Liberal leadership race offers pitiful options

STEPHEN MCCREARY VOLUNTEER STAFF

In less than three weeks, the Liberal Party of Canada will be electing a new leader. Delegates from all over Canada will meet in Montreal to cast their votes. They would be wise to choose carefully — they need someone who can dig the party out of the huge hole it has dug itself into over the past decade or so. But doing anything wise would be contrary to the current Liberal party strategy. In the interest of a healthy democracy, everyone should be hoping for a decent leader to emerge. Unfortunately, the lineup of candidates running for the position is less than impressive.

First, there is Scott Brison. Early in the campaign, his fiscal conservatism and social progressiveness made him one of the most popular candidates. Now, Globe and Mail polls show that he will likely muster no more than two per cent of delegate votes.

Joe Volpe also started off as a frontrunner. That is until it was found that he had charged $138 for a pizza to his expense account in 2005. After that, he became desperate and “accepted” several $5,400 “legitimate” donations from his business partners’ children (some as young as 11 years). He later returned the money. This was, of course, before suggesting members of his own party of denying him leadership because he is Italian (right). He too has slim to near-irrelevance in advance polls.

Ken Dryden would be a popular candidate if it wasn’t for his obsession with a national child-care program that Canadians have flat-out rejected. During the election early this year, he insulted all parents when he announced that raising your own children without day care “isn’t real child care.” He shows slightly higher poll numbers than the above two, but still doesn’t have a realistic hope of winning.

Being a former Ontario minister of education, one might assume that “youthful” 46-year-old candidate, Gerard Kennedy is pretty with it when it comes to modern technology. But at a recent Toronto debate he solidified himself in the Stone Age by announcing that “a federal government presence is necessary to regulate the contents of the Internet.” He is tied with Ken Dryden in the polls.

Stephane Dion received 13 per cent of support in the Globe and Mail polls, despite his misuse of public dollars as environment minister under Paul Martin. His 2005 travel expenses totaled $138,763.77! His 2005 hospitality expenses were $14,408.09, compared with the $814 the current Conservative environment minister racked up in the first half of this year.

Next, of course, we have the two front-runners, Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae.

Ignatieff returned to Canada in 2005 after living and working in the U.K. and U.S. since 1978. He has more support from within the caucus than any other candidate and has spent most of the campaign as the expected winner. Some people have always been weary of him though, mainly because of his absence from Canada over the last 30 years and his support of the Iraq war. Recently, he sparked controversy when announcing that he would like to see Quebec recognized as a nation. He again made headlines when he publicly declared Israel’s response to Lebanese attacks to be “war crimes.” His loose tongue has been his greatest enemy thus far, and has allowed Bob Rae to sneak up on him.

Rae is in a dead heat with Ignatieff in the latest delegate polls. Many experts are predicting a Rae victory after comparing his experience with Ignatieff’s. But what should be obvious arguments against Rae’s campaign seem to have flown under the radar.

His socialist policies as the Ontario NDP premier in the early ’90s alienated the business community and didn’t do enough to relieve public hardship during the biggest recession since the great depression. He introduced huge budget cutbacks and imposed a wage freeze. In 1993 he introduced “Rae Days,” which forced civil servants to take unpaid vacation days. While this saved money, it enraged unions and Ontario voters. In only three years, Rae’s NDP party fell from 70 per cent support to a record-low six per cent.

When the Ontario voters went to the polls in 1995, they didn’t just bump Rae out, they threw him into the street and curb-stomped him. Progressive Conservative Mike Harris, the politically polar opposite of Bob Rae, was elected with an overwhelming majority. He cut social assistance payments by 22 per cent, slashed 16,000 public service jobs, and cut the provincial income tax by 30 per cent.

Retaining their Ontario support base is absolutely crucial to the Liberals. Ontarians might not be the brightest voters in the country, but Rae Days are still fresh in their minds. If the Liberals want to give Stephen Harper an early Christmas present, electing Bob Rae would be the perfect idea.

If losing support in Ontario wasn’t bad enough, the Quebec situation is looking no better. This past January, the Conservatives went from no seats to 10 in Quebec, while the Liberals slid from 21 to 13. Remember, this is the same Liberal party that reignited the Quebec separation issue with their disastrous handling of the federal sponsorship program just last year. Add into the mix the fact that current Liberal leader hopefuls seem to agree that Quebec deserves special recognition, and it’s hard to have a lot of confidence that the Liberals will be the glue that holds this country together.

But despite the sad pack of candidates, the leaderless and directionless Liberal Party of Canada still manages to garner almost as much support as the Conservatives nationwide. Recent polls put the Liberals as close as one point away from the Conservatives. Sometimes, I don’t know who to be more embarrassed of — the Liberal party itself, or the doorknobs that keep supporting them.

It is amazing how so much can change in one short year. Looking at the state of the Liberals now, the idea that the Conservatives are the “scary” party is laughable.

Stephen McCreary is a University 1 student at the University of Manitoba.