Having returned to L.A., after a stopover is Cambridge, MA, I thought it was worth reflecting on the Liberal leadership race. While partisan Liberals will tell you that the Convention changed the nature of the party in fundamental ways, I am more skeptical.

Is the party more united after the Convention than before?
You bet. Stephane Dion is well-liked within Liberal circles (even though he is loathed by a good many Quebecers). People say he has no enemies, although he was somewhat pedantic towards less-than-meticulate MPs when he first arrived in Ottawa. But, let’s be honest, Dion was a compromise candidate. You could sense that in the room after the intial euphoria wore off. For the one-third of the room that were Kennedy and Dion supporters, they were genuinely excited about the result. For the rest, they were happy that someone else didn’t win (namely, Bob Rae or Michael Ignatieff, didn’t get elected). The Party is in better shape with Dion than with Ignatieff or Rae, who turned out to be rather polarizing figures.

So does Stephane Dion’s election mean a shift in Liberal culture?
Maybe a little bit. An emphasis on economic prosperity and social justice has always been a Liberal trademark, although Dion’s academic background, rather than Paul Martin’s business background should mean a great emphasis on policy. Certainly, there will be a greater emphasis on the environment. It remains to be seen whether Dion can win votes on sustainable development (I’d like to think so, however it often falls on deaf ears and rarely becomes a ballot question). But, Dion represents continuity with the past, more so than a break.

Will Dion’s election mean a more results-oriented Liberal Party?
I have my doubts. Throughout the campaign, Dion was rather defensive about his record as Environment Minister, when he put together a plan, but says didn’t have time to implement it. Perhaps that’s true. But, in my experience, academics like Dion are better at theory than practice, and are often unwilling to make the messy tradeoffs necessary to turn a perfect plan into less-than-perfect action. If Ignatieff and Kennedy’s people are given an opportunity to rebuild the party, the culture could change to reflect Kennedy’s motto “we will be judged by what we do, not what we say”. On the environment, plans are not good enough, real results are all that matters at this point. If Dion gets that, then hopefully he will learn to “get it done” (as Ignatieff chastized him for not doing before).

Does Stephane Dion’s election represent a victory for the grassroots?
Not exactly. Certainly, delegates did not follow the will of the power brokers at the Convention. But I wouldn’t characterize Dion’s campaign as a grassroots-led affair since he had a good share of long-time Liberal organizers on his team. Recall that much of Dion’s momentum came late in the campaign when he lured a lot of ex-officios his way. However, his fundraising efforts (the $100 revolution) were certainly the most grassroots of the four frontrunners. I think Kennedy’s campaign was more bottom-up (and Martha Hall Findlay’s even more so) — remember Kennedy wasn’t even on the radar of people outside of Toronto, and not having been involved with federal politics, he relied heavily on mobilizing local support. So to the extent that Kennedy and his team become a central part of the rebuilding effort, then Dion’s victory should change the way policies are set. But I have my doubts. Most academics, as “experts” themselves, tend to place an emphasis on hard data that specialists provide; this often runs counter to listening to everyday people, which is more Kennedy’s style. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

(more…)

Click image for our live coverage of the Liberal Leadership Convention. GO HERE FOR ALL OUR COVERAGE.

Liberal Leadership Candidates Drop the Ball on Cities
By Gregory D. Morrow

Apparently, Canadian cities¹ are doing just fine, if the Liberal leadership candidates’ silence on urban issues is any indication. Perhaps the candidates simply want to disavow themselves of Paul Martin’s “New Deal for Cities (and Communities).” Or perhaps they see the New Deal as a done deal. Maybe they think cities are beyond federal jurisdiction. Or maybe they claim that their platforms “span the issues” relevant to cities, thus no explicit urban policies are necessary. Whatever the reason, cities have not been on the radar of any of the leading candidates.

This silence is worrisome because it perpetuates the belief that policies should be divorced from the realities of geography — i.e. that it is OK to forward universal, top-down, one-size-fits-all policies, without taking in account the unique challenges and opportunities of different cities and regions (or even the basic differences between urban, suburban and rural circumstances). Yet, in an increasingly global world where the basic economic unit is the region (urban or not), our livelihood depends on both maximizing the unique assets of different cities and regions to leverage their competitive advantage and reducing the disparities between them. The overarching goal is to ensure all regions, urban and rural, service- or resource-centered, are thriving and self-sustaining. If the Liberal Party is to have credibility on economic and social issues, it must develop a more thoughtful package of urban and regional policies. Failure to do so endangers our international competitiveness and our quality of life.

The move away from Fordist mass production and trade-protected resource-based economies of the immediate post-war period towards increasing free trade, globalization and flexible-specialization production processes over the past 30 years, especially in the absence of federal urban policies, has produced a distinct pattern of development — urban agglomerations (the rapid growth of cities, and in particular, their urban edge) and, simultaneously, the decline of resource-based cities and towns and rural communities. This geography of globalization produces uneven development that exacerbates regional disparities and reduces the quality of life in both the declining regions (lost jobs, rapid population decline, crumbling infrastructure, lower health outcomes, etc) as well as in rapidly-growing city-regions (traffic congestion, pollution, doctor shortages, unmet infrastructure demand, etc). As I’ve argued elsewhere, confronting the new geography of globalization requires addressing the different challenges of unique regional circumstances. For example, in dense urban areas, transit, affordable housing, social and immigrant-settlement services are priorities. In rapidly-growing suburban regions, traffic congestion, smog, and meeting the infrastructure demand are priorities. In declining resource-based towns and rural areas, economic development to attract private investment and new jobs is the first priority. And contrary to the belief that urban and regional policies infringe on provincial jurisdiction, the federal government has an important role to play in strategically positioning our regions as economic engines, while at the same time, reducing disparities between them. In fact, this role is constitutionally mandated — Part III (Equalization and Regional Disparities), Section 36(b) of the Constitution states that: “Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to … furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities.”

Yet, despite the importance of urban and regional policy to our social and economic livelihood, it appears that the Liberal leadership candidates have dropped the ball. Despite long lists of policy topics — environment, foreign policy, aboriginals, agriculture, health care, etc — remarkably, not one candidate specifically addresses “cities”. Michael Ignatieff acknowledges the urban and regional imperative when he says “The great undiscussed national unity issue in Canada is the growing disparity between urban and rural and between our metropolitan areas and our regions.”² But, his platform doesn’t address the cities agenda. Ignatieff’s only references to cities are boilerplate: “investing in low emission public transportation for our metropolitan areas,”³ and “the recognition of our cities and a plan for ensuring that they have the financial means to meet the challenges that lie ahead.”⁴ Bob Rae’s policies on cities and regions are equally absent. His only reference is in a speech given to the Economic Club of Toronto, where he said, “we need more and better mass transit systems in our cities to combat gridlock, conserve energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and make our cities more livable and appealing.”⁵ Remarkably, despite a platform built on sustainable development and social justice, Stephane Dion doesn’t talk about cities at all. Gerard Kennedy is not much better. He talks about cities only in reference to the “urban/rural destination divide” for new immigrants. Ken Dryden talks about the need “to lessen the differences in day-to-day living between urban and rural living,”⁶ but offer no policies to get there. His only other mention of cities, like others, is boilerplate: “promote initiatives to move away from auto-centered urban transport to a system that would prominently feature public transport and the development of integrated communities that promote bicycle use and walking.”⁷ Scott Brison, Joe Volpe, and Martha Hall Findlay likewise have said nothing about cities.

Reducing regional disparities and securing a competitive advantage for our unique cities and regions is both a unity issue, a social issue, and an economic issue. As Liberals meet this week to debate the future of their party, and quite possible, the country, let’s hope they insist that their future leaders take seriously the need for urban and regional policies; failure to do endangers our international competitiveness and our quality of life.

Gregory D. Morrow is an urban planner and is currently a PhD candidate at the University of California, Los Angeles. Most recently, he was a Lecturer in Urban Studies & Planning at MIT. He has written a forthcoming book on the origins of city planning in Toronto.

NOTES
¹ I use the term “cities” as shorthand for cities or regions (which may or may not be urban) or city-regions (which are urban agglomerations like the Greater Toronto Area).
² Michael Ignatieff, “Agenda for Nation-Building” (Fall 2006): 10.
³ Ignatieff, “Agenda” 14.
⁴ Ignatieff, “Agenda” 30.
⁵ Bob Rae, “Charting Canada’s Course: Why the prosperity agenda
matters in the search for a sustainable and just future,” Notes for a speech by the Hon. Bob Rae, To the Economic Club of Toronto (June 6, 2006): 7.
⁶ Ken Dryden, “A Big Canada: Politics With a Purpose. Politics With a Passion” (Fall 2006): 11.
⁷ Dryden, “A Big Canada” 17.

Stay tuned to DemocraticSPACE for blow-by-blow coverage of the Liberal Convention. Behind the scenes blogging, audio interviews, analysis and more!

If you will be in Montreal and want to meet up, feel free to drop me a note — Greg

Gerard Kennedy says ‘nation’ motion is divisive. The resolution hasn’t even passed yet and already, its divisiveness has begun. Phil Fontaine is absolutely correct:

“Any action that elevates the status of one segment of Canadian society over another is completely wrong. There is a real appreciation in Canada that we don’t do nation building in this way.”

“What is unfortunate about this motion is the omission of any reference of first peoples. We should not be seen as peoples of a lesser status than others in Canada, including the Québécois.”

Update: Even Tory cabinet ministers are upset. Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Michael Chong has resigned from cabinet over the Quebecois/nation motion. The divisiveness continues…

“I believe in one nation undivided, called Canada,” said Chong.

While there are many in Quebec that will disagree with him, Gerard Kennedy has decided that he cannot in good conscience support Stephen Harper’s motion to recognize the Quebecois as a nation within Canada. Kennedy will hold a press conference tomorrow to explain his decision. This is a principled stand and, in my opinion, the right decision. The resolution as it stands does not define the key terms that are at stake — that is, what constitutes the Quebec nation. The resolution avoids the difficult questions by refering not to Quebec but to “the Quebecois”. But what constitutes “the Quebecois” (is it anyone resident within Quebec’s borders? only francophone Quebecers? if the intent is to recognize the francophone people, then say francophone people, thereby acknowledging the distinct contribution of francophones who live outside of Quebec). But most importantly, the resolution fails by not defining what it means by “nation” — does it mean civic nation? ethnic nation? sociological nation? It is essential that any resolution claiming “national” status of any sub-region or sub-group within Canada explain what that actually means. Moreover, the resolution promises nothing and delivers nothing. It simply raises Quebecers’ expectations and shows contempt for Quebecers desire for more autonomy.

There is little doubt that this is a difficult issue for everyone. Having spent my formative years in Quebec and been educated and worked there myself, I feel that I am, in part, a Quebecer. I have a strong sense of attachment to Quebec, and to Montreal in particular. Learning the Civil Code of Quebec as part of my education, attending sketching school in Quebec City, working in the Eastern Townships, living in Notre-Dame-de-Grace and the Plateau (which straddles the western anglo and eastern francophone halves of Montreal), proudly marching in Dominion Square in favour of the 1995 NO campaign (and casting my NO ballot at the local high school) — through all of this, I learned that Quebec is an amazing place, with so much to offer. But there as also a dark underbelly of unwritten codes — the old Quebec that rears its ugly head every so often. Not being “from Quebec” originally (and not having a Quebec name, unless I changed my name to Gregoire Moreau), I was also patently aware of the glass ceiling that comes by not being a “pure laine” Quebecer. All too common, even people born and raised in Quebec — as allophones — experience that same political barrier — not within politics itself but in their professional offices. A good friend of mine, a dyed-in-the-wool Montrealer if there ever was one, recently moved to Toronto because he, despite working for some of the best architects in Montreal, had reached that glass ceiling, unable to get the respect and responsibility that he had earned. This glass ceiling may well ensure that “pure laine” Quebecers retain important positions (understandable given the situation prior to the Quiet Revolution), but it holds Quebec back from achieving its true potential.

Through it all, I have always felt that Quebec a part of Canada, and that Canada was a part of Quebec. One people, with many different attributes, and many different regional identities, of which Quebec is surely the most distinct. Those leading the effort to recognize Quebec as a nation are right to build “national” status upon shared civil values. But those shared values mustn’t be built region-by-region, people-by-peope, but rather must be built together, in forging Canadian civil values — not as English and French people — but as something else, more than the sum of our parts. I have also come to understand that there is often a disconnect between the political rhetoric of Quebec’s politicians and the everyday feelings of its people. Quebecers, and francophone Quebecers in particular, are not so insecure that they need an empty declaration of who they are or are not — they know who they are, they know that their language, culture, and values are strong, distinct, and in no danger of perishing within a Canada that cherishes them so much. We dishonour and patronize Quebecers with an empty declaration that promises much, but delivers nothing. While others want a quick fix, to quickly sweep Quebec’s aspirations under the rug with a vapid declaration, Kennedy understands that Harper’s resolution (while better than the Liberal resolution), raises and dashes hopes in one fell swoop. It’s not the answer for Quebec or Canada.

Other reaction…

Warren Kinsella:

Gerard Kennedy for leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Has a ring to it, right about now. I haven’t been enthusiastic about Gerard for the past few months, mainly because of some of the MPs who supported him. As Calgary Grit told me, you can’t always choose your supporters. True enough. As of right now, Gerard Kennedy is the guy who most deserves to be the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. He deserves to win. If I was a delegate, I’d sure as Hell be voting for him. What he has done, here took guts, and character, and leadership – something the Liberal Party of Canada desperately needs. Canada, too. Gerard will be under tremendous pressure from the elites to reverse his position, or qualify it. I don’t think he will. On Sunday, I communicated with many of the senior people around him. They say he will not reverse his position, as others have done this week. Folks, this is a big, big development. One week from now, I think this guy just might be the new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada!

Paul Wells:

This is pretty big stuff. Kennedy’s chances of becoming the next Liberal leader — or at least of bumping off Stéphane Dion, with whom he was headed for a knife fight for third place — just improved considerably. He will be rolling out the names of prominent new supporters as early as Monday, as a direct result of this decision.

I am struck by several stories this morning that coalesce around a theme: renewal.

Story 1: Justin Trudeau and Gerard Kennedy
(Justin Trudeau’s endorsement of Gerard Kennedy/Roy MacGregor’s profile).
There are those, particularly amongst the Ignatieff camp, who believe that none of the candidates represents what Justin’s father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, stood for. Certainly, nobody would be foolish enough to claim that regurgitating what Trudeau said a generation ago is sufficient in the present. But there is a difference between building upon what Trudeau did for Canada, and re-writing history to discount the successes of Trudeau’s vision for Canada.

Justin Trudeau has had both the benefit and burden of living up to his father’s name. But he is an accomplished person in his own right, using his name to speak passionately for worthy causes. His public acclaim is probably premature, since he hasn’t yet run for office, preferring instead to raise awareness for youth and environmental issues outside of the political arena. This has given Justin a strong sense of what people in non-governmental organizations are doing. And it is precisely this experience running against the tides of political power that differentiates Justin from his father. While Pierre Elliott Trudeau defended centralizing power in the best traditions of good government, Justin recognizes that the twenty-first century will not be based on centralized authority, but rather upon the collective mobilization of the grassroots.

Sooner or later, Trudeau will run for office — less for his own glory, but because he knows that the centralized political power of the Liberal Party of late has not unleashed the potential of the grassroots. While the Liberal Party claims authorship of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, its actions of the recent past have favoured holding power over mobilizing individuals, which lies at the heart of liberalism. The goal of empowering people — of principle — has given way to a machine more interested in winning at all costs. What Trudeau and many others fighting for causes outside of government understand, more so than many in politics, is that the future will be built from the bottom-up, not the top-down. And in this sense, Justin departs from his father. Good government is no longer enough — people want to have an active hand in the management of public affairs. And so, in endorsing Gerard Kennedy, Justin Trudeau understands what the thousands of Canadians who have listened to Kennedy understand — that Kennedy’s vision for the Liberal Party isn’t about power, it’s about recognizing what is needed today. As Trudeau said:

“This has been a party that has drifted away from the grassroots toward the corporate donorship that has always worked but no longer works in Canada right now. We need to be really brave about taking a fresh look and listening to people and sharing the power and the privilege of power that the Canadian people keep granting the Liberal Party.”

Story 2: Ignatieff v. Rae
(on the alleged “smear campaign” by Rae on Ignatieff)
Contrasting with the Kennedy/Trudeau message of renewal and mobilizing the grassroots is a story that seems eerily familiar — the story of two rivals fighting to win the prize of power. The figureheads are different but the machines behind them are the same — instead of Martin v. Chretien, we have Ignatieff v. Rae (many of Martin’s rainmakers are behind Ignatieff and many of Chretien’s rainmakers are behind Rae, the occasional cross-over notwithstanding). In contrast to the sense of real renewal and charting a course that returns the Liberal Party back to the principle of empowering people, the Ignatieff v. Rae battle is petty, shallow, and has nothing to do with principle — it is a pure grab for power. At issue is whether a paid Rae organizer is “posing” as a grassroots member on blogs, issuing pro-Rae, and anti-Ignatieff commentary. As Brad Davis, Ignatieff’s national policy director claims:

“We’re very concerned to learn that Bob Rae has possibly hired a professional communications firm to pose as a grassroots supporter in a dirty smear campaign against Michael Ignatieff.”

In the end, this is a personal battle between old college rivals playing itself out in the public sphere, co-opting the Liberal party with new battlelines. Far from being about renewal, this battle represents more of the same.

Story 3: Renewal vs. Winnability
(on Tom Axworthy’s commentary on the choices Liberal delegates face)
And so we come to our third storyline. Liberal delegates have a choice between picking sides of a replayed old rivalry — a feverish battle for the prize of power, or charting a new Liberalism based on real renewal, one that mobilizes the grassroots and empowers individuals. Axworthy captures the feeling of uneasiness among the Liberal rank-and-file and the what is necessary to address it:

“…almost without exception, there is a deep feeling of disillusionment. Local Liberals feel they have no influence over the party’s direction… To fix this malaise will require a root and branch reform of all the institutions of the Liberal Party, starting with money. If local members and constituencies are to reacquire the power that they have lost over decades to centralized party structures, they must be the determining body of how the public subsidy allocated to parties is to be spent.”

And so it is. Justin Trudeau’s endorsement of Gerard Kennedy signals not a return to his father’s era, but a new Liberalism based on principle and real renewal. Kennedy is the only candidate that understands what the new Liberalism is about — mobilizing the grassroots and empowering individuals — and he’s the only candidate that has commited to reduce the power of the Leader (and ultimately, the Prime Minister) in order to achieve that individual empowerment. This marks a contrast with the kind of “renewal” offered by Ignatieff and Rae — that is, a re-play of old battles. Liberal delegates must choose which direction they want for their party, and for their country.

The text of the resolution says the House will: “recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.” Let’s be clear: the resolution does not recognize Quebec as a nation, it recognizes that the “the Québécois form a nation.” So what does it mean by Québécois? Wikipedia’s entry on Québécois states the following:

In Canadian English, a Québécois (IPA: /kebe’kwa/), or in the feminine Québécoise (IPA: /kebe’kwaz/), is a francophone native or resident of the province of Quebec, Canada. The term may also refer to a Quebecker who identifies with Quebec’s French-speaking majority culture or someone of French-Canadian descent.

If the Harper government meant “everyone in Quebec”, why use the term “Québécois” and not simply Quebecers, or “the people of Quebec”? Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the resolution means “francophone Quebecers”. As such, the interpretation of the resolution is that the House recognizes that francophone Quebecers form a nation. Will this satisfy Quebecers?

Trying to disfuse a Bloc Quebecois motion that stated simply: “That this House recognize(s) that Quebecers form a nation,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper today introduced a competing motion that would recognize Quebecers “as a nation within a united Canada”.

Update: the text is actually to “recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.” Importantly, the resolution does not state that Quebec (the political jurisdiction) forms a nation. But, still, the meaning of the expression is ambiguous. The first ambiguity is in the term “the Québécois”; do they mean everyone living in Quebec? or francophone Quebecers? (NB. Québécois in the past, at least outside of Quebec, has often been taken to mean “francophone Quebecers”) The second ambiguity is the term “nation”. Do they mean sociological nation? civic nation? ethnic nation? Are we to take “nation” to mean its English meaning (i.e. often synonymous with country)? or its French meaning (i.e. often synonymous with “people”)? It’s unclear, especially in light of the first ambiguity. If the intent is to recognize francophone Quebecers as an ethnic nation, I have no problem with that. If the intent is to recognize all Quebecers as a civic nation, I also don’t have a problem with that (although it’s not a particularly distinct declaration, since there are many regions within Canada that qualify as civic nations). So, the intent of the resolution needs much clarification.

I have just received a copy of a small essay entitled “Canada as a Country, Quebec as a Nation: Avoiding the Quagmire” by Professor Errol Mendes, Professor of Law at the University of Ottawa (and editor-in-chief of the National Journal of Constitutional Law). This is a follow-up to the Ignatieff/Apps/Quebec-is-a-Nation thingy. Take a look HERE (100kb PDF). Feel free to discuss…

(Please note this article is copyrighted and should not be redistributed without permission of the author)