I find it shocking that the Liberal Party of Canada cannot or will not publish comparable lists of financial contributions for all 10 leadership candidates.

First, Michael Ignatieff’s July contribution report (Note: 6.3MB PDF) lists no contributions after June 30 (i.e. no contributions for July). Obviously, Ignatieff received contributions for July, so why are they not listed?

Second, Joe Volpe’s July contribution report (Note: 1.2MB PDF) was absent until yesterday. When it was published, it did not contain the hometown of the contributors, as all the other campaigns had. Why are Volpe’s contributors’ hometowns hidden when all the other campaigns are not? I also find it odd that Volpe’s report was sent via fax from AIM Health Group, a private national health care services company, as is clearly shown on the report (fax # 905-475-6134).

It is incumbent upon the Liberal Party to publish comparable contribution reports for all candidates, so that the public can compare them equally. Failure to publish lists equally introduces a bias in the campaign that undermines the legitimacy of the leadership contest.

I hereby request that the Liberal Party of Canada instruct the Ignatieff campaign and the Volpe campaign to upload new July contribution reports that contains the names and hometowns of all of its contributors.

UPDATE:
I have been assured by John Arnold, the Director of Finance and Administration for the Liberal Party, that the July report for the Volpe campaign will be updated to include the city information. As for the missing July contributions, he notes that they get logged when the contributions are returned from the party to the campaigns. It appears that they did not return those contributions to the Ignatieff campaign before the July 31 deadline, so they will appear in the August contribution report.

UPDATE 2:
John tells me that the July contributions report is the only report required by the candidates, outside of the statutory reports (next one ending Sept 30 and due out something before Oct 31). Well, that’s convenient, isn’t it! So the Party didn’t return Ignatieff’s July contributions before the deadline, so we don’t get to see them until after the delegate selection meetings. It is very odd that Ignatieff’s July report is the only report that shows no July contributions. Hmm…

Afghan Mission Must Balance Security and Development
By Gregory D. Morrow

It should be clear to all Canadians that Afghanistan is to Canada as Iraq is to the United States. Both are breeding grounds for terrorists, both populations are often without basic services, both have witnessed civilians and foreign forces being killed at an increasing rate, and both are occupied by a Western military presence that everyday people now do not want. The problem in Iraq, as every reasonable people knows, is the U.S. emphasis on fighting the enemy (a confusing mix of imported terrorists and local Iraqis who just want foreign occupiers out), without the same time, energy and resources committed to helping build the institutions, civil society, and economy for Iraq to be truly independent. Clearly, both the immediate security problems and the long-term development problems must be addressed in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Unfortunately, Canada has adopted the failed U.S. policy in Iraq, i.e. that development can only occur once the country is secure. Moreover, any debate in Canada about the relative weight of security vs. development has been largely stifled, much like it has in the U.S., by those who argue any change from the status quo is a betrayal of our troops, and framed as a “cut-and-run” policy.

With this in mind, Liberal leadership candidate Gerard Kennedy this week called for a new strategy in Afghanistan. As Kennedy said:

“By focusing solely on military objectives in Afghanistan, Prime Minister Harper is making the same mistakes that the Bush administration made in Iraq and it will lead to similar long-term failure. The Prime Minister has failed to answer the fundamental question of whether we are building a civil society in Afghanistan along with the Afghani people, or simply occupying a troublesome part of the world. ”

(more…)

DemocraticSPACE would like to extend our deepest condolences to the family and friends of Benoit Sauvageau, Bloc Quebecois MP for Repentigny, who was killed in a traffic accident this afternoon.

Parliament Profile
Bloc Quebecois Profile
Wikipedia Profile

BQ MP dies in Montreal area accident
Aug. 28, 2006. 03:55 PM

The 42-year-old Sauvageau was elected to the House of Commons in 1993 and represents the riding of Repentigny.

In a move that is sure to shake up the Canadian political landscape, the Green Party of Canada has elected Elizabeth May as its new leader. May, 52, is one of Canada’s most renowned and respected leaders of the environmental movement. Known for her clear and passionate speaking, May’s experience and strong political connections give the Greens instant credibility. May garnered the support of 65.6% of Green members on the first ballot (2,145 votes), easily winning the leadership over David Chernushenko (1,096 votes or 33.5%). Jim Fannon had 29 votes (0.9%). May becomes the only woman leader among the Canada’s five major political parties.

While its strong environmental policies come as no surprise, many Canadians have yet to realize that the Green Party represents a full-service political party, with innovative policies on the economy, trade, health care, education, foreign affairs, and defense. While sustainability has been a keyword applied to the environment for some time, the Greens are pushing for sustainability in social and economic policies as well, combining fiscal responsibility (including balanced budgets) with results-oriented progressive social programs (including health care and education). Also unique among Canada’s political parties, the Greens platform and priorities are set, not through a top-down policy process among a select few insiders, but rather through a bottom-up, grassroots process that engages Canadians at the local level.

For Canadians looking for a progressive, grassroots, populist option, the Green Party lead by Elizabeth May are surely a force to be reckoned with going forward.

UPDATE:
We regret to inform our readers that we will not be covering the 2006 New Brunswick Election after all. For the past two weeks, we have tried to get from the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer a transposition of the 2003 results in their current riding configuration (the electoral districts have changed since 2003). Unfortunately, it appears that New Brunswick did not make that calculation when they changed their ridings (unlike, for example, Ontario, which has published such a transposition of votes (104 kb XLS file) since they are moving from 103 to 107 ridings for their upcoming election). As a result, any projection model that uses the old riding configurations would not accurately reflect the current state of affairs. We apologize for inconvenience. We would suggest that readers contact the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer to request that they publish a transposition of votes when making future changes to the ridings.

***

In light of Bernard Lord’s election call in New Brunswick on Thursday (set for September 18), over the next week, DemocraticSPACE will launch its New Brunswick 2006 election coverage. So stay tuned here for riding-by-riding forums, polls and seat projections.

Want to have a say in who becomes the Green Party Leader? Even if you are not a Green member, you can vote right now at http://www.greenparty.ca; out-going leader Jim Harris will cast his ballot for the candidate who leads the internet balloting by tomorrow’s vote at the Green Party Convention. Go on over and send in your vote.

I will update this post as new information is available. The Liberal Party screwed up the release of this information, revealing donors addresses and phone numbers by accident. So what is listed at the Liberal website are whited out raw forms, which are not terribly useful, nor do they reflect what the campaigns say they’ve raised. One has to wonder about the competence at the national office.

According to the CBC’s story, here are the latest fundraising numbers (I am assuming these are total numbers from the context of the story, rather than just the July numbers, but this needs to be clarified). Frankly, I’m more interested in the number of donors and where they come from than the total dollar amounts (the former is the only measure of support; the latter measure simply measures whether a candidate’s is getting big donations or not).

To clarify my argument about Ignatieff/fundraising/grassroots vs elites, since this has prompted some discussion here and there:

1. Ignatieff lead all campaigns in the number of donations, period. That is not in question.

2. In question is whether those donations represent the elite or the grassroots.

3. I was interested in who was donating and at what levels. From a simple random sampling of all donations to all campaigns I found there was a tipping point at $200 — most of those above this threshold were from business executives, lawyers, ex-officios, and intellectuals — what I call “the elites”. Most of those below this threshold were from everyday Canadians — what I call “the grassroots”.

4. So, the point isn’t to dispute that the Ignatieff campaign dominated the donations but rather to refute the claim made by Ted Betts at Cerberus that Ignatieff’s large numbers represent an “outpouring of grassroots financial support”.

5. Why do I think that it is premature to make such a claim? Because we haven’t seen many grassroots supporters make donations yet. Over two-thirds of the early donations were from elites (which comprises about 10% of the population), while less than one-third was from the grassroots (which comprises about 90% of the population). It defies logic to claim widespread support among the grassroots, when only a small segment of grassroots supporters have made donations to date.

(more…)

I read with interest Ted’s claim at Cerberus that Michael Ignatieff’s large campaign donations “speaks to a real grassroots support” and that it “reflected in the outpouring of grassroots financial support”. It should be noted that Ted, a Toronto lawyer, himself donated $500 to Ignatieff, so he clearly has his money where his mouth is, and vice versa. I was interested in seeing whether Ignatieff’s campaign was truly grassroots or not, so I looked at the donor list carefully. First, let’s start with a defintion of grassroots, from the source-of-all-knowledge, Wikipedia:

GRASSROOTS
“A grassroots political movement is one driven from below by the fundamental constituents of a community. The term implies that the genesis of the described political movement is natural, even spontaneous, and imposes a dichotomy between this and a movement orchestrated from above by traditional power structures.” (Wikipedia)

ELITES
“A relatively small dominant group within a larger society, which enjoys a privileged status which is upheld by individuals of lower social status within the structure of a group. An elite is the result of economic and political forces within a social structure.” (Wikipedia)

(edited to add Elites definition)

To paraphrase, “grassroots” is support from the bottom-up by every-day citizens, as opposed to support from above by a relatively small dominant group that enjoys economic and political power. So, are Michael Ignatieff’s donors from everyday Canadians (from the grassroots)? NO. Here’s my rationale….

(more…)

This is a bit late, but important. One of the most important political philosophers of the last two decades, University of Chicago professor Iris Marion Young, died August 1 after a fight with cancer. Young was best known for her work on justice, race, and difference. Her 1990 book Justice and the Politics of Difference was (and still is) a landmark. This work critically re-evaluated the liberal theory of justice (most forcefully argued by John Rawls in his 1971 A Theory of Justice), arguing that social differences should be affirmed not suppressed.

Importantly, Young combined her academic work with political work on the ground, fighting for women’s rights, workers rights, and debt relief for Africa.

And importantly — a lesson to all academics — she was a generous person. As one colleague said, “It never ceased to amaze me how someone of such immense scholarly stature and distinction could be so unfailingly generous with her students and so completely egalitarian with her colleagues”.

A big loss.