shortly deliver the official opening speech to the conference, then he’ll speak with reporters at 1pm, then he’ll be back on stage tonight around 8pm to deliver remarks in tribute to Michael Ignatieff.

On Saturday, he will apparently rest.

Sunday, he’ll be back on stage to deliver closing remarks to the convention and then there will be a news conference.

That’s five speeches and three meetings with reporters in five days.

Standing against ageism

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, January 13, 2012 at 10:10 AM - 0 Comments

Let’s begin our Liberal convention coverage with this bit from the Globe’s preview.

How does choosing a 63-year-old former NDP premier of Ontario signal renewal for the Liberal Party? The very question “suggests there’s a terrible ageism at play,” believes Aidan Johnson, the 32-year-old policy chair for Ms. Copps’s campaign. “To suggest someone isn’t capable of renewing the party because of their age is profoundly bigoted.”

Bob Rae will be a few months past his 67th birthday in October 2015. Were the Liberals to win an election around that time with him as leader, he would become the fourth oldest prime minister to take office, bested only by three 70-somethings: John Abbott, Mackenzie Bowell and Charles Tupper.

In addition to our rented Liberal friends, the whole Maclean’s team will be on the convention floor this weekend: myself, John Geddes, Paul Wells and Peter C. Newman (who offers this assessment of Mr. Rae’s situation). Frequent blogging and tweeting (#MacLib) will ensue.

The Liberals and the muddled middle

By John Geddes - Friday, January 13, 2012 at 7:10 AM - 0 Comments

Photograph by Cole Garside

If any prominent Liberal might be expected to think of the party as a family affair, it would have to be Montreal MP Justin Trudeau. Heading into the federal party’s convention in Ottawa this week, though, the son of the iconic former prime minister, the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau, says Liberals must use this opportunity to start projecting a new, decidedly non-familial party image. “The sense is that the party has too long looked at itself as a family, or a club, or a very strict hierarchy,” Trudeau told Maclean’s. “We need to make a shift to being much more of a movement. It’s hard to join a family.”

Talk of wrenching the Liberal mindset from cliquish to welcoming, its processes from top-down to bottom-up, might sound like mere hopeful rhetoric from a party laid low in the election last May 2. But the 1,500 or so hard-core Liberals expected to attend the Jan. 13-15 biennial convention will be debating concrete ideas for changing the rules about who gets to shape their party’s direction. The key proposal would give designated supporters—Canadians who would have to sign on to Liberal principles, but not be required to buy memberships—the right to vote in the party’s leadership race, and maybe at nomination meetings for candidates at the riding level.

It remains to be seen if the paid-up Liberal members who make the effort to travel to Ottawa for the convention agree to empower far less committed supporters. The idea is being championed by the party’s national board. After last spring’s drubbing at the polls, hardly a Liberal official or MP left standing denies that the Conservatives and New Democrats do a better job of keeping their bases energized and engaged. Instead of calling for their party to just copy Tory and NDP approaches, however, senior Grits are arguing they must chart a different course from their more ideologically motivated adversaries.

Continue…

On the record

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 4:59 PM - 0 Comments

We’ve recruited a pair of Liberals to provide commentary through the party’s convention in Ottawa this weekend. And they’ve even allowed us to use their names and faces.

Meet the new Liberal party

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 1:22 PM - 0 Comments

The anonymous agonizing over the party’s leadership starts here.

“I’m still uncomfortable with what he schemed,” one Liberal, speaking on condition of anonymity, said … If Rae stayed on it would be divisive for the party, one senior Liberal told HuffPost. “It creates division, it creates a lack of trust, a credibility problem with this renewal, it creates cynicism, ‘there we go ahead, the same old, same old, backroom, stuff’… It’s not helpful,” he said … 

The Liberal Party has gotten itself into jams by spending too much time trying to screw each other over during leadership bids, another caucus member said. “(Rae’s) already lost the leadership twice … We shouldn’t try to use technical rules to block him,” the Liberal said … “If Bob decides the conditions are there and he’s has a clear shot at winning, he’ll still have to explain to party members his change of heart.” “Rae might dissuade marginal candidates, but he might also coalesce people who want someone else,” another Liberal said, adding, “Bob is a pretty controversial figure.”

‘I say better a Rae Day than a Harper lifetime’

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, January 11, 2012 at 5:24 PM - 0 Comments

So Bob Rae delivered an interesting speech this afternoon.

Reaction and coverage from the Globe, CBC and iPolitics. Here is my stray thought as I listened to the first third of his remarks. And here, for a more considered opinion, is our John Geddes’ take on the situation.

Party, leader and person

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 4:46 PM - 0 Comments

The NDP deems Lise St. Denis’ defection an insult to democracy and challenges her to a duel by-election. Ian Capstick, while taking no issue with the general notion of floor-crossing, takes issue with Ms. St. Denis’ explanation.

I can see how a newly unexpectedly elected NDP MP could have rapidly evolving points of view and even how they might want to jump ship. But that’s not what you said today. No, instead:  “Les électeurs ont voté pour Jack Layton. Jack Layton est mort.” 

If that’s truly what you believe, then you shouldn’t sit in the House as anything other than an NDP MP or an independent – to do otherwise is illogical and worse, deeply offensive.