The Achilles Heel of the Liberal Paty?

Jean Chretien's backroom leadership games hobbling party

Followers of Canadian politics as seasoned as Charles Lynch and Allan Fotheringham have long offered an interesting thesis explaining the tenure of the Liberal party as "Canada's natural governing party".

This thesis basically holds that longstanding tensions over the leadership of the Conservative party cost the party its key organizational impetus, allowing a united Liberal party to fill the void.

The machinations of Dalton Camp against John Diefenbaker, Brian Mulroney against Joe Clark, and practically everyone in the party against Richard Bennet is thus argued to continually undermine the party on a national basis -- and especially in terms of its organizational capabilities in Quebec.

This disunity resulted in decades-long periods in opposition for the party, with the Liberal party alternating between majority and minority governments.

Canadian history has now dawned on a new century, and the tables have essentially turned.

Writing in the Toronto Star, Angelo Persichilli suggests that the recent leadership woes of Michael Ignatieff -- particularly having to soothe bruised egos over the Martin Cauchon/Denis Coderre affair -- is actually the work of Jean Chretien, who is perpetually flexing his muscles behind the scenes.

Persichilli draws attention to what is actually a rather important fact: whatever unity the Liberal party has ever enjoyed has been a fragile one. Historically, there have been countless tensions at work within the party: young Liberals pitted against old Liberals and left-wing Liberals pitted against right-wing Liberals.

Over time, these competing dynamics settled into two camps that have quietly been at war within the party.

Persichilli's column suggests that the Liberal party hasn't been fully united since the 1980s when John Turner defeated Chretien for the Liberal leadership. The conflicts that have emerged since -- Chretien vs Martin, Dion vs Ignatieff, Ignatieff vs Rae -- have been reflections of the Turner vs Chretien divide.

This particular divide can actually be found to have deep roots in the Mitchell Sharp vs Walter Gordon rivalry of the 1960s and 70s.

Chretien's success in the 1990s may have led Liberals into the kind of false sense of security that kind precipitate this kind of inernecine tensions. After all, 11 years of uninterrupted majority government can be an extremely heady experience.

Perhaps they believe they've been in a strong enough position that they can afford to infight over leadership.

But Chretien also enjoyed the luxury of facing off against right-of-centre opposition that was divided and left-of-centre opposition that was vulnerable. The Liberal party no longer enjoys this position of comparative strength. The Conservative party is very much a united force (despite what those who choose to pimp reported tensions between Murloney and Stephen Harper would desire) and the NDP enjoys greater confidence and self-assurance than it has since Tommy Douglas retired.

It's in the face of these political conditions that the Liberal party needs to put its leadership question to bed for good.

But therein lies the problem. Michael Ignatieff came to the party leadership not as the result of a genuinely competitive leadership contest, but rather after his principal opponents, Dominic LeBlanc and Bob Rae, were pressured to jump behind Ignatieff.

It should be no great surprise that some Liberals may be covertly organizing their next leadership campaign.

That Jean Chretien would quietly work to undermine the party leadership, however, is and should be viewed as entirely inexcusable.

Au Revoir, Denis. See You on the (Leadership) Campaign Trail

Coderre quits -- as Quebec lieutenant

The Liberal party's quest to reclaim Outremont has apparently cost it a Quebec lieutenant.

Denis Coderre has resigned from the post after Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff second guessed his advice regarding Martin Cauchon's bid to reclaim Pierre Trudeau's former riding from the NDP's Thomas Mulcair.

"It is a tough decision, a very emotional one that I have to make today," Coderre announced. "But I took four days on my own ...and I thought that I don't have any more the moral authority to remain as the Quebec lieutenant."

Coderre vaguely suggested that, in rejecting his advice regarding Cauchon, that Ignatieff was largely deferring to ignorance.

"Fundamental questions are raised by these events: Who should the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada listen to on decisions that strictly affect Quebec?" Coderre mused. "Should he follow his Quebec lieutenant while working closely with a credible team? Or to his Toronto advisers who know nothing about the social and political realities of Quebec?"

"The lesson drawn from these events is the following: If you want to carry the day on a Quebec issue, all you have to do is perform an end-run around the Quebec authorities of the party, and go to the inner circle from Toronto," Coderre continued. He even seemed to suggest that Ignatieff hadn't merely rebuffed him, but rebuffed the entirety of his Quebec team.

“Contrary to what some may have said, the reconstruction work of the Liberal party in Quebec was not the affair of a single man. The recommendations I made to the leader were always the fruit of concerted decisions approved by our Quebec team.”

For his own part, Michael Ignatieff considers Coderre's charges to be laughable.

“It makes me laugh,” Ignatieff scoffed. “I am leading a pan-Canadian party. I’m proud of my team in Quebec. They have the leadership and responsibility with me, and I repeat with me, to renew the party.”

Rebuilding the Liberal party certainly won't be accomplished by fighting out old grudges in the form of a candidacy campaign, as Coderre was accused of doing. But Coderre himself says this simply wasn't the case.

“This isn’t a settling of accounts against anybody,” he insisted. “I’m not here to settle scores.”

Of course, Coderre also objected to suggestions that he's planning a wildcat leadership campaign. But strategically quitting has long been a standard Liberals planning to take a run at the leadership. Jean Chretien briefly quit politics altogether in 1986 after losing the Liberal leadership to John Turner.

Dissatisfaction with Turner crystalized around Chretien's absence.

Coderre hasn't quit politics altogether. But his resignation as Ignatieff's Quebec lieutenant has been every bit as dramatic as Chretien's brief departure. Chretien managed to transform discontent with the second-worst leader in Liberal party history into his own leadership victory -- and three successive majority governments.

Somewhere, in the back of Denis Coderre's mind, one has to imagine the possibility of this kind of success must be lingering -- particularly for a politician as ambitious as Coderre.

Michael Ignatieff will see much more of Denis Coderre very soon -- very possibly in the midst of a leadership review.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Rob Harvie - "So, Liberal Denis Coderre appears to have had enough Ignatieff...

Jeff Jedras - "Coderre quits. Don't let the door, etc"

My Can of Contemplation - "More Evidence of Coderre's Treachery"

Michael Ignatieff's Quebec Problem

Denis Coderre firing up to take a shot at Liberal leadership?

For the past 20 years, the Liberal party's Quebec problem has tended to be external -- notably, the Bloc Quebecois.

But now it seems that the Liberal party may be sharing a general malaise with the Conservative party in Quebec -- internal organization problems.

The big story in Quebec right now is the brewing battle over which Liberal will run against NDP MP Thomas Mulcair in Outremont (Pierre Trudeau's old riding). A fierce conflict has emerged between Martin Cauchon, a Chretien-era Cabinet Minister and Denis Coderre, Ignatieff's appointed Quebec lieutenant.

Michael Ignatieff had previously announced that he would appoint the party's candidate for that riding, and that he would appoint a woman.

"Martin Cauchon was an excellent minister, an excellent MP, and a good Liberal. I spoke to him last night, and yes, I have made my decision," Ignateiff announced this week. "I told him that we have been soliciting female candidates and we not only intend to have women candidates, we want them where they can win."

Ignatieff has now apparently relented, allowing Cauchon to seek the party's Outremont nomination.

Despite his pledge to appoint a female candidate in Outremont, Ignatieff has caved to pressure applied, in part, by Bob Rae.

“Martin Cauchon was an outstanding minister of justice and has been a fighter for liberal values all his political life,” Rae publicly insisted. "If he wants to return to active political life, room must be found for him and his important beliefs and values."

Many -- including the National Post's Kelly McParland -- have suggested that the Cauchon decision was never really made by Ignatieff, but rather by Denis Coderre, who is looking ahead to the next Liberal leadership campaign and looking to flex some muscles now so he can improve his chances to be the next Grit leader.

Le Devoir reported that the original Cauchon decision came as everal Quebec MPs were pressured to leave politics.

Among them were Bernard Patry, Raymonde Folco, Lise Zarac and former Liberal leader Stephane Dion.

Dion, for his own part, has already announced his intention to run again in the next election.

For Coderre, nothing would say "I dominate this party" more than forcing a former party leader out of a party stronghold.

Perhaps the prospects of Coderre quietly organizing a leadership campaign behind his back is what really pushed Ignatieff to chance the Cauchon decision. (Some may recall that, in turn, Ignatieff himself was accused of planning a leadership campaign behind Dion's back.)

As McParland notes, Coderre may be looking toward the party's notion of "alternation", and thinking that it's simply his turn, as a Quebec Liberal, to take over the party should Ignatieff's leadership fail.

That could be a real problem for Ignatieff -- particularly if Coderre thinks whatever opportunity he may have to be Liberal leader is worth helping to engineer an electoral defeat.

The notion itself seems absuard -- as it should -- but far stranger things have been done by self-interested politicians.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Matt Guerin - "Iggy Should Let Democracy Do Its Thing in Outremont!"

Tattered Sleeve - "Outremont est Ouverte: Iggy, Coderre concede to Cauchon"

Peter L Whittle - "The Democratic Deficit in the Liberal Party"

Glass Ceiling Breakage Deferred

No women in Liberal leadership race as Martha Hall Findlay demurs

In what's emerging as the latest in an amusing trend that should be very distressing to many Liberals, yet another potential contender has bowed out of the impending Liberal leadership campaign, set to conclude in April.

Martha Hall Findlay will not run to replace Stephane Dion, making it more likely that there may be no women in the Liberal leadership race.

Ironically, it was Dion himself who had pledged to improve the prominence of women in the party by nominating more of them for elected office. In his wake, however, it seems that women are no more prominent within the party than before. Considered it merely yet another one of Dion's unaccomplished goals.

The party has clearly not come very far since the days when Sheila Copps stayed in the Jean Chretien/Paul Martin leadership contest just for the sake of keeping a woman in the race.

While Ruby Dhalla may still run, one has to consider that the hiked entry fee for the contest -- up to $90,000 from $50,000 in 2006 -- may keep dark horse candidates such as Dhalla out.

While the lack of women in the race will almost certainly prove to be distressing to many Liberals, the lack of candidates in general should only more so. So far, Justin Trudeau, Frank McKenna and John Manley have all decided not to seek the leadership.

While Michael Ignatieff will almost certainly do so again, only two candidates -- Dominic LeBlanc and Bob Rae -- have formally declared. One has to imagine that many Liberals are becoming concerned with the lack of real options that will be open to them come April.

Update - Gerard Kennedy has officially announced that he won't be seeking the Liberal leadership. Nor will Denis Coderre.
javascript:void(0)
That now places the tally at two confirmed candidates, and six declining candidates.

Things must be getting very tense at Liberal Party HQ.

The Rest of Canada? Where's That?

If one were to pay close attention to the ongoing federal election campaign, one would think the Conservative party is overwhelmingly carrying the day in terms of advertising.

They are carrying the day. But not as overwhelmingly as one might think -- at least, not if one were from English Canada.

In English Canada, the Conservatives have released 12 ads. The Liberal party has released one.

In Quebec, the story is entirely different. In fact, the Liberals have released numerous ads there that they have yet to release in the rest of the country.

The earlier batch of Quebec-only ads seem to emphasize Stephane Dion and "his team", as numerous Liberal party MPs and candidates wax eloquently on topics such as employment:



Poverty:



Arts and culture:



And "the word Canada":



In the second batch, the Liberal party tries to portray ordinary Quebecers offering their criticisms of Stephen Harper:



On great leadership:



And hope:



The ads feature the Liberal party sinking to some typical low points -- such as dropping George W Bush and Denis Coderre at least seeming to imply that Stephen Harper is "insane".

But the ads clearly show where Stephane Dion at least seems to think his bread his buttered: Quebec. The lack of any kind of comprehensive advertising Campaign in the rest of Canada is certainly nothing less than a glaring strategic blunder by the Liberals.

Considering their current third-place standing in Quebec (behind the Bloc and Tories, who are neck-and-neck), the Liberals may want to start paying some attention to the rest of Canada before it's too late.

That is, if they can even find it on a map. Right now, one wonders.

Conservative Party Joins the Liberals for Lunch

Conservatives accept unfeasible Liberal amendments to Afghanistan motion

In an apparent bid to help avoid an election that the Liberal party likely doesn't want any way, the Conservative party has apparently decided to take clues from the oddly clueless Liberal party in regards to Afghanistan.

In an amendment to the Tory bill to extend the Afghan mission into 2011, the Conservatives have seemingly embraced a Liberal party amendment that would see Canadian troops withdraw from Kandahar in 2011 (albeit six months later than in the Liberal proposal) and focus on reconstruction on training instead of combat.

This right in the middle of a region that is, by all practical accounts, a combat mission.

Apparently, politics has come to trump practicality in regards to the war in Afghanistan, and Canadians should be very concerned about that.

One can only imagine the effect a shift of Canadian efforts to reconstruction and training in the midst of a mission in which the Taliban will not decline to attack them will have on the number of casualties suffered in Afghanistan, but one thing is for certain: it will not be positive.

Liberal Defense Critic Denis Coderre, in particular, appreciates the apparent agreement on an approximate end date for the mission. "There's progress that there's an end date," he said. "It seems that if they're taking our own wording it sends a clear message that we've been doing our homework and now there's room."

Well, not so much. Not really. The problem with time-oriented exit strategies is that they rigidly enforce a time frame on the mission in which it may not be possible to accomplish it. A task-oriented exit strategy could still include a time frame in which goals are expected to be accomplished, but at least would still allow Canadians to stay until the job is done.

Not to mention the critical questions of who will take over Canada's role on the front lines in Kandahar. The Manley report called for an additional 1,000 combat troops in Kandahar. If the Liberal party plan is put in motion, NATO will also need to replace Canada's 2,500 troops just to maintain its front line.

In a mission in which getting certain NATO members to contribute combat troops has been like pulling teeth (and heightened tensions in the Balkans certainly won't help in this regard), this could prove to be the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back.

The adoption of the Liberal party's unfeasible Afghanistan plan could lead not only to the end of the Afghanistan mission, but also to the end of NATO.

As with the Liberal plan, the devil will be in the details. If Prime Minister Stephen Harper can manage to make this plan work, Canada may yet still manage to succeed in Afghanistan.

If not, Harper will have to learn with the reality that he and his party have effectively thrown away the mission in Afghanistan in exchange for another year in power.

That's an awfully high price for Canada -- and the world -- to pay.

Denis Coderre and the Definition of Insanity

Liberal Defense Critic suggests we do the same things, the same way, and somehow expect a different result

It's said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing, in the same way, expecting different results.

That's precisely what the Denis Coderre, the Liberal party's Defense critic, has suggested the Canadian government do inregards to Canada's aging fleet of Aurora patrol planes.

"Those planes have a capacity to be perfect up to 2025," Coderre insisted at a press conference attended by fellow Liberals Scott Brisan, Geoff Regan and Michael Savage. "If we are replacing them... and we're stalling those other [upgrades], you will have kind of a gap in some years when Canada won't be able to fulfil its own military duty. That's a problem in itself."

To sum the matter up in short, Coderre, the Defense Critic for the party that has historically cut corners with Canada's military hardware in order to save a couple of bucks, has suggested Canada's sitting government do exactly the same.

Somehow, presumably, the results will be different.

The previous chapters in this sad little chronicle are pretty well known to Canadians.

Upon taking office in 1993, the Liberals (under Jean Chretien) cancelled the previous Tory government's purchase of helicopters to replace Canada's decrepid fleet of Sea Kings. What ensued was nothing less than years of helicopter crashes, and, more importantly, pilot casualties, precipitated by Liberal negligence.

In 2004, a Canadian submariner died of injuries sustained in a fire aboard a submarine purchased second-hand from the British Navy.

Now Coderre suggests Canada should continue to pursue the Liberal policy of overhauling obselete equipment in order to squeeze every last operating hour out of it. Perhaps when the Canadian forces resort to spending 30 hours of maintenance for every hour in the air on the Auroras will they finally admit the planes have had enough.

Coderre has even suggested that replacing the planes instead of upgrading them will leave Canada with a significant gap in its surveillance capabilities -- obviously a blow for Arctic sovereignty. Yet, Defense department officials disagree, noting that replacements for the Auroras can be in place by the time the refit of the existing planes would be finished in 2013.

As a potential compromise, a portion of Canada's Aurora planes could be refitted, then used as backups in case of an emergency.

But Canadians have already seen what happens when the government bends over backwards to extend the operating life of aging hardware.

It looks a little something like this:



That's reason enough for Defense Minister Peter MacKay to tell Denis Coderre the government already has other plans.

The last thing Canadians need is for its sitting government to buy into Coderre and the Liberals' institutional insanity.

Stephane Dion's Political Career On the Line Over Throne Speech

Judgement day looms for Dion

Just when one thought things couldn't possibly get any worse for Liberal leader Stephane Dion, they apparently have.

The Quebec wing of the Liberal party has found itself effectively crippled today, as Dion's Quebec lieutenant, Marcel Proulx, and the party's provincial director, Serge Marcil, have both resigned from their posts.

Proulx is believed to have resigned regarding the party's recent disastrous performance during a trio of Quebec byelections, in which the traditional Liberal stronghold in Outrement was razed by the NDP.

Denis Coderre and Pablo Rodriguez were reportedly offered Proulx's job, but have decined.

To top it off, Jamie Carroll, the party's former national director, resigned on 10 October, amidst insistence that the party had defamed him.

To top it all off, Stephane Dion reportedly remains committed to toppling the government over the Throne speech, especially if it contains limits on spending powers and rejects the Kyoto protocol as unattainable.

The Liberal party is simply not prepared to fight an election. However, by failing to defeat the government on its proposed agenda, Dion would risk not only his credibility in the eyes of the environmental movement, but also his alliance with Green Party leader Elizabeth May in their desire to see Peter MacKay defeated in the next election.

In other words, everything Dion has worked for is very much on the line, and under the worst possible circumstances.

To make matters worse, the NDP and Bloc Quebecois have also pledged themselves to vote against the throne speech. Dion's fate is entirely in his own hands, but he simply may not have a viable option before him: defeat the throne speech and lose his leadership, or vote in favour of it and lose his reputation.

On top of all this, his party doesn't want to defeat the government on the throne speech. Many of his MPs have publicly insisted they won't force an election that "Canadians don't want" (it seems they never do when the Liberals will lose). In a pre-throne speech caucus meeting, only 6 of 30 speakers were in favour of defeating the speech.

Down in the polls, down in Quebec, and down on his luck, Stephane Dion simply may not have any options left. In short, Dion has simply met his political nadir, and the Liberal party is facing it right along with him.

Should the Liberals find themselves choosing a new leader within the next year, this throne speech will, one way or the other, likely be viewed as the beginning of the end for Stephane Dion.

Jamie Carroll Controversy Takes Acrimonous Twist

Carroll to be sacrificed to power struggle?

That black rain cloud that has been following Stephane Dion around lately has apparently elected to throw yet another lightning bolt his way, as Pierre-Luc Bellerose, the Liberal candidate for Joliette has elected to leave the Liberal party in response to “poor leadership”, and over the Jamie Carroll controversy.

Carroll, who is reportedly imminently to be fired, provoked a good deal of controversy in past months when he publicly complained about Stephane Dion’s leadership opponents continuing to campaign against him in secret.

In Against the Current, Carroll is reported to have lived “in fear of an all-out drive against Dion” by his leadership opponents. “What they do in public doesn't bother me. It's the shit they do behind the scenes -- which I may not know they're doing -- that keeps me up at night,” Carroll reportedly said.

Numerous Liberals, including Michael Ignatieff and Denis Coderre, called for Caroll’s firing.

They saw their stated desires come closer to fruition recently as Carroll was accused of making anti-Quebec comments in a meeting.

Caroll reportedly responded to complaints about the lack of Quebeckers in Dion’s entourage by noting that “if Dion hired more Quebeckers, he’d have to hire more Chinese.”

Many Liberals have since added their voices to those demanding Dion sack Carroll, including Pablo Rodriguez and Robert Fragasso, who informed Liberal party president Marie Poulin that he would be demanding Carroll’s resignation.

"I called party headquarters to tell them we can't tolerate that in this party," Rodriguez announced. "I don't see how Mr. Carroll could remain in his role with comments like that."

Ironically, despite the alleged anti-Quebec nature of Carroll’s comments, many Quebeckers have asked Dion to keep him as the party director, leading to Bellerose’s resignation. For his part, Dion insists Carroll's comments were misinterpreted.

Predictably, the Conservatives have also moved to make political hay out of this internal Liberal party feud. “Carroll made some really bizarre, eye-raising remarks. Apparently Liberals themselves find them, at best, distasteful," said Conservative parliamentary secretary Jason Kenney. “He seems to be insulting two different groups at the same time, showing terribly bad judgment. This doesn't reflect well on Stephane Dion, who should hold this guy accountable."

Yet, this is one time the Conservatives would actually be better served to keep their mouths shut.

After all, for a party that has publicly prided itself on not acquiescing to special interests, criticizing Jamie Carroll for refusing to give into special interests comes across as hypocritical. Regardless of whether or not Carroll’s comments can be considered offensive to Quebeckers or Chinese-Canadians, Carroll’s refuting of special interests should actually be viewed as an encouraging sign.

Yet, in the meantime, the controversy poses quite the quandry for Dion's leadership. "At some point, you can't be too self-absorbed. You have to think of the whole party and I think that Mr. Dion better leave," Bellerose insisted.

No matter what decision Dion makes, he stands to lose. The power struggle within the Liberal party is clearly becoming a good deal more acrimonious, and when political parties become embroiled in such struggles, the leader stands to lose most.

In the meantime, Stephane Dion may want to invest in a good umbrella.

Calling a Spade a Spade: Nothing Too Sacred to be Politicized

Apparently, the government has something to hide... but what?

For supporters of the Afghanistan mission, one of the more disturbing realities of the conflict is its use--by both government and opposition--as a partisan tool.

This disturbing tendency aside, the fact is that, as it was initiated by the Liberals under Jean Chretien, escalated by the Liberals under Paul Martin, and maintained by the Conservatives under Stephen Harper, Afghanistan really is a non-partisan war.

Apparently not, if one takes recent comments by Liberal party defence critic Denis Coderre to heart.

"This is damage control pure and simple," said Coderre regarding the late release of a report on an investigation into the friendly-fire death of Private Robert Costall. "Let's call a spade a spade."

Indeed, let's.

The report, completed on 8 March, was recently released, and concluded that the commander of American forces failed to adequately determine the location of Canadian forces defending Forward Base Robinson, resulting in the friendly-fire incident. An accompanying report regarding an investigation by Military Police was not completed until 8 June.

However, since the incident also involved forces from another country, it was actually incomplete without considering the conclusions drawn by an American inquiry, which, as it turns out, delayed the release of the report significantly.

Don't tell that to Denis Coderre, who doesn't believe that it would take five additional months for general Rick Hillier to sign it and consult with the American authorities. Instead, he insists that the Conservative government must have interferred with the process, and was covering up the report.

This, despite the fact that investigations carried out by the Canadian Armed Forces don't work this way.

"We don't ever intervene in investigations," said Department of Defence spokesperson Isabelle Bouchard. "We get the findings when they come through the chain of command. And even then the minister only gets an FYI."

Commander Mike Considine, speaking on behalf of the board of inquiry, adds more. "We were waiting on information coming from the U.S. investigation. The report had to be reviewed for national security issues, there was a legal review, the families -- both here and in the States -- had to be notified."

Coderre's counterpart with the NDP, Dawn Black suggests a conspiracy theory in which the government tried to delay the release to a week following a statuatory holiday. "When information is held back -- rightly or wrongly -- it leads to a perception of coverup," Black said.

Apparently, nothing -- not even the investigation into the death of Canadian soldier -- is too sacred for the opposition to politicize. The fact that the review process is a well-established procedure when dealing with inquiries into the deaths of Canadian soldiers abroad has failed to stop the opposition parties from trying to use it to paint the government as secretive and obfuscatory.

So, yes. One should call a spade a spade. Politicizing the war in Afghanistan is an entirely unacceptable political tactic, no matter who it is using it. Politicizing the deaths of Canadian soldiers is even more unacceptable.

Denis Coderre and Dawn Black should both be ashamed.