June 30, 2006 - "On Canada Day, let's show a little more pride"

I couldn't agree more. Granted, I am a guy who at times has been known to walk around the streets on July 1 in white jeans (yes, a crime in itself), a red t-shirt, a Canada bandanna, and a flag around my neck worn as a cape. And in the largely unpatriotic city of Vancouver, baffled looks of confusion are the rule rather than the exception.

I love this country so much, and sometimes we as Canadians don't realize how good we really have it.

Let's take a moment tomorrow to appreciate everything that is Canada.

Happy Canada Day

June 29, 2006 - The reason that Scott Brison left me with a new appreciation of his candidacy was because of his personal policy convictions, and a confidence in what he had to offer that ensured platitudes and tired lines were not coming out of his mouth.

After asking him if Kyoto had been a failure because of our emission levels that have risen, it was nice to hear Brison talk in detail about making environmental responsibility a competitive endeavour that the private sector can not only be involved in, but also make money with. Brison had great faith in the effectiveness of tax credits on a wide range of topics, and while to some extent I am still sceptical of this approach, his understanding that business is ultimately key driver of environmental protection was really contemporary and realistic.

He told me that his vision of what it means to be a Liberal revolved around a competitive economy, a progressive society and environmental responsibility. He felt that this was the only party that he could effectively balance his personal belief systems, his business background as a former investment banker, and his concern for getting the environment into the public consciousness and firmly onto the national agenda. I also questioned him as to how his past candidacy for the leadership of the Progressive Conservatives affects his current run for the top job in the Liberal party. He responded by saying that he joined a party that he felt accomodated his social sensibilities and fiscal priorities, and that he felt that once the Progressive Conservatives died with Stephen Harper's deal with Peter McKay, the Liberal party immediately became his home.

He was strong on the income trust email controversy, stating that while he "absolutely" regretted it, he knew that in the end he only echoed Ralph Goodale's announcement earlier in the week, and that he handled it with complete openness by giving a blow-by-blow account of his actions in a press conference. He talked about introducing a progressive tax system like Austrailia and Sweden, where taxation is used not as a way to devolve government responsibility, but rather as a means to advance specific policy measures through competitive incentives. He acknowledged that we must update the Canada Health Act to reflect the fact that Canada's health care system is already delivering publicly covered services through private delivery. He stated that he has never chased polls, and has always tried to level with the Canadian public based on his principles and beliefs. He thinks that there is an inherent respect available to those that are willing to stand on their own two feet when it comes to the realm of ideas. And finally, he mentioned his youth ("a new generation"), his rural roots, his regional representation, and his campaign to create "national purpose" in all areas of government as the things that differentiated his campaign.

Without doubt, my words have not done Brison justice, due to my technology mishap that I mentioned yesterday. But the man is a serious presence in the party. I believe in political rebirth, and unlike Belinda Stronach or David Emerson or even Bob Rae, Brison's reasons for embracing the Liberal party were virtuous, principled and dare I say, part of a natural evolution of thought. He is young, vibrant, well-informed, polite and engaging, and he proved that my bias against his PC past was uncalled for. He has definitely moved up dramatically in my rankings of the candidates, and while I would definitely not say this about many of the names in this race, I encourage all readers to get a chance to listen to Brison in person - he's definitely worth it.

June 28, 2006 - As much as I like technology, I have to admit that at times, it can be a let down. In this vein, my recording of Scott Brison is so choppy (with the exception of the following question that I asked):

"The PQ and the BQ are attacking Stephen Harper currently for his unwillingness to call Quebec a nation. Do you feel that Quebec is a nation? And can a federalist stance on a unified Canada still recognize Quebec as such?

Well first of all, I recognize Quebec as a distinct society within Canada. I supported both Meech and Charlottetown vigorously, and that is my position.

Further to that, Stephen Harper has created tremendous difficulties in his current discussion around fiscal imbalance. Earlier in this decade, there was a period of time during which there was a fiscal imbalance between the federal government and the provincial governments. With the health care accord, with child care accords, with the new deal for cities, the fiscal imbalance was largely addressed.

The federal government has to reinvest in federal jurisdictional areas that have been for some time neglected. And if we provide the kind of meaningful tax reform and tax relief that our country needs, and if we make the kind of investments in immigration in terms of both people and infrastructure, and the environment, and aboriginal policy (just to name a few of the federal areas), I would argue that there won't be a fiscal imbalance. But the problem with Harper's current discussion is that every premier interprets the fiscal imbalance as meaning a different thing. So he's created something that's very seductive in the short term, but in the long term, could be something that is very divisive by pitting one province against another."

that I will not have word-for-word transcripts available.

Let me say this though - I do have notes that I took throughout, and tomorrow will devote a substantial amount of time relaying my observations. Because in spite of my self-admitted bias against a Liberal leadership contender that also ran for the leadership of another party, Brison blew me away. He was detailed in his policy positions, unafraid to take bold stances, unapologetic about his past, and ready to stand on his ideas and his principles. Without any hesitation, I can now say that Scott Brison is one of the brightest lights that we as Liberals have within the House of Commons, and he is going to be a force within this party for many years to come. I am excited and proud to have such a star as part of the caucus. Again, I will have a full account of my questions, and my impressions of Brison's answers tomorrow.

In the meantime, I have to get something off of my chest.

Leadership races in the modern era are one of the most unappealing processes in contemporary politics. Regardless of what party you are a part of, these are just a few of the things that I despise:

º The false accusations against leadership organizers that prompt potential supporters to lash out without cause.

º The primary focus on membership sales, which always at the end of the day far exceeds the attention and interest that policy, principles and ideas have within the campaign.

º The scripted phone calls by montone sounding phone bank volunteers whose attempts to "smile over the phone" make me lose my lunch.

º The way that candidates are used simply as vehicles to advance certain organizers' party profile and stature

º The demonization of opposing candidates by overzealous supporters ready to win at all costs

Do readers have their own laments they wish to share? Send them in and I'll publish the best ones.

June 28, 2006 - As I spend time this morning finalizing the transcribing of the Scott Brison interview (I might be posting a couple of questions every few hours due to the overall length), consider this article, which kind of echoes my impression of a candidate who isn't afraid to break from what is often considered the "official" party line. I really liked Brison's feisty Atlantic attitude, and the inner confidence that allowed him to stand on his own two feet when it came to taking positions.

June 27, 2006 - TDH Strategies' interview with Scott Brison will be published on the site tomorrow morning.

June 27, 2006 - I think that a clarification is in order regarding the post directly below.

I just received an email from a friend who is in the Gerard Kennedy camp:

"I have had people contact me and ask how I feel about being insulted by you. There are a lot of good people working for Kennedy and frankly the breadth of your post today was unfair to them."

I have also had emails this morning that read like this:

"I'm a Kennedy supporter in Manitoba, but the campaign situation here is unique in that it is mostly a family run affair and contact with the senior Kennedy campaign is rather limited. After growing disillusioned with the cult of personality that surrounded Paul Martin the last thing the party needs is another clique of self important individuals more concerned with their own ambition than the success of the Liberal Party as a whole."

My friend is correct - it isn't right to colour all Kennedy supporters with the same brush, and if that is how my commentary came across, then an apology is most definitely in order.

On the other hand, I am writing with not only my negative personal experiences in mind, but also the many others which have been relayed to me directly. I gave my full effort to be involved. I made my contribution by writing the first draft of Kennedy's immigration platform. But frankly, the way I was treated gave me reason to look at other options that I likely would never have considered had I not encountered new manifestations of old feuds and typical Martin-styled power brokering. And while it was the politics that forced me shop around, it was the public policy that reinforced my desire to switch to the Michael Ignatieff campaign.

So when I wrote that that Kennedy had "surrounded himself with some of the most divisive, non-inclusive and destructive people that the Liberal party," the key word in the sentence is some.

June 27, 2006 - I am truly shocked by the amount of people that I have recently encountered who are leaving the Gerard Kennedy camp. Since publishing a public announcement detailing my shift in support to Michael Ignatieff last week, I have heard from those who organize at the riding level, many who are long-time stalwarts who carry a lot of weight amongst the influencers of the party, and even individuals who receive compensation for their efforts.

The common refrain? That Kennedy is a very attractive candidate with a lot of qualities which are admired, but that he has surrounded himself with some of the most divisive, non-inclusive and destructive people that the Liberal party has to offer.

I am sure that I will be chided by some of the Kennedy supporters who have websites, and am ready to have the mud start flying. But my story of being systematically and very consciously cut out of the loop by the local Kennedy forces here in BC is an experience that I can now say with confidence is being echoed by others, across the country.

June 26, 2006 - So apparently when André Boisclair and Gilles Duceppe tell the Quebec media to jump, the only question they ask is how high.

Stephen Harper shows up at the Citadel in Quebec City for St. Jean Baptiste Day, and gets hammered with questions on whether Quebec is a nation - under instruction from the two separatist leaders. Now in fareness, Harper's line that:

"We're not here today for La Fête Nationale. We're here to hold a cabinet meeting and here to hold it on the site not just in the capital of the province of Quebec but also in the historic original capital of Canada itself, something that hasn't been done since the 1950s,"

is a little ridiculous, considering the convenient overlap of dates. But that doesn't preclude the fact that the separatists are trying to manufacture the passion that their stump speeches and tired lines on sovereignty aren't able to generate on their own.

For the record, because much of my family roots go back to Quebec and my enduring soft spot for la belle province, I really don't see a problem in acknowledging the existence of a Quebec sociopolitical nation. I think that this kind of a classification is a notion that no longer sits solely within the rhetoric of Quebec nationalists. I am one of the hugest Pierre Trudeau fans there is, but with the political winds that are currently blowing in Quebec, I tend to side with an idea similar to the one that was once put forward by Lester B. Pearson, which articulates that Quebec constitutes a nation within a nation.

Anyways, Harper understandably didn't want to wade into the debate in the heart of Quebec City on June 24th - fair enough. But for Boisclair and Duceppe to try and claim that Harper was insulting Quebec smacks of desperation for two leaders who are floundering when it comes to generating true interest in the sovereignty movement.

By no stretch of the imagination can Harper's government be seen as federalist champions that Canadians are going to line up behind - because quite frankly, they are less than inspiring in that regard. But the Conservatives' new popularity in Quebec is starting to take its toll on Duceppe, who has just been classified on national television as one of the country's most overrated politicians, and Boisclair, whose youth and newness might win him an election, but won't easily get him to a referendum.

June 26, 2006 - I am interviewing Scott Brison this afternoon, so this is your last chance to make suggestions on questions I should ask of the leadeship hopeful. Off to watch the Italy/Austrailia game, but will check back in a couple of hours with a comment on the separatist movement's manufactured and contrived attempt to inflame the passions of a Quebec population that has clearly grown weary of their tired and uninspiring raison d'etre.

June 24, 2006 - Here's a little political irony for you...

My good friend Ruby Dhalla has been doing a fantastic job of holding Health Minister Tony Clement to the fire this past week, hammering him for his inappropriate 25 per cent stake in Prudential Chem and the $25,000 sole-sourced contract that he gave out to his long-time friend and aide Gordon Haugh.

So I'm flipping through some old clippings, and find a story from July, 2002 about the Ontario government diverting more than $60 million in federal funding (intended to purchase badly needed diagnostic equipment) to privately owned radiology clinics (good ol' Two Tier Tony). Now who steps up to the plate to offer a quote of justification? None other than Gordon Haugh, who said:

"The feds placed no restrictions on how the money could be spent."

Particularly if the contract is under 25 grand, eh Gordon?

June 23, 2006 - 28 years and still kicking! I'm taking the day off, so have a nice weekend.

June 22, 2006 - Boy did we ever screw up this file. Chinese Canadians were always one of the strongest bases of support that the Liberal party could always count on. Now, I wouldn't be so sure anymore.

June 22, 2006 - I remember a small reception with Jean Chretien that I attended in the summer of 2002, where upon being asked how he felt about not being invited down to George W. Bush's Crawford ranch, the big guy replied "But for me, I am not trying to be the Americans' best friend." Well put then, and just as applicable now.

So, Stephen Harper's low-key approach to his upcoming visit to Washington (whether by design or necessity) strikes the right balance between the push at home and the pull from down south.

Honestly, who the hell cares about a 21 gun salute, or a quality-time, bonding opportunity bike ride with a man who gets uncontrollable giggles every time he hears the name of North Korea's new missile - the Taepodong (pronounced Ty-po-Dong)? Harper is keeping it strictly business, seemingly content to let other world leaders line up like petulant children and agonize over who's going to get invited to George's birthday party, and what is going to be in the loot bags.

June 21, 2006 - Stories like this really make me embarrassed:

"Mr. Graham is well liked, but he is a lame duck, admitting in meetings that he cannot make decisions that could tie the hands of the future leader, a senior Liberal said."

"The frustration also has MPs feuding among themselves. Recently, behind the curtains in the House of Commons, one Liberal MP accused a colleague of laziness."

"Some MPs are still angry with Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale for allowing the Conservatives to call a vote - without amendments - on extending the Canadian mission to Afghanistan for two years to 2009. The Tories knew the vote would expose divisions in the Liberal caucus over the mission. To add insult to injury, Mr. Goodale was not present for the vote because he had another engagement at the time."

"The Liberals have 102 seats in the House, just 23 fewer than the Harper Conservatives. But on Mondays, Thursdays and Fridays, only about half of the caucus is there. The Liberals fill their seats only during the middle two days of the week when most MPs are in town for caucus and committee meetings. On Monday, about 45 Liberals showed up for Question Period; one veteran MP, who sits on the front bench, was napping."

Have we become so complacent that we only put effort into representing Canadians when we are sitting on the government benches? Man does this party need to get its shit together.

June 21, 2006 - While in opposition, Stephen Harper and his band of merry hypocrites hated the relationship between Earnscliffe and Prime Minister Paul Martin, and consistently hammered the Liberals on the government's relationships with lobbyists (go take a look here and here under the Lobbyists heading to get an idea). In fact, I remember a time when Harper used to say things like this:

"Politics will no longer be a steppingstone for a lucrative career lobbying government."

So, now we have the sordid Tony Clement saga, and the subsequent weakening of the Accountability Act to allow senior Tories who worked on the transition team to become lobbyists.

Further exploiting the areas that the Act fails to addres, there are already past Tory candidates like John Capobianco who have now cashed in on their election defeat by lobbying the hell out of ministers like Mr. Clement, whom he has been a long-time crony to over the years (take a look at the health-care related companies that Capobianco has signed up to contracts).

To be fair, this latest amendment to the Accountability Act was passed unanimously with all-party support in the house, which I find shocking. But regardless of which party they are attached to, the conduct of a few has only solidified my very uncomfortable feeling surrounding the entire profession of private sector government lobbying.

June 21, 2006 - On Monday, I will be interviewing Scott Brison, and I think that I am going to begin by asking him about what is reported in this article. As usual, if you have any questions that you'd like me to ask him, please forward them along for consideration. Other candidates wanting to be profiled can also get in touch with me.

June 20, 2006 - Why I Have Made Michael Ignatieff My Choice For Liberal Leader, Part 2

Yesterday I spoke about why I began to consider other candidates in the race. Today I want to speak about why I settled on Michael Ignatieff. Oh, and for the record, I received an email from a Gerard Kennedy paid staffer yesterday, who while offering that he is a regular reader who "generally enjoy[s] your analysis," also stated that ultimately it was my fault for not being able to get involved, called my decision a "dumb choice," and said that he wouldn't be reading my site anymore. The line in the sand has apparently been drawn, and I guess you're either with them or against them.

On March 27, I wrote this as to why Mr. Ignatieff was not one of my favourites:

"...a fundamental disagreement with his stances on the Iraq war and the use of torture," and belief "that a man who has spent the better part of three decades outside of Canada is properly cut out to lead the Liberal party so soon after returning "home."

I resented his description of our country as a "well-meaning, herbivorian boy scout" back in 2002. I hated the fact that he had started to include himself in his pontifications on what it was like to be an American (using words like "we" and "our". I had confusion on his opinions on torture, the United Nations, and Iraq, and accused the candidate of being someone who "flirts with [an] issue masterfully, and yet always leaves himself an exit strategy to negate his critics."

Well, like I have stated in the past, my opinions were formed with only a peripheral understanding of the man, and I now know that I didn't have all the necessary information. Because ultimately, despite the fact that I don't agree with all of Ignatieff's positions, I also understand that he is a guy that can step up to the plate and offer Canadians many of the visions that I have spent years promoting on this website.

I like the fact that he is willing to take positions that aren't necessarily popular or easy. If there is one thing that has become very clear to political observers is this country, it is the intense backlash against wishy-washy, "trying to please everyone" types of policies after the Paul Martin era. Why have Stephen Harper's five priorities been well received for the most part? Because a) every Canadian is able to find at least one that they can support b) they are decisive in branding who the government is and what they want to accomplish c) people are ready to be won over by leaders, not appeasers.

Supporting our mission in Afghanistan is the right thing to do, and there is no waivering in Ignatieff's stance, in spite of some Liberals' insistence that we MUST be different than Stephen Harper (how utterly silly that kind of stand alone criteria is). His support for the Iraq war and the ouster of Saddam Hussein is controversial and some might even say dangerous, but completely understandable because of his bond with the Kurdish people. His idea on the introduction of a Carbon Tax is something that will not likely go over too well in resource-centred provinces like Alberta, but even in the long-ago world of February 1997, more than 2,500 economists, including eight Nobel laureates, signed a short statement on the dangers of global climate change, arguing that "market mechanisms such as carbon taxes...were the best avenues to pursue."

These kinds of positions provide a nice transition into my next point - Micheal Ignatieff has more depth behind his opinions than just about any politician I have encountered over the past decade. In fact, it is that kind of knowledge base and experience which make him the atypical politician - a feather in his cap as far as I am concerned. Like I wrote last month:

"Rather than create a wedge with people, however, Ignatieff's long academic and journalistic careers have given him the uncanny ability to know how to identify with an audience. He was just as comfortable walking into a small room filled with wealthy socialites sympathetic to the plight of Israel as he was speaking to a large, semi-hostile Sunni Muslim audience celebrating Milad-un-Nabi. To say that he has been to mosques in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, to recant about trips to Israel, to understand the delicate balance of issues betwen the Israelis and the Palestinians...requires a broad base of experience in which to draw upon. And, Ignatieff has plenty in which to work with."

How refreshing...a candidate that can back up his words with academic credentials, global experience, and the incorporation and consideration of a wide range of opinions. He doesn't sit up on stage and deliver the over-the-top Liberal stump speeches that are high on rhetoric and hyperbole, and short on substance and sense. I find it very intriguing that Ignatieff is someone that can legitimately teach me many things - expand my horizons.

I am very impressed by Ignatieff's intellectual honesty. This approach is a combination of not treating your audience like idiots, and having the resolve to call a spade a spade without walking on eggshells. He can say that Canada has no role in the Middle East because he understands the dynamics of the region, and also is aware of the areas of greatest impact this country can have across the world. He is willing to say that Kyoto has been a failed policy because in essence, our record on fulfilling environmental international obligations has been shameful. He is interested in re-examining this country's "sacred cows" (a term that was mysteriously used in a discussion I had with a high-level Ignatieff campaign staff person a couple of weeks back) through the lens of someone who is tired of having Liberals serve as a "party of urban political correctness." He also is unafraid to admit to being capable of making a mistake. And in consideration of the fact that for years I have been begging for politicians to be more human in their public personas, then I have to be willing to accept an admission of fault when offered (as he does in his interview with TDH Strategies last month regarding his past use of the words "we" and "our" when talking to an American audience).

Canadians are not responding to spin anymore, and are not as afraid of shaking things up as we Liberals are so often inclined to believe.

I like the fact that Ignatieff is bringing fresh, new ideas to the table - things that I haven't heard before. I think that it is a sign of great confidence to encourage this country's best and brightest young people to go out and discover the world by making international contributions (something my sister is about to embark on in Bangladesh). He believes that we cannot continue to live in this bubble of "boyscout diplomacy" and expect the world we live in to magically become safer. He says that a mature and diversified foreign policy must involve risk - a quality that we as Canadians are often so adverse to. He talks about somehow linking foreign aid to Canada's success in attracting skilled immigrants away from countries who really need to foster their human capital. He includes the urban/rural divide into any debate involving national unity. He openly talks about narrowing the gap between where we think we are as a nation, and where we actually are in terms of performance.

These are ideas that Ignatieff ponders out loud - he isn't afraid to have a debate or discussion. He asks questions back to his audience to get a better sense of where people are coming from. He thinks like a man that hasn't been hardened or jaded by a government bureaucracy that has the ability to squash the most fertile and idealistic of intentions. He is a breath of fresh air.

Finally, aside from the content behind the candidate, the way I have been treated by the campaign, even in the past 24 hours, has been very impressive. I was welcomed on board by the national campaign director with a phone call yesterday. I have already been asked to make contributions, likely on national policy to begin with. I have had a lot of positive encouragement from so many of the individuals that form the collective core of Ignatieff supporters across the country. It is very nice to feel appreciated.

I am anxious to hear people's opinions on my lines of reasoning.

June 19, 2006 - Why I Have Made Michael Ignatieff My Choice For Liberal Leader

Even when I mentioned my "preference" for Gerard Kennedy on April 5, 2006, I never made a firm commitment to endorse him, like some have suggested. I merely pointed out Gerard's strengths that are going to make him a political force for many years to come.

But somewhere along the way, the entourage gave me reason to start to consider other options.

I was in touch back in February/March, speaking to Kennedy's people in both Toronto and Ottawa, expressing my interest to help out. I had some reservations about some of the team that I was supposed to start working with locally, but I happily hosted a small get together at a Vancouver airport lounge back in March

An attempt at clearing the air with certain individuals by phone was greeted with a query as to why I hadn't supported Paul Martin back in 1998. I was told that there was a place for me (as if he was running things, even though Toronto had a completely different line), but only in the background. I was also told that some of my long time friends from the Allan Rock leadership days were of the same opinion. I later found out that the claim was a lie.

Same old routine, 8 years later - and really no surprise to me.

Yet I was working with a bright young high level policy guy out east, and was intent on contributing to the campaign. Because of my recent research and writing on skilled immigrants through my company TDH Strategies, I was asked to write a platform on immigration. I took a crack at it, it was passed around, and eventually, this is what resulted.

Yet locally, meetings with 10-15 individuals, many of which were enticed to the campaign after me, extended no offers of inclusion. I wasn't notified about Gerard's second visit to Vancouver other than a general notice I received for a youth event (???) from party headquarters. People were telling others that GK's top BC guys would keep me at a distance.

That is why I turned down trying to write a second policy platform issue for him. It is why I declined when asked to help out with a briefing book on BC.

No matter how good it was to work in isolation with some of my GK campaign contacts and friends out east, I understood why I couldn't continue to offer my support after attending the candidate's BC launch last month.

Long ago I learned a lesson in politics. A campaign is always representative of the people that work on it, and the candidate cannot escape responsibility. So, if you are shut out of on-the-ground involvement. If you are told you must be kept out of sight. If you are lied to about your own friends. If the candidate looks right through you, even after meeting and hosting a get together for him, and walks into a private room with supporters - well, you begin to sense a pattern.

The fact that I don't write this website with permalinks really bugs the techies and the bloggers. The fact that I open my mouth when something needs to be said really makes some of the party faithful stick fingers in their ears. And the fact that at times I carry things to the end if I believe that there is a principle involved pisses just about everyone off.

But that's me. Politics is where a lot of my heart is.

I now know for a fact that there are others out there with similar stories of treatment and appreciation.

This kind of a switch is not all about politics. Tomorrow I will write about why my love of public policy has made me decide to support Michael Ignatieff for leader.

June 16, 2006 - I'm a Liberal, and everyone who reads this site is quite aware of that fact. They also know, however, that I try to maintain a balanced perspective - meaning that I don't support blind partisanship that resembles cheerleading.

Liblog founder Jason Cherniak is a smart enough fellow - I have sat down with him, I have respect for him, and I like him. But today, he takes aim at the government's intention to introduce tougher sentencing on street racing, by encouraging Liberals to respond to questions about the legislation with the following:

"Street racing is already illegal. Stephen Harper's proposal is to do absolutely nothing. The people of Canada will not be fooled by his blatant hypocrisy."

Now I am going to have to do a little digging in Cherniak's archives, but for the life of me, I can't remember him levying the same criticism against Paul Martin's typical empty bravado when it came to his plan to ban handguns, considering that ownership of most kinds of guns is already restricted and illegal guns would still be...well illegal.

If I'm wrong, I welcome a link to the post that proves it. Otherwise, this is just typical pot calling the kettle black type of stuff - a political tact that Canadians are getting pretty fed up with.

June 15, 2006 - I think that Bob Rae is completely out of touch with his views on Afghanistan...he is clearly unaware of what it takes to rebuild such a failed state. Cerberus has a great post on Afghanistan today, including a link to the spot on editorial from the Globe and Mail this morning. Personally, I think that Liberals having such a negative view towards the Afghanistan mission comes through as completely hollow, considering that we were the ones that put our troops there, and also the ones who designed the rules of engagment, which includes armed combat.

June 15, 2006 - Here's a story that puts another doubt in my mind as to the capability of our Olympic organizers.

Now there are plenty of hidden costs that continue to come out of the woodwork. Fair enough...not exactly shocking.

What is shocking is news that our security commitments to the Games could limit Canada's military overseas. Here is what is upsetting to me.

It isn't as though the time frame for submitting our final proposed budgets to the IOC for consideration didn't include knowledge of the "demand for extra forces to guard athletes and facilities at the Games." Athens, which took place just one year after Vancouver was awarded the Games, deployed 70,000 troops and NATO's entire Mediterranean fleet, encompassing a total security budget of $1.7 billion Cdn, or nearly $157,000 per athlete.

So how much did Vancouver allot for security? An estimate of about $180 million, clearly a number that to the naked eye of comparison, is completely inadequate. But here's the kicker - that estimate was not included in the VANOC financial report, because it is apparently A GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY.

So, let's forget about that extra $55 million each that VANOC just asked from the provincial and federal governments for a moment, and contemplate our potential bill for the Olympics. Quick and dirty math suggests that there is a gap of about $1.5 billion - money that is going to come out of the pockets of taxpayers. Was that ever advertised though? Of course not. Also bare in mind that the equivalent of a Athens $1.7 billion security price tag, or the $1.4 billion for Torino (as I heard on CKNW this morning) is bound to entail dramatically more for Vancouver come 2010.

I am a supporter of the Olympics coming here - I am just concerned about the incompetence that is rearing its ugly head at that mysterious, seemingly impenetrable glass tower that is known as VANOC. Canadians picking up other future bills should feel the same way.

June 14, 2006 - An Interview with Maurizio Bevilacqua

This was conducted on Monday afternoon as Maurizio was in a car driving from one event to another in Toronto. I have to say that he gave some good, solid answers to my questions, and his demeanour and experience really came through in the interview. Maurizio has definitely skyrocketed to become one of my top 3 choices at the moment. I will be very curious to hear what readers' impressions of the interview are by way of email.

"Do you feel that the Liberal party should have had a policy convention in advance of a leadership race? Why or why not?

I think policy is something that should be ongoing throughout the year. As a matter of fact, if I am fortunate to become leader, there will be a Renaissance Weekend every year, where on a particular weekend, groups and ridings across the country dedicate themselves to policy. This will be a way to also build the process of policy making from the bottom up. We can't be only doing bi-annual policy conventions - policy has to be an ongoing process within the party, and that's what my leadership will also focus on.

I'm curious, however, as to whether you think the order of how things went this time around was appropriate. Is it smart to have a leadership race without a policy convention to sound out the membership first?

Well, there is a lot of policy being discussed now in many riding associations, and obviously in the debates and the many meetings that the leadership candidates are having throughout the country. But we were in a situation when the leader essentially resigned after the last election, and you have to deal with events as they occur. Therefore, once the party executive decided to have a leadership convention for December, then the time for a policy convention was limited. The question is, for all sorts of financial and other reasons, whether the party could afford to have a policy convention and a leadership convention, and the party executive decided that in fact, we could not.

In consideration of population demographics, do you feel that a completely public health care system is sustainable in Canada?

I am very much against a two-tier system. But there is no question as a defender of the public health care system, that we need to make sure that innovation is taking place within the system, and it has to reform itself. I also want to make it very clear that I am a strong defender of the Canada Health Act and its applications. There is no question in my mind that even though we have challenges, our health care system is one of the best in the world.

But do you feel that there is room for private delivery within the context of a universal public system?

I think that when we're talking about health care, the issue is more complicated than it seems. I mean, 70% of the health care system in Canada is public, 30% is private. There are many, many elements related to health care that we need to discuss. But there is no question about the fact that wherever, whenever efficiencies can be achieved, we have to do it within the public health care system.

What would you to make politics more human, more accessible, to the common voter?

Well I think that there has to be a lot more reaching out in various different ways. One of the things I really pride myself on is the fact that in 18 years as a Member of Parliament, as a chair of the Finance Committee, as a chair of the Youth Task Force, as a parliamentary secretary to Axworthy, and as a Minister, I have always made it a priority to go out and seek input from across the country, listening to Canadians, interpreting their messages, and prescribing solutions to the challenges that they face.

Politics is essentially about people, and of course technology also allows us through blogs like yours, to reach out to more and more people. When you look at the human element of actually getting out there and listening to people, and getting MPs across the board to give input (not just Liberals), literally tens of thousands of people are able to participate in the process, as I witnessed when I was a member of the Finance Committee. By reaching out and touching people, you really realize what true openness in politics is all about.

Do you feel about that the existence of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is in the best interests of Canada's Aboriginal peoples?

I think that the Aboriginal issue is extremely important. The Kelowna Accord was a step in the right direction to address key issues like education, housing, infrastructure, and health care. Aboriginal Canadians represent great hope for Canada in their talents and the richness of their culture. When we look at an ageing society, Aboriginal Canadians also represent a section of the population that is much younger than the rest. Empowering Aboriginal Canadians, providing them with the opportunities that they deserve, has to be a key priority for any person seeking to become Prime Minister of the country.

This is one of the major disappointments I have had with Stephen Harper, the fact that he cancelled an agreement that was endorsed by First Nations, and endorsed by all provincial and territorial governments. This is an example of how Stephen Harper has a five-point plan that is extremely timid and doesn't speak to the future. He is a retail politician that just looks at the immediate things.

In regards to Afghanistan and other missions, do you think that peace keeping and assuming an offensive military role are mutually exclusive?

No, our history tells us - we were in WWI, WWII, the Korean campaign - that sometimes our Canadian soldiers have had to engage in that role. As Stephen Harper talks about planting seeds of democracy in fragile states, what he isn't doing is practicing those basic fundamental principles of democracy in his own country. What I mean by that is that there is no reason why he would not provide answers as to the who, what, when and how on the Afghanistan campaign, yet he expected MPs to come up with an answer after only six hours of debate. He also said that had we not voted in favour that he would have extended the mission anyways. Harper has got to learn that the voices of the people that are transmitted through MPs must be listened to.

With Jean Charest's government in deep trouble, and the federal Liberal party running a distant third in the polls within Quebec, please tell me the strategies and approaches you would use in ensuring that Quebec remains a strong part of the federation? How can the separatist threat be quelled with another referendum likely on the horizon?

You have to go and make a strong case for Canada. There has been a lot of talk about openness to Quebec, and all these related issues. The bottom line is that there is no party in the history of this country that has devolved more power to provinces, and been more accessible and open to Quebec, than the Liberal Party of Canada. If that was the answer, then we would have over 70 seats in that province.

So the issue is that you have to go in there and provide Quebecers with a federalist option that speaks to issues that Quebecers care about, which is a strong economy for a just society. By that I mean creating the type of economic growth that will allow Quebecers to have a strong health care system, an avant garde education system, and investments in research and development. You probably know that in Quebec, there are very strong clusters of scientific research in many areas, which are a part of the new economy. We have to start talking about the standard of life of Quebecers, and the quality of life of Quebecers.

Now I don't share much in common with separatists - when I get up in the morning, my goal is to keep Canada united, when they get up in the morning, their goal is to break apart this country. Now, you have to draw the line somewhere - you can only court the separatist vote up until a point. There is no question that my message in Quebec is very clear, that I am a guy who believes in a strong and united Canada, and that the Canadian option is by far the best.

You have seen first hand how destructive the previous leadership race has been on our party. Win or lose, can you tell me some concrete steps that you would take to ensure that we have a unified team going into the next election and beyond? Also, what are the mistakes that you would avoid this time around?

Well first of all I would introduce a culture of respect, and I understand the party from the bottom up. I was the little kid licking and stuffing envelopes and putting up signs, then eventually running campaigns, then working for members both at the provincial and federal level. I have always been a Liberal, and I understand the party extremely well. One of the most important things that people give me credit for is that I have always fought for party unity, even when at times it came at agreat personal cost. And I will continue to do that.

As we move forward, I will be the type of leader that in my first 100 days, I will visit ridings associations across the country and demonstrate to them in a very tangible way that a culture of respect and appreciation is alive and well in the Liberal party, and that the leader will be extremely engaged with the party itself.

I want Liberals from British Columbia to pick up the phone and talk to Liberals in Quebec and right across the country. There has to be a greater sense of the Liberal family, and communication is key. As I travel across the country, I am often struck by the fact that there isn't that type of communication taking place, and therefore best practices are not shared, and that has to happen. What you will see under my leadership is a sense of greater cooperation and collaboration between associations, between riding presidents, between former candidates. You will also see candidates chosen early on in the mandate – I wont wait – because people need a strong organization, which is the key to winning elections.

I will be very hands on - I will want to pick up the phone and talk to Liberals across the country, I will want to be involved in what they are doing to rebuild the party, because as you know, our party needs rebuilding.

Obviously you are in this race to win. However, if you were to fall off the first ballot, who are you inclined to support at this point?

Well I will tell you one thing that I can guarantee - I won't fall off the first ballot at all. My campaign is very strong, and as I meet Canadians and Liberals from coast to coast in small groups, I am doing very well in picking up support, and June 30th will be the first indication that in fact my team is going to deliver a very strong showing in the membership recruitment drive. I have never walked away from one meeting or one group where I haven't picked up support.

So, the key strategy to my campaign is the more people I meet, the more cities and towns that I visit, the better off my campaign will be, and I plan to take this strategy throughout the summer months and into the September delegate selections. I also predict that people who may be supporting other candidates on the first ballot will look at me as a viable alternative should their candidate fall off the ballot. Simply, as I travel the country, I have found three things that Liberals want: they want generational change, they want a person with experience, and they want a person who has a strong history in the Liberal party. I fit those three characteristics very well.

It was a cheeky question but I thought that I'd ask it anyways. Many of the leadership gatherings to this point haven't been able to truly distinguish one candidate from another. Policy and/or otherwise, what differentiates you? What do you feel makes your candidacy special?

We all agree on the fact that we want a clean environment, that we want Aboriginal Canadians to live in better conditions, that we want a universal health care system, that we want a national child care plan. But as we agree on all these issues, our society is ageing, and India, China and Brazil are becoming our global competitors.

The point I am making here is that we need to focus on the economy and more than anything else, my campaign is about expanding opportunities for Canadians. That means paying down the debt, reducing taxes, investing in education and research & development, providing opportunities like the issues I cited earlier where there is agreement.

Where I am a little bit different is that I know first hand from when we formed the government back in 1993, what happens when the economy is weak. A weak economy means that programs get cut, and people get hurt. Because I care about people, I want to make sure that we have strong economic growth, and that is the reason why my campaign is about a strong economy for a just society.

Last question. About half an hour ago, Italy had a very tight victory against Ghana. As one of the the most prominent Italian Canadians in the country, can I get a prediction of how Italy is going to do the rest of the way? Also, how do you feel about the Oilers chances tonight and in the series?

The Oilers will of course win tonight (Editor's Note: If only he had been right). As you may or may not know, I played in a national soccer league with the Toronto Jets for a number of years, I was the captain. And we were a championship team, and I can spot a championship team when I see one, and I think that this Italian team has the characteristics to actually win the World Cup. Now last time, I believe it was 1982 that Italy last won the World Cup, I was a huge fan. As a matter of fact, I just left College St. in Little Italy here in Toronto, and there is a real excitement with this team. Now a 2 - 0 score for Italy is very good, because the Italian national team always suffers at the beginning of the tournament - they tend to get stronger as the tournament goes on. And I plan to do the same with this leadership race."

June 13, 2006 - I conducted a phone interview with Maurizio Bevilacqua yesterday, and I was very impressed by the long-time MP, who proved himself to be content rich in terms of ideas, and overall a very likeable guy. I will have transcripts of the interview up tomorrow morning. Once again, this interview invitation is extended to any leadership candidate that wants to be profiled on TDH Strategies.

This story just pisses me off. The hypocrisy of these U.S. politicians is just sickening:

"Americans should be very concerned. There's a large al Qaeda presence in Canada...because of their very liberal immigration laws, because of how political asylum is granted so easily." - Republican Congressman Peter King, New York, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee

You want to talk about exporting terror? How about the thousands of illegal firearms (52% of all Canadian handguns are smuggled in) that flow from the United States to Canada every week? It is so funny to think that when Canadian authorities catch a terror cell successfully, we are further attacked by Republican American politicians looking to stir up fear because of their dismal polling going into the mid-term elections in the Senate and House of Representatives. Let's get some perspective here, and tell these anti-immigrant, "English Only" type of politicians to direct their venom somewhere else.

Ugh. Can't these guys at least try to demonstrate that their "Accountability" Act is worth more than the paper it is printed on?

I have World Cup fever, and am so upset that I won't be able to watch this guy and his mates perform their magic today. For the record, I have taken the Netherlands to go all the way.

Personally, I think it takes a lot of guts to float an idea like this, considering how unpopular it might be in some regions of the country. Sometimes vision requires the ruffling of a few feathers.

Lastly, I will have a very important statement to make regarding the Liberal leadership race next Monday morning.

June 12, 2006 - Audio Recording of Leadeship Debate

For those that missed it, I recorded the Liberal leadership debate that took place in Winnipeg on Saturday. I only set the recording for two hours and ten minutes because of what was originally advertised, so the last little bit isn't there. Nonetheless, it is an enjoyable listen. Click this link at about 9:15am PST to hear Joe Volpe make an even bigger fool of himself than he already has.

I was forwarded this powerful audio link over the weekend by a reader, and it only confirms for me the belief that we must continue to take a leadership role in Afghanistan.

I am interviewing Maurizio Bevilacqua later on today. If you have any questions that you'd like me to ask him, please forward them along for consideration.

I will check in later in the day.

June 8, 2006 - Lots of attention being paid to the "I Am Not Afraid" campaign spearheaded by our friend Warren Kinsella. But if this idea was put onto a T-shirt, I'd certainly buy it. Hosers unite!

June 8, 2006 - By no stretch of the imagination am I a war monger. My support for going into Afghanistan has always been guided by a hope to rebuild rather than destroy. Yet I find this view from Bob Rae to be really out of touch with the realities associated with our mission over there. In fact, it kind of mirrors the irrelevence of the NDP, who are prepared to withdraw at the drop of a hat. We have to wake up to the fact that effective peacekeeping duties in the world in which we live must often include an offensive component. These two approaches are not mutually exclusive, and we as a nation have to begin to understand that better - the rest of the world certainly has.

June 8, 2006 - This is a great column on the Liberal leadership candidates from the always well informed Michel C. Auger. For those that cannot read French, you can use the Babelfish translation service, found here. And in spite of what Jason Cherniak says, Auger seems to confirm this website's story from last week about Stephane Dion's campaign facing serious financial problems (bankruptcy???). Auger also reports that Michael Ignatieff seems to be the frontrunner, but the Liberal party as a whole is really suffering in Quebec (including MI's campaign), where only 2000-3000 memberships have been signed thus far (including renewals), a number well off of the original goal of 10,000 before the cutoff.

June 7, 2006 - On the way to searching for these now ironic accusations by Rob Anders of Liberal financial impropriety:

House of Commons debates, May 6, 2004

"funds being milked off the backs of workers..."

"this money has gone to pay off Liberal cronies and friends."

I came across this:

House of Commons debates, June 20, 2005

"This is what I want to focus on in light of Bill C-48 (the NDP amendment to the 2005 budget that added $4.6 billion in social spending) and some of the other bills we are going to be dealing with. If we do not have a society that largely believes in a very concrete set of right and wrong, most often provided by religion, then the only thing that actually rules is the covenant of the sword. The only people who police the difference between right and wrong in that capacity are either the military or whatever police function there is in that state."

After almost a decade of his crap, including this, what more can you say about this screw-up?

June 7, 2006 - Obviously, a press release to announce an MP's support for a leadership candidate is standard fair. But a release to announce you have lost the support of one???:

"Volpe comments on Sukh Dhaliwal's departure from his campaign.

Ottawa, June 6, 2006 - The Honourable Joseph Volpe, Member of Parliament for Eglinton-Lawrence and Liberal leadership candidate today made the following statement about Sukh Dhaliwal.

"Last evening I had a long discussion with Mr. Dhaliwal, at which time he indicated strong support for my leadership and direction for the Liberal party. Sukh and I have been friends for many years, it was with shock and sadness that I learned he was no longer supporting my bid for the leadership of the Liberal Party. While all Liberals, including Mr. Dhaliwal, have the right to support any of the leadership candidates, I respect but disagree with his decision. I do hope that at some point, during the next six months, Mr. Dhaliwal rejoins my campaign and once again partakes of my vision for the Liberal Party. While it is good to have the support of Members of Parliament, the leadership of the party is decided by grass roots members, and I am pleased to see the great deal of support that I am receiving from all regions across the country."

So Dhaliwal "indicated strong support" for Volpe's leadership and direction for the Liberal party, but is "no longer supporting" his bid to be leader. HUH??? These guys can't even get this kind of thing right.

Dhaliwal is a rising star here in BC, and has plenty of organizational skills and assets. This is another huge hit for the Volpe campaign.

June 7, 2006 - Stephen Harper picks an opportune time to show off his wonderful sense of humour:

Reporter: "Should security be tightened on Parliament Hill?"

Right Honourable Stephen Harper: "I say I can live with all these threats as long as they're not from my caucus."

What tact on the part of our leader. Hardy har har.

June 6, 2006 - Don't do it, Blair. You have so much potential, and there is no need to get bogged down as one of a largely uninspiring dozen. You just got to Ottawa - get your sea legs, and come talk to all of us in about 5 years.

June 6, 2006 - I no longer qualify, but every young person with a Liberal party membership should be really put off by Richard Diamond right now, who is the national president of the youth wing of the party. Why the hell is Diamond offering a defence like this?

I am really sick of this political spin, gobblety-gook - let's for once call a spade a spade. Two 11 year old twins each contributing $5,400 to a political leadership campaign has absolutely nothing to do with giving "room so that young people can be politically engaged" and creating "an appetite for political engagement, civic engagement, that will last...[for] the rest of your life."

June 6, 2006 - TDH Strategies has been contacted to do an interview with Maurizio Bevilacqua, and I am currently working out the details. The interview will be conducted next week, and posted soon afterwards. As always, this is a courtesy that this website is offering to all candidates - anyone who wants to be profiled need only contact me by email.

June 6, 2006 - George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." What if, however, not only do you remember the past, but you make a conscious decision to construct the team that is destined to repeat it? Then what? Well, observers (by design rather than choice) are then presented with a couple of options; grin and bare it, while sitting on your hands, or choose not to walk down the path for a second performance.

Jason over at Gauntlet once used this anecdote to describe a piece that I had written a while back:

"Ghandi was once asked by a reporter why he had recently changed his mind on a particular political question, and replied to the effect of, "Because I'm smarter now than I was then."

If it's a good enough answer for Ghandi, it is with great pride that I too am prepared to embrace this logic.

June 6, 2006 - I'm as guilty as the next person of having great concerns for the talent drain of Canadians to other countries, particularly the United States. Young people who do not want to stick around in Canada to build their careers or settle their lives, have always illicited the same reaction - disappointment, or sometimes even criticism. And to those who have chased the money down south? Well, I have even been known to reserve scorn for those individuals.

So it was with great interest when Michael Ignatieff started to speak about exporting Canadian brains and talent around the world. I'll admit it - I have in the past expressed deep reservations about a man who had spent so much time diversifying his experiences professionally and personally outside of the country wanting to become Prime Minister. But I listened to Ignatieff encourage 60-70 young people of university age to travel, to see the world, and most importantly, to make a global contribution - and I began to question my own provincial attitudes.

I don't think that I will ever lose a disdain for people who will pick up at the drop of a hat for the promise of a fat salary south of the 49th. But Ignatieff's idea of having the government start funding a Canadian version of the peace corps is fascinating. Fostering global citizenry only serves to build better Canadians. There is a depth of knowledge, perspective and understanding that can be acquired from such experiences that a domestically developed point of view can never quite provide.

And the question of whether these young people will return? Well that's ultimately up to them. But giving them the opportunity to grow internationally for a period of time can be life changing - and can build a positive relationship with government that will last a lifetime. The U.S. has spent the past five years sending their young men and women to war. Why can't Canada help its best and brightest to do their part to build up the world in which we all live?

June 5, 2006 - Long meetings made me late for the Oiler game, and left no time to write about an interesting policy idea from Saturday night. Check back tomorrow.

June 5, 2006 - British Columbia's Federal Liberal Council met in Victoria this past weekend, and received visits from both Michael Ignatieff and Joe Volpe. The council includes all riding presidents, executive members, and ex-officio figures. Here a few incidents that several sources reported back about:

Ignatieff's announcement that Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca MP Keith Martin was supporting him was held in room containing another party of accountants (or some kind of profession with the same kind of excitement level), who had their own reception happening simultaneously. Buffet style food was set out for the other party of about 15. But when the entire FLC meeting came barreling in to hear Martin speak, the accountants' food was gone within minutes. All was smoothed over, however, when Ignatieff's team covered the entire bill, and the number crunchers promised that they wouldn't audit.

Volpe has the opportunity to formally address the meeting, and began to pontificate about protecting our kids through the merits of Liberal daycare policies. Well, this rhetoric proved to be too much for one FLC member, who got to their feet and asked how Volpe could talk about protecting children when he was exploting them through his own leadership campaign. After some heated exchanges, where Volpe was told in front of a room of about 75 people that he was an embarassment to the party, the FLC member in question walked out of the room.

Ignatieff held a reception for youth on Saturday night at the Cat's Meow on Granville Island, which I will report about later in the day. I am also trying to track down information about Gerard Kennedy's youth event in Winnipeg, held at a restaurant named Baked Expectations.

June 5, 2006 - I received a couple of nice emails over the past week - one from an active Liberal member, and the other from a staffer for a Conservative MP:

"I think that its nice to see a Liberal so deeply committed to openess and transparency. For you, it's not just a sound bite - you are the example."

"As a partisan conservative, I have been reading your blog for some time and have come to admire your even-handedness, intelligence, and guts. When you stand up against things that are wrong, even in your own party, you do credit to yourself and embarrass the ones such as ________ that parrot the party line. This has bought you a whole lot of admiration and recognition, if my own reaction is anything to go by."

But because of this style, I also received some heavy criticism for posting a stand-alone link to the Loose Change film from some of my right spectrum readers:

"I would hope that you would give equal time, and a blog link to the site that takes the Loose Change video and debunks every lie, misrepresentation, failure of logic, error, and misstatement line by line."

"It would have been better if you had looked into the "Loose Change" video a little more, if you had, you would have realized the video is a bunch of crap."

So in the name of balance, and in consideration of the troubling incidents that took place in Ontario this past weekend (both the string of arrests and the senseless retaliation), I provide the following links for readers to consider the counter-balance to Dylan Avery's documentary:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

Make up your own minds.

June 2, 2006 - This is filmmaking at its most breathtaking. I've only watched 10 minutes so far, and I am already completely under its spell.

June 2, 2006 - My friend Calgary Grit voices a concern that I have written about before, but still cannot seem to emphasize enough: "What has the leadership race been about so far? 11 year olds donating cash, nit picking on French, and tortured Hitler metaphors. In short, it's been pretty devoid of policy." I am frequently told that once the deadline for selling memberships has passed, candidates will really begin to identify where they stand on the ideological spectrum; ideas will reign supreme.

First, for a party that really has lost its soul, this wait-and-see kind of approach isn't acceptable. Secondly, I have serious doubts as to the validity of the assertion.

I had a converstation the other day with one of the brightest Young Liberals in British Columbia, who is a passionate, left-of-centre defender with a lot of depth behind his opinions. Now while we sit on the same side of the fence on many of the core issues that make us both die-hard Liberals, our views diverged when it came to the reality of public sentiment.

I personally do not think that we can rely on the tired assumption that the Canadian public sits comfortably behind all of the traditional