The Dominion - liberal

How the Liberal Party Works

Sat, 23 Aug 2003 20:36:40 +0000

We hold elections, but do our political parties practice democracy?

Is this what Canadian democracy looks like?

In November 2003, Paul Martin will--barring unimaginable circumstances--be chosen as Canada's next Prime Minister. Legally and politically, this choice is not made by the Canadian public at large, but rather by a private club known as the Liberal Party of Canada. Even given that the Liberal Party has over 500,000 members (according to recent reports, a larger membership than any political party in Canadian history), most Canadians will not have a say in this decision. Indeed, it is already too late for anyone who wanted to vote in the party's leadership election -- to vote, members had to join by last June. And if you had the foresight to join the party four months before the election, you also have to pay a membership fee, and be prepared for a potentially long journey on voting day in order to cast a ballot.

Why is everyone so sure that Paul Martin will win the leadership? Allan Rock and Brian Tobin, considered contenders early on, were so sure of a Martin victory that they dropped out months ago. But few would argue that Martin's policy positions are responsible for his apparent lock on the position of party leader; even today, very few people know what his positions are on many issues.

By most accounts, the real source of Martin's dominance lies in his control over the internal governance of the Liberal party, as well as his spectacular fundraising (Martin has raised over $6 million to date for his leadership bid). Over the last two years, a well organized campaign has put loyal Martin supporters in charge of most riding associations. Once in control, Martin and his supporters could effectively decide who got to join the party, and when. In many ridings, leadership candidates were only given five membership forms at a time, while Martin supporters were free to bypass this limit. These restrictions were later loosened, but only after Rock, Tobin and others had dropped out of the leadership race (or refrained from joining in the first place).

Further reading:

One Citizen, One Vote: Towards Proportional Representation: An interview with Larry Gordon, Executive Director of Fair Vote Canada, by Susan Thompson

In view of the struggles for control of riding associations, it would seem that policy debate has played a minor, or even insignificant, role in the Liberal leadership race. But if the future Prime Minister is not chosen based on policy positions, but rather on the ability to gain control of riding associations, and given the apparent entrenchment of the Liberals, does Canadian democracy consist merely in voting for or against the Liberal Party?

According to Dr. William Cross, the Director of the Canadian Democratic Audit and a professor of Political Science at Mount Allison University, Martin didn't do anything wrong, but simply played by the rules as they exist.

The same rules (or lack thereof) exist for other political parties in Canada as well. Though other parties have not recently experienced the intense and public squabbles over the control of riding associations, their leadership is largely decided by who can sign up the largest number of new members. This in turn is largely determined by who is the most organized and best funded. Few were surprised, then, to see Jack Layton (who had the most funding and signed up thousands of new members) chosen as the leader of the NDP, and Peter Mackay chosen to lead the Progressive Conservatives. Of course, neither MacKay nor Layton were handed the job of Prime Minister upon their election.

Cross argues that "a more democratic system would be to allow all interested and eligible voters to vote for who will be the next Prime Minister." This would involve eliminating the barriers to wide involvement in the leadership election of (at least) the governing party. Instead of an election where only those who have joined before a deadline, paid a fee, and travelled to the (often distant) voting location, Cross advocates what is essentially a US-style primary: all eligible voters would be able to vote for a candidate for Prime Minister.

As it stands, participation rates in leadership selection are very low. Surveys have found that even among supporters of a party, less than 5% participate. Cross cites the election in which Ralph Klein was chosen as the leader of the provincial Conservatives in Alberta as the closest thing to an open leadership contest that has occured in Canada. Voters had to be a member of the provincial party, but they could join at the voting location for a minimal $5 fee. Close to 17% of party supporters turned out for the election, and when the contest went to a second ballot, the number of participants increased.

Asked about the possibility of other parties or groups hijacking a leadership election by mobilizing members to skew the vote a certain way, Cross simply says that there is little evidence of that occuring. On the other hand, the Liberal party spends enough time obsessing about "special interests" hijacking candidate nominations in particular ridings (restrictions placed on distribution of membership forms were justified in this light by the Martin camp) that it's worth asking if the leadership selection process should be more open, not less.

The US-style primary has its own faults, however. South of the border, it is commonly referred to as the "money primary", a reference to the fact that--with very few exceptions--the candidate who raises the most money wins. This, however, would seem to be a question of campaign finance regulation and balanced media coverage. The broader point, according to Cross, is that candidates are forced to appeal to more than a tiny fraction of the electorate. Despite its flaws, the popular election of party leaders (or minimally, Prime Ministers) would at least be successful in moving the focus of leadership campaigns from party power struggles to reaching out to the public at large.

But to Cross, what some have called the "democratic deficit" occurs at a more fundamental level. Elections are considered private events of the Liberal Party, a legal status that means that there is almost no regulation of the process. Spending limits on leadership campaigns, for example, are set and (nominally) enforced by the party. But the enforcement hardly ever comes. It is extremely unlikely, for example, that the Liberal party will deny the leadership to a candidate who goes over internally-set spending limits, and there is no legal recourse--the only option is to appeal to the same riding associations that Martin currently controls. Indeed, it was only with recent legislation on campaign financing (Bill C-24) that leadership candidates are required to fully disclose the sources of funding for intra-party campaigns.

The other democratic short-circuit caused by the private status of political parties is a major concentration of political power in the Prime Minister's office, where, according to Cross, "party members have as much or as little influence on policy as the Prime Minister wants them to have."

One of the less vague planks of Paul Martin's leadership campaign has been to address the "democratic deficit" by giving Members of Parliament more freedom to advance their own views in the House of Commons, and to roll back Chrétien's intensive party discipline in favour of fewer "whipped votes".

Cross says that such measures do little to address the real issues: "that solves the democratic deficit for about 150 Liberal backbench members of Parliament. It's not clear to me that it does anything for the rest of us, because I have no idea what my Liberal candidate thinks about a whole array of policy issues when he or she runs under the Liberal banner, because they don't tell us. They tell us what the Liberal party view is. When they go to Ottawa, you're going to let them vote however they want, but what check does the voter have on that?"

Very little, it would seem. The selection of candidates in federal elections regularly happens with 300 or 400 party members voting, in ridings with over 60,000 voters. Since candidate nomination is often based on mobilization (i.e. which candidate can bus more members to the voting location) rather than policy, candidates have little or no mandate beyond that of the party line.

According to most evidence, Canadian voters overwhelmingly base their choice on the party's leader and platform, rather than individual candidates. As if to confirm this, Prime Minister Chrétien has directly appointed candidates, bypassing the vaguely democratic selection process altogether. In a few instances, "special interest groups" have attempted to use the nomination process to push particular issues, but have been shut out by the Prime Minister's Office. In many instances, "Liberals for Life", a pro-life faction of the Liberal party, attempted to gain nominations, but were shut out by the Prime Minister's Office, which directly appointed its own candidates. When Chrétien chose to directly nominate Art Eggleton in the riding of York Centre, passing over the usual process, veteran city councillor Peter Li Preti sued the Liberal Party to hold the usual nomination process. Because of the Party's effective legal status as a private club, however, he was unsuccessful (though Eggleton was later shuffled out of Cabinet after it was shown that he had given his ex-girlfriend a $36,000 military contract).

Cross argues that this process also needs to be opened up to all eligible and interested voters. If candidate nomination races were infused with ideas or particular policy stands, "you would end up with candidates selected on their own policy programs--these would have to be pretty much in tune with the party, but they wouldn't have to be 100% similar to the Prime Minister's views, and they would then have some legitimacy to challenge the Prime Minister and stake out different positions, and the PMO would have to operate in a very different way than it does now."

Given all of the inward turns the power structure of the Liberal Party has taken, and accepting the Party does not currently appear to be at risk of losing its majority, it is not clear how Canadians can meaningfully participate in the governing of their country. We can vote for the Liberal Party, or against it, but beyond that, things get murky. Anyone who tries to run for nomination as a candidate risks being labelled a "special interest" and being replaced. An appeal to an MP makes little difference, as they have little mandate, and are held in line by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).

According to surveys conducted for the Democratic Audit, young people are giving political parties a wide berth. Instead, they believe, special interest groups are the most effective way to be represented politically. Furthermore, those in political parties have an average age of 59, are two thirds male, and tended to join when they were younger. For Cross, this raises a deeper issue: "do you want child care policy, or education policy to be made by these people?"

It also seems that the young people surveyed by Cross' colleagues are in some sense right. Participating in policy decisions in a governing party is difficult indeed, as one must convince the party, and then convince the PMO all over again, whereas interest groups can target the PMO directly.

The coincidence of power concentrated in the PMO and declining faith in political parties as a way to get things done raises the spectre of what Canadian philosopher John Ralston Saul calls corporatism. Governments, Saul argues in frequent exhortations to political participation, are the "most powerful force possessed by the individual... [it is] the only organized mechanism that makes possible that level of shared disinterest known as the public good."

When government is run by "interests" and not citizens, says Saul, the public good is swept aside in favour of who can direct the most pressure at politicians. And this is not facilitated by a choice, but rather by a general disenchantment with the system. In The Unconscious Civilization, Saul writes: "Virtually every politician portrayed in film or on television over the last decade has been venal, corrupt, opportunistic, cynical, if not worse. Whether these dramatized images are accurate or exaggerated matters little. The corporatist system wins either way: directly through corruption and indirectly through the damage done to the citizen's respect for the representative system."

Currently, 6 out of every 10 dollars of Liberal campaign financing comes from corporations. Bill C-24, the recent, sweeping campaign finance reform legislation, will ban corporate and union donations to election campaigns and severely limit their donations to leadership campaigns. Such legislation, however, does little to address the fundamental imbalances in the power structure as it currently exists.

Unfortunately, this same structure provides few starting points for individual Canadian citizens who wish to put their "most powerful force" to work, or simply keep it from becoming someone else's most powerful force. At present, a desire to participate in politics is synonymous with frustration for anyone who doesn't have friends in the PMO or the same interests as well-funded lobbyists.

We hold elections, but do our political parties practice democracy?

In November 2003, Paul Martin will--barring unimaginable circumstances--be chosen as Canada's next Prime Minister. Legally and politically, this choice is not made by the Canadian public at large, but rather by a private club known as the Liberal Party of Canada. Even given that the Liberal Party has over 500,000 members (according to recent reports, a larger membership than any political party in Canadian history), most Canadians will not have a say in this decision. Indeed, it is already too late for anyone who wanted to vote in the party's leadership election -- to vote, members had to join by last June. And if you had the foresight to join the party four months before the election, you also have to pay a membership fee, and be prepared for a potentially long journey on voting day in order to cast a ballot.
- by Dru Oja Jay -

Canada in Review

Sun, 18 May 2003 03:59:04 +0000

As the Canadian winter thaws in some parts of the country, and a bizarre confluence of international controversies recedes from the national press organs, Canadians find themselves with a dire lack of "news". Canada's contribution to the post-war Iraq and the Toronto centred SARS outbreak seem suddenly unimportant despite the fact they remain far from resolved. Our attention is drawn elsewhere, for better in the cases where light is now shone onto events of significance, for worse where shadows are now elongated covering moments of importance.

John Manley: funded by a laundry list of lobbyists and corporate backers.

Canada's only national moderately progressive political party, and its newly minted leader Jack Layton, have unveiled their first campaign since opposing the war in Iraq stopped scoring any political points. The New Democratic Party (NDP) announced a campaign to bring Proportional Representation (PR) to Canada. The NDP announced that it will bring a bill before Parliament to hold a referendum on changing the electoral system to a PR system. While the bill is unlikely to succeed (few Private Members Bills do) the subtext is clear – to position other parties as being against Democracy, a tough sell. The NDP's campaign is in clear juxtaposition to the Liberal Party's coronation ceremony and handled effectively will position this as an election issue in a year to a year and half when the next federal election should be held.

That very same Liberal leadership race is proceeding with all the purpose of a three toed sloth on land. Former Finance Minister Paul Martin is "challenged" by John Manley and Sheila Copps. While Prime Minister Chretien would have it otherwise there seems to be little doubt as to the outcome. In fact, little has been interesting since Manley's comment that few consider Copps "a real challenger", except for disclosures of the candidates' financial backers. When Manley revealed his backers they read like a laundry list of lobbyists and corporate backers. Democracy Watch, a public interest group, says of Manley's disclosures, "many of the donations place the Deputy Prime Minister in an apparent breach of ethics rules." Democracy Watch noted that Martin and Copps continue to offer their donors the option of contributing anonymously through blind trusts.

The financial square dance of the Liberal Party's leadership candidates comes as a split opens the party over election finance reform legislation. Liberal Party President Stephen LeDrew, recently visited opposition parties in an effort to amend the bill. The Bill would see corporate and labour union donations to national political parties banned and limited to $1,000 to individual ridings. LeDrew claims this would put the Liberal Party in severe financial constraints, despite provisions in the bill which would provide public funding to make up the shortfall. Several Liberal MPs oppose the bill, but like LeDrew, they are supporters of Martin whose public spat with the PM continues to harm the public work of Parliament. The bill will likely pass even without full Liberal support in the Commons as it is broadly supported by both the NDP and Bloc Quebecois.

"While the [NDP's] bill is unlikely to succeed (few Private Members Bills do) the subtext is clear - to position other parties as being against Democracy, a tough sell."

Campaign finance restrictions are also making news in Manitoba where the NDP government is seeking re-election in the first provincial elections since major restrictions on campaigning were imposed. While it appears the NDP will win a second straight majority government what is most striking is the tenor of the campaign. With restrictions in place on corporate and union donations, as well as on campaign advertising, the campaigns of all three parties are less visible. Most hurt by the new law seem to be the provincial Tories, who are reportedly $400,000 in debt.

In the midst of all this politicking, other movements are afoot. Economically, Canada's position is clouded in the face of stumbling US economic trends forecasted for years. The Canadian dollar hit more than 73 cents US for the first time since 1997. This predictably sent investors scrambling and vacationers cheering. Employment and price indicators remain steady in Canada with only small increases in unemployment and the price of consumer products.

"This week the Liberal government joined the US in its WTO challenge of European rules that ban the import of Genetically Modified Foods. Essentially, Canada's position is now to dictate the European diet."

Naturally ignoring eco- nomic news, the Liberal party seems set to announce major changes to the criminality of marijuana. Two of the most prominent features of the Cannabis Reform Bill are the decriminalization of driving while under the influence of marijuana and differentiated, lower fines for young people caught in possession of marijuana.

The government has also announced changes to some international policy. This week the Liberal government joined the US in its WTO challenge of European rules that ban the import of Genetically Modified Foods. Essentially, Canada's position is now to dictate the European diet. Additionally, Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham announced, Canada would seek to join the US in pursuing a missile defense shield. This ends long speculation that the government's initial policy was in fact not a policy, but merely a position, to be changed.

As these stories disappear in a haze of smoky backrooms, tinged green, we should not forget that the insurance industry has started to deny life insurance to Canadians traveling to Asian countries with suspected SARS cases. And we thought the SARS scare was over.

Noel Baldwin

Regional News

Sun, 18 May 2003 03:17:48 +0000

A selection of news briefs from the north, east, west, and centre of Canada, but not from the south. Including: OCAP trial, Ernie Eves' Televised Budget, and elections in Manitoba, New Brunswick.

East

Fishing disputes heat up
Fishers in New Brunswick will disobey restrictions on crab fishing this spring. In Newfoundland, displeasure over the closure of the cod fishery, has caused so much controversy that Premier Roger Grimes has talked publicly of renegotiating Newfoundland's place in confederation to gain control of the fishery.

New Brunswick election called
Premier Bernard Lord has dissolved the legislature and set a June 9 date for a provincial election. Lord's Tory party holds significant majority in New Brunswick and prospects for increasing the margin seem good.

Central

Manitoba goes to the polls June 3
Premier Gary Doer seeks to renew his NDP's mandate in a provincial election June 3. Doer is looking for another majority and may even improve on his party's 32 seats. This is the first election under new campaign finance rules.

Eves shunts democracy then gets ready for election
Premier Ernie Eves announced his pre-election budget outside the legislature for the first time in provincial history. Days later his Tory government released their election platform, featuring (surprise), promises of tax cuts and more warring with the province's teachers. The Tories, who promised a balanced budget by next year, have been criticized by two bond rating agencies who claim the provinces books are more than $1-billion from being balanced.

OCAP three trial declared mistrial
The trial of three activists from the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty ended in a mistrial when the jury couldn't agree of the definition of "force", or whether a June 15, 2000 incident at the provincial legislature had, in fact, been a riot. The future of charges against John Clarke, Gaetan Héroux, and Stefan Pilipa, is unclear.

Prairies/West

No spring election in Saskatchewan
Unlike some of his fellow Premiers whose governments were elected in 1999, Lorne Calvert announced he will not send his province back to the polls this spring. The NDP is currently in a minority government coalition and has more than twelve months to call an election.

BC NDP blast Liberals for two years of destruction
NDP Leader Joy McPhail released a report this week on the failed promise of the Liberal government. This week marks the two year anniversary of Gordon Campbell's near sweep of the British Columbia legislature. The report marks at least 25 promises the Liberals have broken.

North

Nunavut hosts conference on suicides as rate continues to climb
The coroner of Nunavut says the suicide rate in Canada's youngest territory continues to climb. 107 Nunavut residents have taken their own lives since the territory was formed just four years ago. A conference on the problem opens in Iqualit.