Monti L., J. Chevrier and C. Guly. “The Changing of the Guard” 
The New Federation 6.4 (2002): 5-8.

The Changing of the Guard
by Lorne Monti, Jean Chevrier and Christopher Guly 

Dodge City

Last summer the public was treated to the spectacle of the citizens of the Liberal party deciding they were going to run Marshall Jean out of Dodge. It was determined that after three majority governments it was time for the old gunslinger to go. He had unceremoniously demoted Paul Martin, who was rustling delegates for a run at national sheriff, while still being the Finance Minister. The expulsion didn’t sit well with the Liberal townsfolk. To prevent a gunfight at the party convention in November, Marshall Jean announced he was departing on the first train in 2004 – which is when he had always planned to leave anyway. As columnist Richard Gywn puts it, “very adroitly, Chrétien has recast himself as the champion of party unity. He’s stepping down for the good of the family because Canadians ‘don’t like’ to see it divided and hence unable to govern. ... With Chrétien recast as the champion of unity, Martin is at risk of finding himself stigmatized as the advocate of division.” 
Contrary to the opinion of many pundits, there is no such thing as a lame duck Prime Minister. Unlike an American president who needs Congress to pass his legislation, the Prime Minister has no such impediment. This leaves Chrétien free to pursue his personal agenda in his final days. His pronouncements, both at home and at the United Nations on the need to end global poverty, is putting Canada at the forefront of this issue much as she was on the land mines treaty and on the development of a world court. He has civil service and Medicare reform to deal with, as well as the Kyoto Accord, and, since he does not need to worry about re-election, he can leave the fallout, if there is any, to his successor. In addition, he could attempt to derail the frontrunner in the leadership race – a point Martin himself has already acknowledged by declining to reveal the sources of his campaign contributions until the official race begins for fear of political reprisals from the Prime Minister’s Office. 
Certainly, Chrétien has an astonishing number of tools at his disposal to reward loyalty – from awarding government contracts to making appointments to the Senate or Cabinet. 
Still, the leadership contest looks good for Paul Martin as, unencumbered by the responsibility of office, he now has the time to rope more delegates in preparation for a leadership convention, whenever it should occur. At present, the only hope Alan Rock, Shelia Copps, John Manley et al appear to have is to form an anyone-but-Martin posse in the expectation that, should Martin fail to garner fifty percent of the delegates on the first ballot at the leadership convention, a dark horse compromise candidate may outdraw him. Conceivably, it might be Chrétien who orchestrates the anti-Martin campaign. He may just spend the Martin surplus on his own personal agenda, as he now appears to be doing, leaving Martin little money with which to make campaign promises. 
The problem Martin will have is remaining relevant as a backbench sheriff-in-waiting for the next year and a half. While his competitors will be riding the government stagecoach as cabinet ministers, with the attendant prestige associated with office, Martin will be galloping around the barbecue and rodeo circuit attempting to stay in the limelight.
It should be remembered Martin’s father made three unsuccessful attempts at winning the leadership. Widely regarded as one of Canada’s most effective cabinet ministers, Paul Martin, Sr. actively tried for the party’s top post in 1958 and 1968.
As Conrad Winn, president of COMPAS Research, and a political science professor at Carleton University in Ottawa, explains, “When you’re the son of a man who was almost leader, you have two people you need to please – and one of them is yourself.
Think of U.S. President George W. Bush and former vice-president and presidential candidate Al Gore. Two men who sought to follow their father’s ambitions to the White House – with one perhaps more genetically gifted than the other. Perhaps, then, Martin is a bit like Gore. 
As historian Jack Granatstein explains, Martin “wants to succeed where Daddy didn’t, but Daddy was smart and Daddy didn’t have to be in the position of destroying social-welfare policies as Martin had to with his budgets. While Martin might say, ‘I had to do what I had to do.’ The answer always is, ‘Yeah, but did you have to do it that way?’” Expect such accusations to be thrown at Martin. 
A factor that may ultimately influence the leadership outcome is whether the Liberal party decides it wants to return to its tradition of firing from the left rather than the right. This would be a tremendous advantage to Alan Rock and Sheila Copps, both of whom are younger, more progressive and quicker on the draw than Martin. 
Despite this, Martin remains formidable. Journalist Chantal Hébert writes that in Quebec, “Martin and his record emerged as the top reason why more Quebecers chose the Liberals than the other parties in the 2000 election. That was particularly true of those who switched from the Bloc Quebecois and the Tories.” He is popular in Ontario as well. It is rumoured that even some Alliance and Conservative cowpokes could vote for him after a few shots of whiskey due to his reputation as a fiscal conservative and his advocacy of voting reform in the House of Commons.
With all the other candidates running so far behind in the polls (less than ten percent), perhaps the Liberals could save themselves lots of money by just appointing Martin by acclamation.
For now, Marshall Jean has 18 months of luxury as he rides into the sunset concentrating on creating a legacy for himself. That is unless pistol-packing Paul, tired of waiting, rounds up a lynch mob to induce Chrétien into leaving earlier.

The Feud

“‘Tis strange, ‘tis passing strange,” to paraphrase Shakespeare. The vendetta between the Montagues and the Capulets continues on the fractious right of the Canadian political spectrum. As a result, it is yet to be seen who will win the internecine feud between the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance. How to escape the clutches of the five-party system that has always favoured the ruling Liberals, “is the question?” This predicament has been played out in the last three elections. And all signs, prognostications and stark analyses suggest that the scenario is bound to repeat itself in the next election as well unless both parties take effective remedial action.
There are two competing visions when it comes to the future of the Progressive Conservative party. One is the “go it alone option” without any association with the Canadian Alliance. The other is for the Conservatives and the Alliance to come together. 
Under Joe Clark, a brief attempt at forbidden love between the Conservatives and a small party of moderate Alliance members led by Chuck Straul and Debra Grey succeeded at first, but failed when the dissidents returned to the fold with the election of Stephen Harper. In the end, family ties were too strong for both sides and the romance floundered. 
Fundamentally, these are two incompatible cultures. The Alliance espouses the simplistic doctrine of libertarianism, while the Progressive Conservatives are centrist Tories, and, paradoxically, have more in common with the Liberals than with the Alliance.
In addition, each party has a serious flaw. In the Alliance’s case, it is policy. While the pro-gun, pro-America, anti-tax philosophy may be popular in the petroleum-based monoculture of Alberta where one party has been in power for over thirty years, in mainstream Canada it has very little resonance – except for the most cantankerous voter. Moreover, its policy on constitutional and parliamentary reform, which is also supported by the PCs, was rejected by a majority of Canadians during the referendum on the Charlottetown Accord.
For the Conservatives, the problem to a large extent has been leadership, and the nearly impossible task of resurrecting the party after it was decimated. 
But the Conservatives are now engorged with desirable leadership candidates, from the esteemed retired General Lewis Mackenzie, to the celebrated Bernard Lord, the successful Mike Harris, the articulate Hugh Segal and the ineffable Peter MacKay. Some of them may need the support of a strong Quebec lieutenant to offset their lack of fluency in French. New and inspired leadership is what is needed to convince voters that real change is needed after years of Liberal arrogance, scandals and internal conflicts. 
In contrast, Stephen Harper’s less than enrapturing performance for the Alliance has not done much to improve his party’s standings.
Fortuitously for the Conservatives, this could change the entire dynamic. With its strong base of support in Atlantic Canada, and some success in Quebec and Ontario, the Tories could conceivably become the dominant centre-right party without requiring a coalition. Regrettably, it may take one or more elections to deal the coup de grace to the Alliance, unless new PC leadership creates an overwhelming wave of support across the country. With fresh leadership, the Tories could then introduce a new agenda that includes a commitment to bringing our battered dollar to the level of 80 cents (U.S.); electing our Governor-General or members of the Senate; a new tax-sharing arrangement between Ottawa and the provinces; extending private healthcare to better serve the public; alleviating student debt; or establishing one key unity project, in conjunction with the private sector (e.g., year-round travel incentives for Canadian families to discover their country).
The other option, if it becomes necessary, is to forge a coalition with the Alliance. It is altogether surprising that after so many discussions on this topic, over such a long period of time, both parties have not been able to sit down and negotiate like partners in an effort to unseat the Liberals.
Since taking power in 1988, the Liberals have been a powerhouse, putting up incredible numbers survey after survey. Good management in a conservative era has served them well. But the five-party system has ensured their survival, giving them the tools to impose their divide-and-conquer strategy. And unscrupulously, the Liberals have stolen the best policies of their opponents: Free Trade and the GST from the Conservatives; debt reduction and a get-tough policy against separatists from the Canadian Alliance.
It would be only fitting if these parties tried to get together one more time and, turning the tables on the Liberals, hammering out a two-pronged deal that would see the end of vote-splitting at the riding level and the adoption of a bold new agenda for the country. Both initiatives are required to make the case and to convince voters. An agreement on a joint candidacy alone could be seen as an electoral ploy if left unsubstantiated. On that score, the Liberals have downplayed or neglected so many fundamental issues (e.g., the dollar, health care, ethics, taxation, trade, national defence, democratization) that it shouldn’t be impossible for the Alliance and Tories to agree on a number of priority areas and policies to put in place if they form the next government. One scenario, which should not be underestimated, is a minority government, with the Tories picking up some twenty-five to forty seats and the Canadian Alliance holding on to its seats in the West.
If the PC’s are not successful in attracting the likes of Bernard Lord to become leader, then maybe the next best option would be for Clark and Harper to get together and hammer out a coalition. Certainly the cause of uniting all conservatives under one umbrella would be a rare accomplishment. To seal the coalition, both leaders could even agree to serve two years each as Prime Minister if they won the election. Many Canadian Prime Ministers have served for much shorter periods and most Canadians would likely see this as a remarkable compromise. The other option would be to let the outcome be determined by the party that wins the largest number of seats, or whose leader has the support of the other parties in a minority situation.
But the Tories must not panic. They should wait to see how their leadership question plays out before they attempt another rapprochement with the Alliance. Everyone knows how the star-crossed love affair between Romeo and Juliet ended!

Looking for a Messiah

Not since Tommy Douglas came down from the Saskatchewan plains with the socialist commandments of the CCF has the left in Canada equaled its former influence. Although, like Moses, he never saw the promised land of federal power, the tablets he brought would define the social democratic character of Canada, from healthcare to welfare, for the succeeding thirty years. There were many prophets after him, including David Lewis and Ed Broadbent, but their supplicants have lost the way. What the NDP needs now is a new messiah of the left to revive a movement that in recent times has become moribund. But who can become the saviour to convert the masses to a modern vision of social democracy? 
Canadian Auto Workers union chief, Buzz Hargrove, believes the NDP party needs a clear political mission. “We already have three staunchly pro-business parties competing against one another. We don’t need another one.” He is against those that believe the NDP’s fortunes would be enhanced by embracing a middle-of-the-road, business-friendly ideology. As far as he’s concerned, the electoral arithmetic that has rewarded parties like Tony Blair’s New Labour – whose policies are indistinguishable from Canada’s Liberals – clearly doesn’t apply in Canada. 
The leadership contest could have used a fire and brimstone Savonarola like Buzz to remind the party of its Old Testament roots. However, Hargrove’s puritanical social democracy has made him plenty of enemies in the movement, who would like to see him hung and burned like Savonarola, too. This fact may have persuaded him not to run for the leadership. It’s unlikely he would have very much middle class appeal either.
Unfortunately for Lorne Nystrom, he is an icon of the social democratic Dark Ages of the nineties, which floundered under the leadership of Audrey McLaughlin and Alexa McDonough.
Bill Blaikie is a good, straightforward disciple of the founding rural principles of the CCF. Being orthodox enough, he could have appeal to both the labour and farming wings of the party. His shortcoming may be a certain lacklustre and little attractiveness to urban voters.
Then, miraculously walking across the waters of Lake Ontario, comes Toronto City Councilor, Jack Layton, a smooth, pragmatic, telegenic new face on the national scene. Born in Quebec, he is bilingual. Because of the nature of municipal politics, Layton has actually drafted and enacted legislation, which is something his rivals have not. As the head of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, he has had some national exposure. He championed the cause of a greater role for large cities in the national political decision making process, which found a sympathetic ally in Paul Martin when he was Finance Minister. He has been active on issues of affordable housing and the environment, which makes him attractive to the vocal student movement. In addition, he is a former professor with a PhD who has written several books on various aspects of social democracy. And unlike former new face Stockwell Day, Layton really is cool. He is just the type of prophet who could appeal to the middle class parishioners that every party requires to succeed in Canadian politics.
His liability could be that, to the traditional farming parishioners of the NDP, he may resemble an unctuous big-city televangelist. And the unionist congregation may find him a bit too “downtown” for their liking. But he has charisma, so if anyone can charm these diverse factions, he can. 
The current problem for the NDP is to find a doctrine by which to convert the middleclass to the faith. The NDP’s traditional congregation of unionists and farmers has abandoned the party in recent times. In Ontario, union members voted for a tax cut and converted to the Tories provincially and the Liberals nationally. In the west, many farmers have been inculcated by Alliance evangelism. What makes the NDP position difficult is it is still dependent on a large proportion of its revenue from the collection plate of the unionist hierarchy, despite not receiving the electoral support of individual union members. 
“To modernize social-democracy is the only viable option,” according to Anthony Gibbens, who likes to repeat that the right does not have the monopoly on law and order (or anything else, for that matter). Mr. Gibbens, who is director of the prestigious London School of Economics and advisor to Tony Blair, says that political parties must seduce an electorate that knows no political bias. We know this from studies done during the last 20 years, he says. They show that the majority of the population of industrialized countries doesn’t think of itself as being right or left. Most people are not comfortable with these extremes.
Former Ontario Premier, Bob Rae, echoes much the same reasoning. Most of the left’s wounds, he says, are self-inflicted. “The extremes of right and left cannot accept the great trends of our time, and so the majority who do have little choice but to vote for the Liberals.” He argues that the right is not alone in its infatuation with the false comforts of the political fringe. The New Democratic Party has also been unable to embrace the political centre, with the notable exceptions of Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
It is clear the NDP must repackage itself for the middle class without alienating its established constituency. As a start, the NDP have to change the nomenclature. The right did not proclaim it was going to introduce government services cuts when coming to power; it was called “tax relief.” Similarly, the left, instead of saying it is going to raise taxes, must argue that it will restore progressivity into the tax system to lift the inordinate burden of taxation off the middle class, for example. With the recent scandals concerning the obscene remuneration of countless North American moguls, this would be a palatable option to a disgruntled middle class electorate. 
Likewise, the NDP should try to proselytize the notion of a communitarian society, not the welfare state, even though there is likely little difference between the two. With all of the opposition parties floundering around ten to fifteen percent popularity in the polls, there has never been a more opportune time for the NDP to target the goal of forming the next Official Opposition. This time around, the party should not be allowed to wallow in the same internal debates. Some key themes have surfaced, such as building economic democracy (equality of opportunity and condition); and building Canada as a strong and independent nation. Can the party embrace such policies, while acknowledging fiscal responsibility? Should it also champion lower taxes for the middle class? 
In the end, it may come down to identifying some key goals and objectives in the national interest, and telling Canadians exactly how the new leader intends to implement them without hurting Canada’s budgetary capacity: just the perfect job for a new Messiah!

Jean Chevrier is editor of new federation magazine; Lorne Monti and Christopher Guly are contributing editors.