The John Lennard Experience

Nothing inspires Canadians like a "quarrelsome, argumentative" government-in-waiting!

2010-05-18T06:47:00.006-04:00

De plus: I don't know about you and yours, but most of my family dinners aren't glitzy parties in downtown Toronto, complete with Michael Bublé videos and a leader who insists he's more Canadian than we are. But at least he got a brief standing ovation at the end!

We can do better

2009-09-24T22:29:00.003-04:00

Mr. Ignatieff,

Once upon a time, being a liberal was a sign of courage. It symbolized strength of character, independence of spirit and respect for democracy.

Unfortunately, it seems things have changed. In 2009, being a member of the federal Liberal Party in Québec means knowing one's place, never asking questions and – most of all – never challenging the status quo.

As members of the Liberal Party of Canada, and especially as ardent defenders of liberal thought, we feel the need to speak out publicly on recent troubling events. By addressing ourselves to the media, our goal is not to embarrass the party, but rather to strengthen it. Indeed, up to now, the party apparatus does not seem to have taken our message seriously. Preferring a “don't rock the boat” strategy instead of real debate and discussion, many would demand that we remain silent. But for the sake of our Party and its underlying democratic principles, we cannot remain silent. Here are our concerns.

We find it very disturbing that certain individuals would attempt, undemocratically, to expand their authority within the party. At a time when Canadians demand openness and transparency from their elected officials, the Liberal Party of Canada should be leading the way. Lines of accountability must be clear and decisions must taken fairly, openly and honestly.

As other leaders have done, you have chosen to appoint a “Québec lieutenant” to assist you on organizational matters. We unequivocally recognize your right to do so. But we must ask ourselves, with due respect, who is ultimately in charge in Québec. While we do not by any means question the quality of your leadership, we are troubled that others would act as though they, alone, sheer this great Liberal ship. They do not have a mandate from the membership to lead. You do.

After being told in the spring of 2009 that all ridings in Québec – including those with incumbent Liberal MPs – would be subject to nomination races, some have chosen to play petty games in an apparent attempt to nurture their own ambitions. By imposing candidates in ridings across the province, they have encroached on the sacred, democratic right of local party members to nominate their own representatives.

We submit that it is not very liberal to bypass the nomination process on a systematic basis. It is not very liberal to reject qualified nomination contestants without justification. And it is not very liberal to put one's own personal interests ahead of the right of party members to have their say. Let us never forget that the Party is always bigger than the person.

We realize that by writing this public letter, we risk alienating ourselves from powerful members of the party machine. But it is a risk we are willing to take, because we love our party too much to keep quiet. Regretfully, others fear reprisal and have chosen not to speak up, even though they agree with our opinion. This speaks volumes about the state of democracy in the “Liberal” Party.

We have confidence, Mr. Ignatieff, in your judgement, and trust that you will take our concerns seriously and make appropriate changes to the way things work in the party. After all, “we can do better” must be more than a campaign slogan – change must begin at home.

Yours in Liberalism,

John Lennard and Jonathan Pedneault

Let the people decide!

2009-09-21T16:19:00.001-04:00

On May 2, 2009, in a remarkable show of party unity, Liberals from across Canada gathered in Vancouver to select Michael Ignatieff as our new leader. The convention thrived on the sense that renewal was here, that change was coming, and that Liberals were finally ready to set aside decades of internal divisions and take this country back.

Five months later, we still see the remnants of our party's less-than-democratic past. In the Québec riding of Outremont - once a Liberal bastion, now trending NDP under Thomas Mulcair - the “party brass" has decided to forego a democratic nomination process in favour of appointing a "star" candidate. They seek to disenfranchise local Liberals by muscling out three fantastic candidates:

● Dr. Comlan Amouzou, a community organizer and Chair of the party's multiculturalism committee in Québec;
● Sébastien Dhavernas, a highly-regarded leader in Québec's artistic community and 2008 Liberal candidate in Outremont; and
● The Hon. Martin Cauchon, Canada's former Justice Minister, who led the Chrétien government's efforts to legalize same-sex marriage;

Any one of these individuals would make a fine Liberal candidate. And quite frankly, the voices of local Liberals deserve to be heard in determining who that nominee will be!

So what are we waiting for? Liberals (and especially Young Liberals) have an obligation to push for democracy within our Party. We have to be clear and unambiguous in saying to the party bigwigs: Enough is enough! Let the riding choose! Let the democratic process play itself out! And when all is said and done, let's get behind a legitimate candidate who has the confidence and support of the community they wish to serve.

A failing grade on "change" and "renewal"

2009-01-20T21:17:00.002-05:00

This past weekend, the Liberal Party of Canada announced the creation of two new committees to deal with the ever-popular themes of “change” and “renewal”. The “Special Renewal Committee”, headed by former LPC National Director Steve MacKinnon and Mississauga MP Navdeep Bains, will be tasked with looking at the structures and mechanisms within the Party to engage both Party members and Canadians as a whole. For its part, the “Change Commission”, co-chaired by Dr. Carolyn Bennett, Party President Doug Ferguson, and local Party activist Brigitte Garceau, will apparently be focussing on “long term changes to the Party’s engagement, communications, fundraising, policy, and election-readiness strategies.”

“Change and renewal.” Laudable goals, indeed. Let's ignore the fact that we completed a similar exercise just two years ago with the Red Ribbon Task Force. Let's set aside the fact that many prominent Liberals have already written extensively about the topic time and time again. Let's forget the overlap, the redundancy, the lack of any real time-lines or deliverables. Let's just be glad the Party is – or at least seems to be – committed to the broad notions of “change” and “renewal”, and is willing to set up a process to achieve them. It's a good first step... Right?

Wrong. There are nine members of the Special Renewal Committee and three members of the Change Commission. That's twelve Liberals, representing most of the country (with the exception of BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland, PEI, the territories, aboriginal communities and most of rural Canada). Most stunning to me, however, is that we're talking about twelve Liberals... And not a single Young Liberal!

Young Liberals should be surprised, disappointed and angry at the lack of youth representation in the Party's renewal process. We should be DOUBLY upset at the fact that part of the Special Renewal Committee's mandate is to review “the contributions of Commissions to achieving equitable representation in the party and the pursuit of our electoral objectives.” Put simply, the committee will be looking at the role of the YLC. What do we expect such a discussion to yield? Are we to believe that a committee without a single youth member will recommend a strengthened role for Young Liberals within the Party? More funding for our recruitment initiatives? Lower delegate fees for national conventions? A better appreciation for our policy ideas? Let's get serious!

People tell us we're the next generation of leaders in our Party. I beg to differ! I think we have the potential to be leaders today, to take the lead right now in making the changes our Party needs to grow and prosper. But to do so, we do need to get serious! As Young Liberals, we need to be more aggressive in asserting our role within the Party. We must not be shoved aside as an afterthought. Our role within the Party must be far bigger and far more substantial.

I'm running for President of the Young Liberals of Canada. Over the next few weeks and months, I look forward to sharing some of my ideas on what we need to do to build a stronger commission and a stronger Party. More importantly, I look forward to hearing some of yours. In the meantime, I urge you to let the Party know that Young Liberals want in on renewal!

Yours in Liberalism,

John

-----

Please email the following people with your concerns!!:

Michael Ignatieff (Leader, Liberal Party of Canada): ignatieff.m@parl.gc.ca
Doug Ferguson (President, Liberal Party of Canada): dferguson@liberal.ca
Cory Pike (President, Young Liberals of Canada): cpike@liberal.ca
Carolyn Bennett (Co-Chair, “Change Commission”): bennec@parl.gc.ca
Navdeep Bains (Co-Chair, “Special Renewal Committee): bainsn1@parl.gc.ca

A few questions

2008-11-19T14:23:00.004-05:00

Here's an interesting article in the online edition of the Toronto Star today. I find the last few paragraphs particularly telling:

On the weekend, Rae accused Ignatieff, his former university roommate, of running a "peekaboo" campaign after the former Harvard academic refused to allow the media to attend a candidates' event in Toronto. Rae's team, which is calling for weekly televised debates, is hoping that frequent exposure will trip up Ignatieff and demonstrate Rae's superior debating and political skills.

However, Ignatieff is unlikely to take the bait. He said Tuesday that he sees the contest as an opportunity to listen to Liberals.

"This is a listening campaign," he told CBC Newsworld. "It's going to work best for me if I'm in small rooms listening to Liberals. So we're playing it very quiet."

During the 2006 contest, Ignatieff championed the idea of imposing a carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Dion ran on the proposal during last month's election but both he and the plan proved to be unpopular.

Ignatieff said Tuesday that voters have told Liberals to "come back and think again about how to reconcile environmental sustainability and economic progress." He said that's a policy challenge that can only be solved by working with other Liberals.

-----

A few questions to consider

1. As we look to rebuild our party, should we Liberals use this leadership race as an opportunity to listen to ourselves, or to reach out to Canadians?

2. As we look to reform our party, should we Liberals be terribly concerned about “what works best” for a particular leadership candidate?

3. As we look to reconnect with Canadians, should we Liberals, or our potential leaders, really be “playing it quiet”?

4. As we look to return to government, should we Liberals convince ourselves that the same crew that "championed" the carbon tax (not to mention other wonderful proposals such as extending our mission in Afghanistan) will come up with anything more appealing next time?

Not yet overcome

2008-11-05T16:18:00.002-05:00

According to voters in California and Florida, I can be President, but I can't get married.

In reaching important milestones, let us celebrate. But let us always remember that there is much, much more work to do.

Day 2 - On the campaign bus

2008-09-09T12:41:00.002-04:00

(cross-posted at JohnLennard.ca)

So a funny thing happened on the way home from school last night...

I rode a Liberal campaign bus.

That's right. I'm walking home from school in the pouring rain, kicking myself for not thinking to bring an umbrella on a cloudy day (hey, no one said law students were smart!). I'm also a little pissed off. It's 5:45. I'm just leaving campus. The Quebec campaign kickoff rally in the leader's home riding starts at 6:30. There's no way I can get from downtown to north Montreal in less than an hour (public transportation in Montreal is decent, but exceedingly complicated).

All of a sudden, the rain slows to a drizzle. The clouds part, allowing the tender warmth of the sun to shine through. I look over to my right, and I see... A big read bus with Stephane Dion's face across the side.

A miracle! I start running after the bus, which happens to stop at a hotel right beside my apartment. "Wow," I think to myself, "this just keeps getting better and better." I look around the parking lot and spot an old friend of mine who works on the leader's tour. I go up to him and we shake hands. Trying to be subtle, I ask: "Hey, what's the easiest way to get to the rally tonight?" He laughs at me: "Trust me, there is no easy way." He pauses to think for a moment. "Come with me."

He takes me across the lot to where two other busses are parked. These ones are white, with the Liberal logo blazoned on either side. "Media busses," he explains.

He leads me onto the first one, and tells me to sit right up front, beside an RCMP officer. One thing I've learned in politics is that when an opportunity presents itself, you shut up and take it. So there I sat, in the front seat beside a security guard, for the ride up to the rally in Saint-Laurent. The bus is jovial. Cameramen joking with one another, quizzing each other on obscure Montreal trivia, complaining about the terrible roads in Quebec ("It's not construction work," I explain, "It's repair work.") I can see Roger Smith from CTV News sitting a few rows behind me, quietly working away on his laptop.

We arrive at the rally, and a Young Liberal friend of mine watches me step off the bus. He shakes his head. "How did you pull that off?," he asks. "Long story. Be glad I'm here."

It was a great event. Three hundred Liberals packed the room and cheered on as candidates from across the province joined the leader on stage. Stephane Dion was officially nominated as the Liberal candidate in Saint-Laurent-Cartierville. He gave a fantastic speech, urging us never to forget what the stakes are in this election.

He's right. We have to keep plugging away. And so I will.

Day 1 - The call (and three offices?)

2008-09-09T12:19:00.002-04:00

(Cross-posted at JohnLennard.ca)

Just watched Harper and Dion's respective news conferences. I don't have much to say. Pretty boring stuff.

What's more interesting, for me, is what goes on in the ridings, on the ground. Case in point: Nickel Belt, where I'll be offering as much assistance as I can to elect Louise Portelance as Member of Parliament. Granted, living in Montreal means that I'm eight hours away, but trust me: So much can be done remotely with a cell phone and an internet connection.

Over the past couple of weeks, our biggest challenge was finding a reasonably-affordable, highly-visible and readily-accessible campaign office. Until yesterday, it was looking pretty bleak, and we began to consider other options (A roving office? A trailer, perhaps?). Then last night, in a STUNNING turn of events (sorry, I grew up watching Larry King), I got the good news that we had secured not one, not two, but three campaign offices! For a riding as ginormous as Nickel Belt (you could fit a few European countries within our boundaries), having a few satellite offices makes sense. So take that, broken down Winnebago! We'll be living the high life after all, thank you very much!

So for anyone passing through Northern Ontario over the next few weeks, drop by and lend Louise a hand!

Valley East Office

(next to the Pizza Hut)

4544 Highway 69N, unit #3

Val Therese, Ontario, P3P 1P9

Rayside Balfour Office

Place Bonaventure

4764-10A, R.R. 15

Chelmsford, Ontario, P0M 1L0

West Nipissing Office

173 King Street

Sturgeon Falls, Ontario, P2B 1R6

JohnLennard.ca

2008-08-18T13:44:00.003-04:00

For those who have been waiting oh-so-patiently for me to get back into the blogging business, the good news is in... I'm back! You can read my stuff over at JohnLennard.ca.

Silent "thank yous"?

2008-02-25T21:24:00.002-05:00

This is good news for everyone. And I mean everyone.

Bob Rae update

2007-08-23T11:16:00.000-04:00

For those of you who have been asking...

After attending Scott and Maxime's wedding over the weekend and playing in a charity golf tournament on Monday, Bob came down with a mild summer cold. As a result, his procedure has been delayed until later this month.

Bob says: "I hope you enjoy the remainder of your summer. Thanks, as always, for your interest and support."

Bob Rae is doing just fine

2007-08-15T15:25:00.000-04:00

As many of you may have heard, Bob Rae will be undergoing heart surgery next week to remove an aneurysm from his aorta. His doctors are confident that he will fully recover within weeks.

I spoke with Bob briefly this morning on a conference call with key members of his campaign team. He sounded positive and optimistic. Looking forward to the upcoming federal election (or byelection, depending on the case), he said he looks forward to resuming his active campaign schedule within six weeks or so. Quite frankly, his confidence was infectious. All of us left the call in an upbeat mood.

Bob remains committed to the people of Toronto Centre and to Liberals across Canada. I can't wait to see him enter the House of Commons so that he can continue to fight for the progressive ideals Canadians want.
------------
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network

Vote for MMP: Public information campaign launched

2007-08-01T18:02:00.000-04:00

Elections Ontario has launched a public information campaign on the upcoming referendum question on electoral reform. They've even created a useful website to inform Ontarians of the choice they face on October 10th. I'd invite everyone to visit the site and get a basic understanding of how the proposed MMP system would work. Once we're clear on the basics, we can have a more substantive discussion on the details.

Vote for MMP: Billy Ballot

2007-07-26T23:58:00.001-04:00

This guy is my hero! He explains the proposed new system very well.

Vote for MMP: Conceptualizing electoral reform

2007-07-22T20:01:00.001-04:00

(This is the first part in a series of posts I will be making in advance of the Ontario referendum on electoral reform. I will use these posts to explain my support for the proposed mixed member proportional model, and to debunk its critics and naysayers.)

As I mentioned in my previous post, I have recently become a strong advocate for electoral reform. I came to this position after much reflection.

I started out by looking at where we stand. Right now, our legislative system is founded on the idea of local representation. The province of Ontario is divided into 103 (soon to be 107) specific geographic regions (or "ridings"), each of which is represented by an MPP. Among numerous candidates in each riding, these MPPs are elected by a plurality of voters: Whichever candidate gets the most votes, wins.

As envisaged by our current electoral framework, the predominant relationship is between the MPP and her riding. We, the citizens of a given riding, are electing a person to represent us at Queen's Park. It is expected that our MPP will fight for our interests and be responsive to our needs and the needs of our communities. At the provincial level, our MPPs are expected to meet and collectively discuss, debate and set public policy.

A fairly simple system, no doubt. But the simplicity of our process masks the overall complexity of our politics.

First of all, the relationship between the MPP and the voter is not as straightforward as it would seem. There are other factors at play, including (and especially) political parties. Not only is the MPP a representative of a riding, she also represents the policies, the platform and the philosophy of her party. Thus, the voter is not just electing a local representative: In selecting between candidates representing various political parties, he is also (implicitly) endorsing a political philosophy.

With this in mind, I submit that there are two major relationships at play: Voter and representative, and voter and party. I further submit that our electoral system should reflect these overlapping, yet distinct, relationships. It doesn't. It ignores the relationship between voter and party, and that's the problem.

In many cases, local representatives are elected with far less than a majority of votes. If political parties weren't part of the equation, and if the singular relationship were between voter and representative, this may not be an issue. But of course, parties and philosophies are fundamental to our democracy.

As voters, we rightfully expect that our votes will help determine the philosophical direction our province takes. Most of the time, this is not the case. Most of the time, majority governments are formed by political parties which have received a plurality of votes in most ridings, but far less than a majority of votes overall. Most of the time, a majority of Ontarian are governed by a minority of Ontarians whose votes happened to be more efficiently spread throughout the ridings. Most of the time, most Ontarians have no real say in shaping our public policies.

And so, what's the solution? As I said earlier, our system needs to reflect the twin relationships the voter has with both the representative and the party. Local representation must remain a key feature of any new system. But party preferences need to be included as well. Just as every voter deserves a local representative to fight for local needs, every voter (insofar as practical) deserves a philosophical voice in the broader public policy debate.

The Mixed Member Proportional representation model proposed by the Citizens' Assembly achieves both goals. It maintains local representation while achieving proportionality, so that the percentage of votes each party receives is more accurately reflected in their numbers in the legislature.

I think this is a fair and effective solution to a very real problem facing our democracy. I hope readers will take the time to look into the Citizens' Assembly's recommendations and to otherwise inform themselves fully on this issue.

I'm back...

2007-07-17T10:28:00.000-04:00

...and I'm pushing a new political agenda: electoral reform.

On October 10th, we in Ontario will have the chance to voice our opinion on the way we elect our members of the provincial legislature. We will be asked to choose between our current "first-past-the-post" system, and the alternative "mixed member proportional" system proposed by the Citizens' Assembly.

I'm endorsing mixed member proportional. Why? Because it's the fair and right thing to do. And despite conventional wisdom, I think it will be good for the Liberal Party and the progressive cause in general.

Over the next days and weeks, I'll explain my position. I invite everyone to stay tuned.
-------------
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network

Thanks Jack!

2007-06-16T22:24:00.000-04:00

So Stephen Harper can't be trusted? Wow! Talk about breaking news!

And the award for pointing out the obvious goes to: John Gilbert Layton, Ph.D.

Legal opinions, please

2007-04-08T16:41:00.000-04:00

I understand that we have a great many lawyer-bloggers on Liblogs. I would like to know their opinion on whether or not this is even legal. Seems to me if it is, it shouldn't be.

Here's an idea for a new Tory slogan:

Canada's New Government: Getting things done for all of us, one ethical lapse at a time.

h/t Red Tory

1990 all over again?

2007-03-26T22:09:00.000-04:00

I'm thinking so.
------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device.

Grieving...sort of

2007-03-24T21:27:00.000-04:00

Today is a sad day for me. Yesterday, the Ontario Young Liberals lost one of its brightest stars to the horrible, debilitating and humiliating event known as...aging out. Yes, that's right folks. DR -- my "Jamaican connection" to the Liberal Party who shares my oh-so-strong interest in politics AND policy -- turned 26 yesterday.

Aging out. It has happened or will happen to all of us -- even the best of us -- but it is still shameful nonetheless. You lose the energy required to get sloshed two nights in a row at political events. You don't get invited to OYL AGMs or Summer Flings anymore (unless, of course, you're an OYL Senator or your last name happens to be Cherniak). You're no longer "hip" enough to be the "life of the party"; in fact, if you're not careful, you might actually break your hip while at a party. No more youth discounts to conventions. No more backstage access to the politicians. No more policy parliaments, no more internships, no complimentary tickets to fundraisers. "What's Sexy"? Apparently, if you're 26 or over, not you. You're just another nameless, faceless not-so-young Liberal.

Then again, it ain't so bad...

When you're 26, party big-wigs actually start taking you seriously. They start hounding you for cash, even though you're not rich enough yet to donate anything of significance. Campaign worker? Nope...Make that Campaign MANAGER. Summer Intern? Forget about it! You're a Senior Advisor to the Minister now! Who wants to be a riding association youth rep when you can be a riding association president? And who knows? Maybe in a couple of years, with a bit more experience under your belt, you may be running for something yourself.

Yes, friends, being old has its advantages. But nothing beats being a Young Liberal. I think DR knows that. And while she is surely glad to be moving on from the proverbial "playground," deep down, she'll always look back fondly on her days in the sandbox.

Happy birthday, Danielle! We'll miss you!

-----

PS: For those who were wondering where I've been these past few weeks, I've been working on a local nomination race. Without going into details, I will say that this is far more intense than anything I've ever worked on, including Leadership.

A Message from Bob Rae

2007-03-06T22:06:00.001-05:00

Statement by the Honourable Bob Rae

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 – “This morning at 11 a.m. I shall be filing my nomination papers at 10 St Mary Street at the Ontario headquarters of the Liberal Party of Canada. I am hoping to be the Liberal candidate in the riding of Toronto Centre and to join Stéphane Dion and my Liberal Party colleagues in Ottawa. I said during the leadership race that I would be standing for election in the next general election, and with Bill Graham's announcement of his retirement I am ready for the challenge of succeeding Bill, who has served the riding and Canada with distinction. Toronto Centre is a wonderfully diverse community at the heart of a city I have called home for a very long time, and it would be an honour to serve the people of Toronto Centre in the Parliament of Canada.”

-30 –

For media inquiries:

alexander.swann@sympatico.ca

Feeling complete

2007-02-25T22:50:00.000-05:00

On November 7th, 2000, I stayed up all night watching the U.S. Presidential Election results on CNN. I never got to say it then, but I'm glad I get to say it now...

GORE WINS!

Pauvre Canada

2007-02-19T23:29:00.000-05:00

It has begun.

Mr. Charest, if I lived in Quebec (which will be the case in six months or so) I would vote for you. Looking at the options currently available, I believe you are the best choice for la belle province. But on this issue, I truly, completely, vociferously, earnestly, unequivocally, passionately and profoundly - but always respectfully - disagree with you.

We need Rae

2007-02-16T12:08:00.000-05:00

Tom Axworthy makes the point here, and I agree with him 100%.

As I've always said, experience counts. Even though he won't be our leader, it's become increasingly clear that we need Bob Rae in Parliament. Why? Well, he is probably the most experienced person in Canada in dealing with minority government situations. We're seeing the Prime Minister play a lot of games in the House - on Kyoto, on judges, on fiscal issues, on national unity. His games are orchestrated. So, too, must be our responses. Having "officially" brought down two Conservative minority governments in the past, Bob Rae can offer significant insight in this regard, so that things like this don't happen.

By George!

2007-02-12T08:18:00.000-05:00

This story makes me smile for so many reasons.

Congratulations to the Deputy Premier.

Go Bears!

2007-02-04T19:43:00.000-05:00

I'm not a big football fan. Every year, I pick my Super Bowl team on a whim. I normally base my choice on which team has the coolest logo or the nicest jersey. Sure, it's arbitrary, but how else am I supposed to judge?

This year, I'm rooting for Chicago over Indiana. The reason is simple. As a proud Liberal, I just can't bring myself to back a team led by someone named "P. Manning".

Things that make you go "hmmm"

2007-02-02T22:20:00.000-05:00

An astute reader pointed something out to me...

If, as CTV.ca reports, Stephen Harper is no fan of the Super Bowl, does this mean he feels his own anti-Dion attack ads are not worth watching?

Maybe he's onto something...

Wait till George W. hears about this...

2007-02-02T13:16:00.000-05:00

Courtesy of CTV: Prime minister is no fan of NFL and Super Bowl.

Well I'll be! Blatant anti-Americanism! What impact will this have on Canada-US relations? Canadians must demand answers!

Stay tuned to The John Lennard Experience for the "latest news" and "top stories" from our friends at Bell GlobeMedia.

Don't call me fat! : PM

2007-01-31T23:30:00.000-05:00

My reaction after reading this? ROFL.

But seriously, though. I'd like to thank Minister Guergis and her mother for bringing this important issue to light. I, too, am appalled. Harper should never have left Stornoway in the first place!

What kind of leader is Stephen Harper?

2007-01-29T19:29:00.001-05:00

No, Mr. Harper. We will not forget. And we won't let you get away with it.

Spinning science

2007-01-29T06:12:00.000-05:00

Despite the facts, newly anointed Tory attack dog Jason Kenney continues to distort the Liberal record on the environment. Yesterday, during his "technical briefing" to the media about the new Conservative attack ads, Kenney claimed (erroneously, it appears) that air quality in Canada "deteriorated every single year" during the Liberal term from 1993 to 2006. His source: So-called "anecdotal evidence" from Dr. Carolyn Bennett who, oddly enough, is part of the same Liberal team Mr. Kenney is trying to discredit.

Of course, the facts prove otherwise. The Toronto Star reports that various federal and provincial government studies have either found fluctuating or improving levels of air quality over the past few years.

But why believe the science when you can believe the Tory spin? Jason Kenney says he wants to "drive [the Conservative] message home." Clearly, no amount of money or real evidence will stop him in this quest.

Tory's Tory Tour

2007-01-14T22:28:00.000-05:00

Peterborough, Orangeville, now London...I wonder when the Tories will bring their big blue machine to Sudbury. Hmmm....

From wikipedia: "In the 2003 election, [Liberal incumbent Rick Bartolucci] was reelected with the largest margin of victory in the entire province (almost 70 per cent of the vote)."

So come on up, Mr. Tory. We certainly know how to roll out the red carpet.

A bold prediction (sort of)

2007-01-10T21:48:00.000-05:00

I just finished watching interviews with Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain on Larry King Live. My prediction: Neither one will win their respective party's nomination for President.

Obama isn't ready for prime time. Too stilted, too tentative, too new. Sure, he's exciting now, but when the heat of the campaign turns up, he'll wilt under pressure. So, too, will McCain, who is really starting to look and sound his seventy years. I just don't think he has the energy to withstand a national campaign.

The first caucus is still over a year away, and experience has shown me that a lot can happen in 365 days. People can grow and change, just as I have over the past year. But a gut feeling is a gut feeling, and my gut tells me it'll be Hillary.

Admitted to McGill Faculty of Law

2007-01-09T20:53:00.000-05:00

I don't know what to say.

Ahhh, 2007...

2007-01-01T14:13:00.000-05:00

2006 will go down as the year I truly blossomed, both personally and politically. I hope 2007 will be even better. My 12 resolutions (some general, some specific) for the new year:

Prime Minister Stephane Dion. Full stop.
Premier Dalton McGuinty. Full stop.
To be fair and honest on this blog and in my everyday dealings.
To continually strive to be a better son, friend, colleague, student and person.
To be more confident.
To be more mindful of the physical environment. This means, among other things, walking more and using less styrofoam.
To learn to ballroom dance.
5 miles in 25 minutes in time for the Pride and Remembrance run in Toronto.
To become a true wine connaisseur.
To visit every province and territory.
D’être plus sage. In politics, as in life, enthusiasm is one thing. Wisdom is another.
To spend more time with my friends in the H.B.Comm programme at Laurentian. This is our last semester together...Might as well make it a memorable one!

Happy New Year!

Get well soon, Governator!

2006-12-24T16:48:00.000-05:00

This is why I am a blogger, not a skier.

I will always remember my first and only skiing adventure. It was during my grade 8 school trip to Saint-Donat, in the Laurentian mountains in Quebec. After several days of merciless attempts, I finally made my way beyond the bunny hill and onto the "real" hill. By skiing standards, it was a simple course. But for me....well, let's just say I twisted my ankle a few seconds after I began my descent. The resort operators were kind enough to send an rescue toboggan to fetch me. Unfortunately, I wasn't strapped in tightly enough, and on our way down the hill, I came loose and tumbled the rest of the way.

Yup. No more skiing for me. Ever. "Stick to politics," my mother told me. I think she's right.

Happy holidays everyone!

On the fiscal imbalance

2006-12-19T10:47:00.000-05:00

My friend Antonio over at Fuddle Duddle (note: leadership is over, so I've stopped calling it Fiddle Faddle...I'll need to find a new light snack!) has an interesting post today about the Quebec government and its struggles to deal with the fiscal imbalance.

Antonio brings to light an important issue. The very existence of the fiscal imbalance is a topic of intense debate, not only between the various political parties, but within our own. Some people -- Antonio comes to mind -- insist that it does exist, that the string of surpluses we've enjoyed at the federal level were accomplished "on the backs of the provinces." Others, such as our new leader, argue that the provinces have all the fiscal tools and capacities at their disposal to sustain themselves and stay out of deficit. Then there are people like me, who despite being familiar with the issue, probably don't have enough information to take a thoughtful position.

Thus, for my own benefit and for the benefit of the thousands -- nay, millions -- of ignoramuses out there, I ask Antonio for a simple clarification:

How much is the fiscal imbalance?

An invitation to Calgary Grit...

2006-12-18T15:07:00.000-05:00

...to read Bob Rae's new book, Canada in the Balance. Quite a bit of policy insight there. A solid foundation for our next Red Book, I'd say.

A recovering Bob-oholic speaks...

2006-12-14T20:05:00.000-05:00

In case some of you were wondering, I'm still alive. It's just that I've been extremely busy lately. Leadership took a lot out of me, especially with respect to school. Getting caught up with projects, reports and exam studying has been a challenge, but I am managing.

That said, I'd like to briefly comment on this from the Globe and Mail...

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he doesn't want an early election, but he'll be ready to go if the opposition forces one. Mr. Harper says he's seen no indication that Canadians want a spring election, but he warned his rivals that the Tories will not be caught off guard.

For his part, Mr. Dion says...

"I don't want to rush Canadians into an election. That's not what I want, but my duty is to make sure that my party will be ready for elections," he said.

---
So the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition agree that they don't want elections, but that their respective parties will be ready for a spring vote if necessary. OK. So two questions:

Why is this news?
Since neither the Tories nor the Liberals (who collectively represent 73% of the House of Commons) want an election, can we get on with the business of governing the country so that freakishly political students like me can study in peace and take a breather from this endless cycle of campaigning?

Just a thought...

The most bizarre video I've ever seen

2006-12-13T23:35:00.001-05:00

This has nothing to do with politics, but it brought a smile to my face. I thought I would share the joy.

I mean, the big bow? Isn't it just FABULOUS????!!!

(h/t to my friend, Michele Wong)

This is not the Liberal Party

2006-12-08T14:08:00.000-05:00

This is sad. I have gotten to know members of the Rae family personally over the past several months, and I know for a fact that they were deeply hurt by the anti-Semitic comments made by some convention-goers.

I expect our new leader to repudiate such comments in the strongest terms. That being said, we must understand that the prejudice of a few does not represent the sentiments of the Liberal Party as a whole. Our party has always been open, tolerant, diverse and respectful. My personal experience in Montreal clearly reflected this fact.

Unfortunately, "ethnic organizing" remains a part of our political culture. Campaigns often target specific communities in membership drives and pit certain groups against others in order to solidy support. This is wrong. It is offensive to the process, to the individual and to our reputation as a party. We should all make a concerted effort to stop it.

UPDATE: Quite appropriately, our leader has responded. Stephane Dion has proven once again that he is an ardent defender of true Liberal values. That's why we elected him. Good for him, and good for us.

I stood with Iggy

2006-12-04T21:02:00.000-05:00

I'm back in Sudbury now. I thought I would take this opportunity to talk about my recent posts from the convention floor. Some people have told me that they are somewhat confused about the choice I made.

Bob Rae being knocked off before the final ballot was an emotional blow for me. I - we - worked so hard to get him to that point, and it was devastating to see it come to an end. While I had always been confident Bob would make it to the final ballot, I did contemplate the possibility of having to make a choice.

For months, my second choice was Stephane Dion. He shares my values. On almost all issues, including foreign policy and national unity, his views reflect my own. He is a man of integrity, a man of action and a man of vision. I am comfortable with the choice the convention made.

It would seem natural, then, that I would go to Stephane when Bob dropped off. I didn't. Here's why.

This campaign has been rough on all of us. We all believed very strongly in our respective candidates. We believed that our man (or woman) was the best to lead the party and the country.

Logically, we also believed that other candidates were not right to lead the party. I felt that way about Michael Ignatieff. I disagreed with him on many issues of great importance. I felt he was a bad choice, and I said so bluntly on this blog.

Looking back at some of my previous posts, I realize that in many ways, I was unfair towards Michael. On several occasions, I had harsh words for him. More than once, I attacked his integrity and the integrity of those around him. Friends of mine who were committed to Michael took my comments personally. They told me so, in person and by email. I can understand their feelings: When people said bad things about Bob Rae, I also took it personally.

On the convention floor before the third ballot results were announced, I had a lot of time to reflect upon the past several months. I cried, not only because I knew Bob was about to lose, but also because I knew this campaign had been so negative and so divisive, and that I had been a part of it.

The results were announced. I looked over to the Dion and Ignatieff teams. They were both exhuberant. I looked at my own team. Everyone was depressed. I asked a few people where they were going on the 4th. Every single one of them said they were going to Stephane. "We've got to stop Iggy," they said.

At that point, I knew what the results of the 4th would be. I was not concerned about "stopping Iggy." I was concerned about party unity.

Party unity is about more than having faith, trusting and supporting our new leader. Stephane Dion is more than capable of inspiring our trust, and he will have my fullest support going into the next election. Party unity is about having faith, trusting and supporting each other. By being negative on this blog, I broke faith with many hardworking Liberals who supported Michael Ignatieff.

I called two of my friends on the Ignatieff team. I told them to make room for me. They did. I looked down from the table I was standing on and saw a senior Ignatieff organizer whom I met back in April when the campaign was just getting underway. I shook his hand. Another Iggy supporter and fellow Queen's Park intern was nearby. He helped me off the table, took off his red Ignatieff scarf and put it around my neck.

Through a sea of signs and people, I walked across the hall. I climbed over a few chairs, finally reaching the Ignatieff section. I embraced a close friend as the people around us cheered. "John Lennard!," people screamed, surprised at my move. (I never knew I had so many fans!)

Fighting back sobs, I went to the voting area. It took me three attempts at casting my ballot. I didn't want to vote for anyone else -- Bob was the man, Bob was my leader, Bob was my choice. I wrote a blog post from the voting room saying I just couldn't do it. It was painfully difficult... but I did end up voting.

At the end of the day, I stood with Iggy. I stood with his supporters as the results were announced. My friend from Queen's Park looked at me right before the big moment. We both knew what was coming. I was proud to be there with him, and I hope he was proud to have me there.

I feel completely at ease with my decision, because it was the right one to make. Friendship must always be more important than politics. The grind of the campaign and my own personal faults made me lose that perspective. But on the floor of the convention, among Liberal friends, I found it once again.

a united liberal party

2006-12-02T18:35:00.000-05:00

Canada wins.
------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device.

I can't vote

2006-12-02T15:51:00.000-05:00

Got into the booth, and I just couldn't do it.
------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device.

My personal choice

2006-12-02T15:16:00.000-05:00

Although I expect dion to win, I'm going with Michael ignatieff. Reason: I have personal friendships over there that have been strained over these past few months. I want to reach out to my friends and let them know that I have no hard feelings.

My northern ontario delegates are free to support who they want. My MP is supporting Dion. Dion has the support of our Quebec delegation and our ontario delegation. He will make a great leader and I will support him fully when he wins. But personal friendships need to be repaired.

I hope everyone understands.
------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device.

Welcome Judy

2006-12-02T10:32:00.000-05:00

It's about experience, and Judy recognizes that.

Onward
------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device.

Jimmy K supports Bob

2006-12-01T18:34:00.000-05:00

You heard it here first.
------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device.

At the speeches

2006-12-01T18:04:00.000-05:00

I am sitting beside Prime Minister Martin and in front of future PM Rae.

Wow! What luck, eh?
------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device.

Kennedy and Dion

2006-12-01T11:14:00.000-05:00

No deal.
------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device.

I'm back

2006-12-01T08:10:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the lack of updates. It's been a busy couple of days here in Montreal.

A wonderful start to the convention! Every single team is full of pep, driven in large part by the enthusiasm of their young liberal supporters. Believe me, I know: I've lost my voice probably three times over due to excessive cheering!

Thoughts so far: Iggy's team is out in force, with well planned logistics and a good sense of how the visuals will play in the media. Good for them. Rae team, by contrast, has a quiet confidence about it. I don't know which approach will win the day. Readers' thoughts?

Dion and Kennedy? Don't believe the rumours.

Speeches: Dean's speech was good, perhaps a bit underwhelming. Paul Martin literally had me in tears. He was relaxed, bubbly, humourous... The Paul Martin I remember from way, way back when. It was, no question, the best speech I've ever heard him give. Tewksbury was funny... There's talk of him possibly running in Martin's lasalle-emard seat in the next election, although his lack of french may be a hinderance.

On a final note, I met and had lunch yesterday with a man for whom I have the deepest of respect and admiration. I asked him his honest opinion: Do you think Michael Ignatieff can win? His response: Do you think Michael ignatieff should win?

This will be my guiding principle throughout the convention.

More later.
------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device.

At the airport

2006-11-28T10:32:00.000-05:00

Goodale. Big catch. Adds to Rae's economic credibility.

Is there anything else in store? I wonder...

This is shaping up to be an interesting week!
------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device.

Calling Scott Reid...

2006-11-24T07:56:00.000-05:00

From the National Post...

Mr. Ignatieff's campaign manager Ian Davey reacted angrily, accusing both men [Rae and Dion] of "playing games" and "stoking fire" on the Quebec issue since last month and now "talking about shutting down the debate from the back rooms" at the convention in Montreal.

...

From the Globe and Mail...

[Bob Rae] said yesterday that the Conservative motion apparently does not raise any suggestion that it will be in the Constitution.

"It seems to me that there is an issue that the government is going to have to answer, and that is, what is the legal impact of this resolution?"

Michael Ignatieff's campaign manager, Ian Davey, blasted Mr. Rae, insisting he is trying to avoid taking a stand.

....

Again, from the Globe and Mail...

A senior adviser to the Michael Ignatieff Leadership Campaign has taken a broadside shot at Justin Trudeau, advising the younger Trudeau to restudy his father's thinking on nationalism and labelling him “perhaps more celebrity than seasoning”.

In an email circulating an 11,500-word essay first posted to a Liberal party blog, Toronto lawyer and Liberal leadership convention delegate Alfred Apps slams Justin Trudeau's argument against a nation of Quebec as shallow, and concludes that, if Pierre Trudeau were alive today, the former Prime Minister would side with Mr. Ignatieff.

---------

A few questions

Who speaks for the Michael Ignatieff campaign?
When was the last time a senior backroom official made it a point to "react angrily," "blast," "broadside" or "slam" his candidate's opponents?
Better yet, when was the last time a senior backroom official made it a point to personally and publically comment on the issues of the day?
Remind me again, how did that turn out?

Political campaigns run by TV producers may make for a lot of drama (or, in this case, a stunning comedy of errors). But ask yourself: Are these guys really ready for prime time?

Question unanswered

2006-11-23T17:58:00.000-05:00

With the Iggy Nationalists out in force gloating about how the most neo-conservative Prime Minister in Canadian history agrees with their guy on yet another issue, I thought I would repost a blog post I made a few weeks ago on this whole nation notion.

I am a francophone living outside Quebec. In the 1850s, my family established its home in what is now known as Ontario. They were the descendants of Canada's earliest French settlers. Thus, I belong to one of Canada's "founding peoples," even though I reject the concept of colonialism such a term implies.

While I do not live in Quebec, I am proud to share in "the unique language and culture" that characterizes francophones in that province.

What about me? Do I have a nation? If yes, what is it? If no, why not?

For VP-Finance of the Young Liberals of Canada...

2006-11-22T15:31:00.000-05:00

If you want an honest, capable, dedicated, proven, engaged, brilliant and (might I say) delighfully handsome individual taking care of the YLC's chequebook, I strongly encourage you to vote for this guy.

A national imperative

2006-11-21T07:26:00.000-05:00

A $10,000 credit card bill for cancer drugs? 600,000 Atlantic Canadians with no drug coverage at all? Canadian citizens rationing necessary pills so they don't go bankrupt?

Absolutely ridiculous.

I agree completely with this. Even though Bob Rae is the only leadership candidate talking about the issue, I think Liberals should rally behind the idea of a national catastrophic drug plan, regardless who wins on December 2nd.

Taking Jason's advice

2006-11-18T07:02:00.000-05:00

Jason Cherniak implores us to ignore the "silly" and "insulting" lies floating around in this leadership race. For the most part, I agree with his statement, although I disagree with some of his specific examples/conclusions. In any case, here's my take, from the Decima Poll released today:

Lie #1 -- Ontario won't vote for Rae
Among Ontario respondents, 46 per cent said they would or would consider voting Liberal with Mr. Rae as leader, compared to 45 per cent for Mr. Kennedy, 40 per cent for Mr. Dion and 38 per cent for Mr. Ignatieff. [...] Moreover, 47 per cent of Ontarians said Mr. Rae's record as premier is a non-issue. Another 19 per cent said his record is actually a positive factor, while 25 per cent said it's a negative factor

Lie #2 -- Rae will bleed Liberal support
Mr. Rae's edge was more pronounced among respondents who voted Liberal and New Democrat in the last election [...] Among Liberal voters, 68 per cent said they were certain to vote Liberal again or would consider doing so with Mr. Rae at the helm, compared with 63 per cent for Mr. Dion, 61 per cent for Mr. Ignatieff and 59 per cent for Mr. Kennedy.

Lie #3 -- Liberals must focus on appealing to Conservative swing voters [Note: the line most often peddled by the Ignatieff crowd]
Respondents who voted Conservative in the last election were most likely to rule out voting Liberal under any circumstances; none of the top four leadership contenders had a statistically significant edge with this group. [...] Twenty-one per cent of Tory voters said they'd consider voting Liberal under the leadership of either Mr. Dion or Mr. Kennedy, 20 per cent under Mr. Rae and 17 per cent under Mr. Ignatieff.

Lie #4 -- Liberals shouldn't waste their time appealing to NDP swing voters
Among NDP voters, 41 per cent would vote or consider voting Liberal under Mr. Rae's leadership, compared with 31 per cent for Mr. Dion, 28 per cent for Mr. Kennedy and 27 per cent for Mr. Ignatieff.

Lie #5 -- Michael Ignatieff is the best choice to beat Stephen Harper
Decima also tested the appeal of Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Rae, the first- and second-place contenders, against that of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. When respondents were asked who would make the best prime minister, neither candidate came out ahead of Mr. Harper, although Mr. Rae fared considerably better than Mr. Ignatieff. [...] Respondents preferred Mr. Harper over Mr. Rae by a margin of 44 per cent to 32 per cent. Against Mr. Ignatieff, Mr. Harper's margin improved to 48 per cent to 24 per cent. Among respondents who voted Liberal last time, Mr. Rae was preferred over Mr. Harper by a margin of 54 per cent to 29 per cent. But an Ignatieff-Harper match was a toss up: 39 per cent of Liberals preferred Mr. Ignatieff, 38 per cent preferred Mr. Harper.

So to conclude...

For the 24982943 time, a poll has shown that "Liberals would fare best under Bob Rae"
Bob Rae appeals the most to progressive voters of all stripes.
Bob Rae will maintain our support among Liberal voters and expand our pool (or "pond," if you will) to include those who have voted for other parties in the past.
Conservative voters aren't likely to vote for us in the next election, and are even less likely to support our party under the leadership of Michael Ignatieff.
Both Ignatieff and Rae trail Harper on the ever-important "Best PM" measure. Regardless who wins this leadership race, we need to turn these numbers around, and fast. I contend the job will be easier with Bob Rae as leader. A 12-point gap seems easier to bridge than a 24-point gap, especially if we have a seasoned campaigner at the helm.
Michael Ignatieff is seemingly as popular among Liberal voters as Stephen Harper is. Never fear, though! Should Michael win the leadership, I'm sure he'll appeal to enough "Greens and separatist Bloc Quebecois" supporters to make up the difference.

For those of you waiting for the "more thoughtful analysis" on my previous post, I defer to the delightful CuriosityCat, who said it better than I ever could. Greg over at DemocraticSpace also offers a wonderfully cogent argument on the technicalities of appealing to NDP and Conservative voters.

For those of you waiting for the Kennedy interview, it seems Antonio and I have the same problem...My tape is a little fuzzy as well, but I'm trying to transcribe as best I can.

Michael Ignatieff on Canadian voters....

2006-11-16T06:46:00.000-05:00

From today's Globe and Mail, Michael Ignatieff supposedly assails Bob Rae's strategy on appealing to progressive voters by saying the following:

"What Liberals need is someone who can run down the middle with a progressive message, and leave the NDP in their own particular ghetto," Mr. Ignatieff said in an interview.

NDP voters? Ghetto!?!?!!?? Did he seriously just say that?

Mark my words: Iggy is finished.

(A more thoughtful analysis to follow. I just can't friggen believe this guy!)

Another wonderful study in contrasts

2006-11-10T19:51:00.000-05:00

Here...

Bernard Landy salue la position de Michael Ignatieff, qui reconnaît au Québec le statut de « nation », à la différence de Bob Rae et de Stéphane Dion, ses adversaires dans la course au leadership du Parti libéral du Canada ...

L'ancien chef du PQ qualifie cette position de «revirement spectaculaire» pour les libéraux fédéraux.

(In English:Bernard Landry applauds Michael Ignatieff's position, which recognizes Quebec as a nation within Canada, in contrast to Bob Rae and Stephane Dion, his main challengers in the race to lead the Liberal Party of Canada ... The former PQ leader calls this position "a spectacular turnaround" for the Federal Liberals.)

...and here...

In a strongly worded attack against the Liberal leadership candidate, Mr. Boisclair predicted that Bob Rae will pay dearly for stating that the type of nationalism practised in Quebec is "less good and less generous" than the Canadian nationalism he espouses ...

The PQ Leader was responding to Mr. Rae's comments published yesterday in La Presse and the National Post [in which Rae said] "If we start from negative premises we inevitably come to negative conclusions. Institutions can always be improved, but we may have to be careful not to embrace the rhetoric of those who suggest that there is a fatal flaw in the Canadian idea," Mr. Rae wrote.

"It's also important to remember that it is precisely our federal structure that has allowed Quebec to succeed in so many ways."

So to sum up:

Michael Ignatieff is lauded by an avowed separatist for encouraging Liberals to (in Landry's words) "turn our backs on the fundamental Canadian creed as espoused by Pierre Trudeau"
Bob Rae is attacked by an avowed separatist for standing up for our traditional Liberal policies on national unity and for saying that the Canadian federal structure is what has allowed Quebec to be successful

My questions to my fellow delegates in Montreal would thus be:

Do you agree with Michael Ignatieff's "spectacular turnaround" that has led Landry to say that we should "turn our backs" on Trudeau's vision for Canada?
Do you agree that Quebec has benefited from being a part of Canada, as Bob Rae suggests?
Do we really want to elect a Liberal leader who's position on national unity has been endorsed by a man dedicated to ripping this country apart?
Would it not be a better idea to elect a Liberal leader who's advocacy for "the Canadian idea" has earned him the wrath of the separatists?

A simple choice, really.

A truly "liberal" keynote

2006-11-10T09:30:00.000-05:00

This I am looking forward to.

Governor Howard Dean: Progressivism at its best.

Wow.

Food for thought

2006-11-09T08:58:00.000-05:00

I know we've heard it all before, but I thought I'd throw this in for good measure. From CBC/Environics...

Question: If one of the following candidates were to become Liberal party leader, would you be more likely to vote Liberal, less likely to vote Liberal, or would it make no difference?

Dion: More likely 10%; Less likely 20%
Ignatieff: More likely 12%; Less likely 20%
Kennedy: More likely 7%; Less likely 16%
Rae: More likely 17%; Less likely 20%

In other words, by a 5-10% margin,more Canadians are likely to vote Liberal if Bob Rae wins in December than if any of the other frontrunners is elected leader. Compared to the other candidates, his political "baggage" does not seem to be affecting his negatives in any significant way.

More and more, I'm getting the feeling that polls like these are starting to make a difference. Will it affect the results in Montreal? I hope so, but I'm not sure. I guess we'll know for certain in about three and a half weeks.

Toronto--Centre/Ryerson YL Fundraiser

2006-11-07T17:17:00.000-05:00

My always-helpful and oh-so-delightful colleagues from the Toronto--Centre Young Liberals have asked me to mention their upcoming fundraiser, happening this Friday, November 10th at the Groundhog Pub (Bloor and Sherbourne). This is a joint fundraiser for the TCYL and the Ryerson University Young Liberals. Here's the pitch...

Come out to hear Mr. Graham and Mr. Smitherman speak about the exciting future of the Liberal party and to support the Young Liberals of this riding. Everyone is welcome to attend this event, young and not-so-young!

Please register by sending an email to torontocentre.yl@gmail.com

Event Price: Youth (25 and under) - $10 early bird, or $15 at the door; "Adults" - $20 early bird, or $25 at the door. Please email RSVP to register for the early bird price.

We welcome any donations, and tax receipts will be issued, if requested for any amount of $25 or higher

Please make cheques payable to the TORONTO CENTRE FEDERAL LIBERAL ASSOCIATION

------
I urge any interested Liberal who will be in the Toronto area to attend. Who knows, you just may spot a blogger or two...

"Uncurable poisoned fruit"????

2006-11-06T17:24:00.000-05:00

This is what I call vindication.

"[T]he committee chastises the front-runner’s camp for the inflammatory tone of the application, which contained numerous, unproven and irrelevant allegations of fraud against the Rae team."

Numerous, unproven and irrelevant allegations.

My only question is this: Will the Rae campaign be receiving a letter of apology from Iggy and Co?

Don't count on it.

I needed a break

2006-10-31T22:27:00.000-05:00

I haven't posted in a while. All this "nation" talk got me a little agitated, so I figured a break was in order. And what better way to get away from this highly-charged, emotional political atmosphere than to attend the Ontario Liberal Party AGM with 1500 other highly-charged, emotional politicos??

It was an awesome weekend. I met up with some old friends and got to know some new ones. On Saturday, I participated in some of the policy discussions and sessions leading up to the 2007 provincial election. The Premier gave a rousing speech to the assembly on Sunday afternoon. I'm convinced he'll be re-elected in 2007.

JAMES CARVILLE WAS FANTASTIC!!! (even if his speech was too short). Very entertaining yet very useful. Three key points: Politics is about telling a compelling story; saying less helps you communicate more; and it's ok to marry a Republican so long as you stick to your own principles.

Don't worry, though: I didn't leave leadership politics behind. I got the chance to sit down with some of the bigger players in this race. Senator David Smith was kind enough to take me out for a drink. This guy is cool and he is poised. He just oozes the sureness and confidence that only comes with being a seasoned political veteran. We talked for over half an hour about leadership (past and present), his history as a point-man on candidate recruitment and the relationships he's built with other players in this party. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if Michael Ignatieff wins in December, Senator David Smith will have been the major cause.

I also conducted a blogging interview with Gerard Kennedy. His energy is almost fascinating. I'm still not sure he has what it takes to be Prime Minister, but I'm certainly more favourable towards him now than I was a week ago. Special thanks go out to CG and JE for setting it up for me. I will be sure to post the interview as soon as possible.

Oh yeah. I was also formally introduced to Michael Ignatieff for the first time. He is a very tall man. And I enjoyed his tie.

In any case, I leave you with this picture. The caption should read: "John Lennard nets Bob Rae two high-profile endorsements."

Peterson attacks Trudeau

2006-10-27T11:53:00.000-04:00

In the Toronto Star today, former Ontario Premier David Peterson apparently decided that his attacks on longtime rival Bob Rae weren't enough. This time, he turned his guns on Justin Trudeau for daring to stand up for his father's ideals with respect to national unity:

He [Peterson] also took a swipe at Trudeau — whose late father, iconic Liberal prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, held views similar to those expressed by his son — dryly noting, "I didn't realize he was a constitutional thinker. He should try making that speech in Iraq, or Lebanon."

I'm sorry, Mr. Peterson, but not all of us are Harvard academics like your golden boy, Michael Ignatieff. Not all of us can brag, as you do, about being the Chancellor of a prestigious university. That said, I would submit that one does not have to live or work in some ivory tower to realize that Dr. Ignatieff's position on this issue is recklessly divisive and absolutely inconsistent with the ideals that Pierre Elliot Trudeau stood for. Kudos to Justin Trudeau for pointing it out.

And speaking of Iraq and Lebanon, perhaps Chancellor Peterson would like to remind us what happened the last time Michael Ignatieff opened his mouth on foreign policy? Oh yeah, that's right: He lost the support of his GTA co-chair. Funny, that.

Come to think of it, maybe the good professor should open his mouth more often...

A winning horse?

2006-10-27T11:00:00.000-04:00

Bob Rae, endorsed by Michael Ignatieff's former GTA co-chair? Bob Rae, receiving kudos from the National Post (yes, that not-so-left-wing rag that Warren Kinsella works for) for his progressive, responsible and thoroughly Liberal economic agenda? Bob Rae, standing up for Liberal Party principles and making sense on national unity?

I'm not a betting man, but I think I've picked a winning horse here.

We will not be bullied

2006-10-26T09:05:00.000-04:00

This is my third post on this subject in two days. Needless to say, I feel very strongly about it. I am angry that Michael Ignatieff and his campaign have decided to use this divisive issue to hijack the debate within our party and force Liberal delegates to accept his position. This quote from Liza Frulla, an Ignatieff supporter, says it all:

"It's unthinkable for us to reject that because it's a given politically in Quebec. If other candidates are responsible. . . . I think they will not play this as an advantage for them or whatever because I think that would be disastrous not only for the Liberal Party, that would be disastrous for the whole unity of Canada."

So now standing up for decades of Liberal national unity policy is "irresponsible"? More "irresponsible" than dividing the party over an issue that Michael Ignatieff hasn't even fully thought out?

The message from the Ignatieff camp is clear: Support my motion, or risk a national unity disaster.

Absolutely sick.

I, for one, do not support this motion. For me, this issue transcends leadership politics. I will encourage my fellow delegates at the convention to reject the motion, because I believe the premise upon which it is based is flawed.

Liberals have always recognized the bilingual and multicultural nature of Canada. We have always celebrated and supported the "cultural and social aspirations" of all Canadians, regardless of where they happen to live. Let there be no doubt: We have always respected Quebec and Quebecois.

As Liberals -- indeed as Canadians -- we must not let the strong-arm tactics of some Harvard academic and his pushy supporters dictate otherwise. We must not let anyone bully us into changing our philosophy or our focus. We must not give in to this political blackmail.

---------
As a side note, take a look at the priority resolutions put forward by the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party. The top two resolutions are on Kyoto and the Quebec Nation. These will be debated on the convention floor. The rest will be discussed in workshops.

Now, it is no secret that LPC(Q) is dominated by supporters of the Harvard academic. The Ignatieff campaign routinely brags about "how much muscle" it has in Quebec. As such, it seems Campaign Iggy thinks the notion of Quebec nationhood is more important than gun control, Canadian foreign policy, improving health care, the "fiscal imbalance", supporting seniors, fighting regional disparities, regulating toxic substances and fighting cancer. Priorities, indeed!

What about me?

2006-10-25T19:27:00.000-04:00

I am a francophone living outside Quebec. In the 1850s, my family established its home in what is now known as Ontario. They were the descendants of Canada's earliest French settlers. Thus, I belong to one of Canada's "founding peoples," even though I reject the concept of colonialism such a term implies.

While I do not live in Quebec, I am proud to share in "the unique language and culture" that characterizes francophones in that province.

What about me? Do I have a nation? If yes, what is it? If no, why not?

Dion hits the nail on the head

2006-10-25T10:16:00.000-04:00

This is the most well-articulated argument against Ignatieff's "nation" position I think I've read to date. With this brilliant essay, Stephane Dion has proven once again why he is probably the greatest unity minister this country has ever seen. A potential Prime Minister? Perhaps, although I think his grasp of English is lacking, and he still comes across as arrogant and agitated (almost hysterical) during debates. Nevertheless, this article is fantastic. A clear home run on Dion's part.

Here are the main points:

-Quebec is a nation in the sociological sense. As Liberals, we can pretty much all agree on that point.

-But before Quebecois ask Canadians to formally (read: constitutionally) recognize this "notion of a nation," a few questions must be answered:

Do Quebecois want to be the only ones with such recognition, or would they be willing to accept other groups obtaining similar acknowledgement? If the latter is the case, would Quebec's national status eventually be diluted or minimized?
Is recognizing Quebec's national status a necessity or simply a preference? Those who claim that it is necessary must admit that Quebec would be justified in leaving Canada should such recognition not be provided. After all, one cannot live without something that is necessary. Likewise, those who claim that recognition is simply preferable should not believe in the vital importance of this issue, because one would not break up the country over something that is preferable, but not necessary.
Should recognizing Quebec as a nation be a symbolic gesture, or one backed up by concrete consequences (new power sharing, etc)? Michael Ignatieff claims that it need only be a symbolic gesture, but such a position contradicts the earlier notion that recognition is necessary: How can something be necessary, but purely symbolic? Even Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe acknowledges that while symbolism is nice, it needs to be backed up by firm actions.

I suppose the question to Dr. Ignatieff, who has foolishly chosen to pursue this issue, is what would those "concrete consequences" be? As Dion points out, during the 1980s and 1990s, Canada went through a series of constitutional discussions centred on the status of Quebec within our federation. In 1997, Canada's premiers were even able to agree that Quebec society has a unique and distinct character. The Quebec political class, however, rejected this recognition, saying it "lacked teeth."

In my opinion, Michael Ignatieff (for all his "bold" and "gutsy" pronouncements) is proposing a reckless and illogical Quebec policy. First of all, it conflicts almost entirely with his "Agenda for Nation Building" because it proposes that we accentuate the differences between Canadians rather than build on our common strengths and shared values (In fact, one might ask the good professor how many nations he actually intends to build). Furthermore, his policy lacks substantive direction and would lead Canada down a dangerous path. Promising Quebec special status within Canada will lead inevitably to a "What about me?" syndrome, whereby all kinds of groups will begin clamouring for special recognition. Finally, his refusal to delve deeper into this issue and consider the chain reaction it will have on other aspects of federalism -- the questions of equalization, the "fiscal imbalance," or Senate reform, for example -- is proof that Michael Ignatieff does not have the common sense to be leader of the Liberal Party (as if he hadn't proven it already).

Or perhaps Dr. Ignatieff has considered all of this. Perhaps he's convinced himself that he can do what every Prime Minister in Canadian history could not: Solve every problem facing our federation in one fell swoop. Perhaps he really does believe, as a supporter once said, that he is "like Garibaldi returning to Italy": Canada's own national hero, a giant among giants, a leader for the ages. If this is the case, not only is he reckless, he is dilusional. Clearly unfit to be leader.

An agenda for nation building? Nope. A recipe for disaster is more like it. Even his supporters seem to agree. And I'm glad someone has the courage and foresight to call him on it.

Great job, Stephane.

Pragmatic Leadership, defined

2006-10-23T17:56:00.000-04:00

Why do I support Bob Rae? This sums it up nicely, I think. No other candidate can honestly claim to have the wealth of experience or the insight that Bob Rae brings to the table. Why Liberals would want to pass it up, I don't know. But I guess it's up to the delegates in Montreal to decide.

My favourite quotation:

"I have had extraordinary opportunities to serve over the years. Every project has introduced me to more Canadians, taught me more about what is meaningful to us, shown me more about who we are as a people.

"From Burnt Church to softwood lumber, from terrorism to education, I have been forced to think of practical, workable solutions to seemingly intractable problems. I cannot claim to have always succeeded. I bear, as Teddy Roosevelt once said, the scars of having fought in the arena. But the arena is where one learns how to fight for what one believes in -- and how to win."

In response to Antonio

2006-10-22T18:55:00.000-04:00

In typical Fiddle Faddle fashion, Antonio goes out on a baseless attack on Bob Rae, this time accusing him of "desperately perpetrating" (note: I think he meant "perpetuating") the lie that Michael Ignatieff supports torture.

Bob Rae did no such thing.

Antonio and his fellow Iggy Nationalists, in what was perhaps the rudest display in this entire campaign, were seemingly too busy heckling the other candidates that they forgot to listen. Or maybe they just didn't want to listen. Either way, Bob Rae never raised torture during the debate. Bob quoted the following passage from Michael Ignatieff's May 2nd, 2004 Op-Ed in the New York Times Magazine, and questioned its consistency with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which Mr. Ignatieff claims to support:

"To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: Indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targetted assassinations, even preemptive war."

I note that Michael Ignatieff has never backed away from that statement.

The main question Liberals need to ask themselves is the following: Are Dr. Ignatieff's views as an American academic consistent with our longstanding Liberal traditions, particularly as they relate to the Charter? Furthermore, should Canada be a "trafficker in evils," as the good Harvard professor suggests?

The answer, in my humble opinion, is no.

Good on Bob Rae for asking the tough questions. And good on Stephane Dion for backing him up.

Persons' Day

2006-10-20T17:54:00.000-04:00

Every year, the Sudbury branch of the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) organizes a Persons' Day Breakfast in celebration of the anniversary of October 18th, 1929, the day on which Canadian women were deemed "persons" by the British Privy Council. I don't normally get up at 5am, but I did this morning, because I think the Persons' Day Breakfast (even if held a couple days late) is a cause worthy of my full support.

Over yogourt, muffins and cold coffee, I listened to journalist and human rights advocate Sally Armstrong speak about her experiences in Afghanistan covering the plight of women. It was an inspiring speech, sorrowful at times but ultimately uplifting. Despite my personal feelings about the war, I cannot help but celebrate the fact that life is improving for women and girls in that part of the world.

I was also planning on celebrating how far Canada has come as a society with regards to women's rights. I should be celebrating the fact that women in my generation no longer have to endure the sexist, degrading workplace comments that women in my mother's generation endured. Instead, I'm reading this. To say I'm not celebrating is an understatement.

Peter MacKay, quite simply, is a bad person. He's a bad person not because he espouses bad policies or because he's shown bad political judgment. Peter MacKay is a bad person because he disrespects women. I cannot believe that in the year 2006, someone would actually think that referring to a woman as a dog is funny. I cannot believe that MacKay (Canada's chief diplomat, no less) refuses to acknowledge he said what he said, even in the face of irrefutable evidence. I guess I should believe it, though. Peter MacKay has a history of chauvinism. He once told a female colleague to "stick to her knitting" when she had the audacity to disagree with him on the radio. Sad, but true.

Belinda Stronach has demanded an apology. Knowing Peter MacKay's character, I wouldn't hold my breath.

The media's reaction has also been sad. I'm watching Global TV right now. I cannot believe what I am seeing. I've just heard the MacKay incident described as a "lover's quarrel" and a "soap opera." Radio host and Global commentator Bill Carroll doesn't believe this whole incident was offensive at all, and even suggested Belinda Stronach owes Peter MacKay an apology. Global's journalists are laughing about this. Reporters are giving viewers advice on "how to deal with a breakup." Absolutely shameful.

This isn't about a breakup. This isn't a soap opera. It's not about partisan politics or the rough and tumble of parliamentary debate. Degrading women isn't funny. This is sexism, pure and simple. And trivializing sexism is just as bad as sexism itself. CanWest Global should be ashamed of itself.

I began the day an optimist, celebrating the advancement of women's rights here and abroad. I end the day with a sense of cynicism, sickened by the comments of a bad person and disheartened by the reaction of the media.

Persons' Day. Sigh. I guess there's always next year...

Godfrey for Rae

2006-10-20T09:00:00.000-04:00

Today, the Honourable John Godfrey, MP for Don Valley West, former Liberal Leadership candidate and former Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities) will announce his support for Bob Rae in his bid to lead the Liberal Party of Canada.

This is big news for the Rae camp. John Godfrey is one of the most well-respected Liberals in Canada, having fought his entire parliamentary career for important social policy reforms, including early learning and child care and a new deal for municipalities. He's also an all-around great guy. Back in April, I thought he made the best presentation at the Edmonton forum, and I'm still very fond of him to this day. Dr. Godfrey's principled, progressive and passionate approach to public policy jive well with Mr. Rae's.

For us to implement the kinds of changes we need-- be it in social policy, foreign policy or environmental policy -- we must defeat Stephen Harper. Bob Rae can do that. John Godfrey agrees. John is another Ontario MP who clearly believes Bob Rae can play well in this province because he offers the strongest alternative to Stephen Harper's agenda.

Welcome aboard, John.

Something to consider

2006-10-18T20:49:00.000-04:00

Despite polls like this and the many others like it that show Bob Rae as the Liberal's best chance to beat Stephen Harper (including in Ontario), people continue to have their doubts.

I can understand that. It's always tough to convince a cynic.

For years, we've been told that Ontario hates Bob Rae. Ontarians have never forgiven Bob for his term as Premier (you know, the one in which not a single public sector employee was laid off, in which more social housing was built than at any other time, in which jobs were saved at steel plants and lumber towns in Northern Ontario, in which new community colleges were opened, in which citizens were given catastrophic drug coverage, in which affirmative action programs increasing the number of women and minorities in the public sector were introduced...). His legacy still remains a ball and chain around the neck of the provincial NDP, some say. This, according to Cherniak, is why Hampton and Co. have been "dead in the water" since 1995.

Consider this, though:

In the 1977 and 1981 provincial elections (the two immediately preceeding Bob's first as leader of the NDP) the party received 21.7% and 21.1% of the popular vote, respectively. In the 1985, 1987, 1990 and 1995 elections with Bob Rae as leader, the party received 23.8%, 25.7%, 37.6% and 20.6% of the popular vote, respectively.

In other words, at the worst point in the NDP's history (1995), in spite of a frustrated electorate, a furious public service and two emboldened opposition parties, Bob Rae was still able to maintain the NDP's traditional levels of support in the province.

Take a look at the two elections since Rae's departure as leader: In 1999, the NDP received 12.6% of the popular vote, and in 2003, 14.7%.

My conclusion: The NDP's troubles in recent elections are not due to Rae's supposedly "negative" legacy. Rather, the provincial NDP is where it is today because it no longer has Bob Rae as a dynamic and persuasive leader. It is because the NDP continues to apologize for the Rae government's pragmatic policies and positive accomplishments that it continues to falter. It is because this "party of protest" refuses to take a practical outlook on public policy that it has yet to break the 20% mark since Rae's departure.

Despite the cynics' assertions, I remain convinced that Bob Rae will play well in Ontario in a general election. Canadians and Ontarians will trust a candidate who talks candidly about his experiences, both good and bad. Canadians and Ontarians will listen to Bob because he is a great communicator who will deliver our message strongly and compellingly.

Under a Rae leadership, I know we will attract progressive voters, both traditional Liberals and those who have voted for other parties in the past. Under a Rae leadership, I firmly believe we will win more Ontario seats than we did in 2006. Under a Rae leadership, the Liberal Party will form the government again.

Iggy closing speech

2006-10-15T17:05:00.001-04:00

"We know who we are.... I know what I stand for."

Yeah, sure.
------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device.

Crybaby Iggy

2006-10-15T17:05:00.000-04:00

"Bob, you've known me for 40 years."

So real leadership sounds like a two year who just lost her dolly? Come on, Iggy.
------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device.

Here we go

2006-10-15T17:04:00.003-04:00

Iggy and Rae on foreign policy... Watch out.

------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device.

The heat is on...

2006-10-15T17:04:00.002-04:00

No love loss at all between Dion and Ignatieff. Wow that was great!
------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device.

Kennedy's on fire

2006-10-15T17:04:00.001-04:00

No question about it. He's bringing sexy back to the infrastructure debate! Good for him.
------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device.

Liberal money?

2006-10-15T17:04:00.000-04:00

In the social housing debate, Stephane Dion just referred to taxpayers' dollars as "Liberal money". Can anyone say 'entitlement'? I think Harper might.
------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device.

Real leadership?

2006-10-14T16:36:00.000-04:00

What a fitting concept. Michael Ignatieff: Many faces.

Case in point: Qana

Michael Ignatieff (August 1, 2006): "Qana was frankly inevitable in a situation in which you have rocket-launchers within 100 yards of a civilian population. This is the nature of the war that's going on ...This is the kind of dirty war you're in when you have to do this and I'm not losing sleep about that."

Michael Ignatieff (August 1, 2006): "A ceasefire on the Israeli side becomes logical for Israel when it has achieved its military objectives and when it reaches the point of diminishing returns, and that is the point we've reached now."

Michael Ignatieff (August 10, 2006): "Israel has a right to reply to kidnappings and rocket attacks (by Hezbollah)."

To recap: In August, Michael Ignatieff clearly believed that Israel's response was not only inevitable, but justified.

That was then. This is now:

Michael Ignatieff (October 8, 2006): "I was a professor of human rights, and I am also a professor of the laws of war, and what happened in Qana was a war crime."

Confused? So am I. Was the attack inevitable and justified, or wasn't it? Was it a logical "military objective" or was it a "war crime"? Ignatieff, with expertise as "a professor in the laws of war," now seems to believe that war crimes were committed, right? Well, maybe not...

Michael Ignatieff (October 13, 2006): "Whether war crimes were committed in the attack on Qana is for international bodies to determine."

So now the good professor isn't so sure. He'll let the real experts decide. Good for him.

---------------

Many faces, indeed. But real leadership? Definitely not.

I'm a celebrity!

2006-10-14T10:16:00.000-04:00

Well, not quite...

But the Toronto Star did profile my blog today on page H3 (national report section) along with Cherniak, Calgary Grit and Cerberus. Needless to say, my mother was pretty excited when she saw it. Check it out if you get the chance.

Anyway, I'm on my way to Toronto for tomorrow's debate... Should be a great time!
------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device.

What about health care?

2006-10-13T08:33:00.000-04:00

Cerberus asks a legitimate question, although he mistakenly claims that none of the frontrunning leadership candidates have distinguished themselves on this issue.

In fact, Bob Rae has been talking substantively about health care for months. In early September, with the support and endorsement of former federal Health Ministers Monique Begin, Diane Marleau and Ujjal Dosanjh, Bob Rae delivered a major health care policy statement. In it, he committed to six specific goals:

Establish a national catastrophic drug plan (the Maple Leaf Drug Plan) that ensures that no Canadian has to choose between their health and their personal finances;
Establish an accountability principle in the Canada Health Act;
Provide investments in new health care solutions, such as electronic-health initiatives, to reduce wait times across the country;
Increase federal funding for health care professionals programs in colleges and universities, to help alleviate the shortage of doctors, nurses, lab technicians, physiotherapists and other professionals;
As recommended by the Health Council of Canada, provide funding for a Population Health Strategy to stimulate progress in healthy living. Particular focus would be placed on improving the health of aboriginals and children;
As recommended by Dr. Carolyn Bennett, make Canada an international leader in health research by increasing the funding to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and put CIHR funding on a predictable basis.

So there you have it. A candidate talking seriously about one of the most pressing issues facing our country today.

I understand Ted's dilemma, though. Sometimes, we get so caught up in our own candidate's spin (or in Iggy's case, damage control) that we forget to look at/talk about what the others are proposing. I'll admit, I've been guilty of that before. For example, Scott Brison's broad review of the Canadian tax system (particularly his tax cut proposal for young workers) makes a lot of sense to me. I should have said so much earlier.

Moving forward, I think we should all endeavour to listen a bit more to what the others are saying. That'll be the first step to bridging the leadership divides after December 3rd.

As the late, great Ann Richards might say...

2006-10-12T17:35:00.000-04:00

Poor Iggy, he can't help it! He was born with a silver foot in his mouth!

(h/t Professor Clifford Orwin...Although I have been waiting to use that line for a long, looong time!)

Just keeps getting better (or worse?)

2006-10-11T15:49:00.000-04:00

Not losing any sleep over "war crimes." Wow.

I guess that begs the question: What does he lose sleep over?
------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device.

We can all be friends

2006-10-06T13:44:00.000-04:00

A few people have asked me about my thoughts on Warren Kinsella's recent criticisms of Bob Rae. He's been particularly aggressive these past few weeks (I wonder why...) and while I literally used to stay up at night crying about it like a baby who lost his soother, my attitude is now much more serene.

I am entitled to my opinions. Warren is entitled to his. I'm entitled to be right. He's entitled to be wrong. Same goes for my friends over at Fiddle Faddle. Our current disagreements don't mean we can't all be friends at the end of the day, or that Warren won't be a fantastic person to work for in the next provincial election (yes WK, consider that a job application). There will be no lasting animosity when this is all over.

With that, I wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. Spend some time with your families. Eat a lot of food. Have a lot of fun. And forget about politics for a while

Happy Birthday Cherniak!

2006-10-03T17:19:00.000-04:00

He didn't mention it, so I thought I would. Have a good one Jason!

Ugh

2006-10-02T22:45:00.000-04:00

I think I'm coming down with a cold. I blame the damp weather, my exceedingly high stress levels as of late, and my new blogging co-chair Jason over at Little Red Leaf. I know it was him! Germs travel quickest over the blogosphere, I'm sure of it!

That's my theory, anyway. Back to the Vicks Vapo-Rub. Ugh.

Bob Rae, Success Story

2006-10-02T07:32:00.000-04:00

In May 2006, people were saying that Bob Rae would never appeal to Liberal activists across the country. "Too new to the party," they said. "The grassroots will never support him."

They were wrong. Because of the hard work of grassroots supporters from coast to coast, Bob Rae has emerged from Super Weekend in a strong second place position, with 20% support nationally. Bob Rae placed first in four provinces (PEI, Newfoundland and Labrador, Manitoba and British Columbia) and second in Saskatchwan. He garnered a quarter of the total vote in Quebec and has proven, across the country, that he is the only candidate with national appeal who has both the depth in each region and the ability to grow everywhere. The grassroots have rallied to Bob Rae's side. We are very pleased.

In May 2006, people were saying that Bob Rae would never fare well in Ontario. "Ontario Liberals will never support him," they said. "He will have no on-the-ground organization."

They were wrong. Sure, Bob Rae began the campaign late in the organizational game. And sure, he doesn't have as many MPs, MPPs, ex-officios and other "bigwig" endorsements as his three main rivals (3 Ontario MPs have openly supported Bob Rae, versus 5 for Stephane Dion, 10 for Gerard Kennedy and 20 for Michael Ignatieff). But over the past few weeks, our organization has ramped up, and Bob Rae was able to exceed anyone's expectations in the province. Winning over 17% of the vote, Bob's strong third place finishing in Ontario was unpredicted and indicative of the momentum he has generated over the past several weeks. In fact, Bob Rae did better in Ontario than either the third or fourth placers did nationally. Clearly, many Ontarians embrace Bob Rae's leadership potential. We are very pleased.

When all the dust settles, it will become clear to everyone that Bob Rae is the success story of this weekend. He is one of only two candidates in this race who can legitimately claim to have appeal from coast to coast, with a full, national slate of delegates. He is one of only two candidates in this race who has proven to be competitive in Ontario, Quebec and the rest of Canada. He is one of only two candidates who emerged from Super Weekend leading in four provinces.

The message from the Rae camp? A simple one, really. Bob is the only candidate with room to grow. He is the only candidate who can move ahead in each of Canada's regions. He is the only candidate with the experience, the insight, the persuasive ability and levelheadedness to lead our party to victory against Stephen Harper in the next election.

Bob Rae shares our Liberal values, he understands our country and he knows what's at stake. He is a leader. He is job ready.

And on December 2nd, I am confident Liberal delegates will come to the same conclusion as well.

Etobicoke-Lakeshore: Ignatieff 7, Kennedy 5

2006-10-02T01:11:00.000-04:00

I'm told hordes of Iggy Nationalists spent the entire afternoon fending off a surprising challenge from Gerard Kennedy in their man's own riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore. In the end, Team Iggy was able to pull off a squeaker, but just barely.

Now that's something! Michael Ignatieff: Barely has the confidence of his own association.

Well that's that

2006-10-01T12:26:00.000-04:00

I'm exhausted, I'm hungry, I have a headache, my eyes are dry (note to self: never wear contact lenses for 17 hours straight!), my feet are swollen, my back hurts, my car is uncharacteristically low on gasoline, my cell phone bill is sky high, my house is a mess, I've misplaced my glasses, my parents are wondering when the phones will stop ringing, and I've just woken up after a 50 hour stretch of sleeplessness (or perhaps "sleep-free"ness?). And on top of that, it's cold and it's raining. Sigh.

Why, you may ask, is my life in such disorder? Well, yesterday was game day for me. I won. I was one of four Bob Rae delegates elected in Sudbury, an area in which the old battle wounds from the NDP-Liberal fights of the 1980s and 1990s remain. It was a tough sell, we fought hard against the odds, we were successful and in the end, that's what matters. I, for one, am ecstatic.

First, foremost and from the bottom of my heart: Thank you to my fellow Liberals (especially my friends, family members and colleagues) who came out to vote for me and the other Rae delegate nominees in Sudbury. I am deeply grateful for your support and humbled by your level of confidence. I won't let you down. In John Lennard, you will have a tireless advocate for Bob Rae and the leadership we want and deserve.

Second, to my fellow delegates who were/are/will be elected this weekend: See you in Montreal.

Bob's on Question Period now. I'll watch that, and go back to bed.

A leader for our times

2006-09-29T10:53:00.000-04:00

Dear Member of the Liberal Party of Canada,

In a country of two official languages, 10 provinces, three territories, Aboriginal peoples and immigrants from around the globe, we need leaders who can bring us together and, more importantly, bridge what divides us, build common cause and find solutions to whatever problems we face. In a country as complex as ours we ask a great deal of those who govern on our behalf. We believe Bob Rae is one of the few who can meet that challenge.

Some of us are long-time Liberals, others simply Canadians who care deeply about the direction and unity of our country. We are united in believing that Bob Rae is someone whose experience, qualifications and character set him apart in electoral politics and they are among the reasons why we are supporting him to become the next Liberal leader and Prime Minister and are urging you to vote for him on Super Weekend.

Anyone who enters political life faces onerous demands. Wherever politics is played there is harsh criticism and in the modern political arena of twenty-four hour news the responsibility is unrelenting. There are few enough among us who have what it takes to be a Canadian Prime Minister, and fewer still who are willing to make the necessary personal sacrifices. Fortunately, Bob Rae is willing to take on that burden and we know he is up to the task.

Bob has always put the public interest first and been a true public servant in that respect. His guiding beliefs and vision are in keeping with the best Canadian traditions of decency, the common good and an independent, principled foreign policy. But he also understands that government is more than just about vision or ideas: it must deliver on fundamental obligations, manage core services, resolve disputes and respond to crises. This requires the kind of knowledge and acumen that only comes from experience. Bob understands the challenges and dilemmas incumbent in leadership and he is prepared for the range of challenges that may arise and test our leaders.

Since leaving office, Bob went on to do so much more in other fields: in mediation, in trade law, in domestic and international conflict resolution, as a champion of the arts, in his commitment to a united Canada and to federalism. He has been a leader in every sense of the term. It is no wonder he has been the "go-to guy" for premiers, prime ministers, industry and the non-profit sector in resolving tough issues and reviewing important files. His experience is remarkable and his understanding of the issues and the peoples of Canada profound.

We are people from all parts of Canada who have come to know and respect Bob. What we realize above all is that he truly understands our country. He knows our past and those values that have bound us as a nation. He is a leader for our times and it is our hope that Liberals and Canadians have the opportunity to have a statesman such as him as a leader in our national government.

Sincerely,

Tony Abbott
Herb Dhaliwal
Gar Knutson
Jacques Saada
Phillippe Angers
Jack Diamond
Leo Kolber
Andy Savoy
Margaret Atwood
Jan Donio
Pascal Lépine
Raymond Setlawke
Chris Axworthy
Arthur Donner
Mason Loh
Gerri Sinclair
Lloyd Axworthy
Frank Dottori
Dr. Fred Lowy
Gerald Sheff
Suresh Bhala
Donald Duprey
Colin MacDonald
Lionel Schipper
Monique Bégin
Sheldon Ehrenworth
Allan J. MacEachen
Eric Simard
John Kim Bell
René Fontaine
Kathleen Mahoney
Don Smith
Charles Bird
John Fraser
Deepa Mehta
David Staines
May Brown
Eileen Gelowitz
Michael Mendelson
Jane Stewart
Elmer Buchanan
Rose Ellen Ghiz
Robert Nixon
Paul Summerville
Barry R. Campbell
Alastair Gillespie
Walter Noel
Clive Tanner
David M. Campbell
Ira Gluskin
Betty Notar
Don Tapscott
Martin Cauchon
Dr. Richard Goldbloom
Peter Oliver
Nick Taylor
Ronald F. Caza
Scott Griffin
Ratna Omidvar
Julia Turnbull
John Cordeau
David Gray
Charles Pachter
David Warrack
Gordon Cressey
Scott Griffin
Lata Pada
John Watson
Barney Danson
André Harvey
Louise Pitre
John Webster
Michael Decter
Paul Hoffert
Jack Rabinovitch
Dr. Joseph Y. K. Wong
Michael de Pencier
Alan Hudson
Lola Rasminsky
Carol Young
Dr. Brian Desbiens
Hal Jackman
Jean Therese Riley
------------------------------------------
And I, John Lennard, affix my name to this letter as well.

On ideas (part 2)

2006-09-27T12:32:00.000-04:00

Bob Rae is an ideas machine. He has more experience than anyone in the race. In speeches and discussions, he regularly points to his numerous accomplishments, like implementing the Trillium Drug Plan in Ontario, and his work advising governments and organizations here and overseas. He is the former head of the Institute for Research on Public Policy and the Forum of Federations. He was counsel to the Free Trade Lumber Council and Commissioner on Post-Secondary Education to the McGuinty Government in Ontario. He has written two books, one of which deals quite deeply with his political philosophy and views. And throughout this campaign, he has spoken to policy and to his record in spades.

Because certain mischief-makers say Bob Rae has not issued policy, let's be clear: Bob has been as active as anyone on that front.

On June 6th, Bob outlined an economic policy plan with four components: An Education, Training and Research Strategy; Strategic Investments in Green infrastructure; Renewing the Architecture for Income Security; A Smart Tax and Smarter Regulation Agenda with income tax cuts, and corporate tax fairness. Full text of Bob’s June 6 speech and announcement on prosperity, opportunity and sustainable development, is here.
His experience as Post-Secondary Education Commissioner in Ontario informed his education policy here.
Here is Bob’s August 10 speech on Foreign Policy and Overseas Development, where he commits to the Pearson target for foreign aid.
On improving the participation of women in politics, Bob Rae responded to the McLellan task force on time, unlike Dr. Ignatieff, who was on vacation.
In a detailed plan on health care from earlier this month, Bob suggests that Canada adopt a National Catastrophic Drug plan so that no Canadian ever has to choose between paying his/her bills and getting the medication he/she needs.
More details on his health care plan.
An agenda for First Nations, Métis and Aboriginal Canadians.
On Quebec and Confederation.
Bob Rae was the first to say that Liberals should vote against the dangerous softwood lumber deal.

Anybody who says that Bob Rae is not a policy person should screw their heads back on, or lose the bias.

On ideas

2006-09-27T10:40:00.000-04:00

Jason Cherniak is wrong. That's all I have to say about this for now.
------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device.

Thank you Hedy!

2006-09-25T11:23:00.000-04:00

She may not have had a lot of support, but I've always seen Hedy Fry as being a leader. Honestly. She was the most inspirational of the bunch, with a compelling personal story, a solid work ethic and a clear sense of where we need to go as a party and as a country. Her lack of French was a huge drawback.

In any case, I'm glad Bob has her support. Welcome aboard.
------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device.

UPDATE: My friends JR, TR and DG from the Rae campaign are probably itching for me to say this, so here it goes...IT'S HEDY TIME!

Chuckles quietly

2006-09-23T14:11:00.000-04:00

back briefly for a quick post...

As I read Antonio's commentary over at Fuddle Duddle, all I can think of is this:

More and more, Fuddle Duddle is starting to look like Fiddle-Faddle. Which is to say, a pretty light snack. But nothing to be taken too seriously.
------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device.

Rick Mercer, genius?

2006-09-20T11:11:00.000-04:00

I know I said I'd be out of commission for a while, but I just have to say that Rick Mercer is a fantastic man. Check it out for yourself.

http://rickmercer.blogspot.com
------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device.

See ya in a bit!

2006-09-20T07:41:00.000-04:00

I'll be out of commission for a little while. I just wanted to (quickly) put in my two cents on a few things while I still can:

The fact that Bob Rae, as a private citizen, donated money to a few personal friends(including his former secretary) during the last election is big news? Please.
The fact that Bob Rae quotes from Tommy Douglas from time to time is big news? Come on, Antonio. Are we really going to go there? You and I both know your preferred leadership candidate can quote George Bush almost as well as Stephen Harper can.
Is it big news that despite all the hype about Bob Rae being a polarizing figure, he's still THE TOP SECOND CHOICE OF LIBERAL PARTY MEMBERS and has the greatest potential for second, third and fourth ballot growth? Absolutely! Is it big news that this same poll confirms that in Ontario, where he is supposedly hated, Bob continues to enjoy the highest ratings among the candidates? Absolutely! Liberals seem to be confirming what I've been suggesting all along: Bob Rae is job ready. And truth be told, it makes me smile.

Looking forward to an exciting fall,

John Lennard

Job ready

2006-09-18T18:41:00.000-04:00

The fourth (and perhaps defining) leadership debate took place last night. This will probably be the last official opportunity for Liberals to compare the candidates side-by-side before the Delegate Selection Meetings.

What did we see?

We saw a fantastic performance from Scott Brison. He is a dynamic speaker, solid on the issues and passionate about taking on Stephen Harper (I loved his "Stephen Harper is so far right, he's wrong" line). However, I fear his French, while greatly improved, is not quite up to standard. The Liberal Party needs a bilingual leader. Scott Brison is close, but he's not job ready.

We saw a good performance from Stephane Dion. He was spirited, as always. However, his English was surprisingly weak (perhaps even incoherent at times), and he seemed quite nervous and unsure of himself. It may just have been a bad day for Stephane, because from meeting him in person, I've always felt that he exudes pep and confidence. That being said, he doesn't seem to be able to channel that confidence effectively as a communicator. Stephane Dion is good, but he often has trouble getting his message across. He's not job ready.

Ken Dryden is something else. At times, I'm amazed at the passion with which he makes his arguments. His attacks on Stephen Harper (the "write'em off" line is fantastic) are always sharp and convincing. I think Ken understands what's at stake. I think he understands that beating Stephen Harper is our most pressing task. Despite what the Gandalf poll may lead us to believe, I don't think Ken is the best person to accomplish this task. His speaking style is heavy, and he shows little depth when addressing specific issues. Perhaps he'd be a great national campaign chair, helping to shape the overall Liberal message in the next election. But as leader, he's just not job ready.

We saw another compelling performance from Hedy Fry. I think she's fabulous. She's the most motivational of the bunch. Feisty, intelligent, quick on her feet, I see no reason she wouldn't be good for the top job, other than the fact she doesn't speak French. Hedy Fry is a leader, but would not be a good Liberal leader, because as I've said before, a Liberal leader needs to be bilingual. She's not job ready.

Joe Volpe needs to stop interrupting people for no reason. It's annoying. He's not job ready.

We saw another good performance from Martha Hall Findlay. She speaks intelligently and refreshingly about the issues, and at times brings up points that some of us wouldn't otherwise consider (a complete review of the Indian Act, for instance). However, Martha needs to stop introducing herself to us. We know who she is, we know that she's new, and now, apparently, we know that Stephen Harper is afraid of her winning. I don't buy that last one. She lacks the experience needed to be leader. Give her some time in Parliament, and I think she'll grow. But for now, she's not job ready.

Gerard Kennedy did a good job. He seems to be getting into his groove as it relates to policy, showing more depth last night than I've seen in a long time. His closing speech was a barnburner. I still think he needs more time to grow into federal politics. On the issue of the Kelowna Accord, for instance, his response drifted back inevitably to the question of education. While he's made some great progress, Kennedy still has lots of room to grow as a federal politician. He's not job ready.

I don't trust Michael Ignatieff. I don't trust a person who continues to be disingenuous about his reasons for supporting the Iraq war, or who continues to speak out of both sides of his mouth on the question of national unity (regionalism is bad, but a Quebec nation is good), or who insists that he's not running to be the next Pierre Trudeau and yet invokes his memory at every opportunity. I just don't trust him. He's not being honest about his record nor is he being consistent in his pronouncements. In short, he's not job ready.

Which brings me, finally, to Bob Rae. What did we see from Bob Rae?

We saw a man would not have brought us into Iraq. He would not have voted for Stephen Harper's Afghanistan extension. He would not precipitiously reopen the constitutional debate. We see a man committed to Kyoto, committed to Kelowna, committed to child care. On a range of issues, Bob Rae shares the goals and values of most Liberals. Bob Rae is job ready.
We saw a man who is able to speak substantively about every issue presented to him. Why? Because he has substantive experience on virtually every issue facing the country today. Bob Rae is seasoned. Bob Rae is job ready.
We saw a man who is able to get his message across effectively, compellingly and fluently in both official languages. Bob Rae is a good communicator. Bob Rae is job ready.
We saw a man who understands which issues are really important to Canadians. An independent Canadian foreign policy is an important issue. Senate reform, within the context of a greater discussion on constitutional reform, is not a pressing issue. Bob Rae understands Canadians. Bob Rae is job ready.
We saw a man who understands that all this talk of "nation building" and "bringing hope to Canadians" means absolutely nothing if Stephen Harper remains Prime Minister. Nice words aren't enough. Innovative policies, while great to have, aren't enough. It's about having the experience, the levelheadedness and the communication skills to bring people together, to get our message across and to convince Canadians that the Liberal alternative is better. Bob Rae knows what's at stake. Bob Rae is job ready.

For me, that's what it comes down to. Sure, I'm biased. I won't pretend to be a neutral observer, because I'm not. But more and more, I'm getting the sense that others are beginning to feel the same way. Bob Rae. Job ready.

Now THIS could be interesting!

2006-09-17T13:35:00.000-04:00

Looks like the Alberta PCs will be holding their leadership convention at the same time as ours. I'm guessing they're using a "one-member-one-vote" system, based on this news report. Still, I'd rather not be sharing our spotlight with the likes of Wacky Ralph and Crazy Ted.

Then again, the contrast might not be so bad...We'll be looking at ways to build a better Canada, they'll be looking at ways to build firewalls around Alberta. We'll be tossing around policy ideas, they'll be tossing around policy books. We'll be attacking the Tory's legislative record, they'll be attacking innocent legislative pages. We'll be cheering for our favourite leadership contenders, they'll be screaming at homeless people.

Oh, the possibilities!

Sunday morning roundup

2006-09-17T10:09:00.000-04:00

A few thoughts before I get back to my homework:

The Star is reporting that there's a lot of "grumbling" in the Ontario Liberal Party following our loss in Parkdale-High Park. I've made my views on this known. I thought the "sermon attack" was a bad idea from day one, but hey, what do I know? An unnamed party official suggested: "[T]here was a backlash against the party after some overly enthusiastic young bloggers used their websites to attack DiNovo." I wonder who s/he is referring to?
I'm looking forward to tonight's leadership debate in Vancouver. In particular, I'm anxious to see the first grouping, which consists of presumed frontrunners Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae and Stephane Dion. Break out the fireworks!
Michael Ignatieff exudes confidence following Bennett's endorsement of Bob Rae. Is he losing sleep over it? Not according to Canadian Press: "Not at all," Ignatieff told reporters following a speech on national unity and immigration. "I've got a third of the caucus already. I've got a third of the riding associations in Quebec ... I feel the momentum is excellent." Oh, the humility!
In the same article, while addressing the issue of how his plan to speed up the immigration process might cause some security issues, Ignatieff says: "Cutting those queues is going to cost a lot of money...On the security side, I think we have to look at ways to simply simplify this process." Simply simplify this process. This guy gets more insightful by the day.
Welcome to the Liberal Party, Paul Summerville! Summerville's recent endorsement of Bob Rae is good news. It provides further proof that the NDP is increasingly moving outside of the mainstream of Canadian politics, and that the Liberal Party is the only real progressive alternative to Stephen Harper's conservative agenda. Regardless of the outcome of this leadership race, I hope we can keep Paul in our tent.
Speaking of Paul Summerville: Now that we have his endorsement, and Carolyn Bennett's endorsement, can we expect a call from Peter Kent anytime soon? C'mon, Peter! Let's make it a hat trick!

That's it for now. When it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press. Back to Tim Russert, and then homework.