New column day

Here, expanding on these posts as to what might come next as Canada's political parties map out their strategies on electoral reform.

For further reading...
- Chantal Hebert wonders whether Justin Trudeau will face internal pressure to renege on his promise of electoral reform. But considering that the Libs' voter coalition consists of significantly more voters willing to consider other parties, I'd think Trudeau has every incentive to ensure he responds to the demand for electoral reform both inside and outside his party's base. (That said, those looking for reason for concern about the Libs' follow-through will find it in John Geddes' interview with Dominic Leblanc.)
- Tim Harper notes the different positions the federal parties have taken on electoral reform thus far. And Andrew Coyne examines how each figures to approach the issue as it develops.
- Finally, Aaron Wherry pointed to Stephen Harper's past take on proportional representation and coalition-building here. 

On tarnished brands

It's interesting to see Robert Silver's surprise that Dominic Leblanc is doing everything possible to run away from the title of renewal/grassroots candidate. But it makes perfect sense from my standpoint that the Lib contenders might be seeking virtually any other available available label first.

After all, Stephane Dion held just those designations at the last leadership convention - however dubiously in light of the apparent lack of grassroots support following his leadership win. And with the Libs's latest race now in progress as a direct result of Dion's failings, it makes sense that Leblanc and other candidates would see some serious danger in branding themselves in a way that would build associations to Dion.

Of course, that raises issues as to whether the Libs' leadership contenders will end up either being detached from any party renewal process, or completely drowning it out. And it may be that Dion's greatest damage to the Libs is yet to come if his path to victory winds up discrediting the symbols associated with him among the Libs' new leadership contenders.

On animal instincts

The CP reports on this week's Ethics Committee hearings looking into Conadscam. And for all the justified talk about how the Cons still haven't come to terms with the fact that they're not currently in opposition, Lib MP Dominic LeBlanc offers a strong indication that the Libs still haven't come to terms with their change in roles either:

(D)espite Prime Minister Stephen Harper's recent warning about "Kangaroo court" committee inquiries in the Commons, Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc says the opposition is prepared to go as far as it can in questioning the Tories over $1.3 million in questionable advertising expenses from the 2006 election.

LeBlanc noted Harper didn't object when one of his opposition Conservative MPs chaired another Commons committee during a highly charged inquiry into the sponsorship scandal under a Liberal government.

"When the chief kangaroo was the chair of the public accounts committee then, they didn't mind going to the zoo," said LeBlanc.

So what's wrong with LeBlanc's phrasing? Consider that it would have been at least as accurate for LeBlanc to do that by drawing a similar equivalence to the previous investigation of the Libs but on positive terms: "when they were in opposition, they were able to use the committee procedure to investigate government wrongdoing. Now, it's similarly in the public's best interest for us to do the same".

That would have the effect of reinforcing the opposition's role of holding the government to account, while highlighting the Libs' commitment to doing just that for Harper as the Cons did for them. But instead, LeBlanc's phrasing unconditionally accepts the "kangaroo court" description, hinting at apparent bitterness over the fact that the Libs were caught while in office. And his means of justifying an unfair process (as any actual kangaroo court would be) is the tired refrain of "but they did it too".

All of which serves not only to delegitimize next week's hearings, but also to signal to Canadians that the Libs still think they should be both in office and above the "zoo" of parliamentary investigation. And the fact that the Libs have managed to live through over two years of Deceivin' Stephen without even slightly cluing into the fact that holding the government to account is an essential function of opposition rather than a matter of entertainment shows that they're a long way from being fit to take power themselves.