Modeling Journey

This just in: Bob Rae favoured over Ignatieff in all provinces except Quebec!


"Canadian PressPublished: Thursday, November 30, 2006
Article tools
MONTREAL (CP) - A new national poll suggests Canadians of every federalist party persuasion believe that Bob Rae is a more electable option as Liberal leader than top rival Michael Ignatieff.
The Nov. 24-26 Decima Research survey found that Rae's perceived winnability topped Ignatieff's by a significant margin in every region of the country except Quebec. More than 1,000 respondents were asked by Decima to picture themselves as delegates to this weekend's leadership convention in Montreal

In a final-ballot showdown between front-runner Ignatieff and Rae, they were asked who they felt had the best chance to win for the Liberals in the next election.

Under this scenario, 37 per cent chose Rae and 25 per cent picked Ignatieff.

The results of the poll, which was distributed to The Canadian Press, are considered accurate within plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Decima CEO Bruce Anderson says the poll suggests Rae's winnability factor is perceived to be higher among all age groups, men and women, urban and rural voters, and everywhere but Quebec - where Ignatieff would get 36 per cent support and Rae 25 per cent.

Ignatieff also led in the poll among self-identified Bloc Quebecois voters.

© The Canadian Press 2006

In a few days, delegates will choose a leader for the Liberal Party. When they do that, they will be choosing a person who most likely will be the next Prime Minister. And they will be making a choice about the "voice" of Canada. The new leader will set the tone for the Party, and have an enormous impact on who is chosen to speak for the Party, and what policies will be adopted and implemented.

Bob Rae on August 10, 2006 spoke at the Munk Centre at the U of Toronto on the topic of Canada Needs to Find its Voice Again in Foreign Policy (Munk Speech). He made a number of important points, and delegates should consider what Rae said in the light of what Ignatieff has said over the past few months and in Ignatieff's writings. Rae said that "Our foreign policy will inevitably reflect who we are, our values as well as our interests." Note his use of the word "values" as well as just "interests".

There is a dramatic difference between Bob Rae's values and those of Ignatieff, with respect to what should drive Canada's foreign policy. This gulf has been illustrated many times during the campaign, and will be highlighted below.

Can Bob Rae give effect to Canadian values in the foreign policy he will pursue as prime minister?

Tom Armstrong, who was Ontario's Deputy Minister of Labour and of Industry during Rae's premiership, wrote an article in The Hamilton Spectator August 14, 2006 about Political Mythmaking: Ontario style. In it he said this about Rae's doggedness in trying to save jobs during that savage recession: "His personal efforts in achieving success exceeded, in dedication, intelligence and shrewd negotiating skills, anything I had previously experienced." Rae's efforts in many fields since losing the 1995 election bear out Armstrong's observation of Rae: he is a man who brings enormous practicality and gifts to bear on any problem he is involved with, a man with inclusive instincts rather than polarizing ones. This is a sharp contrast with Ignatieff, who to date in this campaign has succeeded in driving people apart more than uniting them.


The question facing Liberals is this: What is the Liberal voice in foreign affairs? What values should underpin any foreign policies of the Liberal Party?

There seems to be a clear choice between the values of the Liberal Party of the past (which Rae shares), and the pre-emptive war and American imperialism supporting underpinnings of Ignatieff.


Bob Rae in the Munk Speech was very clear: "We have no imperial ambitions, nor should we see ourselves as anyone else's foot soldiers in imperial adventures." Because Canada is not a neutral country but is "engaged in the world", Rae cautioned against the loss of our values as Canadians when fighting the terror onslaught: "We have also learned that in fighting that enemy we must not lose our way or our values." He went on to say that Canadians are a people of principle, but not a people of ideology: "We are pragmatic, not dogmatic."

We shall come back to how Ignatieff stacks up against these points.

Bob Rae clearly favours a "balanced, pragmatic, multilateral approach to global affairs." This is where the great divide between the new Ignatieff doctrine and the past Liberal values starts. Ignatieff was, and apparently still is, clearly on the other side of the use of a multilateral approach for dealing with certain major challenges, such as Iraq and the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Rae approves of Jean Cretien's decision not to support the invasion of Iraq because it was taken as a result of the Government's "principled view that the invasion was illegal, and its pragmatic concern that an invasion can very quickly become an unpopular occupation." Rae comments that this decision was not taken as a result of a poll, but based on principle.

Rae then says that principles should guide our foreign policy in other areas, as well: "We should be clear advocates against torture and coercive interrogation, and for the promotion of human rights. There should be no confusion in what we think and say in these areas."

Are Ignatieff's thoughts in these areas clear or confused? Witness the many arguments about what he did or did not say about torture and coercive interrogation, and about his reasons for supporting the Iraq war, and you can only conclude that there is confusion, not clarity.


Ignatieff's views regarding multilateral approaches is very different from those of the Liberal Party. He seems to be against it, relegating it to a bit player once the mighty US war machine has come in and blasted a path for others to follow, cleaning up behind American armed forces.

Rae argues that "We need to find our voice again." Harper's approach to international issues is simplistic and out of step with Canada's traditional role in the world, and threatens to submerge the distinctive voice the world expects to hear from us. Rae's use of the word distinctive is obviously not and advocasy of a foreign policy approach which is a carbon copy of the American President's. Our policies should be founded on our values, and not on the values of our superpower neighbour, where our values differ from theirs.

By contrast, the "distinctive voice" which Ignatieff seems to be advocating for Canada is something drastically different from the values of the Party in the past few decades. Ignatieff seems to speak with an American voice. In his 2004 Whitman Commencement Address he said: "Being an American is not easy. It is hard. We are required to keep some serious promises." (Sounds a bit like George Bush saying that being President is "hard" and people should realize that.) Ignatieff later explained away the use of the word "we" in his speeches to Americans, saying that "Sometimes you want to increase your influence over your audience by appropriating their voice, but it was a mistake."


It is possible that Ignatieff has done more than just appropriating the voice of the American audiences he was addressing.

He seems also to have appropriated their values, as well as their voice, and some of those values are not consistent with Liberal Party values.


Bob Rae described the foreign policy of the Harper neocon government as the "Bushification" of Canadian foreign policy (U of Montreal speech on September 8, 2006). Ignatieff's support of the Bush doctrines with respect to Iraq, amount to the same Bushification of our foreign policy.

Ignatieff has been described as one of Bush's Useful Idiots by Tony Judt in his article with the same name (London Review of Books lrb.co.uk) 21 September 2006. Ludt spoke about the problems facing liberal writers in the US, faced with the Bush doctrines. He describes Ignatieff as one of the "intellectual supporters" of the Iraq war, and makes the point that the worldview of many of Bush's liberal supporters is that these supporters do not look on the War on Terror or the war in Iraq or the war in Lebanon "as mere serial exercises in the re-establishment of American martial dominance. They see them as skirmishes in a new global confrontation ... Once again, they assert, things are clear. The world is ideologically divided; and, as before, we must take our stand on the issue of the age." Judt also has this scathing commentary on Ignatieff's and other liberal supporters statements about their support for the Iraq war: they have "focused their regrets not on the catastrophic invasion itself (which they supported) but on its incompetent execution. They are irritated with Bush for giving 'preventive war' a bad name."

Rae and Dion focused on this aspect of Ignatieff's support of Iraq during the debates, and we did not really receive a satisfactory answer (Ignatieff's answers kept sliding along, changing from WMDs to Kurds to who knows what).

In passing, Judt makes the comment that "American liberal intellectuals are fast becoming a service class, their opinions determined by their allegiance and calibrated to justify a political end." Judt also comments on the willingness of many American pundits and essayists to "roll over for Bush's doctrine of preventive war". This is certainly not consistent with Rae's support of a principled foreign policy, based on Canadian values.


How does this fit with Ignatieff's writings and statements on foreign policy, in particular, regarding the Iraq war and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Ignatieff said that he was mislead by the "evidence" at the time into believing that weapons of mass destruction were in the hands of Saddam. When the Bush administration was pushing all and sundry, in a mad rush, to vote in the Senate and at the UN, so support war on Iraq, there were many who thought the evidence presented was flimsy, and that the reasons for the use of force were unconvincing. Howard Dean for one thought that, and said so. Jean Chretien thought that, and governed Canada accordingly.

And Ignatieff? He was mislead. It is a bit ironic that in his Empire Lite article in the New York Times Magazine on January 5, 2003 (two months and fifteen days before the US invasion of Iraq), Ignatieff wrote that President Bush "appears to be maneuvering the country toward war with Iraq." Did Ignatieff have some concerns about such moves by Bush? If he did, they did not seem to change his support for the Iraq war.


Let's dig a bit deeper. What did Ignatieff say about the need for a multilateral approach towards this Iraqi invasion? Did he come down on the same side as Canada's Prime Minister, Jean Chretien?

No. At the same time that Canada's government was recommending support of the UN initiative to deal with Iraq, Ignatieff wrote in his Empire Lite article that "The United Nations lay dozing like a dog before the fire, happy to ignore Saddam, until an American president seized it by the scruff of the neck and made it bark."

Does Ignatieff's view of the UN as a dozing dog match the Canadian view of using multilateral approaches?

Well, Ignatieff has explained his approach to multilateral approaches to foreign affairs, for he goes on to say: "Multilateral solutions to the world's problems are all very well, but they have no teeth unless American bares its fangs."

Here we see in stark contrast the differences between Ignatieff's so-called realistic appraisal of life in a world with one superpower, and the Canadian approach. Bob Rae in his Munk Speech had this to say about Canada's relationship with the USA superpower: "Some will say that this approach will put us at odds with the United States. The United States is Canada's most important bilateral partner, economically and otherwise, and we should not take that friendship for granted. At the same time, when we have principled disagreements with the Americans, Canada needs to clearly articulate its views." Earlier in his Munk Speech Rae spoke of Trudeau: "Nor did Pierre Trudeau have the enthusiastic support of either super-power when he launched his initiative to point out the folly of the so-called "balance of terror" in the early 1980's".


Ignatieff in his Imperial Lite article speaks of the manner in which, post 9/11, America is to run the world as an imperial power. "It means enforcing such order as there is in the world and doing so in the American interest. It means laying down the rules America wants (on everything from markets to weapons of mass destruction) while exempting itself from other rules (the Kyoto Protocol on climate change an the International Criminal Court) that go against its interest." He then went on to say: "Iraq lays bare the realities of America's new role." And: "... Iraq is an imperial operation that would commit a reluctant republic to become the guarantor of peace, stability, democratization and oil supplies in a combustible region of Islamic peoples stretching from Eqypt to Afghanistan."

Ignatieff then agreed with Bush's decision to invade Iraq by saying that the Iraq war was justified because "Containment rather than war would be the better course, but the Bush administration seems to have concluded that containment has reached its limits and the conclusion is not unreasonable."

He also remarks that "Regime change is an imperial task par excellence, since it assumes that the empire's interest has a right to trump the sovereignity of a state." I doubt that most Canadian's would agree with any claim by any state (be it an empire-lite state or any other state) to have interests of that nature which trumped sovereignity....

Ignatieff develops the rights of the Empire Lite further when he comments on the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Ignatieff doctrine involves the use of American troops in a pre-emptive role, followed by the use of UN troops in Iraq and Israel to "keep the peace" under United Nations mandate. As he says, "If America takes on Iraq, it takes on the reordering of the whole region." And: "Properly understood, then, the operation in Iraq entails a commitment, so far unstated, to enforce a peace on the Palestinians and Israelis." He is clear on the roles of Europe and the USA under this imperial power: "The Americans essentially dictate Europe's place in this new grand design.... America ... enforces a new division of labor in which American does the fighting, the French, British and Germans do the police patrols in the border zones and the Dutch, Swiss and Scandinavians provide the humanitarian aid."

What role would Canadian troops have under the Ignatieff doctrine? Unfortunately, Ignatieff did not say (perhaps Canada was not on his mind right then).

Contrast Ignatieff's views with Rae's assessment of Chretien's decision on Iraq: "It was a judgment call that was fundamentally sound, reflected our values, and offered our independent voice."

And contrast the Ignatieff doctrine with Rae's view about Canada's role: "Together with others, Canada needs to do what it takes to get the parties to the table. Conflict resolution should be at the heart of our foreign policy, not an afterthought, or an interesting sideline to other efforts. This will require much greater discipline and determination than we have been able to do so far."


Finally, Bob Rae also sees that the Canadian values of compassion and concern for those who are vulnerable should play a role in our foreign policy. He says Canadians have a right to ask where their government is, why isn't it in the lead, when it comes to famine throughout the world. "If thousands of children die each day in countries that are in the clutches of extreme poverty, what will it cost us as a country to reduce, and then end the slaughter?" A noble goal, for a noble country like Canada, and very consistent with the values which underly this great experiment in nation-building.

Charest thinks the Harper/Ignatieff resolution is more than purely symbolic, and will have real consequences, in the courts, within Quebec and internationally. As reported by Rheal Seguin in today's Globe & Mail:

"The recognition of Quebec as a nation within Canada is an important step for national unity and a sign of major progress for the province, Premier Jean Charest said yesterday in applauding Prime Minister Stephen Harper's initiative as "very good news" for all Canadians.
"The decision taken by the Prime Minister today and the vote in the House of Commons will be viewed in hindsight as extremely significant with regards to the unity of the country," Mr. Charest predicted.

The Premier said recognition by the House of Commons and the federal government will affect how courts interpret the province's laws and influence the way the international community views Quebec.

"It changes our place [in Canada]," Mr. Charest said. "It changes the way our laws are interpreted. It changes the way Quebeckers will see their future. Because the recognition of Quebec as a nation is a way for us to occupy the place that is owed us in Canada and elsewhere in the world. In my view it is a very significant gesture.""

Just the beginning of the consequences of Ignatieff's Folly ....

Ignatieff wanted to amend the constitution to enshrine Quebec as a nation. Then the Quebec motion came up, with its references to "officialize" the concept that Quebec was a nation. All hell broke loose as many wondered why Ignatieff would throw the dice by opening the Pandora's Box of constitutional amendment, with terms that were not defined and with a country weary from years of strife.

Now, in Ottawa, we see the Pandora's Box Ignatieff opened on full display, in the House of Commons. Incredibly, Harper, faced with a Bloc ultimatum, tries to outsmart the Bloc by adding four little words to the Bloc motion, without defining in the motion what "nation" is.

Now all will be wondering: What does nation mean? How many nations need such recognition? Are there other nations inside Quebec, apart from the Francophones? What is the consequence of this motion?

All the problems caused by Ignatieff's foray into daring to change the constititution are now still there, but this time involving even more Canadians. The contents of the Pandora's Box are spreading ...

Thanks, Ignatieff.

Thanks for your daring.

The Bloc sets a trap, and Harper tries to avoid confronting it but steps into trouble. Harper's motion is "That the government recognize that Quebeckers constitute a nation within a united Canada."

Is this a wise move by Harper? No. Instead of confronting the Bloc and voting their motion down, he tries to deflect it by adding the words "within a united Canada."

But what does this mean? Here are several problems, which still need discussion even if Harper's quick fix passes tomorrow:

What does "nation" mean?

Is Canada a "nation"?

Does this mean that the "Quebeckers" are a "nation" within a "nation"?

Are there other "nations" within the province of Quebec?

Are there other "nations" which Parliament should recognize?

If not, why not?

What does Parliament mean by passing this motion? Does it affect the way Parliament will behave in the future? The 1995 Chretien motion committed Parliament to taking steps to recognize the special status afforded Quebec in that motion.

The Cat believes that Harper is too clever by half with his response, and expects a strong adverse reaction from the rest of the country once the vagueness of the resolution sinks into public consciousness.

Ever wonder what the "Cheese-is-alive" French Professor might have to say about whether Quebec is a nation? I wonder if Ignatieff ever chatted to this professor before he launched his rash constitutional gambit?

Clotaire Rappaile is a marketing guru who was born in France but grew up in the US. He is hired by companies to find out what the "code" for products or places or things are in people's reptilian minds (the oldest of our three brains, and the one concerned with safety etc). Rapaille digs into what people think about something and then searches for what our lizard brain has in store regarding our impulses, needs and early memories about things (our imprints, in his lingo). These imprints are the ones which really drive us.

And he has delved into the minds of Canadians, trying to understand what we think about our country.

And his results are rather interesting, and should make Ignatieff stop and think a bit about that nation motion thingy he is pushing:
" Right now, most Americans are convinced that the nation is profoundly divided by this gulf between red and blue states. But you don't think it's that significant.
Well, there is a culture war, the nation is divided in many ways and so on. But the reality is that the differences are nothing compared to what we have in common. Especially compared to other cultures. There are more differences between Canadians than between blue and red state Americans. Americans may be in permanent search of personal identity, but the Canadians are in permanent search of a collective identity. As Canada, they don't know who they are. The French Canadians are not part of Canada and there are so many differences between Toronto and Vancouver that the people in Toronto say the people in Vancouver are part of California. The Canadians' anxiety is about how to survive as a country. A Canadian magazine had a headline that read, "If Canada Disappears Tomorrow, Would Anybody Notice?" (from Salon, article by Laura Miller entitled "In America, seduction is dishonest").

He thinks Canadians "are in a permanent search for a collective identity." And our anxiety is about "how to survive as a country".

What a motherlode Ignatieff has tapped in his quest to amend the constitution. Any wonder now why the reaction to Ignatieff's gambit is so strong? Ignatieff is challenging our basic search for a collective identity, by focusing on one province only, and in so doing is prodding our deepest anxiety.

Oops! Better back off, Michael. You are making us even more anxious ...

The Cat loves cheese. This story is therefore appealing on more than one level.

Clotaire Rapaille, the professor of codes, delves into the early imprinting on people's minds, in order to find out why people prefer certain things over others later on in life. Scoffed at as a flake by some, this French intellectual turned marketing on its ear with his amazingly practical and actionable findings on all manner of things.

Take cheese. He was hired by a French company whose cheese was booming in France and a bust in America. He gathered his focus groups, delved into what cheese meant to them, going back to their earliest recollections, and found out one simple fact which revolutionized the way the French client marketed their cheese in the US. To the French, cheese is alive, and you do not put it in a fridge, just as you would not put a pet dog in the fridge. But to an American, cheese is dead, and it is best to put it in a bag and in the fridge. "I know that plastic is a body bag. You can put it in the fridge. I know the fridge is the morgue; that's where you put the dead bodies. And so once you know that, this is the way you market cheese in America." The thought of living cheese (shown in the French client's ads) horrified Americans. So the French client put the cheese in body bags (plastic) and sales took off in the US of A.

Then the professor turned to the US election to be, and predicted that George Bush would beat Al Gore. Why? Well first a few quotes from Rapaille to set the scene (from PBS.org Frontline interview):

"Once you understand the code, you understand why people do what they do. For example, the code for the French -- once you understand the code, you may understand why [French president Jacques] Chirac reacted this way to Bush, because for the French, the code is "to think." That's it: to think. "I think, therefore I am" -- not "I do," "I think." The French believe [that they are] the only thinkers of the world and that they think for the rest of the world. They believe that Americans never think; they just do things without knowing why. And so in this situation, where Bush say[s], "Let's do it," the French say, "No, wait, think; we need to think." Now, what you have to understand about the French culture is "to think" is enough. You don't need to do anything with your thinking. The French philosopher would say, "I think, therefore I am," where in America you have Nextel, this campaign, fantastic, "I do, therefore I am," not "I think." I think they're right on target with the American code."

And:

"You know, when we get this very first imprint, there is no need for interpretation. At a certain time, my clients and I do the analysis together. At a certain time, they go, "Wow -- oh, I knew it." The "wow" is when they discover the code. For the first time they get the code of coffee, [they] say, "Wow." Because they're American, they use the code all the time. They have the code in their mind, so of course they knew it."

And:

"It's a discovery, and once you get the code, suddenly everything starts making sense, and now we understand why the Americans behave like this. Now we understand why coffee this way works and coffee this way doesn't work. I understand why a small $29,000 Cadillac cannot sell. I understand why -- because it's off code."

Now, back to George Bush and Al Gore:

"Rapaille said that in the late 80's, Lee Atwater, then working for George Bush père, hired him to do an archetype study of the presidency. Though financing ran out before Rapaille could complete his work, he was able to gather useful material in the wordassociation sessions. Participants compared the chief executive to a "movie character"; they said he could "make people see things." From this, Rapaille was able to identify the core emotional nubbin. Fatherhood? Celebration? Nationalism? No, no. The presidency is: "cheap entertainment." "What does he make, $200,000 a year?" Rapaille asked. "That's a lot cheaper than Oprah." This code is a problem for the two probable presidential nominees. "Gore is boring," Rapaille said. "This is a real problem. Bush is not very intelligent. But then, who cares? Americans have never been impressed by intellectuals." So Bush's mediocre mind is not nearly the handicap that Gore's leaden personality is. Rapaille gives Bush the edge, but neither one of them interests him much. He openly pines for Bill Clinton the icon (not the politician). Mistakes weren't Clinton's only asset. America's code, according to Rapaille, is built around "hope." That's why Clinton's slogan in 1992 "was simply brilliant," Rapaille said." (From The New York Times Magazine article Does the Smell of Coffee Brewing Remind You of Your Mother, by Jack Hitt, May 7, 2000).

Where does that leave Bob Rae versus Stephen Harper? Clearly Rae is closer to Bush while Harper is closer to Gore in the above comparison.

So the only remaining question is: Are Canadians like Americans in that they see politics as entertainment? If they do, Bob Rae is a shoo-in, and Harper can start going through the yellow pages looking for a mover ...

Your thoughts?

Some are saying that the issue now facing the Liberals is the need to restore harmony amongst the leadership camps. That the way to do this is to agree to amend the Quebec motion by keeping the "Quebec is a nation" concept favoured by Ignatieff, but (according to the press) adopting the "new" Ignatieff proposal to change the motion to make it clear that the task force is not to consider constitutional amendments.

These people are wrong. The real issue is not the need for harmony amongst Liberals at this stage.

Voters expect Liberals to debate policy matters vigorously. Voters expect Liberals to disagree with each other, as well as with the other parties. Voters expect their politicians to be stand up and debate important issues. So disagreement is not the issue.

The real issue is whether the Quebec motion is so flawed (both in content and in process), that it should be withdrawn.

The Quebec wing tabled the motion, after much talk amongst themselves and some questionable last minute changes. However, by keeping this motion alive, and by saying it is a matter of extreme importance that this motion be passed at this convention or else the LPC delegates will have offended Quebeckers and set the party's prospects in Quebec back, the proponents are resorting to political blackmail. We should leave the political blackmail up to the separatists; it is their schtick.

The Quebec motion is flawed in process because there has not been enough discussion throughout the country on this contentious topic. Polls show deep polarization over this issue, with Quebec on one side and all other provinces on the other side. Polls also show that a Liberal leader espousing constitutional change (or perhaps even Quebec is a nation), could lead to more than 40% of voters not choosing to support the LPC.

How strong a message does the Liberal Party need that this Ignatieff-supported measure is going to rupture the Party and cause Harper to gain a majority? Do voters need to whack Liberals on the head with a two-by-four to get their attention?

The Cat figures that if you run straight into a brick wall, you had better reconsider the path you are travelling on. Because most Canadians were not involved in the process giving birth to the Quebec motion, the process is so flawed that the motion should be defeated just on those grounds alone. Matters as important as constitutional change should not be left to small groups to determine.

As for content, the Ignatieff reconciliation motion reported in the press today apparently retains the concept of Quebec (and only Quebec) being a "nation".

This woolly concept is confusing, and is capable of many different meanings.

To pass such a motion is foolhardy, because it assumes that the motion has meaning, and that the majority of Liberals (as well as voters) will understand that meaning. In law there is a concept which guides the courts in interpreting agreements: if the wording is too vague, the contract can be struck down. The chameleon-like interpretations possible with the word "nation" are dangerous: you should not tinker with constitutional changes if the words are so bereft of agreed upon meaning. Matters like this demand precision, unlike articles in political publications, where the authors can argue forever about how many angels might be able to dance upon a needle point, and can change their minds daily by simply writing another article (witness Ignatieff's ever-changing nation as civic versus nation as ethnic writings). In the real world of politics, words have consequences, and should be measured.

The motion is vague as well in its use of the word "officialise" (formerly "formalize") as a direction to the task force.

Professor Hogg who aided in the drafting of the motion, is reported to have said this means constitutional change but not necessarily constitutional change. This explanation has echoes (which resonate more in Quebec than elsewhere) of a statement made by a far more agile politician than Ignatieff is proving to be, the "Conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription".

What to do? The Cat says there are two choices. The Quebec motion will be defeated at the convention if it stays as it now is. There are not enough lemmings at the convention to follow Ignatieff over the cliff on constitutional change. And the delegates are reading the same polls as we are, and those polls are very clear.

So, the Quebec motion can be withdrawn, with a resolution tabled urging withdrawal, and the resolution saying that the motion will be put some time in the future to all provincial Liberal associations, for fuller debate, so as to ensure that the flawed process be remedied. This withdrawal on these grounds would be a withdrawal without any personal affront to those who tabled the motion.

Or, the Quebec motion can be amended.

In this case, the amendment must clearly state that the task force is to consider the role of Quebec in Canada, after taking into consideration the motion tabled in 1995 by the Chretien government, and including what steps the Liberal Party might take to address Quebec's place in Canada, including, amongst others, the concept of nation (in all its various guises), the concept of distinctiveness, and any other concepts which the task force might wish to consider. The motion should also clearly spell out that the task force is not to consider constitutional amendments as part of its mandate.

The task force is to be appointed by the leader of the Party, with due consideration to representation by Liberals across the country, and is to report back at a time set by the leader.

Very importantly, the task force mandate should also expressly state that one alternative it must consider, is doing nothing. The zero-option is essential.

Any amendments of the Quebec motion which do not address the conflicting meanings of "nation" and also remove any chance of constitutional change, should be defeated as well at the convention.

The point is not harmony among leadership candidates. It is the survival of Canada, and the chance of the Liberal Party to become the government instead of the radical "new" Tory Party lead by Harper.

The LPC lags behind the Tories, Republicans, Democrats, and UK Tories because it does not have a centralized voter database. This means it does not have a national "machine" which can be used to encourage individuals to donate to the party so that it can fight election campaigns. This means it is not as sophisticated as Harper's "new" Tories, and years behind the state of the art Republicans' with their Voter Vault, and Democrats, with their Demzilla.

Wikipedia, in their Voter Database entry, say this: "In Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada uses the Constituent Information Management System (CIMS), originally developed by the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, to manage voter information. It is similar to the American systems. The New Democratic Party uses their own some simpler system known as NDPVote. The Liberal Party has no centralized system, with different ridings using various systems."

Why is this important? Think about this statement about the Republican Voter Vault (in The Telegraph 12/03/2005): "It could define, across America, those people who hadn't yet realised they were Republicans, and convince them to vote."

Karl Rove gave the UK Tories access to the Voter Vault program, and one of them said this: "The software can reveal new parts of society that the party has not targeted before, but who could be persuaded to vote Tory," [Dr. Fox] says. "It means we can out-gun Labour and the Liberal Democrats on the ground."

Imagine if Liberal canvassers in the next few elections could use hand-held computers to record information on voters when they visited them or spoke to them via phones? The data would be inputed into the Libzilla system for future use. Republicans have found that magazine subscriptions give a pretty good idea of who is Republican (if you read National Review) or Democrat (reads Mother Jones). Your choice of car is an indicaiton (hybrid, anyone?)

This information is used to get out the vote (GOTV), ask for donations, energize volunteer base, check views on issues via surveys.

The Democrats developed Demzilla because they had to rely on small-dollar donors due to changes in the laws (sound familiar?).

Republicans have inserted their view of electoral priorities into Cabinet agencies (farm aid programs for specific regions in a state, to bolster votes there). Government funds tailored to work for re-election of one party.

Isn't it time for the LPC to start its own Libzilla?

The Quebec as a nation motion is strongly supported by Ignatieff, who raised the question of enshrining Quebec as a nation in the constitution a while back. Now, the Party is faced with a half-baked motion, which promises much to those in Quebec but downplays its significance for those Canadians in other provinces. And we are told that to reject this ill-thought out motion would be to turn the backs of the Liberal Party on all those who live in Quebec.

What nonsense.

Ignatieff and his supporters are trying to stampede the Liberal delegates into supporting the Motion, by arguing (falsely) that:

-- to reject the Motion is to say to Quebeckers that we do not care for their role in Canada. This is a gross distortion of the motives of those who strongly oppose this Motion. The Motion is so flawed that its rejection has very little to do with rejecting Quebeckers. To say this is to resort to political blackmail of the grossest and clumsiest type.


-- all major candidates share the view that Quebec is a "nation". This too is a deliberate falsehood. Not even the Quebeckers supporting this Motion are agreed on what it means. Not even Ignatieff, in his writings, has agreed on what this word means; in fact, he has contradicted himself several times on this aspect. Dion has written a devastating analysis of this and other aspects, and his arguments have not been addressed by Ignatieff.


-- all candidates have agreed that the concept of a "nation" can be enshrined in the constitution, at some time in the future. This also flies in the face of truth.

The arguments used by Ignatieff supporters are dishonest, and dangerous. They are deliberately untruthful, and are not in the interests of Canada or the Liberal Party.

Whether the word "nation" is placed in the preamble of the constitution, or in the body, substantially alters the legal effect of this concept. Ignatieff is a professor of law, and should know better; however, we do not see him stepping forward to explain the differences. One the one hand he says it is of symbolic importance only; on the other, that it is very important to Quebec. Whether or not the word will result in a devolution of power to the province of Quebec, affecting the Charter of Rights amongst other things, is a legal consequence of extraordinary importance, yet we do not hear Ignatieff discussing this.

Ignatieff's adoption of this Motion, with is deceptive words "formalize" and later "officialise" (code words for constitutional enshrinement), and his continued silence on the awful consequences to Canada of such a radical change to our constitution, amount to his hijacking the Liberal Party in his efforts to become leader.

The Constitution belongs to Canada. Not to the Liberal Party. Not to one provincial wing of the Liberal Party. The Charter of Rights belongs to Canada. Delegates to the convention should not expect members of the Party to accept any Motion they pass which might have the consequence of forcing Canada down a path to constitutional conflict. If they adopt this Motion, the Liberal Party will run the risk of many Canadians holding their noses and voting for the Tories.

Very few Canadians will trade their Constitution and Charter of Rights just to allow Michael Ignatieff to become leader of the Liberal Party. That mess of porridge is far, far too insignificant for such a sacrifice.