The Treacherous Plight of the Liberal Party

It's been a long time since I've posted, but I have to comment on the recent happenings in Parliament. I didn't take the time to comment on the happenings of the Ontario provincial election, partly because I was so confident on the outcome...plus, there wasn't anything really interesting to talk about anyways.
----

So, what is Dion going to do? He's in between a rock and hard place. If he supports Harper, he has to give up his principled stance on Afghanistan and Kyoto, and if he doesn't, he has to face the wrath of the Canadian electorate. Personally, I would have like to see him have the courage of his convictions, and despite the troubles in the party at the moment, go for a election (elections tend to unite any party). It's a lose-lose situation for the libs, and Harper is in an enviable position at the moment.

Now, as the Liberals are going to support the budget, they need to do some deep (and quick) soul-searching. They need to find big issues that differentiate them from the Conservatives. This is problematic cause so far Harper has been governing from the centre-right, being on the 'right' side of issues in terms of voter opinion; Canadians are divided on the war in afghanistan, indifferent on kyoto, pro-tax cuts (anti-GST), pro-'tough on crime' approach, etc. Is there room for a clear, principled Liberal position somewhere in the rough?

Afghanistan: Liberals started the mission, and any 'nuanced' position just makes the Libs look more like wafflers.
Kyoto: Libs did indeed sign it, but did very little until Dion became environment minister.
Crime: I 100% agree with the Libs moderate approach to Criminal code amendments. The legal and constitutional implications of many of the Harper amendments are grave. However, as the average Canadian doesn't grasp this, Libs won't succeed in making this a big issue in a prospective election.

So what's left? On most of these issues, you have the Cons on one side, the NDP/Bloc on the other, and the Libs somewhere in the middle...key word 'somewhere', cause we don't know exactly where. That's the problem with the 'middle', it's hard for anyone to grasp.

Now that the Kyoto train is heading out of the station, the Libs are going to have to take a gamble elsewhere. Problem is that Kyoto was Dion's forte; it is probably one of the single reasons why Liberals rallied around him at the convention - he succeeded in single-handledly making the environment the focus of the leadership campaign.

Suggestions?

The Libs need to have a clear position on Afghanistan. That's gonna be tough 'cause the Conservatives don't have one yet, and we need to make sure that ours is different than theirs, right? But that's where principle comes in. Dion needs to say, if I were elected Prime Minister tommorrow, this is what I would do...(i) keep the troops in Afghanistan indefinitely past February 2009, (ii) keep troops past 2009 only in a training role of Afghan soldiers, (iii) withdraw all troops. The specifics (logistics, numbers etc) would have to be elaborated as well. If Canadians, are going to vote for the Liberals, we have to give them a reason to vote for us. We have to not only criticise the government, but offer an alternative.

Secondly, with Kyoto out the window, Liberals need to think of a comprehensive environment package that's better than the status quo and that is realistic, and pragmatic. The Conservatives have yet to capitalise on this issue, and there is room for a moderate, sensible approach to the Government's plan which has been rejected by virtually all environmentalists. We need to offer a better alternative ...which shouldn't be hard.

Those are the two biggest issues, where the Libs could still gain. But it would take bold leadership. We shouldn't wait for the report of the commission that Harper drummed up; we need to transform our principles in policy now, and I think we have sufficient resources to do that. We need to offer a clear vision for this country that is better than what the Conservatives have done thus far.

Dion has to stop sounding like an academic (criticizing and commenting on what the Government is doing) and start sounding like a Prime Minister.

Only then, can the Liberals hope for success...

Part II – Solutions: Briser les solitudes

Avec un bref aperçu de l’histoire, nous ne pouvons pas nous contenter de nous plaindre du statu quo. Nous devons regarder vers des solutions courageuses et substantives. La question constitutionnelle n’a jamais été résolue ; le Québec n’a pas signé. Comme j’ai dit auparavant, nous devons reconnaître que le Québec constitue une société distincte. Leur système de droit civil et population majoritairement francophone établissent clairement cette réalité. Le Canada doit corrigé son passé, et reconnaître leur obligation fiduciaire envers le Québec, et qu’il doit prendre toutes les mesures nécessaires pour préserver la langue, culture, et histoire française. J’ajouterais des garanties similaires pour nos peuples aborigènes, et les francophones hors du Québec aussi.

Succinctement, nous devons « briser les solitudes », comme l’a dit le Gouverneur-Générale Michaelle Jean.

C’est le moins qu’on peut faire, car la langue, culture, et histoire française sont des parties intégrantes de NOTRE histoire, comme Canadiens. Sans Jacques Cartier, et Samuel de Champlain LE CANADA N’EXISTERAIT PAS ! Les souverainistes pense que le Québec est si distincte qu’elle est incompatible avec le reste du Canada, et donc doit être un état souverain et indépendant. Au contraire. Québec est bien sûr différent, mais cela est ce qui défini le Canada…les différences. Nous sommes une mosaïque culturelle, qui ont uni pour une grande expérience pour un but commun ; jusqu’à maintenant, nous avons survécu, développé, et prospéré ensemble, et ensemble nous continuons dans ce chemin.

Je sais ce que vous allez dire: “Oncle J, nous pouvons pas aller vers le chemin constitutionnel encore. Souvenez-vous de Meech Lake et Charlettown ? Tous des échecs.” Je dis: Marchons ensemble! Un pays est le plus au risque quand il a peur de parler de ça structure et union. À ce point, les problèmes qui existent sont balayés sous le tapis, et nous espérons et prions qu’ils ne font jamais exploser. En suite, un jour --- KA BOOM -- et nous sommes en trouble. Nous devons attaquer donc ces enjeux directement.

Les fédéralistes disent toujours qu’un vote “Oui” dans un futur referendum mènera à un « trou noir », et les Québécois ne sauraient pas comment en sortir. Bien que je sois peut être d’accord avec cette prémisse, avec tout respect, nous ne pouvons pas traiter les Québécois comme des idiots. Les tactiques de peur et des menaces comme celles-ci sont efficace seulement à court terme; nous ne pouvons pas prendre un résultat référendaire de « Non » pour acquis. Nous devons fournir des raisons substantives pourquoi le Québec est mieux placé dans un Canada uni. Des raisons comme l’économie politique, la défense, et le commerce international.

Nous avons besoin de quelque chose qui manque à Ottawa pour un long temps : le leadership. Nous devons apprendre de Trudeau et même Mulroney qui étaient si hardis de nous amener sur ce chemin; un avec succès, l’autre, pas vraiment, mais ils ont tout les deux créé des points de discussion qui peuvent nous aider. Nous devons bâtir sur ceux-ci.

Mes suggestions vont-elles radier la cause séparatiste? Probablement que non. Mais aideront-elles à assurer le futur de Canada, comme un pays fort, uni, et libre? Définitivement.

Part II – Solutions: Breaking down solitudes

With a brief glimpse at history, we can’t just be content with complaining about the status quo. We must look towards bold, substantive solutions. The constitutional question has not yet been resolved; Quebec has not signed on. As I’ve said before, we need to acknowledge that Quebec is a distinct society. Its civil law system and predominantly francophone population clearly establish that reality. Canada needs to “right” its past wrongs, and acknowledge its fiduciary duty towards Quebec, and that it must take all necessary steps to preserve French language, culture, history. I would also add similar guarantees for our Aboriginals, and francophones outside of Quebec.

Succinctly, as Governor-General Michaelle Jean has said, we need to « break down the solitudes ».

This is the least we can do, as the French language, culture, and history are fundamental components of OUR history, as Canadians. Without Jacques Cartier, and Samuel de Champlain THERE WOULD BE NO CANADA! Sovereigntists would have us think that Quebec is so distinct that is incompatible with the rest of Canada, and thus must be a sovereign, independent state. Au contraire. Quebec might be different, but that’s what Canada is all about…differences. We are a cultural mosaic, that have united in a great experiment for a common purpose; so far, we’ve survived, grown, and prospered, and together we’ll continue on that path.

I know what you’re going to say: “Uncle J, we can’t go down the constitutional path again. Remember Meech Lake and Charlottetown? Complete failures”. I say: Let’s march on! A country is most at risk when it is afraid to talk about its structure, and its union.

Problems that exist are just swept under the carpet, and we hope and pray that they will never combust. Then, one day, they’ll explode, and we’ll be in deep trouble. We need therefore to attack such issues head on.

Federalists keep saying that a “Yes” vote in a future referendum will lead to a “black hole” that Quebeckers will not know what they’re getting into. While I may agree with that premise, with all due respect, we can’t treat Quebeckers like idiots. Scare tactics and idle threats like these can only work on a short-term basis; we can’t take a “No” result in a referendum for granted. We must provide substantive reasons why Quebec is better off within a united Canada: reasons such as economics, defence, and international trade.

We need something we haven’t had in Ottawa for a while: leadership. We need to learn from Trudeau and even Mulroney, who were bold enough to take us down that path. One was successful, the other, not so much, but they created discussion points that can help us. We need to build on that.

Will my suggestions completely wipe out the separatist cause? Probably not. But will it help in securing Canada’s future, as a nation strong, united and free? Most definitely.

Partie I - Le Québécois: une nation?

Au milieu de la course à la direction du Parti libéral, le 27 nov. 2006, les députés à Ottawa ont voté sur une motion, introduit par le Premier ministre Stephen Harper qui reconnaissait les « Québécois comme une nation au sein d’un Canada uni ». La motion a passé d’une marge de 266 à 16. Était-elle la bonne décision?

Je commence par demander : Quel était le but de cette motion? Donner plus de droits au Québec ? D’avoir une autre effet légal inconnu ? D’après les commentaires gouvernementales, la réponse est non, et je crois qu’une telle résolution « sans dents » a rendu un mauvais service aux Québécois.

Premièrement, qui qualifie comme ‘Québécois’? Les ‘Franco-Québécois’ ? Les anglophones comptent-ils ? Et les immigrants ? C’est un enjeu qu’on n’a même pas discuté. Je supposerais que le terme « Québécois » inclut tout le monde, allant au-delà des frontières ethniques et linguistiques, mais, les suppositions sont dangereuses. Comme nous le savons tous, la précision est importante, et une motion d’une telle magnitude qui en manque est véritablement dangereuse. Une autre question doit se poser : qu’est-ce une « nation » ? Ce mot a tellement de connotations, qu’il peut mener aux fonds d’une confusion sémantique.

Comme disait un rapportage de CBC, [ma traduction]

« Une journaliste du ‘Montreal Gazette’, le journal anglophone le plus distribué au Québec, voulait savoir si leurs lecteurs étaient des Québécois aussi.

‘Inclut-il chaque résident de Québec sans se soucier de quelle bateau leurs ancêtres sont venus ?’, elle a demandé.

[Lawrence Cannon, le de facto Vice-Premier Ministre du Canada] a répondu: ‘Non, il n’inclut pas. Il n’inclut pas. Soyons clair.’ » [http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/27/chong-quit-061127.html]

Ironiquement, la première chose que ce débat manquait était la clarté. Bien que les commentaires du ministre fait allusion à un nationalisme ethnique, les remarques subséquentes du cabinet (et de M. Cannon lui-même) suggère que la motion vise le nationalisme civique. C’est juste un exemple de comment la confusion a faussé ce débat.

Le Premier ministre a indiqué clairement que c’était à la province du Québec elle-même de définir leur statut (ce que l’Assemblée nationale a déjà fait). Je suis d’accord avec lui. Alors qu’est-ce qui a changé? Est-ce le fait que le Bloc Québécois a introduit précédemment une motion similaire, et le PM voulait battre le Bloc dans un jeu politique mesquin? Probablement. Mais pour une résolution que le gouvernement a admis ne contient aucune valeur légale, je pense que c’est tragique que le gouvernement a eu recours à jouer des jeux avec les Québécois.

Si nous allons parler des Québécois et leur rôle au sein d’un Canada uni, nous devons avoir un débat substantif. Nous devons parler des enjeux que le Quebec fait face. De mes voyages autour du pays, ce que les Québécois (et les Canadiens français en tout) veulent est le respect pour leur langue, culture, et histoire, avec un engagement pour les préserver. Comment est-ce que cette motion fait avancer ce but ? Simplement dit, ça ne le fait pas.

La question n’est pas Shakespearienne: Séparer ou ne pas séparer?

Les Québécois réguliers, laissez-moi être franc, ne s’inquiète pas de cette question à la fin du jour. Ils veulent savoir si leurs enfants vont s’élever dans un pays où ils ne vont pas être gêner de parler leur langue; où ils peuvent avoir tous les services offerts dans leur langue maternelle; où leur histoire et culture sera enseignées rigoureusement dans les écoles; où le gouvernement prendra des mesures actives pour assurer que cela est accompli.

Pouvez-vous blâmer les Québécois? Étant né et élevé dans une communauté franco-ontarienne, savez-vous combien de personnes que je connais qui ne peuvent pas parler français? Qui ne sais pas leur histoire? C’est dévastateur, bien sur, et exactement ce que le Québec veut légitimement éviter.

Le problème est qu’une simple motion parlementaire n’aidera pas la situation. Pourquoi ? Parce qu’il existe au Québec, généralement, une méfiance pour le gouvernement fédéral. C’est plutôt un problème historique.

Après les Plaines d’Abraham en 1759, et le Conquête britannique de 1760, une négation complète de langue, culture, et histoire française a suivie, ce qui était retranché dans le Traité de Paris de 1763. Cette situation n’a pas commencé à changer jusqu’à 1774, quand le Québec était permis, avec beaucoup de persistance, de préserver leur culture et système juridique de droit civil. Imaginez-vous : Entre 1760 et 1774, on pratiquait la discrimination contre les Québécois à cause de culture, langue, et religion.

Au début du 20^ième siècle, nous avons vu le débat de conscription du 2^e GM, quand le Québec a opposé vigoureusement la position de Mackenzie King, avec une large majorité qui votait contre la conscription dans le référendum de 1942 (76%). Devinez ce qui est arrivé? Ils étaient repoussés, et le gouvernement Libéral avançait, sans tenir compte des inquiétudes de Canada français (les mêmes inquiétudes ont été soulevées lors du débat de conscription de la 1^ière G.M quand le Premier ministre Robert Borden et Ministre de défense Sam Hughes n’ont pas tenu compte des intérêts Canadiens français).

Et, récemment, nous avons le rapatriement de la Constitution et la création de la Charte des droits, ce qui a été promulgué sans l’assentiment du Québec. On devrait noter aussi que sans les protestes de Québec et quelques autres provinces, Trudeau aurait fait le rapatriement sans consentement provinciale aucune (voire Référence Re une résolution d’amender la Constitution [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753).

Hmmm…devinez pourquoi ils se méfient de Canada anglais? Le résultat de ce méfiance a été l’adoption d’une approche insulaire pour garder contre le diminution de leur culture menacée. Si moi, anglophone, est honnête, puis-je dire que j’aurais agi différemment si la situation était à l’envers?

Continuer dans Partie II: Solutions

Part I - Le Québécois: A nation?

In the heat of the Liberal Leadership Race, on Nov. 27, 2006, members of Parliament voted on a motion introduced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Tories that would recognize “the Québécois as a nation within a united Canada”. The motion passed by a margin of 266 to 16. Was it the right decision?

I begin by asking, what was the purpose of this motion? Give more rights to Quebec? To have some other, unknown legal effect? Based on the government response, the answer is no, and I believe that this toothless resolution actually did a disservice to Quebeckers.

First, who qualifies as a ‘Quebecois’? Franco-Quebeckers? Do Anglophones count? What about immigrants? This issue wasn’t even discussed. I would assume that ‘Quebecois’ includes everyone, crossing ethnic and linguistic boundaries, but you know what they say about assumptions. As we do know in politics, precision is paramount and a motion of such magnitude that lacks thereof is dangerous. Another question also arises: what is a “nation”? This word has so many connotations, that it can lead a person into the depths of semantic confusion.

As reported by the CBC,
“A reporter from the Montreal Gazette, the largest English newspaper in Quebec, wanted to know whether her readers were Québécois too.
"Does it include every resident of Quebec regardless of which boat their ancestors came over on?" she asked.
[Lawrence Cannon, Canada’s de facto Deputy Prime Minister] replied: "No, it doesn't. It doesn't. Let's be clear on this.” [http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/27/chong-quit-061127.html]

This alludes to a more ethnic nationalism, does it not? Subsequent comments by the cabinet (and even by Cannon himself) suggest that the motion is aimed at civic nationalism, but this is just one example of how confusion distorted the whole debate.

The Prime Minister clearly stated that it was up to the province itself to define its status (and the Assemblée nationale has already done so). I agree with him on that. So, what changed? Was it the fact that the Bloc Quebecois had previously introduced a similar motion, and the PM just wanted to beat them in a petty political game? Most likely. But for a resolution that the government has admitted carries no legal weight, I find it tragic that we have to resort to playing games with Quebeckers.

If we are going to talk about Quebeckers and their place in Canada, we should have a substantive debate on the matter. We should talk about the issues. From my travels across the country, what Quebeckers (and French Canadians on a whole) want is a respect for their language, culture, and history, along with a commitment to preserve them. How does this motion further that goal? Simply put, it does not.

The question is not: To separate or not to separate? Average Quebeckers, may I be bold in suggesting, could care less about that question at the end of the day. They want to know if their children will grow up in a country where they won’t be embarrassed to speak their language; where they will have all services available in their maternal language; where their history and culture will be rigorously taught in our schools; where the government will take active measures to ensure that this is done.

Can you blame Quebeckers? Having been born and raised in a Franco-Ontarian community, do you know how many people I know with French last names who can’t speak French? Who know nothing about their history? It’s devastating, and it is exactly what Quebec legitimately wants to avoid.

The problem is that a simple parliamentary motion won’t help the situation. Why? Because Quebec, generally, has a lack of trust for the federal government. This is a historical problem, above all else.

After the Plains of Abraham in 1759, and the subsequent British Conquest of 1760, a complete negation of French language, culture, and history followed, which was entrenched in the Treaty of Paris of 1763. This did not begin to change until 1774, when Quebec was allowed, through much persistence, to preserve their culture and civil law system. Imagine: Between 1760 and 1774, Quebeckers were bluntly discriminated against because of culture, language, and religion.

In the early 20^th century, we have the conscription debate of WWII, when Quebec vehemently opposed Mackenzie King’s position, with a large majority voting against conscription in the1942 plebiscite (76%). Guess what? They were practically ignored, and a Mackenzie King went ahead with it irrespective of French Canada’s concerns (the same concerns that were brought up in the First World War conscription debate, which then Prime Minister Robert Borden and Minister of Defence Sam Hughes infamously ignored).

Then, we have the repatriation of the Constitution and the creation of a Charter of Rights, which came into force without Quebec’s assent. And might I add, that without the fight of Quebec and other provinces, Trudeau would have repatriated it without provincial consent at all (see Reference Re a Resolution to amend the Constitution [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753).

Hmmm…no wonder they distrust English Canada! The result of this distrust has been the adoption of an insular approach in order to guard against the demise of their threatened culture. If we, as Anglophones are honest with ourselves, could we honestly say that we would have acted differently if the situation were reversed?

Continued in Part II: Solutions

Anti-Terrorism Act Debate

Enacted 18 December 2001, the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) has been at the center of debate for the past couple of weeks. Why? Well, some of the more controversial provisions of the Act contained a five-year sunset clause, which are now due for renewal.

One of the provisions allows police to arrest suspects without a warrant and detain them for three days without charges if police believe a terrorist act may be committed.

The other would allow a judge to compel a witness to testify in secret about past associations or perhaps pending acts under penalty of going to jail if the witness doesn't comply.

Neither clause has been used by police or prosecutors in the five years the act has been enforced but, in October, a parliamentary committee recommended extending the two provisions for another five years.

On February 27, 2007, the House of Commons voted 159 - 124 against renewing the provisions. Was this the right decision?

Two positions can be taken: 1) the fact that the provisions have not been used since their enactment indicate the unnecessary infringement of the rights of individuals OR 2) the fact that the provisions have not been used does not mean that they are no longer necessary, as we can never predict when another attack will occur and its better to give the police force all the tools necessary to combat terrorism.

Both arguments, in my book, are persuasive. I think the latter is more convincing, though. The Liberals have changed positions on this issue, and I'm disappointed on the politicking and partisanship that has been shown in this very important debate. I think our officers need to be given all the tools necessary to fight terrorism, and those provisions of the ATA are some of them.

Liberals have acted as if this is some grave infringement on the Charter, and have again staked a position that they are the 'party of the Charter'. But let us remember that Charter rights are in no terms absolute, and the rights of citizens can be limited as long as it is reasonably justifiable in a free and democratic society (Article 1, Charter). The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of "investigative hearings" in 2004, thus there is nothing barring Parliament from renewing these provisions [conversely, this does not prevent Parliament from protecting a person's rights more than constitutionally necessary].

I see no actual reason why Liberals would oppose renewal, other than serving their own partisan purposes. Why not renew it, and attach another five-year sunset clause on it? It is not as if the ATA gives unfettered power to police: Parliament review of the legislation is thorough - as the Ministry of the Attorney General has to present an annual report on the usage of the ATA.

Thus far, these provisions have not needed to be used [thank God]. But, is it not possible that they could provide benefit in the future? The police have not abused this power, and there is no reason to indicate that they would, so I am of the opinion, "no harm, no foul". My preference is to actually see this provision in action before deciding whether its necessary or not...hopefully that will never happen.

Election on the horizon?

People are wondering, far and near whether a federal election is on the horizon. With the Conservatives up in the mid-30s in poll numbers, I think they are feeling pretty confident right now that they are in majority territory, thus increasing their willingness to call/'encourage' an election.

The Liberals, on the other hand, have recovered after the convention honeymoon, and realize that there are going nowhere...Canadians still don't trust them. But I urge all of you to remember that pre-2006 election, Paul Martin was leading in the polls. Anything can change in a 40-day election campaign.

Tories are confident right now, and I hope Dion has the courage to precipitate an election. We must realize, however, that the power is not in his hands...Jack Layton. Will Layton side with the Conservatives? Presumptively, and ideologically speaking the answer is NO, but I've learned in politics to never say never. The NDP are taking a hard hit from the recent Green Party surge, and the NDP have no interest in having another election.

What will happen with the budget vote? I don't see how it can be passed, but then again, I also said Stephen Harper would never be Prime Minister of Canada, so I can be wrong. But, for what's its worth I predict a spring election...and I think Dion will do better than expected. We already know his limitations: lack of charisma, struggle with spoken English, etc. But those are known variables and Liberals will be ready...I hope

Comments welcome, [soon I will be posting some of my public policy positions of current topicality...stay tuned]

New Leader

Oops, I am a little late, aren't I. I haven't posted in a long while. Quick synopsis on my view of the leadership weekend back in December.

I was one of the few who thought Dion could win, and I was glad when my favourite candidate (Martha Hall Findlay), went to support him. I knew Iggy would not win, and I was right again. This race was really between Rae and Dion.

Dion will be a good leader, I am definitely excited. He needs to master his English, especially as another election is on the horizon.

About the upcoming budget, I am wary about how it will turn out. It will depend on the NDP's support. Bloc have to vote against it, and the Liberals will, definitely. NDP definitely hold the balance, and there is no gain for them in shooting down this budget.

Taking all things in account, this government will last until the Fall. The public is still divided, and the Dion really needs to prove himself. He has gotten a relative "free-ride" from the media.

Comments welcome...

Leadership Race going into Super Weekend

Super Weekend is upon us! I know we're all excited to see the outcome. Here are some of my remarks on the remaining candidates:

1. Ignatieff: He was good in the last debate, but was weak on the Iraq War question as expected. He's a great speaker, but he seems awkward and uncomfortable when unscripted.

2. Rae: Oh, do I despise this guy. Personal bias aside, he is very charismatic and has a good chance of winning (God help us all). Given that practically every candidate that drops out will go to him, he has huge late-ballot potential.

3. Dion: A policy wonk, as we all know by now, but is that what we want in a leader...don't we want someone who's inspiring. Aren't we fed up of the insistence on top-down policy? I've realized too that his English is not that great either. He's probably Rae's biggest challenger right now.

4. Gerard Kennedy: Hasn't yet adjusted to federal politics. Needs to improve his French. A huge disappointment, as people are now talking about him in the "second-tier"


5. Martha Hall Findlay: Has hung in there, despite odds. If this party is serious about renewal, she MUST stay in until the Convention.

6. Ken Dryden: Lot of people are hyping Dryden's support, and I suspect it might be lower than expected. He's a humble and genuine person, and showed some real inspiration in the last debate (in his closing statements). I wish him well.

7. Scott Brison: Impressive, and sharp. His Conservative past, though discourages me from supporting him as the leader, but he would make a good minister of finance, for example. He might be the next to drop out.

8. Joe Volpe: lol...I detest this guy so much, that I'm starting to like him. I definitely don't think he should drop out, 'cause the things that are happening in his campaign are probably happening in everybody else's too. There needs to be a thorough review by the party - and those people involved must be duly punished. The question of the century is: who will Volpe eventually support (definitely not Iggy), and (ii) who wants Volpe's support?


Aside: I wish Hedy Fry well. I don't know why people didn't take her more seriously, because she was one of the most inspiring speakers of the bunch. too bad...

vos commentaires sont appreciees

Leadership Debate #3

I haven't posted in a while, but I have come to tell you of my voyages in la belle province. I just happened to be in Quebec City on September 10, and watched the 3rd leadership debate live. I went to the Citadelle, and what a beautiful view it was!!! I also spent some time with Michael Ignatieff there, and his wife, and he gave me a history lesson on the Plains of Abraham [he even remembered me after the debate, as 'the guy from Sudbury']. Nice guy.

As we get to the home stretch, the differences among candidates is showing. Here is my eyewitness account of how it all went down:

Michael Ignatieff: I met him, and he is very personable. During the debate, he was defiant in his defence of constitutional change for the recognition of Quebec as a nation. I admire this determination; it's about time we have that in a leader.

Bob Rae: Said constitutional change would be 'difficult'. Isn't that what leadership is all about - attacking those issues that are difficult.

Martha Hall Findlay: More aggressive than usual - spoke really well, and connected with the audience especially at the end. Should have spoke French more, and with more confidence, as her French is pretty good.

Scott Brison: I was really impressed - he really talked with passion, and enthusiasm. Even though he has a thick accent, he was able to connect with the audience numerous times in French. Very impressive.

Hedy Fry: Kept repeating herself, and her French at times was incomprehensible. I think she has good ideas, but she can't express them in French.

Carolyn Bennett: Same as above. It was painful to watch her speak in French.


Gerard Kennedy: Found no distinctiveness in his ideas, and he struggled with French. This 'star candidate' is fading rapidly.

Joe Volpe: Spoke well in both languages, and had good ideas - but trying to steal the stage too many times, and the audience was definitely not happy. Why is he in the race again?

Stephane Dion: He is turning into the policy wonk, I always knew he was....he was shooting out policy like rapid-fire. At times, he was over-confident, and a tad arrogant....perhaps he could learn a little from Mr. Rae.

Ken Dryden: Couldn't understand what he was saying. Needs to work on French.


So all in all, it was good time in Quebec City. Here's my ranking of the top five:

1. Dion
2. Brison
3. Ignatieff
4. Rae
5. Hall Findlay

Can't wait until this Sunday's debate in Vancouver! Please comment -