The rich and the poor seem to have benefited equally from a $24 million government-bankrolled fund for the developmentally disabled. According to an internal report obtained by Public Eye, "the capacity to apply financial hardship as one of the criteria" for receiving a grant from the Community Living Restructuring Fund "did not exist within the framework of the existing trust agreement or advisory committee process."

Children and family development communications director Kelly Gleeson says the money was doled out by the Victoria Foundation not the government. And most ministry funds administered in that manner don't use financial means-testing to determine who receives a grant and who doesn’t.

For her part, Victoria Foundation spokesperson Sharlene Smith says "There were some circumstances in which assets were a consideration” by the fund’s advisory committee. But means-testing wasn't used because the grants were "tied to improve the lives of the individual with the disability" - who have limited earning abilities - and not their family.

But New Democrat children and family development critic Maurine Karagianis says she's disturbed the committee - which was responsible for those granting decision - didn't use such a test. "I would certainly think that families need to demonstrate what their need is and why that need is there. And so, if that's not been done - and it hasn't - then what was their criteria for giving out this money? Was it just first come first serve until the money is gone? If so, very deserving families may have been left out."

The Community Living Restructuring Fund was established in 2003 to provide grants to families and associations that would "enhance the accessibility, safety, privacy and independence" for those with developmental disabilities. The following is a complete copy of the criteria the committee used to make their granting decisions, as well as the relevant portion of the aforementioned report. That report was prepared for the Victoria Foundation by the charity’s special projects coordinator Sharon Bearpark.

***

THE APPLICATION PROCESS -

I had not applied earlier thinking I won't get the fundmg. But then decided to do so thinking had nothing to lose by trying. So for my daughter I put in the effort. I am so grateful this funding. It made me proud of myself that I advocated for my daughter. Thank you from bottom of my heart Rajnder, Delta

The application process that was developed by the advisory committee established eligibility criteria and as a result not all applicants would be assured of funding. The Victoria Foundation and the Trust Advisory Committee recognized that applicants denied funding would find the denial disappointing and would challenge their family or agency’s ability to find alternate sources of funding. As the fund was time limited the fund would eventually run out and this was stressful for both applicants and the advisory committee. Some applicants found the application process time consuming and more difficult for those under significant strain or without professional assistance. Not every family has a social worker or a link to a local community living support network and those living in more rural areas or without a link to community living services might have found access to the fund more difficult. The volume of requests to the fund also exceeded the funds available and not everyone eligible for funding might have known about the fund.

Establishing eligibility for applicants was challenging as there were a large number of applicants eligible by virtue of their age who might not be eligible for adult community living services in years to come. The advisory committee reviewed a large number of requests from individuals without developmental disabilities who also have significant needs that could not be met through this fund. Wherever possible these applicants were referred to other potential sources of funding. Concerning for the committee was the difficulty in establishing what the long term care plans were for some of the applicants. The stability of these plans was unknown in some cases and the advisory committee had to rely on letters of support to clarify some of these issues. It was also clear that some of the families and agencies applying for funding had the financial resources to complete their projects independent of this fund. Each application was reviewed to determine if reserve funding was available. The capacity to apply financial hardship as one of the criteria of funding did not existing within the framework of the existing trust agreement or advisory committee process.

***

1) The CLRF fund required a completed written application form and the advisory committee reviewed applications for individuals or families and organizations . Applicants had to include:

a. Confirmation that the child or adult was eligible for community living services by a community living professional (ie social worker, supporting agency etc) or evidence of eligibility for services under the BC Ministry of Children and Family Development's At Home Program

b. Letter of support as to the need or appropriateness of the request by a community living professional (ie. Occupational therapist, physiotherapist, social worker, doctor etc)

c. Information on how the funding would improve the quality of life of the individual(s) being supported

d. Information on family or individual contributions to date

e. Information on requests to other funding sources

f. Evidence of home and/or vehicle ownership

g. Where residences were leased, details outlining the length and terms of lease and permission from the landlord for renovations

h. Two independent estimates for costs in excess of $10,000 (Estimates must be good for at least 8 weeks. Estimates were firm as cost over runs would not be eligible for funding)

i. Submission of design diagrams and plans for major renovations

j. Information as to how the funding would save money or avoid future costs for the family or care provider

k. The Committee reviewed all completed applications and where information was deemed insufficient to assess the request, consultants obtained additional information at the request of the advisory committee

l. No application for work completed prior to the inception of the fund (April 2003) would be eligible for funding

m. Once approved grant recipients were required to submit evidence of the use of the grant, invoicing, photographs and final evaluations to the Victoria Foundation.

In addition to the above, the Committee developed a binder of policies and procedures that guided
the review of applications.

On Monday, federal Liberal leadership candidate Gerard Kennedy became the source of much fuss and bother when he announced that, "If NATO fails to change their strategy (in Afghanistan), Canada should pull out of the war in Afghanistan." Not surprisingly, Mr. Kennedy has been invited to talk about our military involvement in the region on CTV's Question Period. But he wasn't the only one.

Michael Ignatieff was also approached to discuss Afghanistan on the show - among a number of other leadership campaign issues. However, in an interview with Public Eye, Ignatieff campaign assistant communications director Alicia Johnston said her candidate declined the invite because "he's got meetings." Ms. Johnston also clarified that the appearance "wasn't actually pitched to us as a debate (with Mr. Kennedy) per se." Instead, the appearance would have been to "just to talk to (hosts) Roger (Smith) and Jane (Taber)" one-on-one. Fellow leadership contender Scott Brison will be appearing on the show to debate Mr. Kennedy.

What do the federal Conservatives and the Non-Partisan Association have in common? Answer: they both want Vision Vancouver councillor George Chow on their team. In an interview with Public Eye, Councillor Chow confirmed the Tories had approached him about running for the party in a Terminal City riding. "Yeah, I did get a call. But I said I'm really not interested because I just got elected on city council." But would he be interested in being a future federal candidate? "Not at this point," responded Councillor Chow. "I want to get through city council first. I haven't been there even a year yet."

Today, The Vancouver Sun's Heather Travis reported "A high-risk offender convicted of manslaughter and sexual assault disappeared from his Vancouver half-way house Wednesday. The Vancouver police department's high-risk offender unit was notified early in the morning that 33-year old Daniel Perrault was missing and could pose a threat." As our astute readers may remember, this isn't the first time Mr. Perrault has escaped from the justice system. Back in September 1993, he walked away from a minimum-security jail and raped a woman at knifepoint. That crime occurred just one month after he had been transferred to the New Haven Correctional Centre from Willingdon - a juvenile facility with tighter security. A subsequent judicial inquiry conducted by then British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Jo-Ann Prowse questioned that transfer, noting Willingdon program director Gordon Hogg "must also accept responsibility for his decision to endorse choice of New Haven as an appropriate placement for Mr. Perrault." This, of course, is the same Gordon Hogg who resigned as the minister of children and family development following the Doug Walls affair and was recently reappointed to cabinet.

Public Eye readers have been breathlessly awaiting the results of would-be federal Liberal candidate Mason Lohs Vancouver-Kingsway nomination appeal. So here it is: according to a decision issued earlier this evening, the party's appeal committee does "not consider that any of the foregoing (arguments made by Mr. Loh), or all of them taken together, are succicient to justify overturning the result of the meeting" - which saw Wendy Yuan elected. Therefore, "the appeal is dismissed." The following is a complete copy of that decision.

LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
PERMANENT APPEALS COMMITTEE
Decision regarding Appeal by Mason Loh

The Panel consisted of Mr. Nicoll, Mr. Briner and Ms. Shackell; we met on August 29, 2006 to hear and consider this appeal.

A Candidate Selection Meeting (the "CSM") was held in the Vancouver-Kingsway federal riding on July 29, 2006. Mr. Loh and Ms. Yuan were the contestants; Ms. Yuan was successful. Mr. Loh filed this appeal within 72 hours after the conclusion of the meeting. Mr. Baynham represented Mr. Loh, and Mr. Straith represented Ms. Yuan. The Party itself was also represented in this matter, by Mr. Crawford.

The hearing of the evidence and submissions occupied around 8 hours, including evidence of 12 witnesses, one of whom testified by telephone. In addition, the panel was presented with a petition from persons who identified themselves as residents of the riding and/or members of the Party concerned with the subject matter of the appeal. Finally, the parties provided the Panel with additional submissions, in writing, the morning after the hearing.

These reasons are briefer than they might otherwise be, since due to the Chair's schedule, these reasons must be released the day after the hearing. We have therefore not summarized the evidence of the 12 witnesses, but have referred to their evidence in our analysis of the submissions.

We have grouped the Appellant's submissions for convenience under the headings set out below.

1. That the CSM was a nullity because it was called without compliance with certain requirements

The Appellant has indicated that his central position is that the Party's Ad Hoc Election Readiness Chair, Ms. Apsey, did not consult with the LPCBC Executive prior to adopting the British Columbia Rules for Selection of Candidates (the "BC Rules"), which consultation is required by the federal constitution and Rules. In view of that failure, the Appellant says that the BC Rules were not properly adopted, and could therefore not govern the calling of the CSM. The Appellant says we ought to conclude that the CSM could therefore only be called under the constitution of the LPCBC, which requires 28 days' notice of the meeting to members.

As part of submissions on this issue, Mr. Baynham noted that the LPCBC constitution requires the LPCBC Executive, when consulted on the BC Rules, to assert that the BC Rules should require the notice period (28 days) set out in the LPCBC Constitution.

We heard from both Ms. Apsey and Mr. Elmhirst that they did have a discussion concerning adoption by Ms. Apsey of the BC Rules. It appears that discussion consisted primarily of those witnesses agreeing that the BC Rules would be the same in substance as the rules adopted for the 2005 general election, with necessary changes to accommodate the Party's present position as discussed and advised by its national campaign committee. Mr. Elmhirst does not appear to have asserted that the BC Rules should contain a longer notice period for a CSM. In his testimony, Mr. Elmhirst said that he was focussed instead on having the Party move forward with early selection meetings in appropriate ridings and particularly in Vancouver Kingsway.

We do not consider that Mr. Elmhirst was acting in anything other than good faith in his discussions with Ms. Apsey regarding the BC Rules. While it would have been preferable that he put forward the assertion called for under the LPCBC Constitution, failure to do so in our view can not invalidate the BC Rules, which are adopted by Ms. Apsey under authority that does not derive from the LPCBC Constitution.

The Appellant also asserts that consultation with Mr. Elmhirst as president of the LPCBC was insufficient to discharge Ms. Apsey's responsibility to consult with the LPCBC Executive. We do not agree. No evidence suggested that Ms. Apsey should have been on notice of any need to look beyond Mr. Elmhirst's approval as expressed to her. She was entitled to assume that Mr. Elmhirst as president could speak for the Executive. We are satisfied that Ms. Apsey in this matter also acted in good faith; we are also satisfied that the BC Rules were properly adopted in good faith and governed the calling and conduct of the CSM. The provisions of the LPCBC Constitution that require 28 days' notice of a meeting, with a 42-day membership cut-off, had no application to the CSM.

2. That it was not in the best interests of the Party to hold the CSM when it was held

The Appellant alleged that it was not in the best interests of the Party to call the CSM based on minimal notice (it was agreed that notice of the meeting was first issued on July 17, being 12 days' notice); but that fairness and equity required a longer period of notice. Mr. Baynham also suggested that in calling the meeting when it did, the Party overlooked usual requirements for candidate finance, candidate recruitment and other matters. He suggested we ought to conclude that the meeting was rushed into place to provide an advantage to Ms. Yuan, and in any event to the detriment of the objectives of the Party as expressed in its Constitution.

With regard to candidate recruitment, we heard from several witnesses that in addition to Ms. Yuan and Mr. Loh, it was well-known in the riding that there were a number of persons who were considering whether they might wish to seek the nomination. Under those circumstances, we agree that Ms. Apsey was justified in considering that it was unnecessary to further search for candidates.

Mr. Loh testified that he told Ms. Yuan and Mr. Hillman in May, 2006 that he was seriously considering running in Vancouver-Kingsway. He preferred at that time to focus on his other activities rather than commencing a campaign; he had not decided to run, and felt no urgency to deciding. He made no final decision until July 22, after he had applied for and received a 'green light'. The riding association executive, as well as the Federal Liberal Council, the LPCBC Executive and the BC Caucus, had many weeks earlier made public their desire for an early meeting in Vancouver-Kingsway. However, Mr. Loh told Mr. Hillman at their May meeting that he considered it unlikely there would be a CSM in the riding before January, 2007. We do not know why he came to that conclusion.

We note that even had the meeting been called with the 28 days' notice contemplated under the LPCBC Constitution (which as we have already noted does not apply), there would not have been any opportunity for Mr. Loh to recruit new members to support his campaign, due to the 'retroactive cut-off' prescribed by the LPCBC Constitution for such meetings. (It is of course true that Mr. Loh might have benefited from additional time to campaign among existing members.) The case simply is that Ms. Yuan was actively working in the riding for some months, to Mr. Loh's knowledge. That work of course gave Ms. Yuan a considerable advantage over Mr. Loh and any other potential candidate who chose to defer campaigning at a time when the riding association, the LPCBC executive and so many others were actively and publicly pressing the Party for a meeting date. The Party is not obliged to fix a lengthier notice period than is required by its rules to accommodate such potential candidates.

3. That Ms. Yuan received preferential treatment from the Party for her campaign, and that other irregularities are in the aggregate sufficient to justify overturning the meeting

The Appellant alleged in some of his materials that Ms. Yuan had been provided advance notice of the intended date of the Candidate Selection Meeting, and advance copies of the membership list for the riding association. No direct evidence was presented to support those allegations; instead, the Panel was invited to draw inferences from the facts that:

* Mr. Hillman, a Vice-President of the Party, was Ms. Yuan's campaign chair
* Ms. Yuan had circulated campaign mailings before becoming entitled to receive a membership list
* Ms. Yuan submitted her nomination papers almost immediately after the date of the meeting had been determined

We decline to draw the inferences suggested by the Appellant. There is no evidence that Mr. Hillman had access to the membership lists or that anyone provided them to Ms. Yuan. Mr. Xie testified that Ms. Yuan requested and received from the Party a list of the members whose forms she had submitted, which is not inappropriate. With regard to the date of the meeting and submission of nomination papers, the only evidence was to the effect that Ms. Yuan and her supporters learned of the date after it had been determined.

The evidence also addressed the following matters:

a. Mr. Loh was provided with a copy of the 2005 Rules, rather than the current Rules governing the nomination meeting. We did not conclude that this was a deliberate attempt to disadvantage Mr. Loh, and in fact it was unclear how this arose as the documents (copies of emails) were not available. Mr. Wilson testified that because they were working with an outdated set of rules that referred to a 'Campaign Committee' instead of Ms. Apsey's current title, the Loh campaign consistently had the sense that the Rules were not being followed - which can only have been disconcerting. However, we are not satisfied that any real disadvantage was suffered, given that the Rules in use were in substance exactly the same as those Mr. Loh says he was working with.

b. In preparing the voters' list for the CSM, the Party was provided by the Yuan campaign team with 'corrections' for names and addresses of members that Mr. Loh thought were his supporters. Mr. Loh's team later determined that some of the corrections may have been inaccurate. We heard from both Ms. Chow and Mr. Grant that all of the affected individuals who attended and wanted to vote, were permitted to vote, and so we conclude that there was no disadvantage to Mr. Loh's campaign. We also heard that Ms. Yuan's campaign team were under the impression that these same individuals were supporters of Ms. Yuan. We do not find that there was any improper purpose in submitting the corrections.

c. We heard that at the CSM, Ms. Yuan and her supporters frequently crowded access to the voting area such as to impede voters, and physically pressed voters to shake hands with and speak with Ms. Yuan. Mr. Grant, who as Mr. Baynham pointed out has attended as many of these meetings as anyone, expressed that he thought the scene was at times 'over the top'. We also heard that no particular voter was seen to have been prevented from voting, or complained of being prevented from voting.

d. Mr. Baynham alleged that Mr. Hillman as Vice-President of the Party acted in a conflict of interest when he used or allowed his title to be used in association with Ms. Yuan's campaign, and his own efforts to expedite the date of the CSM, and when he met with Mr. Loh to seek his support for Ms. Yuan's campaign. The persons who signed the petition received by the Panel also concluded that Mr. Hillman's association with the Yuan campaign indicated the Party had accorded preferential treatment to Ms. Yuan. The Party is a political organization, and its members and officers by definition are involved in campaigns. The Party should ensure that members and contestants are aware that those responsible for the candidate selection process are not biased in favour of a candidate. It may be valuable for the Party to consider developing a written policy that makes plain for members and officers what implications if any should be drawn from a situation such as this one. That being said, we are aware that it would be difficult to find a volunteer who has done more for the Party than Mr. Hillman, and we specifically do not find that he had or attempted to exert any improper influence over the Party's actions connected with the Vancouver-Kingsway riding or the CSM.

We do not consider that any of the foregoing, or all of them taken together, are sufficient to justify overturning the result of the meeting.

For all the reasons set out above, the appeal is dismissed.

We are very aware of the fine reputations enjoyed by both Ms. Yuan and Mr. Loh, who have earned the respect of our community for their dedication as volunteers, for their professional achievements, and for their personal qualities. The Party would be fortunate to have both of them as candidates, and we hope that Mr. Loh will continue to seriously consider seeking a nomination. We have no doubt that his talents and abilities would make him a fine Member of Parliament.

The Panel is very grateful to the many individuals who gave their time for the hearing of this appeal, including the parties, their counsel and the witnesses.

Signed at Vancouver, August 30, 2006.

Jane S. Shackell, Q.C.
for the Panel

This September, The Fairmont Empress will be rolling out the red carpet for the Coal Association of Canada's 46th conference on coal. But what kind of hospitality will they receive from the Campbell administration? Well, Minister of State for Mining Bill Bennett is scheduled to speak to the conference. However, some suspect he'll be doing more than whispering sweet nothings in the industry's ear. Perhaps, for example, Minister Bennett might announce a resource roads initiative - subsidizing the construction of the transportation infrastructure needed to...er...take advantage of the province's natural wealth? Who knows! Certainly not your humble organ.

As our astute readers may know, last night the federal Liberal's appeal committee heard witnesses testify about the Vancouver-Kingsway nomination race controversy. And who took the stand, you may wonder? Well, Harris and Company LLP partner Dean Crawford, representing the party, called the Liberal's British Columbia president Jamie Elmhirst, ad hoc election readiness coordinator (wat's dat?) Sharon Apsey, constitutional advisor Martin MacLachlan, executive director Mark Grant, office manager Cherrine Chow and Vancouver-Kingsway returning officer Don Grant. Harper Grey LLP partner Bryan Baynham, representing failed nomination candidate Mason Loh, added his client and three of Mr. Loh's campaign volunteers - Mary Kean, Lina Yuen and Greg Wilson to the witness list. And Lakes Straith & Whyte LLP partner Jay Straith, representing winning nomination candidate Wendy Yuan, brought his client's campaign chair Mike Hillman to the stand. The hearing wrapped up at 1:50 in the morning. An appeal decision hasn't yet been reached but is expect in written form sometime this afternoon.

Has Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Jim Prentice's Website been hijacked by the De-Elect David Emerson campaign? That's the question some federal Conservatives were asking this morning, after noticing visitors to Minister Pentice's site - www.jimprentice.ca - were being re-directed to Web developer Mike Watkins's blog, which has been "calling for (International Trade Minister) David Emerson's resignation since Febuary 6th." So we phoned up Mr. Watkins and asked how he managed to accomplish this feat of electronic legerdemain. But it turns out his political cybersquatting was entirely accidental.

When we explained to him what was happening, Mr. Watkins exclaimed, "Oh. That's terrible. That's totally unintended. Jim's a friend. I host his site and have for many years. This is no good. I bet someone is trying to reach me at this very moment." The De-Elect David Emerson steering committee member then speculated www.jimprentice.ca visitors were likely being re-directed because "I might have inadvertently reset something yesterday when I was doing some work." The problem has since been rectified.

Earlier, we reported that the federal Conservative's national council has upheld a decision to reject Paul Lalli's bid to run for the party nomination in Fleetwood-Port Kells. In an interview with Public Eye, Mr. Lalli said Tory executive director Mike Donnison told him earlier today that his appeal had been rejected. The former Squamish councillor says "no grounds" for that rejection were given. But the he suspects "They're protecting the incumbent" - Conservative MP Nina Grewal. "I still support the Conservative Party and the prime minister. And I don't believe this is a function of the party itself. It's a function of few people within the party." Quoting from the Ballad of Sir Andrew Barton, Mr. Lalli then added, "I am hurt, but I am not slain; I’ll lay me down and bleed awhile. And then I’ll rise and fight again."

Earlier, we reported would-be Fleetwood-Port Kells federal Conservative nomination candidate Paul Lalli's nomination papers had been rejected by the party's national candidate selection committee. Mr. Lalli appealed that decision. But, last night, national council members rejected that appeal. In an interview with Public Eye, Lalli nomination campaign chair Alex Tsakumis confirmed, "He was disqualified. We're disappointed. And it's sad that the party has treated him so poorly. But there's nothing that can be done without going outside of the party."

Would-be federal Conservative candidate Paul Lalli should know tonight whether he'll be allowed to compete for the party nomination in Fleetwood-Port Kells. Last week, Mr. Lalli's nomination paper's were rejected by the Tory's national candidate selection committee. The former Squamish councillor has appealed that decision to the party's national council. And the council will be discussing this issue tonight via conference call. Fleetwood-Port Kells is presently held by Tory MP Nina Grewal.

Earlier, we noted a number of names were being floated as possible provincial Liberal caucus chair candidates. And now we can report at least three of those names have been calling their colleagues about seeking that post: Mary Polak (Langley), John Rustad (Prince George-Omineca) and John Yap (Richmond-Steveston). The Liberals are scheduled to have their first caucus meeting since the summer break on September 12. The meeting will be a two-day affair. And that's when the caucus chair election will be held.

Your humble organ has reported at-length on Mason Loh's decision to appeal the result of the recent Vancouver-Kingsway nomination race - which saw Wendy Yuan declared the victor. And now it looks like his case will finally be heard tomorrow evening at the Terminal City offices of Miller Thomson LLP. That's where the party's appeal committee is scheduled to listen to witnesses and make a ruling. Members of the appeal committee include Miller Thomson associate counsel Jane Shackell, Hamilton Duncan Armstrong and Stewart LLP partner Scott Nicoll and John Briner - a lawyer in private practice.

British Columbia's punditocracy may soon have a new member. In an interview with Public Eye, North Shore News managing editor Terry Peters confirmed he's looking at having former North Vancouver councillor and alderman Bill Bell write a weekly political column for the newspaper. But Mr. Peters added, "It's not a done deal yet." Mr. Bell was the federal Liberal's North Vancouver candidate in the 2000 election. And, in 1990, he ran for the provincial New Democrat nomination in North Vancouver-Lonsdale.

But the former New Democrat backroom boy is also known for having been a principal at Pradinuk Advertising and later a senior consultant with Profile B.C. When the Dippers were in office, Pradinuk received a $50,000 contract from the tourism ministry and Profile was retained to do work for the Ebco-Hamilton Partners, the company running the province's AirCare program - prompting the usual suggestions of favourtism from Opposition benchers and the press pack. Mr. Bell presently operates a Website offering "a comprehensive travel guide for RVing, camping, driving by car and golfing" in Mexico.

Last week, Monday Magazine's Andrew MacLeod reported "Premier Gordon Campbell's conversation on health is starting September with four sessions for health ministry staff. According to a notice distributed to ministry employees in Victoria, they are invited to 'meet the conversation on health team' and share their suggestions and ideas." The article notes, that "so far...it has been unclear what shape that conversation will take." But one of the sculptors will be retired senior government flack Betty Nicholson, Public Eye has learned. She's been awarded a communication contract as part of that conversation. Ms. Nicholson, a 29-year civil service veteran, left the bureaucracy back in August 2004.

Tonight, on Public Eye Radio, Royal Roads University acting academic vice-president Steve Grundy discusses the future of post-secondary education in Canada. Federal Conservative online activist Stephen Taylor talks about his victory over the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. And University of Waterloo philosophy professor Jan Narveson weighs in on the issue of property rights. Also on the show: Grit national vice-president Mike Hillman answers questions about the red ribbon task force's final report. And our rabble-rousing political panel - Michael Prince, Bob Russell, Allan Warnke and Brad Zubyk - debate the week that was in provincial and federal politics. You can listen to Public Eye Radio outside of Victoria by logging into CFAX 1070 between 6:00 and 9:00. If you have a question for one of our guests, you can email us, leave a comment below or phone (250) 386-1161 during the show.

Tonight, on Public Eye Radio, former Green candidate Ariel Lade will be on the line from Ottawa to talk about the result of his party's federal leadership race. Kim Carter joins us to discuss her mandate as British Columbia's new ombudsman. And pundits George Gibault and Stuart Parker will be debating the merits of increased federal involvement in healthcare and education. Also on the show: Victoria New Democrat MP Denise Savoie discusses her first session in parliament. Central Saanich councillor Zeb King explains his water conservation proposals. And Burnaby-New Westminster New Democrat MP Peter Julian weighs in with his views of the softwood lumber agreement. You can listen to Public Eye Radio outside of Victoria by logging into CFAX 1070 between 6:00 and 9:00. If you have a question for one of our guests, you can email us, leave a comment below or phone (250) 386-1161 during the show.

Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to bid a fond farewall to Carol Carman, communications executive director at the attorney general's ministry. Ms. Carman lived a rich and full life for 15 years as a decorated and respected provincial government flack. But, sometime after Labour Day weekend, she'll be going to a better place - the private sector. Ms. Carman is joining WCG International Ltd. as an advisor and government liason. WCG - whose executive team includes Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce chairman Robin Adair - is best known for privately delivering public sector social services. A replacement for Ms. Carman has not been announced. Nor has one been found for forests and range communications director Max Cleevely, who was appointed Finance Minister Carole Taylor's senior aide earlier this summer. Coincidentally, Mr. Cleevely stepped into the shoes left behind by Steven Simons around the same time the government announced pay raises for its political staffers. Fancy that!

As noted earlier, we're presently tweaking Public Eye's layout to accomodate advertising. So readers should notice some further changes today, courtesy of our resident graphic designer Victor Crapnell and Ian King. We hope you'll agree this new format is less claustrophobic.

By now, Public Eye readers should be familiar with Christopher Ian Bennett, the national voice for federal Green leadership hopeful Elizabeth May. But what you may not know is that Mr. Bennett - who has worked on federal Liberal election and nomination campaigns - was also once rumoured to be the chairman of The 20 Club, a "secret society of the young intellectual elite." And he can "quote the great political thinkers from Aurelius to Voltaire, while naming every B-side single brit-rock sensations Oasis ever made." These are just some of the highlights of a 2004 article authored by J.A. Ryan. In an interview with Public Eye, Mr. Bennett explained Mr. Ryan "was an old buddy from my Whistler days. And when I came down here (to Vancouver) he wrote a little thing. It was, I think, more of a promotional piece trying to make me look good. And he's quite a fan. And he wanted (my business) to get running." Mr. Bennett also disclosed he's planning on "making the switch" and joining the Greens. The following is a complete copy of that article, which was originally posted on PRWeb - a press release service for small businesses.

Wonder Boy is Back.Bennett Coastal

Communications Strategist Christopher Bennett is changing the political landscape of Canada. Wonderboy is back, and his business is growing.

Vancouver BC (PRWEB) February 19, 2004--As a freelance journalist, I seek out stories with an unusual appeal, hoping to catch the attention of various editors. A year and a half ago, I met Christopher Ian Bennett - or "Wonderboy" as some of his peers have labeled him. He has been working the political backrooms of Canadian political campaigns, and his ideas on communications could change Canadian politics significantly.

You don't know him yet-But Christopher Bennett is going to be your voice in Ottawa one day. Bennett is the CEO of Bennett Coastal Consulting, a small political communications firm in Vancouver, Canada. A small company, his staff is only 3 people, and yet there is no shortage of big name politicians who have sought his surprising wisdom. As he walks into The Lennox Pub on Granville street, everyone knows him. He has arrived. He's in a good mood as he sits down, he's going to be busy this year. A pint appears in front of him before he even orders. I find myself envious of this type of service. I make a note to mention this to my own neighborhood bartender. His fingers seem worn; I think he bites his nails. The grandson of a British Navy admiral, he seems comfortable in a UK-style pub. "Grandad always ended his day with a pint...or two!" He smiles as we shake hands. He's in a good mood today-something the waitress tells me is unusual for a weekday. I'm told he works too much, and takes his job very seriously. "I wish the Prime Minister would call an election" he announces. I suspect his sarcasm is laced with sincerity. Bennett has met his match in Taleeb Noormohamed, an impressive young liberal seeking the Liberal party's nomination in the riding of Vancouver-Centre. As Noormohamed's director of communications, Bennett is anxious to display what he considers "Generation-Next Politics"

"When we last sat down, I talked about the shift in politics, and how young people are becoming more active. The great thing is that the Prime Minister has embraced this idea (surprisingly) and he's not protecting anyone under his name. This is a gift for young politics! This is our chance! Generation-Next needs to step up and make Canada functional again." Bennett says with no uncertain satisfaction. It's easy to write about the young politicians, the dashing up-and-comers of "generation next", but its Bennett that seems to have all the answers. I ask him about the unusual absence of young people in the backrooms of politics. He is quick to disagree.
"No way, first of all, young is relative term - I'm 25, is that young? I think you'll see more and more twenty-somethings involved in politics as the appeal and opportunities start to present themselves." Bennett insists.

A good freelancer does their homework, and it is hard to ignore the rumors of the "The 20 Club". I'm dying to ask him about "The 20 Club", and if he really is the chairman of this secret society of the young intellectual elite. Rumor and speculation about a "young executives society" of the most exceptional men and women in Vancouver seem to associate themselves with Wonderboy. Two anonymous, but esteemed business people in Vancouver have confirmed it. The myth is that this is one group where membership can't be bought, or sought. "The 20 Club" finds you. I offer to buy him another pint of Carlsberg (his favorite) if he'll talk about it. "I'm not interested in going there. I wouldn't know anything about it." His grin is all too familiar. To someone who doesn't know him, his coy grin is mistaken as arrogance. "He's a Bennett alright. Bennett's aren't arrogant, they're just really self-assured." Says a close family friend, asking to remain nameless.

"He'll kill me if he knew I said that!" It seems that Bennett Coastal is shrouded in secrecy, and that's just the way Bennett likes it. There are names like former Deputy Prime Minister John Manley to his credit. He will confirm that William J. Kurchak is his current Mentor. He speaks highly of Bill, a former writer and a trusted associate of P.E. Trudeau. "I asked him a year ago to take me on, and he has become a very important person in my life. He is a class act all the way." Kurchak, a gifted writer in his own right, was taught English by current Governor General, Adrienne Clarkson. I can only imagine the pride his mentor will feel one day, as he watches his protege take flight.

There is a vast group of politicians who have sought his services. Many US Senators and congressmen have used his communications strategies, but he refuses to name them. It seems Bennett enjoys a good mystery. "Silent Pride" he calls it. Bennett won't talk about the standing ovations his speeches have birthed at the hands of great business leaders across the country. You would never guess the languages he can speak with an uncanny accent. He won't tell you he was a Cello player, and plays classical guitar. You'd never know he was a brilliant poet unless I we printed it. I have to hear about it from others. His silence is respect for his work, he insists, oddly enough. His modesty is overshadowed be his passion for politics and ideas. Maybe he doesn't want his other employers to know how sharp he really is. He doesn't think it's about him-yet.

There is still speculation he will run for elected office at some point. To be honest, I hope he will soon. Most people I've spoken with agree. He has real solutions to real problems. To say he is brilliant would be a literary understatement. He is a natural politician, without question. I revisit the famous question as he takes a sip. "Yes. Yes I will run someday, are you happy Jason?" He laughs, pretending to strangle me. "But that is a long way off-there is still so much for me to learn. I'm really focusing on understanding business right now - it's a fascinating study." he assures me with a more serious tone. Then he laughs that Bennett laugh again. It's a wild laugh, as he leans back and claps his hands, struggling to control himself. It is an honest laugh, something I find rare in those that I interview. His laugh is contagious, as the patrons around us appear to catch his energy and smile as well. I notice there is no shortage of women that drop by to say hello either. I make a note to spend more time with him in social settings. Everyone around him is comfortable-there is nothing artificial in the way he is, perhaps that's what makes him so appealing to politics. I can see he is indeed "Wonderboy", and he doesn't even know it yet. We talk for another 45 minutes about politics. What amazes me is I'm already feeling the effects of the alcohol he's been ordering me, and his sobriety appears firmly intact. He can quote the great political thinkers from Aurelius to Voltaire, while naming every B-side single brit-rock sensations Oasis ever made. I was warned by everyone he could talk politics all night long. I should not have taken those warnings in jest. He is articulate, passionate and fierce in his positions. One wonders if any opponent will ever be heard over his articulate insistence. One wonders what "Wonderdad" is like. His face changes when he talks about his father.

"My father is the best Prime Minister Canada will never have". For some reason, I believe that. He demonstrates on obvious admiration for his father. His son oozes charm and a dignified anger with the status of our national democracy. Most fathers should hope to have a son this passionate.

"If I can help shape the debate in the backrooms, with a candidate I believe in, I can make a difference." He says as he leans closer to me. He is whispering now. He seems almost romantic about his political passion. No doubt this romantic quality translates well with the ladies. I, on the other hand, am inspired. Journalists are not easily inspired these days, so I thank Wonderboy for his time, and wish him well until we next meet. He stays at the pub, he says he has a speech to write. I stumble home realizing I've left him with the tab. I presume I'm not the first person to do that to him. Hurry up Wonderboy, Canadian politics needs you.

J.A. Ryan (Freelance/AP)

Children and family development civil service supremo Lesley du Toit has yet to have a formal meeting with Ted Hughes to discuss his independent review into British Columbia's child and youth system. In an interview with Public Eye, Mr. Hughes said "I have met her - only at a social function. But we did have the opportunity of meeting and having a chat. But that's the only occassion I've had...We had a chat about what my role had been and what her challenges would be ahead." So at least there was that. Mr. Hughes's review was released almost six months ago.

Back in April, former conflict of interest comissioner Ted Hughes told the provincial press pack that "turnover" at the ministry of children and family development "has taken a toll in terms of staff morale and the ministry's ability to set directions, frame goals, and make progress. The revolving door has got to stop." This, as part of his independent review into British Columbia's child and youth protection system. So, understandably, some found it surprising when the Campbell administration decided to shuffle the political leadership of that ministry earlier this month - replacing Stan Hagen with Tom Christensen. But, in an interview today, Mr. Hughes declined to weigh in on that decision. "My view is this: I express everything I had on my chest the day of the release of the report after you guys had had a chance to read it. So I've stepped back now and let others do the talking."

Of course, during that same press conference, The Vancouver Sun's Vaughn Palmer reported Mr. Hughes told his media audience "he'd had a few invitations to address B.C. audiences on child protection. He'd put them off, at least until the legislature has had a chance to act. 'I may pick up some of those invitations later in the year if I think I should.' Meaning if the politicians fail to get on with it, there might be enough sand left in the old egg timer for one more speaking tour to remind them of their duty." Or perhaps not?

Remember Andrew Wilkinson? Of course you do. How could you not? After all, Mr. Wilkinson was once one of the most powerful and controversial deputy ministers within the provincial government. But, several months ago, he left the civil service to become a partner with McCarthy Tetrault LLP - disappearing from the corridors of power. Or not. Earlier this week, Mr. Wilkinson registered with the federal government as a lobbyist for Simon Fraser University - working to secure funding for athletics and recreation infrastructure, as well as the the institution's school for the contemporary arts. And, according to the provincial government's lobbyist registery, he's also been pitching the Campbell administration since July on behalf of Accredited Home Lenders Canada Inc. Isn't that just special?

Yesterday, would-be Fleetwood-Port Kells federal Conservative hopeful Paul Lalli exclusively told Public Eye, "For reasons unknown to me the national candidate selection committee has disqualified me as a nomination contestant." One theory being talked up by Tory tongues: Mr. Lalli evidently let his party membership accidentally expire back in December, renewing it sometime after February. That means he had only been a card-carrying Conservative for five months or less at the time he submitted his nomination papers. And party rules stipulate contestants "must have been a member of the Party for at least six (6) months." But there's a caveat: "to allow for inadvertent delays in renewal of membership, an application may be accepted from someone who is a member in good standing at the time of filing the application and had been a member of the Party for at least the last six (6) months of the previous calendar year." And there should be no reason why the former Squamish councillor - a long-time Conservative - doesn't fit that critera.

Back in June the Toronto Star's Susan Delacourt reported "the federal Liberals have decided their famous "big red machine" - the sprawling, national party organization that runs elections and leadership contests - has to be scrapped if the party is to beat the Conservatives in the next election." That decision was part of the recommendations being developed by the Liberal's red ribbon task force. And today, the task force - which is responsible for reforming the party - distributed its final report to constituency association presidents across the country. The following is a complete copy of that document, which hasn't yet been released to the public.

August 2006

THE LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA'S
RED RIBBON TASK FORCE
FINAL REPORT
A Party Built for Everyone
A Party Built to Win

A u g u s t 2 0 0 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary 3
2. Introduction 6
3. Mandate 8
4. The Case for Renewal 9
a. C-24: The "new normal" 9
b. Successes to date 11
c. The Imperative for Change 11
d. Core Functions 12
e. Ridings: the center of our universe 13
5. Recommendations 14
a. A National Party - A National Membership 14
b. Provincial/Territorial Associations 16
c. National Governance Structure 17
6. The Policy Imperative 23
7. Conventions and Leadership 26
8. Conclusion 29
L I B E R A L P A R T Y O F C A N A D A

1. Executive Summary

Canada's Liberals have unquestionably built a better Canada and a better world. We can stand proud as a Party. As we look forward, we need to build upon our accomplishments, learn from our difficult times, face our challenges and do it with a renewed focus, energy and enthusiasm.

It is in this context that the Liberal Party of Canada's National Executive established the Red Ribbon Task Force in 2005. The Task Force was mandated to evaluate how the current operational and decision-making structure of the Party can be made more efficient.

The Task Force reviewed the following issues: the primary imperatives of a modern Canadian political party: political organization, policy development, revenue generation and finance/compliance issues; changes to the Canada Elections Act (Bill C-24); the Party's federated constitutional structure; and the Party's current volunteer governance structure, including Commissions, Standing Committees and the National Executive. The Task Force report is submitted and presents recommended constitutional and structural changes that - if approved by National Executive - will be presented to members at the upcoming Convention of the Party in November.

Task Force members acknowledge that our biggest challenge ahead is to remain competitive as a political body. Much has already been done in this regard. We have new Provincial and Territorial Association (PTA) financing agreements; we have established a National Election Fund; adopted a national Code of Conduct; memberships are now available on-line; and we have developed and implemented a National Membership Registry (NMR).

But much more needs to be done. Protecting the status quo is not an option - our current system is not sustainable. Red Ribbon members have also noted some simple - if inconvenient - truths about the challenges we face as a Party:

* A cumbersome governance structure with some 60 voting members and a Constitution that often prescribes rather than enables;
* A highly competitive political and fundraising environment;
* The "new normal" political fundraising reality created by our own Bill C-24;
* The Conservatives' Bill C-2, which poses substantial administrative and compliance challenges that we will be required to meet according to law. In grasping the challenge of renewal before us, the Task Force targeted three key foundations to success: policy development, fundraising and finance, and organization and election readiness. These areas, the Task Force submits, should serve as the fundamental cornerstones of all that we do as a Party. Moving forward with collective purpose, and renewed focus, coast to coast to coast concentration on these primary activities will undoubtedly help to better serve, engage and energize all our members and supporters in political discussion and action. Specific recommendations include the following:

National Membership: Everyone should be able to directly join the Liberal Party of Canada. The Task Force therefore recommends that national membership, with common eligibility requirements, will form a common platform for access to the Party, helping the Party to grow across the country. Specific recommendations are included herein. The Party as a federation: The Task Force recommends that the Liberal Party of Canada remain a federated structure, and that our Provincial and Territorial Associations (PTAs) will have a larger say in the direction of the Liberal Party. Task Force members submit that our ridings should be viewed as the centre of our Party's universe, and that they should be enabled to play an enhanced role with respect to the Party's core activities of policy development, fundraising and election readiness. Accordingly, Task Force members suggest that PTAs will be freed from administrative burdens, which would allow them to conduct more outreach with EDAs and focus on the above-mentioned priority areas.

Governance: The Task Force recommends a streamlined governance structure that is smaller and better able to draw upon the expertise around the national table. In this context, gone will be most standing committees - the new focus will instead be on policy, fundraising and finance and election readiness as the key operational necessities of a modern political party energized to win. Commissions will continue their good work and their presidents will sit on National Executive. PTAs will be the largest designated group of the Executive. The size of our Executive will drop from some 60 voting members to 22.

Council of Presidents: The goals of the Party and those of our ridings will be shared and acted upon through a new 'Council of Presidents' to be created within our Constitution and involving every riding president. This Council will meet about once a year and will review key operational areas and rules relating to membership. This is another initiative that, if implemented, would strengthen the role of ridings in Party activities across the country.

Policy: The vigour and creativity of policy development and our election platform is the lifeblood of our Party - Task Force members therefore suggest that it is imperative that the policy process be at the heart of our constitutional considerations. By inserting the policy development function at the heart of the structures of the Party, Task Force members believe we will achieve better processes, engagement, and ultimately, electoral success. Therefore, among other recommendations, Task Force members suggest the establishment of a new permanent standing committee dedicated to on-going policy and platform development.

Conventions & Leadership: Task Force members recognize that Party Conventions are the supreme decision-making authority in the Party, and can be the birthplace of great ideas, forums for debate and discussion, and the launch pad for future Prime Ministers. But we also recognize that changes to the related rules and structures need to be made. Accordingly, recommendations include: expanding the size of delegations from our ridings (EDAs) to Party Conventions including aboriginal representation from each riding. Our upcoming Convention in Montreal will also be presented an option on leadership selection, namely between the status quo and a weighted one member, one vote system; and holding leadership reviews only after elections where our Leader did not become Prime Minister.

The recommendations contained in this report are intended to strengthen and empower our Party's grassroots, simplify and streamline our Party's structures, and regroup our efforts around the aforementioned three core functions. We steadfastly believe the choice in front of us is relatively simple: change or become unable to compete to win. Simply put, we truly feel there is a "better way". The Party, however, belongs to us all. It is now up to Liberals from all over Canada to discuss, debate, and ultimately decide how to best address the challenges before us.

2. Introduction
The Liberal Party of Canada's National Executive established the Red Ribbon Task Force in 2005. Why Red Ribbon? Simply because the more common "Blue Ribbon" moniker just won't do in the Liberal Party, but also because "Blue Ribbon" somehow connotes a form of stuffy elitism. That is not who this group is. The Task Force is composed of "working" Liberals, from all over the country. A new MP. A new Senator. Four women, four men.

All of the Task Force's members, like hundreds of thousands of Canadians, do the real work of political parties: organize ridings, contribute ideas, and offer time and talent free of charge in exchange for the hope of a better country.

We can stand proud as a Party. Together, we have accomplished much and have contributed to the vibrancy of our nation. As a National Party we have worked together; the work of our members, our Leaders and our Parliamentarians has forged policy and directions that have contributed to the growth of our nation. Canada's Liberals have built a better Canada, and helped build a better world.

As we look forward we need to build upon our accomplishments, learn from our difficult times and face the challenges that are before us.

Our biggest challenge ahead is to remain competitive as a political body. We must engage our members in new ways, embrace the changed structural environment of political fundraising and financial compliance and determine how we can best compete to earn the trust of the electorate.

There are very good reasons why the Liberal Party of Canada has been the dominant political party in Canada. Our successes have been characterized by our resolve to challenge assumptions, to be wary of the status quo, and to act on our impulse that there is always a "better way".

The Red Ribbon Task Force herein presents our final report to the National Executive, including its recommendations, for discussion. We have engaged our Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in assessing what changes might be required to our Constitution as we move forward. As this phase of the work comes to an end, the real work begins. It is now up to Liberals from all over Canada to consider the suggestions we have made, to support, reject or improve them, and ultimately to vote on them. It is a daunting challenge to consider. There is a justifiable pride of ownership of the Liberal Party of Canada that beats in the hearts of hundreds of thousands of Canadians. This pride is the direct result of our democratic traditions and our openness to new ideas.

We are counting on these characteristics in making recommendations that must find a high degree of support if they are to be adopted. That means that we will work to find consensus and to present to the members of our Party changes to our Constitution at the Leadership and Biennial Convention in November 2006. Our President, Mike Eizenga, and the entire National Executive, relying on the Liberal tradition of challenging the status quo, had the vision and the resolve necessary to empower the Task Force to do its work. Mr. Eizenga also contributed mightily to the Task Force's deliberations.

We thank Jack Graham and the Hon. Andy Scott, for their input, and for the work of the Renewal group which Jack chaired and which examined our governance structure. Together, they provided new insights and suggestions. The dedication and hands-on experience provided by National Director, Steven MacKinnon, in assessing our Party's competitive environment and his clear and concise presentation of the realities we face as a Party formed a basis for the Task Force deliberations. Gordon Taylor Lee has provided research that has been invaluable and has contributed his insight and skill in the drafting of this report.

We look forward to the dialogue that will ensue from this report, and to the excitement of putting shoulder to the wheel and creating "a Party built for everyone, a Party built to win."

Respectfully submitted,
Annie-Claude De Paoli (Co-chair) Michael Hillman (Co-chair)
Kelly Regan Shannon Salter
Sen. Grant Mitchell Hon. Navdeep Bains, MP
Christine Hampson François L'Heureux

3. Mandate: Red Ribbon Task Force

The Liberal Party of Canada's (LPC) National Executive established the Red Ribbon Task Force in 2005, although electoral exigencies intervened and the work of the Task Force proceeded in earnest in the spring of 2006. The idea was to engage members of the National Executive and National Caucus, together with Liberals from across the country, in "re-imagining" the Liberal Party in the context of sweeping changes in the legislative and regulatory landscape, to say nothing of the new political realities with which the Party must grapple.

Specifically, the Task Force was mandated to evaluate how the current operational and decision-making structure of the Party can be streamlined and made more efficient. The Task Force was asked specifically to review and consider the following issues:

* The primary imperatives of a modern Canadian political party: political organization, policy development, revenue generation and finance/compliance issues;
* Changes to the Canada Elections Act (C-24);
* The LPC's federated constitutional structure;
* The LPC's current volunteer governance structure, including Commissions, Standing Committees and the National Executive.

The Task Force was asked to carry out its work and report back to the National Executive in 2006, with a view to presenting recommended constitutional and structural changes to the upcoming Convention of the Party.

4. The Case for Renewal
"The status quo in the Liberal Party of Canada is no longer working to the benefit of all members or to the benefit of the Party as a whole… we don't raise enough money by our current methods to fight national elections, staff our Party, and pay off our debt."

The above excerpt is as relevant today as it was almost fifteen years earlier, when it was included in "Agenda for Reform", the July 1991 Reform Commission of the Liberal Party of Canada's interim report.

The 1991 Reform Commission grappled with the same issues currently being assessed by Party's Red Ribbon Task Force, including: the need for a more streamlined federation; membership issues; reforms to Commissions and Committees; and a potential overhaul of various aspects of the Party's infrastructure.

Today, like then, the Liberal Party finds itself with considerable financial challenges, sitting in the Opposition benches, and facing many of the same organizational challenges. And now, like then, the Party needs to take stock of who we are and how we are structured. Now, unlike then, we do not have the luxury of deferring change and passing up our opportunity to rapidly regroup and present a compelling, streamlined Party as an alternative to the Conservatives.

That is because the political world has changed. We are facing, for the first time since 1984, a united right-of-center foe. The Conservatives used the opportunity of their merger to significantly streamline their organization and reduce the onerous structures that had built up over the years (Importantly, they were also able to adopt a new Constitution at the exact time of - and therefore consistent with - Bill C-24.) On our left, the New Democrats, while failing to renew their orthodox socialist philosophy, have made great strides in becoming a modern political fighting force. The Bloc Québécois has been sustained by the onset of public funding and the unfortunate effects of the sponsorship issue. The Green Party has increased its vote in each of the last three elections.

However, beyond the adjustments made by our rival parties, a whole new competitive landscape has emerged which has made our Party's structure an impossible one to sustain.

a. C-24: The "new normal"
The most important change in the political landscape was the veritable revolution in financing and compliance engendered by the passage of Bill C-24, Prime Minister Chretien's signature election finance reform. This reform is a great legacy for our Party. However, it also requires that we adapt, and in some cases change, to accommodate the new legal realities we face. Even without any other changes in the competitive environment, the realities of the new Elections Act would of themselves require that we make important changes to our structures and administrative processes.

Ironically, while C-24 was initiated by the Liberal government, the Party continues to be in a period of painful readjustment to the new fundraising climate the Bill helped shape. Liberals across the country must realize that failing to fully adjust to this "new normal" will permanently damage the Party.

Cracks in the Party infrastructure - and the C-24 fall-out - are already apparent. Debt is still an issue, even though the Party has performed the "mission impossible" of posting a surplus in June 2006. Our Party's structure has left us disconnected from members and small-donation supporters, thus greatly impeding our ability to raise money. It is no secret that, for years, we have been hard-wired as a Party to rely on large donations from corporate donors. C-24 removed that funding source but we have not yet made the structural changes, or fully effected the "culture change", to a member focused donation base.

We also continue to lose the overall fundraising battle to the Conservative Party. Some recent statistics illustrate this point: while our Party raised $6.5M from individuals in 2005 (up from about $500,000 in 2003), the Conservative Party raised almost three times that. In 2006, numbers provided to Elections Canada showed that the Conservative Party received $5.6-million from 37,000 contributors in the first quarter of 2006. By comparison, our Party raised approximately $1.3-million from approximately 6,500 contributors. We have fallen victim to never asking our supporters for money.

Let there be no question - our Party must continue to develop and implement an aggressive grassroots fundraising strategy that engages with members and supporters. Our donor base must grow and be able to challenge the base of other political parties or we will forever fall short on our ability to undertake the hard work of a modern political
party.

There is evidence that the Party is making the transition. Individual donations have increased markedly. The Laurier Club has grown in numbers and revenue. But it will take much more than this: we have no choice but to evolve and fundamentally change the way we fundraise at all levels. This imperative is made starker by what lies ahead.

The Harper Government's Bill C-2, which proposes to ban outright all corporate, union and organization donations, and will impose a new annual contribution limit of $1,000 for individuals (to each of national parties, Electoral District Associations (EDAs), and leadership candidates), means we must adapt ever more quickly. The Conservatives claim that this is being done for reasons of "accountability". However, Liberals should be under no illusion that this Bill C-2 is anything but a blatant attack aimed squarely at our Party's political jugular. We can, and must, respond. C-24 did far more than revolutionize political fundraising. It also included sweeping changes to "compliance" with the law, and imposed a huge burden on EDAs and political parties. New, comprehensive laws and subsequent regulations have meant that the Party has had to develop a significantly beefed-up financial, legal and audit capacity.

Anyone who has acted as a local financial agent will attest that the "new normal" means a crushing burden of returns and paperwork. The Party relies on volunteers - unrecognized and noble persons in every EDA - to complete filings. Their work has real value and must be better supported. The Party must continue to work with Elections Canada and Parliament to reduce and streamline this burden, but no matter what, the Party must be empowered to better support EDAs with their compliance requirements. There is a shared interest in doing so - any mistakes or missed deadlines reflect on the Party as a whole, not merely the EDA in question.

This compliance burden at the local level is mirrored - in spades - at the national level. At least half of the Party's total staff resources are now required for these kinds of functions. This has included activities such as ensuring that PTAs and riding associations file returns with Elections Canada; organizing papers for audits; and the work involved in centralized receipting functions. Significant senior management attention must be devoted to ensuring compliance and administrative effectiveness.

The existence of PTAs further compound the work - for the purposes of the Elections Act, PTAs ARE the National Party, and hence must adapt their accounting and audits to conform to national standards. There is really no way around this: the law is the law. That means that the challenges of deriving revenue, administering it properly, receipting contributors, managing our federation, and performing legal and audit functions, have become central to our existence.

b. Successes to Date
Incredibly, and despite the political challenges of the past few years and the onset of minority governments, the Party has made numerous improvements to its structure. Key accomplishments have included new Provincial and Territorial Association (PTA) financing agreements; the establishment of a National Election Fund; the adoption of a national Code of Conduct; advancements in central receipting; making memberships available online; and the development and implementation of a National Membership Registry (NMR). The first of these improvements, the PTA financing agreements, represented a sea change in managing and financing all levels of the Party. Gone are the days of myriad, often secret, revenue-sharing arrangements between a bewildering array of EDAs, PTAs, and the National Party. The Party openly, consciously and deliberately chose to spread its revenue evenly across the country, in the belief that building Liberalism somewhere helps build Liberalism everywhere. Moreover, PTAs were rewarded for the successes of fundraising in their region by returning a portion of those proceeds to them. This is a powerful and positive development.

However, another of these improvements, the NMR, is perhaps the most powerful legacy of the current National Executive. It courageously discarded the incomprehensible, and unworkable, patchwork of databases and information systems across the country into what will be a state-of-the-art piece of Party infrastructure. When complete, the NMR will manage riding and Commission memberships, Conventions, nominations, fundraising and receipting, and support voter identification and get-out-the-vote efforts. It will be the finest and most modern system of its kind in the country, and is drawing notice from our sister parties around the world.

c. The Imperative of Change
But much more is needed. Our fundamentals need to be re-assessed. There is a limit to the extent to which the above, administrative, improvements can restore our institutional competitiveness. The constitutional status quo – LPC's current unwieldy and top-heavy structure - impedes our ability to compete financially and constrains us from effectively carrying out our three (3) core functions:

1) policy development,
2) finance and fundraising, and
3) organization and election readiness.

The activity that occurs in the huge space that exists between EDAs, the most vital organism in our body politic, and the LPC, the body that unites us all, is too often extraneous to those core functions. Put simply, our Party's structures must be aligned with our priorities. If nothing else in this report is found to be worthy, this simple recommendation will hopefully endure.

Joe Klein, the famed American political writer and author of "Primary Colors", in his recent book "Politics Lost", laments the decline of his country's Democratic Party. For him, the realization that the Democratic Party had lost its way was in 1981, as it considered the loss of the White House to Ronald Reagan. He recalls writing the following for Rolling Stone magazine at that time:

In early June of 1981, some sixty million years after the last dinosaurs, chilled by the cooling air and addled by the heaving earth, stumbled toward extinction in the Colorado highlands, the leaders of the Democratic Party arrived in Denver for a meeting. The Democrats, as always, divided themselves into caucuses: Women (concerned exclusively with the Equal Rights Amendment, a futile and symbolic gesture and therefore favored ground for Democrats), blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals (a lonely caucus of one), progressive-liberals and ethnics (a caucus for Caucasians?).

They argued over rules and procedures, though less vehemently than in the past. They passed resolutions, none of which showed the slightest spark of ingenuity or the faintest glimmer of a new idea. They railed against Reagan and walloped like happy brontosauruses in a turgid pool of self-congratulatory idealism. In the strictest sense of the word, they had become conservatives - defending the past, the troubled social programs of New Deal and Great Society vintage, with a vengeance.

We know the rest of the story. Through the eighties and nineties, the Democrats went from a Party that dominated both houses of Congress and competed to win in every local, state and national election to one that lost the vast majority of State Houses, Governorships, the Senate, the House of Representatives and (with the exception of the remarkable Bill Clinton) every single Presidential election. Obvious to even casual observers of American politics was the Democrats' loss of unity of purpose.

Liberals must avoid the wrong turns made by the Democratic Party. We cannot become hostages to an unwieldy structure, buried in rules and procedures. We must preserve our own unity of purpose. We must always seek to look forward, and challenge the status quo. This report, then, seeks to make a contribution to a debate about structure, so that a debate about ideas can occur.

d. Core Functions
Our structure matters. It matters because a good structure would allow for exciting work to occur. It matters because right now, it is too hard to even join the Liberal Party of Canada. A good structure, by our definition, would allow for innovative thought on an ongoing basis, and would be a natural home for citizen engagement. It would prize and cherish every single member. It would seek to stimulate involvement (and membership) in our Party. It would seek to reward volunteer effort in local communities. It would cease to foster interminable and sterile discussions around rules and procedures. And most importantly, it would seek to build a Party united around our three core functions. They bear repeating:

* Policy development: This is the most fundamental function of a political party. Party members get engaged because of their belief in a better community, a better country, and a better world. Any party that performs this function well will invariably become the home to society's most engaged, innovative and energetic persons. Liberals deserve nothing less than the most open, democratic and - especially - ongoing policy development process in Canada. Our Party's policy development infrastructure needs new life. This report will seek to define new and exciting ways
to achieve this.

* Fundraising and finance: Changes to the Elections Act known as Bill C-24, and planned "accountability" measures, known as C-2, require that we rethink our processes and develop the means to raise significant amounts of money, in small amounts, from a great number of Canadians. Similarly, these legislative changes have created a massive burden for compliance on volunteers and staff at all levels of the Party. The penalties for non-compliance are severe, and the imperative to report all financial transactions and make them publicly available is ever-present. Our structures, needless to say, must support, value and enable these functions.

* Organization and election readiness: The onset of minority governments serves to highlight the need for a permanent organizational and election readiness infrastructure in our Party. There is only one logical place to aim this effort, and that is the only structure in our Party that elects Members of Parliament - the Electoral District Association (EDA). This report will contemplate structures, and means, for empowering EDAs on an ongoing basis and equipping them to win.

e. Ridings: The Centre of our Universe
Inherent in the debate over our Party's structures is the need for Liberals to refocus on activity at the local (EDA) level. EDAs are the home for all of our members. They are the centres of Party activity. They are composed of dedicated and idealistic volunteers.

Incredibly, all too often, they are also lost in National Party discussions and decisionmaking. Structural renewal must therefore begin with a "return to ridings" with EDAs as the most valuable components of the National Party. Moreover, structural renewal will help EDAs accomplish the three core priorities that are prerequisites to victory.

The recommendations contained in this report will strengthen and empower our Party's grassroots. It will simplify and streamline our Party's structures and regroup our efforts around our three core functions. It will increase representation of local volunteers in national decision-making. The end result will be a more open and democratic Party - united around Liberal values - better able to compete and win. We do believe that the choice in front of us is relatively simple: change or become unable to compete to win. The status quo leaves our Party at a significant electoral disadvantage.

We do not wish to contemplate the effects on our country of a weakened, top-heavy Party. Rather, we are determined to once again challenge our Party to challenge the status quo and opt for a strong, decentralized volunteer-based institution. That is because history has shown - beyond all question - that a strong Liberal Party means a strong and united Canada.

5. Recommendations
The Task Force examined possible changes to the Party's Constitution - our founding document - that will enhance LPC's ability to perform its core functions, while staying faithful to the principles that have made the Party a wildly successful political institution throughout our history. More importantly, it is hoped that these changes, if adopted, will realign the processes and values of the Party such that we foster dynamism at the riding level, engage Liberals in the important debates of the day, and develop the ingredients critical to electoral success.

Further to much deliberation and analysis, consensus among Task Force members regarding proposed changes has been reached in the following key areas:

a. A National Party - A National Membership
"How do I join the Liberal Party of Canada?"
Amazingly, that is one of the hardest questions to answer in our Party. Another hard question is "how many members does the Liberal Party have?" That is because our Party is a patchwork quilt of fees, eligibilities, rules and procedures. PTAs are literally swimming in forms, databases, lists, renewals, and cheques.

That is because entry to the Liberal Party of Canada is gained through PTAs and their constituent clubs, Commissions and EDAs. The Liberal Party of Canada has no members. Its PTAs do. Some PTAs estimate that 60-80% of their time and resources are applied to the administration of memberships, the debate and contemplation of new rules and processes, and the legal compliance that goes with these responsibilities.

Even with this Herculean and valiant effort on the part of PTAs, it is no surprise that no single PTA, acting in isolation (and with completely different rules and tools) from the other twelve, possesses the efficiencies of scale required to perform the job up to minimum standards. For example, in some provinces, membership cards, if they are sent at all, take six months to be received. By contrast, if you lose your credit card in the most remote region of the planet, you can usually have another one issued to you inside of 2-3 business days.

Incredibly, some PTAs feel forced to adopt rules and procedures that have the perverse effect of limiting membership (or membership forms) in the Party for fear of giving one "side" of a Party contest – a leadership candidate, a nomination contestant, a candidate for Party office - an advantage (and sometimes for the exactly opposite motivation). How have we gotten here? Some "inconvenient truths" must be acknowledged.

Nomination and leadership contests in the Liberal Party of Canada have become, by default, the proxies for the larger electoral contests in the country. Success in these contests has generally foreshadowed electoral success in the broadest sense. This has meant that control of local and regional institutions like PTAs and EDAs has enabled people of like mind to mould rules such that one candidate's interest is enhanced while others' interests are impeded.

Aside from the unfairness inherent in such an arrangement, persons interested in joining the Party, in becoming a candidate for public office, or in becoming its Leader, have been discouraged by the challenges of working their way through this kind of a maze.

Similarly, the National Party's interest (and the overriding interest of all Liberals) has been impeded by the existence in the Constitution of a clause preventing the Party from communicating with its members, absent explicit permission from the PTAs. Many are the Liberals who, on a daily basis, complain to LPC about their lack of information on the Party's policies, news and positions on the issues of the day. It comes as no small shock to these persons to learn that their Party - the most successful Party in the Western World - is barred from communicating directly with them.

The Task Force has heard from and acknowledges those in our Party who feel that our federated structure confers strategic advantage. We agree with this. However, we reject the notion that this must mean that the Party must continue to operate 13 distinct "membership centers" across the country, while keeping its "sales" function in Ottawa. No business or organization we are aware of functions along those principles. In the sections to follow, we outline what we believe to be the proper role of our federated members, the PTAs.

The Task Force therefore recommends proceeding with a proper, national membership. This membership would have common eligibility criteria and open access, at all times, for any person wishing to become a card-carrying Liberal. We propose no change in the base eligibility currently outlined in the LPC Constitution. The benefits of national membership are compelling:

* achieving common eligibility eliminates the confusing patchwork of rules and processes;
* transparency and fairness for those who seek Liberal Party office or nomination;
* a common membership fee;
* portability of membership from coast-to-coast-to-coast;
* achieving economies of scale in membership administration;
* setting performance benchmarks for service and issuance of membership cards; and
* freeing up PTA resources to assist EDAs in performing their core functions as noted later.

The Party has made significant progress recently with the development of a National Membership Registry. The Party has also recently allowed the purchase of memberships online. Both are key developments accomplished with the full cooperation of our PTAs. Both will make the transition to national membership far easier than at any time in the past. (Keep in mind, however, that the technological "work arounds" to accommodate the patchwork of membership regimes across the country compounds the cost of the NMR in a significant way.)

Further, LPC HQ will no longer have to contact Provincial and Territorial Associations for permission to contact members, which will better equip us to appeal directly to a wider network of current/potential supporters and donors with news, policies and information.

Task Force Recommendations - Membership:
Therefore, the Red Ribbon Task Force makes the following recommendations:

* The LPC Constitution be amended to accommodate a national membership. Such membership would confer upon anyone eligible to join an automatic membership in the EDA and the PTA in which they ordinarily reside, and in any
Commission for which they are eligible.

* A national fee should be imposed for such memberships, and that a percentage of said fee should be allocated to cost recovery, to be determined by the National Executive, in consultation with EDAs/Ridings through to the Council of Presidents. The remainder of the fee would be returned to the EDA/Riding of origin.

* The clause preventing LPC from communicating with its members should be deleted from the LPC Constitution.
* Membership by-laws would be the responsibility of the National Executive.
* An appropriate phase-in period should be envisaged.

b. Provincial/Territorial Associations
The role of Party Provincial and Territorial Associations (PTAs) was carefully assessed by Task Force members, particularly in the context of the post C-24 world. The Elections Act makes no distinction between PTAs and the National Party: for the purposes of the law, they are one in the same.

However, as indicated, the Task Force believes that a federated structure has conferred significant benefit on our Party and has contributed to its success. Therefore, we believe that a renewed focus on non-administrative tasks should be envisaged to give PTAs new meaning and relevance. The participation of our PTAs permits valuable debate, inclusion and a pan-Canadian perspective on the key issues facing the Party. PTAs have played, and must continue to play, an invaluable role with respect to policy development There is an obvious gap with respect to what PTAs should do in theory, and what they actually do in practice.

Ideally, PTAs should represent their region to the National Party, and represent the National Party to their region. They should be a catalyst for local and regional action: promoting policy development, assisting EDAs in their core functions, supporting the national fundraising program and their local Laurier Club (after all, they receive a portion of this money!), conducting elections for Party office at the local/regional/national level, and generally keeping the Party in an advanced state of organizational and electoral readiness. They should be the local interface for EDAs and represent their interests to LPC, while providing staff and volunteer support "in the field". PTAs should employ organizers who work with ridings to perform these functions. Currently, this is impossible, given the crushing financial burden of administering memberships. There is simply not enough money to do both, so the "minimum" (i.e. membership administration) gets done.

Further, the financing agreements signed between LPC and the PTAs represent significant progress for the Party. PTAs have committed - for example - to participate in the development and maintenance of a national database of members and to revamped financial reporting requirements. These are undoubtedly key advancements and are to be lauded. At the same time, PTAs benefit from a guaranteed source of revenue from LPC. Fully one-quarter of LPC's revenues go to operate the PTAs, and as we have shown, the bulk of this investment is spent on membership administration