The opening salvos have been fired in the battle for the thoughts and minds of Canadians over Bill C-30. Debate on this bill labeled by the government as the “Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act” and nicknamed the online spying bill by opponents’ promises to be as vicious as any we have seen to date.

Unfortunately all of the opening shots have missed their mark. I doubt there are many Canadians who agree with Public Security Minister Vic Toews’ position that you “can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.” Nor do we think Charlie Angus had it right with his rant that the government is putting an electronic prison bracelet on everyone with a cell phone. These assertions from both sides are just too far over the top for Canadians to support either of their respective positions.

We do know if the government wants this bill to pass, it will. They have a majority and they can impose time allocation or closure whenever they choose to do so. Then why not allow for a civil debate? The government is no longer in a life or death minority situation where it was necessary to force voters to constantly choose sides in case the government lost a confidence vote. They have a majority; they don’t have to demonize opponents simply because they object to provisions of a bill.

Canadians are more concerned about their privacy now than ever before. Virtually everyone with an email address has seen phishing emails that hope to capture your basic information. We have all read stories of company systems being hacked and our private information passing into unwanted hands.

Canadians worry about their privacy and there have been legitimate concerns expressed by various Privacy Commissioners over whether or not police should be able to seek your name, phone number, internet protocol address, email address etc., without a warrant? Canadians deserve an opportunity to listen to both sides.

Put away the rhetoric and rationally explain your positions.

For instance while the government side is focusing on abhorrent child pornographers, this bill has much broader aspects to it that go far beyond hunting child pornographers. Explain to Canadians why you are promoting this bill as being about protecting children when it also grants these powers to not only the RCMP and municipal forces but also to CSIS and the Commissioner of Competition?

Why not simply explain under what other circumstances (besides hunting child pornographers) police can seek information without a warrant. If they need probable cause to stop a vehicle to check registration and drivers licence, what would trigger their seeking your internet IP address and email identification?
Will there be national standards set up that outline under what circumstances police can ask for this data or is it going to be left up to individual police forces to set their own standards and protocols? This alone would be worth a rational civil debate.

If, as the government insists, other democracies have put in place much more intrusive legislation, then show us that legislation, let the opposition debate the facts and let both sides try to convince Canadians that their position is valid.

Canadians are paying attention to this bill. There is no need for either side to pump up the rhetoric and demonize their opponents. It is simply not needed. It may very well be that the government position is correct, but Canadians won’t know that unless there is a full explanation from the government side. It is also possible that the opposition could offer improvements to the bill that both sides could accept. In such a scenario Canadians are the winners. Right now, looking at the opening rounds of this debate it is safe to say that both sides are doing a disservice to Canadians.

"Parliament is more than procedure - it is the custodian of the nation's freedom."
- September 22, 1949, House of Commons.

I have to wonder how Diefenbaker would have reacted if the Liberal government of his day used time allocation as often as the present government which is well on its way to setting a new record. For that matter, would Reform MPs from the class of 1993 or 1997 have sat back and watched the Liberals act this way?

Parliamentary debate is essential in a democracy and yes at times it is inconvenient for the party in power as it delays the passage of legislation. But that is what opposition parties do. Canadians send MPs (including opposition ones) to Ottawa to represent them and their views. With a strong majority government, what is wrong with allowing opposition MPs the opportunity to debate a bill? The bill will eventually pass and perhaps the opposition might have something constructive to add.

While the present day Conservative government views any stalling by opposition MPs as intolerable, the Conservatives themselves have a great tradition of stalling legislation in the House of Commons. Both of the parties that make up the present Conservative Party of Canada have used stalling tactics in the House to delay passage of legislation that they did not agree with. For example, the Progressive Conservative Party led the delaying tactics in the great pipeline debate from May 8 to June 6, 1956. Debate was eventually ended when the Liberals introduced closure, but by doing so the Liberals also contributed to their own defeat in the next election.

The Progressive Conservatives also led the opposition stalling tactics in the Maple Leaf Flag debate which lasted from June 15^th to December 15, 1964.

In 1999, the Reform Party stalled the Nisga’a treaty for 42 hours and in 2002, then Canadian Alliance member Bob Mills stalled the Kyoto Protocol for 12 hours. The present day tactics of the Liberals and NDP aren’t even in the same league as those past Conservative efforts.

And let us not forget that during their recent minority government years, the Conservatives also used procedural tactics and filibusters in committees.

Stalling debate and using procedural moves to delay the passage of government legislation is a time honoured tradition in Canada; it is part of our democratic process. This is a government that is focused on reinforcing our traditions and values including a revival of our connection to the monarchy and support for military traditions such as adding “Royal” to our air force and navy. We also have democratic traditions that need reinforcing and allowing opposition members an opportunity to represent the views of their constituents is one of them. We have to keep in mind that those precedents and procedures that are set in the House today will be used by future non-Conservative governments to justify their actions in the House. We need to be careful what we wish for.

As Canadians watched the events unfold in Europe over the last couple of years we saw plenty of news stories indicating that governments there were going after pensions as a way to help deal with their economic issues. There were also stories about Canadians being worried about whether or not their pensions would be adequate for when they retired. We also followed the struggles of the Nortel pensioners with both the federal and provincial governments.  So the fact that the pension issue is on the minds of both the government and the population isn’t a surprise. The way this government chose to deliver this issue was what surprised Canadian seniors.

My take is that the government was caught flat-footed on this issue. Their reaction to the blow-up in the media was slow and it took them a couple of days to get their lines really sorted out. Now they are on track with the same monotonous lines delivered by all of their ministers. It is notable though that individual Conservative MPs have been silent even though they must be deluged by emails, letters.

The real hit to the government though comes on the issue of trust. They blind-sided Canadians with this issue. There was no build up to it, no preparing the way for difficult pension decisions.  Nor was it raised during the recent election. Canadians, especially those nearing retirement age rightly want to know what is going on and when these decisions were made. On that issue the government is vulnerable.

Major political decisions like this usually follow a process (even in this PMO centralized government). When were the memos or briefing notes prepared on this issue? Were they prepared by the Privy Council Office (PCO) or by PMO? What recent reports or studies did the government receive that indicated it was essential to move on the OAS issue now? Which cabinet committees reviewed the decision to move on OAS? Usually hot political issues go through the Operations Committee first, did it this time? When was the decision reviewed by the full cabinet? Was caucus consulted? There are lots of questions, few answers. But so far the government prefers to stonewall as opposed to addressing what is really a very emotional issue for seniors.

Those questions don’t even touch on the details of what the government needs to do on the pension front nor does it touch on what changes they are contemplating for the OAS. Saying that all options are on the table implies there are different options, what are they? It may very well be that the discussion around changing the recipient’s age from 65 to 67 is the best option, but Canadians don’t have a clue listening to the government’s response to date. The government has handed the opposition parties an opportunity to chip away at the trust factor. It is still about when did they know and why did they do it?

Governments are rarely defeated on one big issue, instead over time they defeat themselves with trust and arrogance being two main factors. On the trust issue they are now vulnerable (although they still have time to turn this around). How the Conservatives move this issue forward will help to define themselves and the next election even if it is years away.

The Prime Minister’s office is in full damage control mode with talk points that insist there are no immediate plans to make changes and they are pushing back on media reports that the government plans to extend the age from 65-67 (before you can receive the benefit), insisting that no final decision has been made. They even had the Parliamentary Secretary to the Finance Minister on TV discussing the issue and the Minister of State for Finance Ted Menzies was also giving interviews. All of this point to the fact that they see the potential damage this can do to Conservative prospects down the road.

With so many baby boomers near retirement age (myself included), this issue strikes close to home for many of us facing imminent retirement. Many of these baby boomers live in those hard fought for suburban ridings that the Conservatives needed to win to obtain their majority. There are political consequences for this government if they cannot turn this story around to their advantage.

This issue is a gift for the opposition and tailor-made for Question Period. The issue of extending the age from 65 to 67 is the figure that is out there. With the House recessed there was only limited opportunity for the government to shut down this line of attack. This story and those figures percolated along over the weekend, you still see it mentioned in numerous stories, it already has legs and the opposition attack will most likely focus on that point.

Whether or not that number is accurate and whether or not the Conservatives intended to act quickly on OAS will be buried in the opposition attack. The task facing both the Liberals and the NDP will be to convince the public that the Conservatives really do intend to change the OAS to the detriment of all of those retiring baby boomers. With all of us watching what has been happening to pensions in Europe as governments there fight their fiscal problems, it is not a stretch to think that quite a few Canadians will believe the opposition attacks.

The Conservative platform in the last election did address pension issues, but said nothing about making changes to the OAS. How long do you think it will take for the Liberals to resurrect their old attack points from the 2004, 2005-2006 elections and bring up the well-worn phrase “hidden agenda”?

Adding additional fuel to the fire in Question Period will be Immigration Minister Jason Kenney’s comments on revamping the immigration process. His comments will be unsettling news to many of the multicultural communities who supported the Conservatives in the last election. Combine that with the pension issue and the opposition parties will see a golden opportunity to snatch back voters that moved to the Conservatives. For the NDP it will be an opportunity to entrench their hold on Official Opposition status; for the Liberals it will provide a chance to resurrect their brand, especially in vote rich Ontario.

With so much at stake, these two issues combined with pre-budget maneuvering will guarantee that this session will be loud, noisy and full of over the top rhetoric as the three parties use Question Period to fight for the minds and future votes of Canadians.

While we can concentrate on the differences between the sides right down to what symbolism was used IE Harper referred to a tree and Atleo referred to a rock, there are other positive signs. Clearly Atleo and Harper get along and can communicate with each other. I get the sense that there is a mutual respect for each other and this comes across in public. This bodes well for any private discussions they might have.

Another significant feature of yesterday’s meeting was the amount of time the Prime Minister committed to the event. Anyone who has worked with a Prime Minister knows the intense pressure their schedule is under. This holds true at the ministerial level as well. Meetings and time commitments are measured in minutes, not hours. The fact that Harper set aside his agenda to spend a significant amount of his day at the conference sends a signal to both ministers and departmental officials that the Prime Minister has now taken a keen interest in these files. That translates into there had better be results.

Clearly the Indian Act will be overhauled. While Atleo suggested doing away with it, in effect that is what will happen by the time it is updated, amended and changed. This will be a significant step forward providing of course both sides cooperate, show good faith and agree on the necessary changes.

Some of the items announced in the joint statement are important to First Nations as they try to manage their affairs. Moving to a multi-year funding arrangement is crucial. No longer will Chiefs have to go cap in hand to the minister and department each year.

The same holds true for educational reforms and developing an action plan for economic development for First Nations. Both sides are inching forward. If the constructive tone on display at the Gathering continues there is a possibility of real progress. Long overdue progress, maybe measured in inches, but at least things are moving in the right direction.

I was disappointed to see former Prime Minister Paul Martin come out and attack Harper on the conference. I think this was a missed opportunity. Martin has built up considerable experience working with First Nations. His foundation and its success in working to advance education and training opportunities offer one model, although not the only one, on ways to move educational issues forward. He has also had success in attracting corporate donations and investment to encourage aboriginal business development. I would have preferred to see him offer to work with the present Prime Minister, rather than refight old battles. In the same way I hope the present government will not ignore Martin’s work or expertise simply because he is a former political opponent and Liberal Prime Minister. First Nations issues should cross party lines, solutions not scoring political points should be the end game.

Every government decision (not just environmental ones) impacts on someone. Every decision will have both supporters and detractors. In the past a government could fight back on a fairly level playing field. Press releases, statements or interviews with ministers guaranteed them a place in the news cycle of the day. The opposing side, for example environmentalists, was limited to the same news outlets. With the general public relying on print, radio or TV news for their information, government officials could counter opposition claims made in the same news sources.

Governments are generally limited to making fairly factual commentary. They talk about jobs created and the importance of a decision to the economy. This is pretty dry stuff and they are not appealing to the emotional side of an issue. Whenever they try to appeal on a more emotional level and ramp up their language to talk about “foreign money”, or “radical groups” or Hollywood stars interfering in Canadian affairs there is a media and public backlash.

Those opposing a government decision now have many more tools at their disposal than existed 10 years ago. Opposition groups can organize and protest much more quickly. Any delay in an approval process allows them to use their resources and expand their base of support in unprecedented volume. Nor in this day and age of instant worldwide communication should any government or party in power, be surprised at how quickly opposition can mount to a government decision. Equally there should be no surprise that such opposition extends beyond their borders and that fundraising becomes international and is no longer dependent on local resources.

Social media allows opponents to get their message out with a few clicks of a mouse. No longer is it necessary to mail out petitions or letters asking for people’s support. Instead thousands of emails can go out in an instant. Groups appeal to the emotional side of an issue and this is the side that people respond too. While a government argues facts, figures and economic benefits, groups argue on an emotional level. In political terms we used to refer to this as appealing to the head or heart, with the heart usually winning. Election campaigns and how political parties craft their messaging are a good example of this in action.

We saw this in Obama’s 2008 election campaign. Every speech he gave appealed to the emotional side of his audience. Plus as demonstrated at the recent Liberal convention, his team made extensive use of the social media resources at their disposal for engaging voters, recruiting and fundraising. Obama more than most politicians understands the power of that emotional appeal on the electorate.

Today groups send their message out to not just their own members, but to a worldwide audience. This can result in support and action on a scale unseen in the past. Appeals for funds to fight a government decision or asking supporters to contact elected officials can generate a huge response with elected officials being swamped with protest notes. Merkel’s decision last year to cancel support for nuclear energy in Germany would be one example as is the present SOPA protest sweeping the internet. Obama’s decision on Keystone XL should therefore not be a surprise and I would bet with this being an election year that the pressure brought on through social media campaigns had quite an impact on sitting Democrats.

With government being limited with what it can say and with the long sign off procedures that departments must use, government bureaucrats and politicians are at a disadvantage when confronting the fast moving messaging in the world of social media. This is not just a Canadian phenomenon but a worldwide one. The internet and modern communication tools have given a sense of empowerment to people and they are not afraid to let governments know about their displeasure.

Eventually government will become much more nimble and make better use of the resources social media offers, but for now the pendulum has swung towards the people. In a democracy that is not a bad thing.

As mentioned previously, conventions are more than just politics and motions and internal political races, they are about reconnecting with other party members and celebrating your party and who you are. On those points this was a good convention for them. I think most delegates left with a good feeling, although I suspect over the next few weeks they might begin to wonder what they actually accomplished.

Did they come out with a renewed and vibrant party? Not from what I saw. Most of the policy options that were presented couldn’t have been all that new or interesting as on this final day of the convention the vast majority of the policy motions were passed with no interest in debate. Does this mean the party is of a single mind on all these different topics? I hardly think so, but it sure looked like it with most motions receiving overwhelming support without any discussion. Some of these included reinstating the Wheat Board and financially penalizing provinces that deny women access to abortion. Maybe the lack of interest reflected the fact that a lot of the motions were pretty bland, with some of them regurgitated from previous Liberal Red Books going all the way back to 1993. Wasn’t this convention supposed to be about renewal?

The delegates did show a bit of spirit when they lined up to debate legalizing pot (Yes, 77 per cent), severing ties with the monarchy (No, 67 per cent) and using a preferential ballot for Canadian elections (Yes, 73 per cent).

Another interesting point was the Liberals attempt to Americanize our politics. They had top Obama Democratic operatives teaching them how to win campaigns, plus motions to adopt U.S.-style primaries for leadership elections, plus a new supporter membership category based on Obama’s successful campaign for the U.S. presidency. Add in another motion that would have created a republic after severing ties with the queen and if all had passed we would have seen the greatest Americanization of Canadian politics in memory. And this is the party that always accused the Conservatives of using U.S.-style politics. I can almost write the Conservative attack ads on this one. With this attempt to Americanize us I am surprised they didn’t include a motion to make us the 51st state!

Fortunately for the Liberals the motion for primaries and severing ties with the queen were defeated. But they did create a new supporter membership category. I think this will create a few headaches for them down the road as these new supporters can only vote to elect the next Liberal leader, they cannot vote in nomination meetings. But the delegates also defeated the primary system, how do you now incorporate these new supporters into a leadership campaign? Can they attend a leadership convention as primaries won’t be held? Will the party be forced to set up regional voting sessions? What will be the cost to do all of this, keeping in mind that these new supporters don’t pay a membership fee?

Throughout the convention there was an anger simmering below the surface that was aimed at party insiders and the old guard for leading them to third-party status. The one place it showed was in the election of a new party president. It was considered Copps’ to lose, yet when the votes were counted Mike Crawley defeated Sheila Copps, who most felt represented the old guard and the old way of doing things in the Liberal Party. Initial indications are that this was a very tight vote with three recounts. This was probably a good move for a party that is trying to reinvent itself, but this alone will not be enough to change the party. The new president will have to deal with a divided party plus the leader and the caucus who I doubt will want to give up any of their rights or privileges.

In conclusion, the party put on a decent show, delegates enjoyed themselves and went home with a warm and fuzzy feeling, but the party didn’t reinvent itself and that was the purpose of this convention.

This was my last blog on the Liberal convention on behalf of ipolitics.ca. I hope that you will go to their site for full convention coverage.

Earlier today I said I thought I was in a time warp with the present Liberal convention reminding me of some of our PC Party ones from the 1990s. As the sessions wrapped up today, I haven’t changed my position. Even a few Liberals thought I made a good point.

Today they had some very informative sessions. One that stands out for me was led by two of Obama’s operatives who played a large role in both rebuilding the Democratic Party and in getting Obama elected. A lot of cutting edge stuff, well thought out and explained. If Liberals thought this was the magic bullet that would lead them back to government, it probably won’t. It was clear that even using their tools, any rebuilding would take years, certainly not months. It wasn’t a quick fix for an ailing party.

At the same time what they suggested implementing requires a lot of money in the initial stages, something the Grits are quite short of right now. It also requires a large volunteer base, I would suggest even the Tories would have a tough time implementing the measures they suggested. But for a political junkie such as myself, it was fascinating to see how they put it all together against strong opposition from the party establishment.

Speaking of which, we are down to the wire in the race for the presidency of the party. Sheila Copps versus Mike Crawley has been an interesting fight to watch. Some Liberals I spoke to thought it was Copps’ to lose and feel she did with her press conference. Others think the old guard of the party will rally to her in the end. I tend to think Copps will still pull it off, but wouldn’t it be something if the membership rallies around Crawley in an attempt to force change on the party?

In the end though does it really matter? The public couldn’t care less about who is the President of the Liberal Party. The only people they see are the leader and the MPs. They judge their performance and look for a party that can deliver on their promises and which can bring forward realistic policies that mean something to Canadians. The Liberals are a long way from doing that.

With merger with the NDP being the forbidden topic at this convention I expect that my feeling of being in a time warp will continue. The Liberals will still prefer to talk about how they are different to the NDP as opposed to how they are similar.

Back in 2002 when Harper first sat down with Joe Clark to talk about a potential merger, as a party researcher, I made a chart (later updated in 2003) of all of our PC and Reform/Canadian Alliance election platforms and matched them up word for word. I did the same for the party constitutions. We agreed on something like 75-80% of the items. I wonder if anyone has done this for the Liberal and NDP platforms. Just how different are they?

Liberals will come out of this convention invigorated. They will have policy conventions that will convince themselves that they have found the way into voters’ hearts. They will wait for the NDP to collapse, they will wait for the NDP to fall into 3^rd place in the next election and maybe the one after that too, and even the one after that. All of that sounds all too familiar for me, but it will keep the Conservatives in power.

I get a sense of déjà vu attending this convention. Much of what I see my old party (the PC Party) went through in the 1990s. Delegates reminisce about old victories and dream about bigger and better things to come. Few acknowledge the mistakes that were made were due to a systemic failure, but there is always someone else to blame. The leader wasn’t the right person at that time, Canadians didn’t understand them, the media was against them and my favourite — Canadians weren’t thinking right when they elected the Conservatives.

The time warp continued when Interim Leader Bob Rae gave a good speech and the buzz changed to maybe he should be leader after all. Of course, Rae is a good speaker. He comes from the old school where politicians were expected to be good public speakers. He passed public speaking 101 and he doesn’t need to read from carefully scripted notes. Not unlike our then leader Joe Clark.

Premier McGuinty came to the convention and gave a great speech. Now folks are discussing maybe he should be seeking the leadership — perhaps he can save the party and renew it. Similar to what happened when Bernard Lord came to our convention and gave one of the most inspiring speeches delegates had heard in a long time. He gave a great speech, but it didn’t save our party. Nor for that matter did he seek the leadership.

Back then we also had plenty of policy sessions and even an introduction to the latest technology that would put us on the cutting edge of political organizing. All pretty similar to what I am seeing here. We had an active youth wing that wanted to take back the party or support those who wanted to return control to the members and take it away from the insiders many felt were running the party.

Looking at a room full of delegates and I could easily see them fitting into a 1990s convention. A show of hands clearly indicates the membership strength comes from one province — Ontario. There is only a smattering from other provinces. Yet the illusion is maintained that it is a strong party from coast to coast. Much the same as we did even though the majority of our elected members came from Atlantic Canada.

Everyone here has been careful to avoid any discussion of the dreaded “M” word. The topic of merger with the NDP is carefully avoided and nowhere is there a session on the agenda to discuss this option. Back in the 1990s, we thought merger with the Reform Party/Canadian Alliance was simply out of the question, there were too many differences, or so we thought at the time.

They say those who ignore history will continue to make the same mistakes, it remains to be seen if this convention will lead to a renewal of the Liberal Party, but so far I am not impressed.

The Friday wrap up.

All that remains today are the tributes and some speeches before the serious convention work (that is, the parties) get under way. Overall it has been a good day in a warm-and-fuzzy sense for the Liberal supporters attending convention 2012.

Conventions are more than just listening to speeches or taking part in policy debates. They are also about renewing friendships with former co-workers from the campaign trail or people you met at various events such as this but whom you rarely see in between.

By the end of the afternoon, the hallways had begun to fill up, the noise level was substantially higher and discussions a bit more animated. There were also enough former MPs, sitting MPs, plus a few former cabinet ministers around to add a bit of oomph to the event. But the question still remains: Where do they go from here?

At the meetings I attended, the audience remained largely middle-aged and white. Not necessarily a bad thing as there is a lot of experience sitting on those chairs, but where is the diversity that the Liberal party was famous for?

A few other things struck me as symbolic of their lack of awareness as to how they got to be the third party.

More than one speaker at the “Liberal Ideal” presentations kept going back to past glories. A few were into Canada deserves better than Harper, and others reminded the audience that Canada needs the Liberals. To all of that I say really?

Past glories are a foundation to build on and often provide an incentive to press forward with new ideas and at the same time you must correct your mistakes. But first you have to admit that you made them, something I haven’t seen too much of so far. For the most part it has been Harper is evil, Conservatives are bad — not we screwed up, ran a bad campaign, offered nothing to Canadians and don’t know what we stand for.

No one, especially young people, care about what you did — they want to know what you will do, what you offer. How many of the young people attending this convention, or in university, can even recall big Liberal wins such as the one in 1993? The youth are the future of the party, they look forward not backward.

We were reminded that Conservatives were nasty people, they boxed their Liberal leaders in with nasty ads, but no one asked why they didn’t fight back or counter them. If Conservatives raised more money during the past decade, no one asked why the Liberals didn’t start doing modern fundraising years ago instead of scrambling now in 2012? Neither did anyone ask why they couldn’t come up with policies that meant something to Canadians?

At a few of the events I attended, a show of hands was called for to show which part of Canada the delegates were from. Consistently more than 75 per cent were from Ontario with almost negligible numbers from Quebec, a surprise considering the former Liberal base there and the easy access to the convention for many Quebec delegates. It really did highlight the collapse of the party in key jurisdictions.

I did attend one excellent event on using social media both in a campaign sense as well as using it to build a base of supporters. Lots there that could be applied very effectively in future campaigns, but the question remains was anyone listening or were they still convinced that Canada simply needs the Liberals?

Ipolitics.ca has excellent coverage of Convention 2012. Be sure to check out their coverage at

http://www.ipolitics.ca/liberalconvention2012/