A BCer in Toronto

Justin wears shorts, raises a lot of money

2013-05-06T09:50:00.000-04:00

Received an email this morning; Liberal leader Justin Trudeau "has a message for me." And a few million other people, but whatevs. Here it is:

Much discussion in the online world about the clothing tastes of casual Justin. The suit and tie pundit crowd seem confused or annoyed. I think it's fine, but neither of us are the target audience. The Canadians that probably didn't wear a suit and tie while enjoying 20 degree summer weather last weekend are, and I'll let them draw their own conclusions.

If there's anything that annoys me about this video, its that whoever shot it held their damned iPhone vertically, leaving those big black bars on the side of the screen. Just turn your phone sideways and, boom, lovely widescreen video. You're welcome.

However, you know what I liked best about this video? That since Justin became leader, the party has raised over $1 million from 14,000 donors, including 6,000 first-time contributors.

Painful media scrum for Adrian Dix on his Kinder Surprise

2013-04-27T08:42:00.001-04:00

After a BC election radio leaders debate, NDP leader Adrian Dix faced the press, and questions on his Kinder Surprise. And it wasn't pretty. Between back-dating memos and forward-dating decisions, Dix's messaging is more difficult to follow than the plot of Inception.

NDP says Liberals are hiding Christy, but where's their Dix?

2013-04-24T11:59:00.000-04:00

There's an election happening on the left coast, and for all the preoccupation last year about the BC Conservatives, it's quickly shaping up as a choice between Christy Clark's BC Liberals and Adrian Dix's BC NDP.

Heck, even BC Conservative leader John Cummins admitted to reporters that, in the last election, he was unhappy with his incumbent and instead cast a protest vote for the BC NDP candidate. Apparently he didn't even consider voting for the candidate of the party he now leads. So I'm not sure why anyone else would either.

Anyway, apparently the NDP have been making hay with a claim that the Liberals have been hiding Clark in their campaign material, and a Tumblr has been created with alleged examples. Fairly common campaign stuff, but usually you don't throw this rock when you're sheltering in a glass house.

Because another Tumblr has popped-up, and hey, where's Dix?

Apparently 90 per cent of NDP campaign web sites and signs also contain no mention of their leader. That has to be embarrassing. Why are they hiding Dix? And why doth they protest so muchly?

Thoughts on the new Liberal/Justin Trudeau ads

2013-04-24T11:30:00.003-04:00

As mentioned earlier, the Liberal Party of Canada this morning released two new ads featuring Justin Trudeau that will be running on television and online, one in English and one in French (you can donate here to help keep them on the air). Both are similar in tone, although only the English one responds directly to the personally negative Conservative ad campaign.

We needed to respond

Content aside, I’m pleased that we've responded at all. And we had to, for several reasons.

For one, Liberals have been asked several times in recent years to donate in order to respond to Conservative attack ads. When ads were ran against Bob Rae, the party asked for money for a response; Liberals donated, the party never responded. At the time I outlined why a response would be problematic, but those Liberals that donated certainly expected one. We also voted at the last biennial to create a “Strong Start Fund” to give the next leader a coffer to allow him or her to respond to the inevitable Conservative attacks, and have been asked to donate to it regularly. And Liberals responded to another donation request after the Conservative ads launched. So just to keep faith with Liberal donors, a response was mandatory.

And secondly, Liberals are jumpy after having watched two leaders be savaged by Conservative attack ads with little meaningful response from the party. While we can debate for hours just what impact the ad campaigns had on the electoral fortunes of our last two leaders, the psychological impact on Liberals has been clear. So for our own sanity, a response was necessary.

The ads themselves

The contrast between the Conservative and Liberal ads is jarring, and deliberately so. The English ad makes the contrast obvious by directly pivoting off the Conservative attack, and offering a different style, tone and approach, and a different choice for Canadians.

Based on Twitter reaction, those in the Ottawa bubble have been thrown for a bit of a loop. They've been conditioned to expect cheap sound effects, sarcastic voice-overs and personal attacks. They don’t know what to make of this positive tone, this lack of flash and whiz-bang, just a leader talking directly to Canadians, a son and a father just asking for a chance. It’s different than what they’re used to.

The bubble crowd are not the target audience though. Canadians are, the Canadians who don’t watch question period every afternoon or PowerPlay every evening. The same people the Conservatives are targeting with their ads.

We all know that attack ads can be effective, so I like the deliberate mocking of the Conservative ads – Canadians can agree you’re right, those ads are ridiculous, we do deserve better. The classroom setting says I’m not going to apologize for being a teacher, and will remind Canadians of positive school memories – most of us liked our teachers. For many of us, they were role models and mentors.

Some will say the Liberals should have fought fire with fire. I think those people would be wrong. Let’s remember what this is about: defining Justin Trudeau. I wrote last week about voter impression polling numbers, which showed many Canadians have already formed an impression of Trudeau, and one that’s largely positive. The Conservatives want to reach those that haven’t made up their minds yet with a negative message – he’s in over his head. The Liberals want to reach those same people with a positive message – I’m a regular guy, a family man like you, who loves his country and just wants a chance to serve.

Both sides have now made their cases effectively, and we’ll watch in the weeks and months ahead to see how Canadians respond. And Canadians will watch to see how the leaders perform. Impressions will be formed, and solidified.

It will be some time be know how effective these respective campaigns will be. The Liberals, though, have finally gotten off the bench.

Game on.

New Liberal ads are online

2013-04-24T07:45:00.000-04:00

The Liberals and Justin Trudeau now have ads of their own, and they stand in stark contrast to the negative Conservative personal attack ads of last week. Take a look:

And a French ad that's a little different visually:

Have to run; I'll have some thoughts later.

London radio station's yanked CPC/Trudeau parody ad is back online -- without CPC logos

2013-04-18T23:37:00.002-04:00

On Thursday morning a London radio station, FM96 (which may or may not have London's best rock) uploaded a humorous video parody of the Conservative Party of Canada's anti-Justin Trudeau attack ads. Essentially, the "Conservatives" warned electing Trudeau meant "four years of your wife wanting to sleep with the Prime Minister." Better, therefore, to stick with Stephen Harper.

A humorous parody of over the top attack ads, to be sure, and one that was widely shared on social media during the day. Until late afternoon, when the video was suddenly pulled from YouTube. Clicking play left one with the error message: "Removed by user."

So, why was the ad removed? Did the morning shock jocks have second thoughts in the bright light of late afternoon? Were they pressured or threatened into taking it down? Several tweets to @FM96Rocks asking why the video was taken down went unanswered, although the dead video link remained online on the station's blog:

Then, Thursday night, Peter Mansbridge played a clip of the "briefly online" parody ad on the At Issue segment of CBC's The National, and all and sundry found it amusing. And suddenly, a tweet from @FM96Rocks referenced the CBC appearance and included a new link to the video, not mentioning its temporary removal.

And here it is, online once more:

Except, not quite. The eagle-eyed among you who watched the first parody video that was uploaded will note several edits were made to the new version. For example, the original contained a Conservative logo and authorization text, like that seen in the image below. This is missing from the new version.

Also missing is a line saying the ad was authorized by "Conservative nerds for Stephen Harper" or something along those lines.

So, why the edits? Did the Conservative Party claim copyright and raise the specter of legal action for using their logo and authorization text? I have e-mailed a query on that topic to Conservative Party director of Communications Fred Delorey:

Hello Fred,

On Thursday morning, a London radio station aired a parody of the Conservative Party's recent Justin Trudeau-related ad campaign. Late Thursday afternoon, that video was "removed by user" from YouTube. Thursday night, it was reuploaded by the radio station, but edited to, among other things, remove a Conservative logo and authorization text.

Can you confirm if the Conservative Party contacted the radio station about this ad and, if so, if the party requested or required the video to be removed and/or edits made?

Sincerely,

Jeff Jedras

I will report on any response I receive from Fred. I will note, though, that a copyright claim by the CPC would be ironic, given that their attack ads used footage without the permission of those that created it. Something which seemed not to bother the Conservatives.

Speaking of which, some of the footage they used was shot at a fundraiser for the Canadian Liver Foundation, a fine group which could use your support, so consider making a donation today.

A third anti-Trudeau attack ad

2013-04-18T15:25:00.001-04:00

I didn't think the first two were overly effective, but this one has me worried. The Liberal Party needs to respond rapidly before this narrative sets in with Canadians:

UPDATE: It appears this ad has been removed from YouTube "by user." It was a parody video from a radio station in London, that purported to be a Conservative ad warning people not to vote Liberal because then their wives will want to sleep with the Prime Minister, with the tag line of being approved by "Conservative nerds."

UPDATE DEUX: An excerpt from the ad was aired tonight on the At Issue segment of CBC's The National. And it appears the radio station (FM96, which may or may not have London's Best Rock) has re-uploaded the video to its YouTube account.

Christy Clark knows when things are a trap

2013-04-18T06:58:00.000-04:00

There's an election underway in British Columbia, and Christy Clark's BC Liberals have launched their first campaign spot:

I suppose it could be a coincidence, but I think someone on the campaign has a sense of humour, as "it's a trap" has become a phrase associated with Admiral Ackbar of Star Wars fame.

Perhaps they didn't have the rights, but I've recut the ad the way it should have been produced:

Trust them when they say NDP economic policies are risky, because Christy Clark and Admiral Ackbar know when things are a trap.

And while the polls may look tough for Clark, and the victory of Darth Dix and the NDP death star may seem assured, Clark used to shoot womprats with her T16 back home, and they're not much bigger than two metres.

So don't count her out.

Justin Trudeau won’t be so easy to ill-define

2013-04-16T08:00:00.000-04:00

The day after Justin Trudeau was elected leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, as predictably as the sun rises in the East, the Conservatives did what the Conservatives do – they released negative personal attack ads. It’s all they know how to do.

And it has worked for them before (see Dion, Stephen and Ignatieff, Michael). Will they make it a hat trick? Time will tell, but it was interesting, as these ads were released, to read a new poll from Ekos. I said the other day to ignore the polls, and that advice holds, particularly the horse race numbers. But in the context of these attacks – and the Conservative attempt to again negatively define a Liberal leader before he can define himself – the job approval numbers merit examination.

Trudeau registered 36 per cent approval and 26 per cent disapproval, for a +10 margin. Not a runaway freight train, but significantly ahead of Stephen Harper, at 28 per cent approval and 50 per cent disapproval (-22) and Thomas (Tom) Mulcair at 26 approve, 30 per cent disapprove (-4). Harper’s negative number is quite striking, but otherwise take these numbers with a grain of salt – Trudeau just had his first real day on the job yesterday, after all. His opponents aren't starting from positions of strength, however.

One measure that is more durable (and interesting) though is the "don’t know" response on the approval rating. Trudeau was at just 34.6 per cent, down steadily from 60 per cent when the leadership race was gearing-up last September.

What does this show? Trudeau is rapidly becoming less of a blank slate. For better or worse (mostly for the better at the moment) two-thirds of Canadians have already formed their impression of him. As Ekos president Frank Graves put it, “more than 5 million voters have a view on him who didn't at the outset of the race.” Which means it will be more difficult for any coordinated Conservative attempt to cement a negative impression to be effective.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have largely given Mulcair a pass, but he remains surprisingly undefined with Canadians, with 40.7 per cent answering don’t know with regards to his job approval. For that number to be that high after one year as leader of the official opposition, with all the media attention that entails, and with the Liberals lacking a permanent leader, is astounding (and a credit to the effectiveness of interim Liberal leader in Bob Rae). Even in Quebec, Mulcair’s home province, home of the Orange Wave, where Mulcair was a popular provincial environment minister, 44.2 per cent answered don’t know. He remains remarkably undefined, which speaks to the work he still has to do.

Luckily for Mulcair and the NDP, the Conservatives don’t seem in a hurry to step in and fill that void with a negative impression – they’re more focused on Trudeau and the Liberals (which is telling). But as the numbers show, that will be a rather more difficult challenge.

Which isn’t to say it’s not impossible. For the Liberals and Trudeau, continuing to drive down that don’t know number, and replacing it with a positive (and substantive) impression, must be a focus.

This is, perhaps, the end of the beginning

2013-04-14T19:17:00.000-04:00

I hate to use World War Two-related references, as someone will always think I’m invoking Goodwin’s Law. So I hope you can accept that I intend no comparisons to the antagonists of that conflict when I say, as I ponder the end of the Liberal Party of Canada’s leadership race, that I’m reminded of Sir Winston Churchill’s quote:

"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

This has been a very successful race for the Liberal Party of Canada. Over two hundred thousand signed up as supporters, and their information is now in the Liberal database. Over one hundred thousand votes were cast, surpassing the turnout in the last NDP and Conservative leadership contests. Six candidates made it to the end, and a number of others helped spread the Liberal message across the country.

All this in a race the pundits had written off before it even began– no one would run, no one would join, no one would vote.

We’re not dead yet. Far from it.

Team Coyne

I was honoured to be asked by Deborah Coyne to manage her campaign. It was a daunting responsibility, but an exhilarating one. We didn't have the largest team, or the most resources, but I’d argue we had the most substance.

We set out to run a campaign of ideas on a shoestring budget, to put policy on the table and spark a debate about Canada’s future, and the role the Liberal Party should play. Deborah traveled the country by car, visiting every province and territory but Nunavut. We may not have gotten the most first place votes, but I know Deborah’s vision of One Canada and bold national leadership resonated, with Liberals and with Canadians.

I look forward to supporting Deborah as she seeks election in a Toronto-area riding to the House of Commons in 2015. We need her voice, her perspective, and her conviction at the table, and I’m confident she has a bright future in the Liberal Party.

Le nouveau chef

If Marc Garneau had stayed in the race I’d have had a tough choice to make, but when he dropped out there was no doubt about where my second choice vote would go – Justin Trudeau.

Justin ran a very impressive campaign (remarkably for a front-runner, largely mistake-free) that brought thousands of new supporters to the party, many getting involved in politics for the first time. He has the potential to be a figure that can convince people to take another look, or a first look, at the Liberal Party, and about serving their country. If we can harness that, give those people something to stay for, convince them that party politics can make meaningful change, then the future for the party is interesting indeed.

We have a new, dynamic young leader, one who has shown that he can build a team, and build a coalition. Now that job gets bigger. Justin gets us into the conversation; now we need to win the debate.

The end of the beginning

That’s why I say this is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. Because the real work, the blood, sweat and tears, are still to come. I read the other day a headline declaring that Bob Rae had saved the Liberal Party. Bob has done an outstanding job of interim leader, more than we could have asked for, and he deserves our heartfelt thanks. But I took issue with that headline.

Bob *helped* save the Liberal Party. So did you (assuming you’re a Liberal), so did I, and so did everyone else who signed up as a supporter, took out a membership, got involved in a campaign, joined a riding executive, or otherwise got involved and made the renewal of the Liberal Party of Canada their personal mission.

Historically, Liberals have had a messiah problem. When times are good, we credit all success to the leader. And when times are bad, we blame all failure on them. It allows us to avoid personal responsibility – it’s powers beyond our control. And it allows us to avoid needed introspection, and a hard look at just what went wrong, what can we do differently, what we need to change. Instead, we cycle through leaders hoping we’ll hit on the right one.

There have been some impressive polls lately. Ignore them. They’re meaningless. Two years is an eternity, and the Conservative attack ads have yet to come.

Justin gives us a tremendous advantage. It’s a new dynamic. What he gives us is an opportunity – one it’s up to all of us to seize. If the Liberal Party is going to be competitive again, if we’re going to surpass the NDP and even the Conservatives in 2015, then Justin can’t do it alone.

We can’t sit back. It’s going to take every Liberal member and supporter making building the party on the ground, in their community, their personal responsibility.

No more messiahs. It’s up to all of us.

Ministerial responsibility is dead; Peter MacKay hides behind the troops (again)

2013-04-11T09:20:00.000-04:00

It was shocking and troubling news when it broke two days ago: the federal government (it's only called the Harper Government when it's doing positive things) announced it would be ending the danger pay allowance for Canadian soldiers serving in Afghanistan.

The baffling news from a government supposedly all about the troops (unlike those other commie parties) provoked an immediately negative response, including from comedian and troop supporter (having made several trips to Afghanistan), Rick Mercer:

Harper govt cutting danger pay for soldiers in Afghanistan. bit.ly/16O5q1J - its safe now apparently.
— Rick Mercer (@rickmercer) April 9, 2013

Mercer also noted that, while the Harper Government may think things are safe in Afghanistan, the Harper government apparently disagrees:

This bone-headed decision now being a very public relations (not to mention moral) problem, now the Harper Government begins a game of political hot potato. Where does the responsibility reside? If you think the Prime Minister's Office takes responsibility for the actions of the Harper government, think again:

The Harper government has ordered the Department of National Defence to reconsider a plan to reduce danger pay for Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

Ah, so now they're the Harper government again. And this totally isn't their fault; or, at least, not the PMO branch of the Harper government. So, no responsibility from the Prime Minister. How about the Defence Minister; Peter?

Staff in Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s office said bureaucrats, not politicians, took the initiative to reduce soldiers’ hazard pay.
...
The decision was made by a hardship pay review committee whose members include a Canadian Armed Forces general-rank officer, a representative of the RCMP, and bureaucrats from Treasury Board and National Defence.
...
The Defence Minister has no power to interfere in the decision, officials said.

So, apparently it's not MacKay's responsibility. He's just the Minister of National Defence, after all. And it's not Harper's responsibility, he's just the Prime Minister. No, when the going gets tough, they hide behind the troops.

It's not a new phenomenon for the Harper government:

Military personnel were asked to dig up dirt on an opposition MP in the wake of revelations Defence Minister Peter MacKay was picked up in a search-and-rescue helicopter from a 2010 fishing trip, defence department records show.

It first emerged in a television report on Sept. 21, 2011, that MacKay’s office ordered a Cormorant helicopter to pick him up from a private lodge on the Gander River in Newfoundland at an estimated cost of $16,000. His destination was the Gander airport, where a Challenger jet was waiting to take him to a government announcement in London, Ont.

The morning of Sept. 22, Royal Canadian Air Force staff — including an officer posted in MacKay’s office — were digging through flight logs to find instances where opposition party MPs took rides aboard military aircraft, according to emails obtained by the Toronto Star.

Perhaps they need a little danger pay at NDHQ as well.

Briefly, on "cooperation"

2013-04-01T22:23:00.000-04:00

I've been firmly on the record against merger, or a non-aggression pact (deceptively called cooperation -- who doesn't like cooperation?) for at least a year or two now.

I've outlined my reasons at length, from the fact that most statistical evidence indicates it just won't work (you'll lose centre-right Liberals to Harper and strengthen his vote count) to my belief that not having Liberals on the ballot in half the country would be kind of bad for those who think our party should still exist. There's also the somewhat awkward reality that there's no one to cooperate with.

I don't want to rehash all that. I've made my arguments, and I'm happy to let the debate play out and the people have their say. I think those that argue for it come to their views honestly and, while I disagree, I respect their position.

I do, though, want to address one talking point I've been hearing more and more from Team Non-Aggression Pact: that those who oppose their non-aggression pact are somehow putting "narrow partisan interests" ahead of the greater good, poutine, hockey and all that is holy. Besides being insulting, that argument is nonsensical.

Let me submit this: IF a non-aggression pact was indeed the silver bullet to defeat Stephen Harper, reform the electoral system and return our party to national relevance, and IF I was an unthinking uncaring partisan drone, why on Earth would I NOT support it? Surely it would be the quicker path to redemption, glory and an Ambassadorship to the Federated States of Micronesia than slogging it out as a third place party?

I am opposed to a non-aggression pact precisely because I am NOT putting narrow partisan interests first. Instead, I choose to take the harder road. Not the road of restricting voter choice, not the road of fiddling with ballots behind the scenes to leave people with no choice but to vote the way I want.

Instead, I want to take the harder road, the road of building an alternative vision, of winning the support of Canadians not by restricting their choices, but by offering them a BETTER choice. Because I believe THAT is how you win the lasting and durable support of the electorate.

It is not narrowly partisan to say that just because I don't like Stephen Harper's vision for Canada doesn't mean I like Tom Mulcair's. I believe in a vision of Canada that neither of them shares. That's why I'm supporting a candidate, and a party, whose vision I do share. It is not narrowly partisan to say my be all and end all isn't defeating Stephen Harper; just the opposite, in fact.

There are lots of arguments to make for non-aggression pacts. Accusing those that oppose them as being narrowly partisan is not one of them.

And lastly, it's there's one thing we "narrow partisans" need to stop doing, it's thinking that everyone thinks Stephen Harper is the devil. I assure you, they do not. Most Canadians, while they disagree with many of his policies, and didn't vote for him, think he's a reasonably competent if somewhat stern fellow who has done a reasonable job, all things considered. Thinking otherwise is the biggest mistake we continually make.

Make no mistake -- I fundamentally disagree with him, and I think he should be defeated. But as long as our narrow partisan goal is just to defeat him, we will lose. The non-partisans just don't share that motivation. Until we offer Canadians something better, we're doomed. That's this narrow partisan's take.

Rob Ford needs to seek help himself

2013-03-26T09:24:00.003-04:00

For those whose families have been touched by alcoholism, as mine has, the story in this morning’s Toronto Star “Rob Ford: ‘Intoxicated’Toronto mayor asked to leave military ball” will ring familiar.

Looking back at a long pattern of behavior it would seem obvious to all that Mayor Ford may have a problem. Obvious to everyone, that is, but Mayor Ford. Based on the article, it would certainly seem that it’s obvious to those close to him, who have been urging him to seek help. It’s also implied that some of those close to him that are speaking out, albeit anonymously, are doing so with the hope it will finally spur him into seeking help.

As anyone with any experience with this disease can tell you though, the realization and admission that you have a problem is something the person has to come to on their own. Until they’re ready to take that first step, there’s nothing you can do to spur them toward it. Realizing that is the first step toward maintaining your own sanity.

The only thing, and the best thing, that those around someone in this situation can do is to not be an enabler. Don’t make excuses for their behavior, don’t cover it up, don’t live in denial – it will only prolong their denial, and drag you into their illness as well, and the pain and damage it creates. And in the long run, you’re not doing them any favours.

Not that politics should enter into this, but I think most Torontonians would understand and respect a genuine admission, and decision to seek help. And I know I would look dimly on those who would seek to profit politically from someone's addiction, particularly one that so many Canadians, and their loved ones, are suffering with.

I didn't vote for Rob Ford in the last election and if he runs again, I’ll vote for someone else. That’s solely based on his policy and decisions as mayor, with which I fundamentally disagree. But as someone who has seen first hand the damage that alcoholism does to families, I hope he admits that he has a problem, and that he seeks the help he needs. Both for himself, and for his family.

The top four things we care about, according to the Harper Conservatives

2013-03-25T12:46:00.002-04:00

Tacked onto the end of an unrelated news release from FedDev Ontario about investing in Ottawa-area technology companies was this seemingly unrelated paragraph. And it illuminates the top four things Canadians care most about, at least according to the Harper government:

As outlined by the Prime Minister, the Government of Canada remains focused on what Canadians care most about: their families, the safety of our streets and communities, their pride in being a citizen of this country, and their personal financial security.

No. 5, presumably, was pandas.

Liberal members: If you want to vote for leader, you MUST register

2013-01-30T10:01:00.000-05:00

While I am supporting one of the leadership candidates, consider this a public service message: if you’re a Liberal Party of Canada member and you want to vote for leader, you MUST register by March 14, 2013.

Just holding a valid membership is not enough. If you do not register by March 14, you WILL NOT be able to vote for leader in April. This applies to all supporters as well.

Registering to support a candidate on their web site, or registering as a supporter on the LPC web site, is not the same thing. To be able to actually cast a vote, you must complete the process outlined below.

The process is different this year because it’s an online vote. All members (and supporters) need to complete the registration process to allow the party to confirm their identity and information, to allow a voting PIN to later be issued. The deadline is March 14^th to allow the party time to undertake this vetting and verification process.

Over the past two weeks, an e-mail has been sent to every Liberal member that the party has an e-mail address for. If you’re a member with e-mail, check your inbox for that message. You need to click the link and complete that registration process.

If you didn’t get the e-mail or you ignored it, follow-up reminder e-mails will go out at regular intervals to remind you to register.

For those members for whom the party does not have an e-mail address on file (and only those without an e-mail on file), a hard-copy letter will go out later this week. It will have the option to go online to complete the registration process, or to complete the enclosed hard copy form and fax or mail it back before the deadline.

Keep an eye on your inbox (or mailbox, if appropriate) for this message. It will be from “Matt Certosimo, Liberal.ca info@email.liberal.ca” with the subject line “2013 LPC: Jeff, register to vote now”: if your name is Jeff. If your name is something else, that’s what it will be.

I’m hoping they can set up a page on the web site we can drive people to for registration. Unfortunately, I believe the issue is that each email has a unique ID for registration that can only be used once (and each snail mail will contain a code as well) so that may not be an option, but I’ll report on any change.

I’m told a 1-800 number will be set up to handle registration-related queries. I’ll pass it on when it’s available. In the interim, the general line for the LPC national office is (613) 237-0740. If you’re concerned you haven’t received your registration e-mail or mailing, give them a call.

Once you’ve successfully registered, you’ll receive your PIN sometime March 25 and April 6^th, and voting will take place between April 7^th and April 14^th. The video below explains the voting system.

NDP puts its flawed unity policy on the table for 2015 election

2013-01-29T10:06:00.000-05:00

You might say I was against the NDP’s Sherbrooke Declaration before it was cool. Having somewhat of an interest in the unity of Canada, I’ve long been aware of the emptiness of NDP policy when it comes to handling the unthinkable but not implausible – a referendum on a province leaving confederation – and their duplicitous habit of saying one thing in Quebec, and one thing in the rest of Canada.

For some time, they played this two-faced game. In Quebec, they declared Sherbrooke was their policy. In the “rest of Canada” they claimed fidelity to the Clarity Act. And, when challenged, they claimed there was no contradiction between the two – a position easily exposed as utter nonsense.

Nearly two years ago I outlined at length how the two positions were contradictory, I invite you to read that post for the background. Needless to say, whenever I’d bring up their conflicting positions on the unity file, NDPers would accuse me of dredging up dead and irrelevant issues, that by winning seats in Quebec they’d killed separatism forever, and talking about it would only lead to the end of all life as we know it.

Until, I suppose, when they want to talk about it:

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair has waded into the national unity swamp, with proposed legislation specifying that a bare majority Yes vote would be sufficient to trigger negotiations on Quebec’s secession from Canada.

New Democrat MP Craig Scott tabled Monday what his party is dubbing the “unity bill.”

The bill would repeal the Clarity Act — introduced by former Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien after Quebecers came within a hair of voting to secede in 1995 — and replace it with legislation which Mulcair maintained would provide more certainty and be more respectful of Quebecers.

I will credit the NDP for one thing – they have ended their two-faced wishy-washiness on the Clarity Act vs. the Sherbrooke Declaration: they are against the Clarity Act, full stop. It’s probably the most significant policy shift the NDP has made since Tom Mulcair took over for the late Jack Layton.

Unfortunately, it’s a completely irresponsible and just plain wrong position un-befitting of a party propposing itself as ready to govern all of Canada. You need a 2/3s vote to amend the NDP constitution, but they will let the separatists break up Canada with 50 per cent plus one. That’s irresponsible in the extreme.

And who is opening a dead issue now? The Clarity Act has been the law of the land for nearly 13 years. The federalist vote in Quebec increased after its passage. Is there anyone clamoring for its repeal, other than the Bloc Quebecois, and perhaps the former sovereigntists in Mulcair’s Quebec caucus?

I don’t think so. Nevertheless, Mulcair and the NDP seem to want to make this a national issue, given that the bill was tabled by a Toronto MP, Craig Scott (Toronto-Danforth). So, speaking as one Liberal and just for himself (though I’m sure I’m not alone) I’m happy to take him up on his generous offer.

Now that Mr. Mulcair has given us his blessing, I’m looking forward to the 2015 election, where we can talk across Canada about the NDP’s belief that Canada can dissolve our confederation with one scant vote. I think that will be a most interesting debate that voters in Toronto-Danforth, and across *all* of Canada, will be very interested in.

So thank-you, Mr. Mulcair. I’m looking forward to it.

Day 2 a Wynning day at #olpldr

2013-01-28T01:52:00.000-05:00

After about two hours sleep, I made the trek downtown from Scarborough bright and early Saturday morning to see if I had a shot at being promoted from alternate to voting delegate, and would have the opportunity to casta vote for Gerard Kennedy in the Ontario Liberal leadership race. Alas, I wasn't on the list, so I could only watch, cheer, persuade, and hope for the best.

Paths to victory

Going in, Kennedy was a long-shot, but there was a path to victory for him. It had to happen early, though.

The first ballot results were pretty well set based on the results of delegate selection. In my mind, we would know in the 20 minutes between the announcement of those first-ballot results and the deadline to drop off 2^nd ballot voluntarily if he was going to have a shot at winning. If he – or Charles Sousa or Harinder Takhar for that matter – were going to have a shot at winning, one of them had to go to the other before that ballot was set. If Kennedy picked up someone's support it would have shown momentum and moved him within reasonable striking-distance of the two frontrunners, Kathleen Wynne and Sandra Pupatello, making him a legitimate choice for delegates not sold on either of the top two. But if he didn't pick up that support early, in that 20 minutes, the victory of one of the top two would be inevitable, and delegates would make their choice between the two.

Rumours abounded on the hospitality circuit that Takhar would drop to go to Kennedy, and early, perhaps delivering an endorsement during his speech. It seemed likely Eric Hoskins would go to Wynne, possibly delivering an endorsement during his speech, so Kennedy needed Takhar to have a path to victory on Saturday.

So maybe speeches do matter

Once the program got underway, the focus of the morning was the demonstration and speeches, with each leadership candidate having 30 minutes to make their final pitch to the delegates.

I hadn't been following the leadership race too closely, having been somewhat preoccupiedwith the federal affair, so I was interested in learning more about the candidates. Of course I knew Kennedy, and had formed impressions of Pupatello, Wynne and Hoskins, but knew little about Sousa and Takhar.

Takhar had a strong speech, with some good policy but a very compelling personal narrative. His story about his immigration to Canada, and the compromises he had to make to his religious and cultural identity in order to find employment, was powerful. It reminded us of how far we have come, that he could now be on this stage as a leadership contender, but also reminded us of how far we still have to go. For those hoping for an early move to Kennedy though, the speech ended with no announcement.

Kennedy was up next, and his team's blue day two swag (tied to a Kennedy wave message) was a visible presence in the arena. Someone on Twitter remarked he delivered an address that reminded his supporters why they supported him, but may not have swayed other delegates. I think that was probably fair. I know his message resonated with me. It hit the issues I care about, from party reform to education, and made me proud to have supported him. But as much as I like the message, it seemed to lack a certain energy, a certain call to movement.

Wynne spoke third, but it was undoubtedly the climatic moment of the morning. There are some pundits that say speeches don't matter at these things. These people are full of crap. This was a delegated convention, her audience was all in that room, and their second choice votes were up for grabs. And with the two frontrunners in a dead heat, the speeches could make a real diference. And her's did. While the dancing was high-risk, it played to the fun and high-energy nature of her presentation. She was throwing a party, and you wanted to join. Her speech offered vision, and it offered unity. It was aspirational. And it was bold, taking head-on the “Ontario isn't ready for a gay premier” bullshit and swatting it away. It dared us to be better. I was leaning that away before, but she solidified my second choice support in those 30 minutes.

A lot of my organizer friends were involved on Team Sousa, and they had a presence at the convention that belied their delegate count. Their #CS521 (Charles Sousa 5^th to 1^st) slogan bespoke their plucky underdog spirit. His speech was well delivered and offered some interesting and important policy prescriptions. But after the emotional high of Wynne's address, he had a tough act to follow.

Pupatello's presentation didn't really connect for me. It was well crafted and delivered, it was professional, but it was just missing something for me. She was a bit more blunt, a bit less conciliatory, and the tone seemed a bit more suited to a post-vote victory address than an appeal for support from people that may not have you as their first choice. Contrasted to the tone of her brief concession remarks after the final ballot – energetic, magnanimous, fun and spot on – the tone just seemed off to me.

Rounding out the program was Dr. Hoskins, who had the unfortunate slot of being between the delegates, the media, and lunch (I had Chipotle, it was excellent). Many were also expecting an endorsement from the stage, with the rumour being a move to Pupatello, who, according to several reports, had sent delegates to don Hoskins shirts to bolster his floor demonstration. So between their desire to get to lunch and watch for an endorsement, many missed the content of a strong address from a very accomplished man. Hoskins is one of those people we always say we should have more of in politics, with as impressive a personal biography as you'll ever see. Sadly, with the lowest delegate count his first-ballot exit was inevitable. His speech ended with no endorsement, and lunch could be procured (chicken burrito, no beans).

Ballot One

First, though, we would get the results of the first ballot. This was less important than what would happen immediately after: while the last place candidate would be automatically dropped, the other candidates would have 20 minutes if they wanted to withdraw voluntarily from the next ballot. And it was in this 20 minutes that the course of this race would be decided.

On ballot one, it was:

Pupatello 599 votes 28.7%

Wynne: 597 votes 28.6%

Kennedy: 281 votes 13.5%

Takhar: 235 votes 11.3%

Sousa: 222 votes 10.7%

Hoskins 150 votes 7.2%

For my preferred candidate, Gerard Kennedy, the next 20 minutes would determine if he had a shot or not. The problem was that he was in the middle – far enough back of the top two to be out of the pack, not far enough ahead of the others to separate himself from them. He needed to pick up Takhar, Sousa or Hoskins to vault himself into consideration. Basically, if one of the 3rd-5^th candidates going to win, one of the others had to fall on their swords and make an early move to one of the others. Otherwise, either Wynne or Pupatello would win, and each ballot they remained would only prolong the inevitable.

Hoskins quickly made his way to the Wynne camp, as most expected. It was an early momentum boost for Team Wynne, who seemed to me to have greater growth potential than Pupatello. When no further dropoffs were announced, I began to wade through the crowds of people lining up to vote on ballot two and head for the street, and my burrito. With Takhar staying on the second ballot and no move to Kennedy, it wasn't looking good for Gerard but it wasn't completely over yet. And then I made it to Carlton Street, and it was.

Overhearing two Pupatello delegates discussing Takhar's move to Sandra's camp, I immediately turned to my BlackBerry and Twitter to confirm. Bad rumours of moves to Pupatello had abounded all morning, but sadly, CP24 confirmed this one has true. While he was still on the second ballot, he had moved to endorse Pupatello. For her, it was a much needed move to counter the momentum of Hoskins to Wynne. And for Kennedy, it was the closure of his last path to victory. While it seemed like a deal had been done the night before, it's never done until it's done. Harinder decided to go another way, and the die was cast: it would be Wynne or Pupatello, and Ontario would soon have its first female premier.

Ballot Two

Coming back to the hall from lunch buoyed by Chipotle goodness but saddened by the inevitable defeat of my preferred candidate, many were already looking ahead to second choices. The tide, to me, definitely seemed to be with Wynne. I made arrangements to procure a Wynne scarf, which unlike much convention swag is actually high quality and very warm, and shall be my daily scarf through the rest of the winter. While some of my Kennedy friends tried gamely to create scenarios, for most there was a sense of resignation, and a strong feeling for Wynne as the next best choice. Team Sousa seemed less willing to consider what would come next, even as hopes for a CS521 faded. Team Wynne was energetic, Team Pupatello, the frontrunners going in, seemed nervous.

The second ballot results solidified the die that had been cast earlier in those crucial 20 minutes:

Pupatello: 817 votes, 39.4%

Wynne: 750 votes, 36.2%

Kennedy: 285 votes, 13.7%

Sousa: 203 votes, 9.8%

Takhar: 18 votes, 0.9%

Kennedy only gained a handful of votes; his path to victory was already closed. He could stay on for further ballots, but it would only delay the inevitable. Sousa had gained another ballot with Takhar not getting off the 2^nd ballot in time, but he too had no path to victory.

While Pupatello had actually gained ground on Wynne from the first ballot, I actually still liked Wynne's chances better. The gap wasn't wide enough, and her growth potential was greater. At this point, the thinking was Kennedy to Wynne, and Pupatello to Sousa. I saw Kennedy delivering most of his support (which ideologically would be unlikely to go Pupatello) with Sousa's likely splitting, creating a narrow Wynne victory.

Again, we had 20 minutes to see who, besides Takhar, might drop from the ballot and move to another camp.

It happened quickly, it happened dramatically, and it happened unexpectedly. Sousa was the first to make a move, leaving his section of the arena stands (which was beside Pupatello) and moving across the arena, toward Wynne's. It was an unexpected move, and as I strained to follow from the rafters, I wondered if he'd pull a fake-out and loop back around the media risers to Pupatello's box. Then the cameras found him in Wynne's literal and figurative embrace, a scarf draped around his neck, and it was done. While there was much talk going in of Kennedy as the queen maker, it was Sousa that sealed the deal, and likely the finance minister's post in next week's cabinet shuffle. Kennedy's move to Wynne shortly thereafter seemed inevitable, and wrapped a bow around the likely outcome.

With the third ballot cast, I headed out to the Holiday Inn to enjoy an adult beverage with some Liberal friends without convention passes. What did give me pause on my way out though was a large gaggle of Sousa delegates at the coat check, clearly heading home without having voted. This thing wasn't decided yet – either candidate could come out on top.

Third and final ballot

As I enjoyed a glass of wine next door at the hotel bar, I noted a good number of bar goers wearing Wynne swag, but couldn't spot one wearing the gear of the other front runner. I decided this could mean one of two things: either Team Pupatello was working the vote too hard to take a break, or they were in no mood for adult beverages. While I pondered this, I learned that some sort of flood in the voting room had delayed things, and so I ordered another glass of wine.

I finally did make my way back into the arena – this time the protestors had cleared, leaving behind only discarded protest signs and littered Tim Hortons cups – and set back up in the rafters to await the result. And after several false ten-minute warnings, it came:

Wynne: 1,150

Pupatello: 866

With both Sousa and Kennedy moving to Wynne, the result wasn't as close as it seemed it may be earlier – it was a clear victory for Wynne. Pupatello was magnanimous and genuine in defeat, and Wynne conciliatory and inclusionary in victory. She promised a quick return to work with a speedy recall of the legislature, and wasted to time reaching out across party lines to the NDP and the Conservatives, the latter of which wasted no time launching an attack ad.

It will be interesting times ahead. Some pundits wasted no time saying a gay woman from Toronto (actually, Richmond Hill, to be accurate) would never sell outside the GTA. I have to say, I'd hate to be someone that has such a low opinion of his fellow citizens. The people are often much more progressive than their representatives or, to be more accurate, more concerned with pocketbook issues than so-called values attacks. Whenever the next election is, whether it be sooner or hopefully later, everyone would do well to remember that.

I was proud to have supported Gerard Kennedy. I don't know what the future holds for him, but I hope we'll see him back in the legislature, as his talents are needed. And I was proud to support Kathleen Wynne, and to have been there when such inspiring change came to Ontario. I heard one astounding number later that night – 85 per cent of Canadians will now have a female Premier. Maybe we're almost to the point where it will no longer be noteworthy.

Here are my tweets from Saturday:

View the story "Day two at #olpldr: Wynne wynns" on Storify Day two at #olpldr: Wynne wynns Decision day at the Ontario Liberal Party leadership convention, where Kathleen Wynne wins on the 3rd ballot to become Ontario's next premier Storified by Jeff Jedras· Sun, Jan 27 2013 08:18:15 RT @calgarygrit: While the delegates have fun at 1 am, the @GKennedyOLP infographic guy is hard at work. #olpldr #olp http://pic.twitter.com/i448R2fmJeff Jedras Heading back downtown to #olpldr on less than two hours sleep. Big day!Jeff Jedras Just checked the bump-up list; no promotion to delegate for me. :( Ah, well. If you do have a vote, vote GK! #olpldrJeff Jedras The calm before the storm at #olpldr. How many ballots will we go today? http://lockerz.com/s/279476505Jeff Jedras Interim #lpc ldr Bob Rae speaks to attendees at #olpldr. Jokes not long ago he wouldn't be welcomed at #olp http://lockerz.com/s/279489693Jeff Jedras "We want every child to go to school hungry for knowledge, not hungry for food." - @BobRaeMP #olpldrJeff Jedras Team GK is clad in blue, bur definitely not blue in spirit... #olpldr http://lockerz.com/s/279493339Jeff Jedras Harinder goes first and uses BTO's "taking care of business." And now every other campaign has to scramble to pick another song... #olpldrJeff Jedras Powerful story from Harinder about having to sacrifice religious identity to assimilate as newcomer, and how it's different today. #olpldrJeff Jedras #TeamGK demo moves into position. GK all the way! #olpldr http://lockerz.com/s/279499689Jeff Jedras GK is speaking about #olp renewal. He's the 1 candidate that has been addressing the need for renewal, one reason he has my support #olpldtJeff Jedras Heavy emphasis on education from GK, the former education minister. Not to peps outside on the need to get things working again. #olpldtJeff Jedras "Our purpose is greater than this party alone, and we're here because Ontarioins need us to succeed." - GK #olpldrJeff Jedras GK says government needs a new 3 Rs: Respect, responsibility, results. #olpldrJeff Jedras "My friends, we have a responsibility to bring teachers back to the table again." - @GKennedyOLP #olpldrJeff Jedras "Whether they're outside protesting or watching at home on TV, (teachers) are our partners..." - @GKennedyOLP @olpldrJeff Jedras "It's a new day, and I'm offering a new kind of politics...have faith we can turn ourselves around." - @GKennedyOLP #olpldrJeff Jedras Wynne's crowd is the most boisterous to date, and fills the demonstration area. #olpldrJeff Jedras Wynning? #olpldr http://lockerz.com/s/279508509Jeff Jedras Wynne: Now is the time to show we've learned from out mistakes and they will not happen again. #olpldrJeff Jedras Wynne throws down the "I've got a seat" card. #olpldrJeff Jedras Wynne addresses the "are we ready for a gay premier?" BS. She says the question is can a gay woman win? Well, she has an answer... #olpldrJeff Jedras Glad that Wynne is taking that canard head-on and smacking it down. #olpldrJeff Jedras "I have a seat, I have a path, and I have a plan. And I believe in us." - Wynne #olpldrJeff Jedras Not feeling the dance party, but all in all a very strong, impressive speech and demonstration by Wynne. #olpldrJeff Jedras Don't all politicians? ;) MT @CBCTheHouse: We're told @Kathleen_Wynne wrote her own speech, didn't have speechwriter do it for her. #OLPldrJeff Jedras If Sousa to Pupatello is the rumour,her delegates seem to have been instructed to not applausd his speech for fear of giving it away #olpldrJeff Jedras Some worthy policy from Sousa, but just not feeling it. He did have it tough following Wynne. Pupatello next, then Hoskins last. #olpldrJeff Jedras Maybe Eric's "she" was a misdirect. Come on people, wheels within wheels! #olpldrJeff Jedras Loudest applause for Hoskins has been from Wynne's camp, for what that's worth (likely little). #olpldrJeff Jedras So no endorsements from the stage this morning. Interesting. I did hear something about a Sousa press avail tho... #olpldrJeff Jedras Were I a voting delegate and not an alternate, and were it a preferential ballot, mine would be: 1. Kennedy 2. Wynne 3. Hoskins #olpldrJeff Jedras #TeamGK is rockin-out to A-Ha at the moment. All the other camps seem a little subdued. #olpldrJeff Jedras RT @torontodan: Heard that TelePrompTer was showing another candidate's speech when @GKennedyOLP was up. It was totally off the cuff #OLPldrJeff Jedras Now it's Blitzkrieg Pop. #TeamGK no longer hopping, Not feeling the Ramones I guess. #olpldrJeff Jedras Wynne wrote her own speech. Kennedy winged it when promopter failed. & Hoskins built the stage with a hammer, nails & reclaimed wood #olpldrJeff Jedras Round 1 at #olpldr http://lockerz.com/s/279536249Jeff Jedras Scattered chants of "We want Eric!" in the hall...I think from the Wynne camp, who are enthused to be just 2 behind Pupatello. #olpldrJeff Jedras GK (or any 3rd candidate) needs someone to come over to him in next 20 mins (when 2nd ballot is set) or its KW vs SP #olpldrJeff Jedras Sousa media rep: Charles is staying on for 2nd ballot. #olpldrJeff Jedras If everyone stays on that has a choice, there's no path to victory other than for KW & SP. #olpldrJeff Jedras Meanwhile, looks like Hoskins to Wynne. And there was no joy in Pupatelloville. #olpldrJeff Jedras RT @progright: . @harindertakhar supporter Bonnie Crombie and Mississauga mayor Hazel McCallion with #TeamWynne supporters. #olpldr http://pic.twitter.com/4vQzBtzwJeff Jedras Carlton Street shut down for #olpldr protest. Have barricades up though, no troubles getting back from lunch. http://lockerz.com/s/279556967Jeff Jedras #olpldr dj now playing song from Wynne's demonstration, "Raise your glass." Omen?Jeff Jedras 2nd ballot results for #olpldr http://lockerz.com/s/279565653Jeff Jedras As I predicted earlier, there's no path to victory for 3rd to 5th. Question is, do they drag it out, or make a move now? #olpldrJeff Jedras My prediction, fwiw: Kennedy's peps will go Wynne, Sousa will go Sandra but his peps split. Wynne for the win. #olpdrJeff Jedras Here's the hot new fashion choice for #olpldr #TeamGK #Wynning http://lockerz.com/s/279566500Jeff Jedras So I was slight off on my prediction; Sousa goes to Wynne. #olpldr http://lockerz.com/s/279568201Jeff Jedras So, CS and GK officially off ballot,SP vs KW on 3rd and final. Endorsement by GK still pending, but I don't see any blue in SP's box #olpldrJeff Jedras It's not as good as Kennedion, but I'll take it. #olpldr #TeamGK #Wynning http://lockerz.com/s/279595388Jeff Jedras Ok, this time we've been given a 10 minute warning to results. I've been disappointed before but darnit, this time I believe them #olpldrJeff Jedras And the next Ontario Premier is: Kathleen Wynne! #olpldrJeff Jedras #Wynning congrats to @Kathleen_wynne #olpldr http://lockerz.com/s/279598550Jeff Jedras Proud to have supported @GKennedyOLP & of the campaign he run. And proud to welcome @Kathleen_Wynne as Ontario's 1st female premier #olpldrJeff Jedras "Can I just get this Toronto thing out of the way? I'm going to be the Premier for ALL of the province, ALL of Ontario!" -- Wynne #olpldrJeff Jedras Caucus,fellow candidates and @Dalton_McGuinty join @kathleen_wynne on stage, which he says is getting wobbly. Back to work this week #olpldrJeff Jedras

Day 1 is for Dalton at #olpldr

2013-01-26T01:10:00.000-05:00

I'm increasingly of the belief that the way to cover a political convention, social media-wise, is to Tweet during the day, and provide a more thought-out perspective at night. So that's what I'm going to try to do for my coverage of the Ontario Liberal Party leadership race this weekend, where I'm a Gerard Kennedy alternate and unofficial blogger at large.

Below you'll find a Storify of my tweets during this first, short day of #olpldr. And I do mean short. All that was on the agenda was the official opening and a tribute to outgoing leader Dalton McGuinty. At a federal Liberal convention, that would be five hours at least. The provincial party knocked it out in about an hour-and-a-half.

It was nice enough. Two of his children MC'd the entertainment portion, with brief performances covering every musical genre except opera. There was the video of Dalton with famous people. And then a speech from the man himself. It was touching for the personal notes -- his wish his father could have lived to see him enter politics, his love for his mother and her influence on his life. He reflected more on what he'd accomplished than where he thinks we should go -- natural enough for the setting and occasion but I'd like to have seen a nod to his view of the path forward.

And then suddenly, and surprisingly, it was over. Not with a bang, seemingly, but with a whimper. And as the delegates began to file from the hall before 9pm, I sat there for a moment with a "is that really it?" feeling. Really, though, it was business like, and so was Dalton. When time has softened the edges of recent dramas, I think history will look well on his tenure.

Otherwise, today was about registering, and connecting with our respective campaigns. And, of course, the hospitality suites. As mentioned, I'm a Kennedy alternate. I'm told our full slate from my riding will be coming, so my chances for promotion are slim to none. I'm still proud to cheer Gerard on though, as he truly is the best choice for Premier, and, as the polls show, to lead the OLP into the next election.

The challenge for Gerard will be to show strong enough on ballot two that a Wynne/Pupatello showdown isn't seen as inevitable. If he can gain enough delegates to get into striking range, he's in the battle and will have a shot at winning his fair share of delegates as ballots continue. But I think he needs to make an early move. He needs someone to come to him early. Otherwise, people will see it as Wynne or Pupatello and they'll pick their horse. We'll see what happens Saturday morning.

Hospitality suite report: lots of food at Charles Sousa's, which was down the street away from the others and was quite spacious. Also, wine and Martinis. Kennedy's was wall-to-wall-packed and had a line to get in. I'm told there was micro brew on tap -- I couldn't get close enough to the bar. All the others had suites as well, but I had to get back to Scarborough.

View the story "Day One at #olpldr" on Storify Day One at #olpldr Picking Ontario's next premier at the Ontario Liberal Party leadership convention in Toronto. Storified by Jeff Jedras· Fri, Jan 25 2013 21:50:22 On my way downtown for #olpldr. Looking forward to my first #olp conference; think I picked a good one for my debut. Go @GKennedyOLP!Jeff Jedras Kind of detracts from your message when your protest leaves a pile of trash on the street. #olpldr #onpoli http://lockerz.com/s/279319828Jeff Jedras Just received a brown envelope from #TeamGK. Wonder what's inside... #olpldr http://lockerz.com/s/279320322Jeff Jedras #olpldr swag bag includes mini-cans 3 different kinds of coke. These people are clearly convention vets. http://lockerz.com/s/279321132Jeff Jedras No bullying? Bold leadership. #olpldr MT @l_stone: Wynne said her camp will not be bullying delegates but reaching out to consider her...Jeff Jedras Wynne Now is kind of direct. Wynne Soon, Please? would be more modestly Canadian. Still, Wynne won name lotto http://lockerz.com/s/279325843Jeff Jedras Spoke to @calgarygrit and he's guaranteeing first ballot Kennedy victory. I was skeptical, but he's a mathematician. #olpldr #MayTakeLongerJeff Jedras Waiting for the doors of MLG to open. GK all the way! #olpldr http://lockerz.com/s/279351362Jeff Jedras Steve Del Duca is one of the #olpldr convention chairs. Took me a minute to remember whose keester he kicked. Is Turncoat Tony NDP now?Jeff Jedras GK! All the way! #olpldr http://lockerz.com/s/279363134Jeff Jedras Good to see Kristy Duncan on Team GK as @GKennedyOLP pays tribute to @Dalton_McGuinty at #olpldrJeff Jedras I think Charles Sousa used the same scarf vendor as Iggy. Wynne's look warmer. #olpldrJeff Jedras I think Team Sousa brought their own led board. Impressive. Trust me, looks good in the room. #olpldr http://lockerz.com/s/279364530Jeff Jedras Hip hop dancers performing and the stage is literally rocking. This seems a bit dangerous. #olpldrJeff Jedras Last #olpldr was my first year at Carleton. I recall thinking Dalton reminded me of William Shatner. 60s Shatner, not aging Shatner #olpldrJeff Jedras Emerging from the smoke, it's @Dalton_McGuinty. #olpldr http://lockerz.com/s/279372199Jeff Jedras Most packed suite I've seen so far is next Premier's, @GKennedyOLP. Off to drink someone else's wine. #olpldr http://lockerz.com/s/279389155Jeff Jedras

Deborah Coyne meets the press

2013-01-15T18:36:00.000-05:00

It's been a busy few days for Liberal leadership candidate Deborah Coyne, doing several media interviews around the launch of her new ebook Unscripted: A Life Devoted to Building a Better Canada. Here's a few of the interviews where she talks about the book, the leadership race, why she's running, and how she believes we can get more Canadians off the sidelines and engaged in political life once more.

Five things you may not know about Deborah Coyne

2013-01-14T18:47:00.000-05:00

Liberal Party of Canada leadership candidate Deborah Coyne has released a new ebook called Unscripted: A Life Devoted to Building a Better Canada. Here are five tidbits from the book that you may not have known about her:

Deborah’s history in the Liberal Party goes back to 1983, when she was elected to then party president Iona Campagnolo’s reform commission. Along with Alf Apps, Ed Roberts, Gordon Gibson and others, she worked for three years on a proposed reform package. One key recommendation, a council of riding presidents, was only implemented a few years ago, proving our party has a long history of studying reform, but less success actually implementing it.
She served as Ontario policy chair on John Turner’s successful leadership campaign and would work in the Prime Minister's Office during his brief tenure as Prime Minister.
She would first come to national prominence as one of the leaders in the fight against the Meech Lake Accord, which is ironic, as she spent most of her childhood summers at a cottage on the shores of Meech Lake, accessible only by boat. One of her fellow co-founders of the Coalition on the Constitution was Michael Ignatieff’s father, George.
A source of inspiration for her decision to seek the leadership was attending Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s “Rally forSanity” in Washington. Knowing the same frustration that drew 250,000 people to the National Mall also holds true in Canada, she decided it can’t just be comedians that give voice to our collective frustration.
While a student at Oxford University in England, she established its first Women’s Ice Hockey Club and helped establish a women’s league. She captained the Oxford team her first year, scoring a goal in the inaugural game loss against Cambridge. The league is still going strong today.

The book is available for free with a minimum $25 donationto her campaign, or through Amazon Kindle, Kobo and Star Dispatches. It’s a very compelling read about her front row seat to some of the defining moments of Canadian history over the last 30 years, and how her experience has shaped her political outlook and her decision to seek the Liberal leadership.

Read an excerpt on her beginnings in the Liberal Party on the Huffington Post: Unscripted: A Life Building a Better Canada (EXCERPT)

Gerard Kennedy is my choice for Ontario Liberal party leader

2013-01-11T10:48:00.000-05:00

If you’re an Ontario Liberal voting in leadership election meetings this weekend, I hope you’ll consider supporting Gerard Kennedy and your local Kennedy delegates. And if you’re voting in Scarborough-Centre, I’ll be running as a Kennedy delegate and I’d greatly appreciate your support.

We have a lot of great candidates running for OLP that bring a diversity of experience and perspective to the table. While it’s hard to find fault with any of them, I feel that Gerard stands out from the pack for a number of reasons.

One, he balances experience with fresh perspective. As the minister of education from the first McGuinty government, he has governing and cabinet experience. And having left for federal politics in 2006, he has some distance from some of the issues that developed in the later years.

It’s going to be a tricky balancing act – we can’t run away from our record, we need to recognize that tough decisions had to be and were made in good faith, that some mistakes were unfortunately made, and that changes do need to be made. I feel Gerard is best positioned to strike that balance. His experience on the education file also offers the opportunity for a reset on what has become a fractured relationship with the province's teachers, which I think would be welcomed by all sides.

Second, I like Gerard’s policy positions. (Yes, I’m one of the rare breed that thinks policy matters in a leadership race).

Third, with experience in both the federal and provincial Liberal parties, he has first-hand perspective on what’s right and what’s wrong internally, perspective that has informed his positions on much-needed party reform. And his point about shaking off “governmentitis” is bang-on.

Finally, for me picking a leader is about the intangibles. It’s about judgment, temperament, and leadership style. I don’t expect to agree with a leader on every issue. But I want to know that I can trust their decision-making. While I may disagree with where they end up, I want to know they will listen to all perspectives, weigh them carefully, and make the decision they feel is best for the people.

I think his career, from running a food bank in Edmonton to the Ontario cabinet to the federal Liberal caucus, shows that Gerard Kennedy is in public service for the right reasons, is inclusive in his decision-making, and will make the right calls for the right reasons.

That’s why he has my support this weekend, and I hope he’ll have yours too.

* As always, my blogs are my own and don't necessarily reflect the opinion of any other organizations I may be involved with.

Taking stock of yesterday’s by-elections

2012-11-27T12:34:00.001-05:00

The media love a good narrative, and once they decide on a narrative they’ll do anything to force events into their box, whether the events fit inside that box. Right now, one of their favourite narratives is that the Liberal Party is dying. Sadly for them, we refuse to go.

They said our fundraising would dry up; it hasn’t. They said we’d stay down in the polls; not lately we haven’t. They said no one would run for our leadership; there’s more potential contenders than you can shake a good-sized stick at. They said it will be a coronation; the quality candidates stepping forward disagree. And over 30,000 people have now signed-up as Liberal supporters, with the race barely underway. All this from a dying party? Indeed.

Which brings me to last night’s by-election results in Durham, Calgary-Centre and Victoria. No pick-ups unfortunately; the party that held each seat retained it. Still, the doomsayers are trying to build a case for Liberal decline and disarray, reality be damned (and conveniently ignoring Calgary-Centre as it doesn’t fit the narrative).

Let’s look at the numbers, specifically comparing the Liberal vote share in each riding to 2011.

Durham

2011: 17.85 per cent

2012: 17.3 per cent (- .55 points)

Calgary-Centre

2011: 17.53 per cent

2012: 32.7 per cent (+ 15.17 points)

Victoria

2011: 13.98 per cent

2012: 13.1 per cent (-.88 points)

As you can see, the Liberal vote share largely held in Durham and Victoria off by less than one point, and rose an impressive 15 points in Calgary-Centre. Calgary-Centre was an obvious moral victory, no doubt. As for the other two, yes, I recognize comparing to 2011 is comparing to a low-water mark. But it’s also the most recent election, so it’s appropriate. Particularly if the charge is the Liberals are spiraling downward. Downward means a line, you know, down.

Because as these numbers show, we’re not. We’re holding. Yes, there is much work to be done. The renewal process is barely underway and it won’t yield results overnight. Yes, the success of the Greens is impressive. The NDP showed continued strength in Ontario, which should concern Liberals.

Look at where the movement was, though. In Victoria, the Conservatives lost 10 points and the NDP 13; it all appears to have gone Green. In Calgary, a 20-point Conservative drop went Liberal, Green and NDP. And in Durham, the NDP took most of their five points from the Conservatives. In none of these three ridings did the gains come at Liberal expense.

Now, it is fair to say that, with the exception of Calgary-Centre, there were swing votes up for grabs and the Liberals failed to grab them. There is work to be done to again be the credible, go-to alternative to the status-quo. My point though stands: there's no data here to support the ridiculous dying party narrative. In three unheld ridings we held our own in two and made historic gains in the third.

And there are lessons to be drawn from each to apply going forward. In Durham, Grant Humes used the freedom of a by-election campaign to step outside the usual national party messaging and draw national attention to a major issue: the deplorable Conservative treatment of Canada’s veterans. In Victoria, Paul Summerville ran a campaign with micro-targeting at its core, which will yield lessons to inform future campaigns across the country. And in Calgary-Centre, Harvey Locke showed that there is no area of the country that Liberals can’t hope to compete with the right candidate and the right message.

As for cooperation

With the result in Calgary-Centre, where the combined Green and Liberal vote would have defeated the Conservative, there will no doubt be talk of electoral cooperation. Lost in a busy news day was the entry of Joyce Murray into the Liberal leadership race with a platform that includes riding-level cooperation and progressive primaries along the Nathan Cullen model. I’m glad we’ll have this debate; I think it’s the wrong way to go, and I look forward to making that case.

I think we should approach this with two questions: what’s our goal, and will it work?

For many, the goal is simple: beat Harper. I think that’s a short-sighted goal, but let’s explore it for a moment. Will mashing, say, the Liberals and Greens together work? Maybe, maybe not. In Victoria and Calgary, it appears the Greens pulled more votes from the Conservatives than any other party. Would those voters stay with the Red Green Party, or would they go back to the Conservatives? One plus one is never two in these scenarios. Same with any Liberal/NDP mash-up – you’d lose Blue Liberals on the right, and whatever colour the far left is on the left.

And frankly, I don’t like approaching this with defeating Harper as our primary mission. I didn't get involved in politics to defeat things, but to stand for things. Yes, I want to win. Because when you win, you get to do the things you stand for. We need to offer a better alternative to Canadians if we want to be successful, not seek market share through acquisition and takeover. Wrong goal, bad math.

I would rather approach the discussion with this goal: how can we make electoral results more reflective of the will of the electorate? That should be a goal: replace first past the post with a more democratic system, and then let the best ideas compete on that playingfield.

I think the simplest reform is the best here: a preferential ballot. Rank your candidates 1-2-3, and the winner needs 50 per cent plus one. If it really is the case that Conservatives are winning on a split progressive vote, a preferential ballot will yield different results. But whatever happens, successful MPs will have to court a much wider base of support than they do now, and they will come to office with a much stronger mandate and support base.

That’s the kind of cooperation I’d prefer to see.

Travelling BC & The Yukon with Deborah Coyne

2012-10-10T15:55:00.000-04:00

As a BCer I'm always happiest in BC, and that's where I am right now. I'm with Liberal leadership candidate Deborah Coyne on a 23-day tour of the province.

After a great kick-off with the North Shore Womens Liberal Commission affiliate in North Vancouver and a few days off for Thanksgiving, we were back on the road yesterday with stops in Abbotford and Penticton. Today we're in Kelowna where our stops will include a roundtable with the UBC Okanagan Young Liberals and a social with the Kelowna-Lake Country Liberals. The rest of the week will take us to Kamloops, Armstrong and Prince George, before beginning the long drive North to Whitehorse.

You can find a copy of the tour schedule and pictures from the trip so far here.

What's really struck me so far is how similar the issues raised by people have been, whether it's been in North Vancouver, Abbotsford or Penticton. The Conservative cuts to the prison chaplain have generated strong commentary, as have the cuts to science and research. The Liberal policy on the legalization of marijuana, as you'd expect in B.C., has also been a regular topic.

And as someone who has spent many of his political years a non-traditional Liberal riding, I've been reminded that there are cores of active and engaged Liberals outside the big cities in communities across the country. They're committed and ready to help rebuild the party, but they need more help then they've gotten from the party leadership. If we can give these ridings more support, and do it consistently, it will pay dividends down the road. But we need to commit to a long-term plan, both during the election campaign and between them.

Anyway, here's some video of the speech Deborah is giving across the country. The same message across Canada: One Canada for All Canadians.

The Liberal Party needs a competitive race

2012-10-01T16:48:00.003-04:00

With the rules that will govern the race now in place and more candidates about to put their names forward, the race for the Liberal Party of Canada is about to move from the quiet summer exploratory phase to a season of coast-to-coast fall campaigning. Officially, the starting gun will sound Nov. 15th, and when the entry fees are due we’ll have a better sense of the real field.

So it seems an appropriate time to stress the importance for the party that this be a real, true, competitive race that showcases the best ideas, policies and personalities that the Liberal Party has to offer the Canadian people. When Liberal members created the supporter system, we bet a lot on this leadership race being a major part of our rebuilding and rejuvenation. If we want people to sign up as supporters of our party for the chance to vote for our next leader, we need to offer them a competitive and dynamic race where their vote can make a difference.

I've been hearing a lot of talk about coronations. Not only would that be unfortunate for the party, depriving us of the opportunity to attract public and media attention (and supporters) with a competitive field of dynamic candidates debating their visions for the future of our country, it also wouldn't be that great for the crowned. Our next leader will be better positioned and able to face down Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair if they've had to explain and defend their positions in a competitive and respectful race, rising as the victor from spirited debates with a strong cast of challengers. They’ll emerge the stronger for it, and so will the party.

Ensuring a competitive race though will require Liberals to seek out candidates that best represent their own vision, values and outlook, and support them in the race. And this is made easier by our new system of preferential balloting. There’s no reason to make a reluctant strategic vote any longer. With the ability to rank your choices (one, two, three, etc.) you can support and rank first the candidates whose vision best matches your own.

We can all agree that coronations aren't positive, but it’s up to each of us, every Liberal, to get involved and ensure we have the leadership race that this party needs and deserves.

Liberal leadership procedure and process update from Mike Crawley

2012-09-22T20:01:00.002-04:00

Today was the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario)’s Toronto region day, where Liberals from the ridings of greater Toronto gathered to talk organization, policy and rebuilding. A few items of interest to share, particularly on the leadership front.

Speaking of leadership, as I believe in full disclosure I’ll say that I’m supporting Deborah Coyne for the leadership and have been helping on her (pre)campaign since mid-summer.(I’ll write more about why I’m supporting Deborah and what I like about her platform and vision soon.) So I’ll naturally be careful and selective in my leadership commentary, and I’ll try to stick to reporting what others said in this post rather than offering too much commentary. Let me stress though that any opinions expressed on my blog are, as always, mine and mine alone.

Anyway, today our post-lunch speaker was Liberal Party of Canada president Mike Crawley, who gave attendees an update on where things are at with the leadership process. I’ll assume you’ve read the rules that were posted recently as far as entry fee and spending caps, so I won’t rehash that. He did share some new items of interest though, but I’ll stress these items are still fluid and aren’t yet official. I’d guess he was discussing the evolving thinking of the adhoc rules committee (committee member Christine Innes was also present), which will make recommendations that must be approved (and could be modified) by the national board. So it’s all subject to change.

First, he indicated the leadership vote will probably be an online and telephone vote, instead of physical paper balloting. I’ve written previously about the challenges of both systems, and the importance of verifying the identity of the voter, and that the vote is cast by them and without coercion. The details of how that vetting will happen and security assured are still being determined.

Second, Crawley and Innes floated the idea of a $1 or $2 vote fee to cover the cost of the voting system. It’s unclear if this would apply to members and supporters, or just supporters. We're not talking about a fee to attend a debate (there would likely be a cost-recovery fee for attending the debates, and the speech showcase events, and that's generally accepted), but to cast your vote, whether online or over the phone.

The reaction to this idea in the room was pretty negative. One person likened it to a poll tax, while others noted it ran contrary to the whole spirit of the supporter system (all our literature around supporter signup touts how it’s easy and free and you get to vote for leader). It was also suggested by one questioner that the $75,000 entry fee for leadership candidates and 10 per cent cut of all donations to leadership candidates taken by the party was meant to cover the costs of running the race. Crawley and Innes indicated though they wanted those funds for general revenue as it will be difficult for the party itself to raise money during the race, and they still wanted to consider recovering leadership vote expenses in another way.

Third, there will be five leadership debates across Canada from January to March. Cities to be announced, but the string will end in March in Montreal. Each will have different formats and themes. Then, the final major leadership speech event will be in Toronto on April 6^th. Immediately after the speeches, voting will likely open and remain open for the following week. There may be the option to vote onsite at the event after the speeches are over (likely on laptop stations, as the NDP did) and ridings will be encouraged to hold their own voting events during the week. And then, at another event in Ottawa on April 14^th, the results will be announced and the new leader will give her or his maiden speech to the nation.

In other more minor notes, he affirmed that while he may have wanted to shorten it, as I wrote last week the 41-day cutoff for supporter and member sign-ups is a constitutional requirement. The suggestion of an extraordinary convention (a la last summer) to amend that requirement that wasn’t looked on favourably by Crawley and Innes, due to the need for time to allow the party to verify supporter and member identities.

Other notes

Those were the major news items on the leadership front. Over lunch, Borys Wrzesnewskyj gave us an update on Etobicoke-Centre. In short, no idea when the Supreme Court will finally rule on Ted Opitz’s appeal of the ruling Borys won in the lower court. But while Opitz and the Conservatives are blanketing the riding with taxpayer-funded mailers (and launching robocalls), he says the Liberals are actively canvassing door to door and at events and meeting people, speaking about the last election and the court challenge, and getting very good feedback.

Finally, we elected members to the communications, organization and policy committees of the LPC’s Ontario wing. Most of the races were hotly contested, but I had the good fortune to be acclaimed as the member of the communications committee for Area 3 (the east side of Toronto, essentially Scarborough and Don Valley). I’m looking forward to working with the ridings in my area to help us communicate better, both to our fellow Liberals and the general public.