Mark Holland: The New Generation of Liberal Leadership
September 12, 2009 · By Richard Albert
When Brian Mulroney became prime minister in 1984, he recorded the largest victory in Canadian electoral history, winning an unprecedented 211 seats in the House of Commons.
Decimated and having won a meager 40 seats, the Liberal Party was relegated to the political wilderness, where it was left with no choice but to begin the hard work of rebuilding itself, its structure and its brand.
Under the direction of its leader, John Turner, and ably assisted by Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, the Liberal Party slowly started the climb back to power.
But a significant chunk of the credit actually belongs to a little-known group (little-known today, I should say, because it was certainly well-known back then) called the Rat Pack.
The Rat Pack was a group of young, energetic, committed and articulate Liberal opposition MPs, namely Brian Tobin, Sheila Copps, Don Boudria and John Nunziata. Every day, those four devoted and quite vigorous public servants made it their mission to hold the Mulroney government accountable during Question Period, asking tough questions with fiery rhetoric and demanding responsive answers. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn’t. But it was always entertaining to watch. And more importantly for the sake of democracy in Canada, it was critical that someone take seriously the opposition’s role of government watchdog–which is precisely what the Rat Pack did.
Today, the Rat Pack is long gone. But its spirit lives on in a new group of youthful Liberal opposition MPs who together represent the new generation of leadership in the Liberal Party. Navdeed Bains, Mario Silva, and former MP Omar Alghabra are three prominent members of the new generation of Liberal leadership. Another equally prominent member is Mark Holland, Member of Parliament for Ajax-Pickering.
Much like the Rat Pack of the 80s, this new generation of Liberal leadership is known for the high quality of its probing questions and its fearless disposition during Question Period. No other young Member of Parliament encapsulates this better than Holland. Take a look for yourself.
Born in Pickering, Holland studied at the University of Toronto before joining the staff of Liberal MP Dan McTeague. It wasn’t too long thereafter that he was elected to the Pickering City Council, serving from 1997-2004. He was elected to the House of Commons that same year, in 2004, and has been re-elected every year since.
Today as he prepares for what appears to be a looming federal election, Mark Holland takes a pause from his jam-packed schedule to speak with me in the fifth installment of our Meet the Players series.
Richard Albert (RA): First things first, Mark. Congratulations to you and Cindy on your marriage! Fantastic. How did you meet? Do you feel any different now that you’re married? Where did you two go on your honeymoon? So many questions, I know, forgive me, but we’re all very excited for you.
Mark Holland (MH): Thanks Richard, she is an amazing girl–I’m very lucky. We met after the 2006 leadership at a reunion event for people involved in Gerard Kennedy’s leadership run. After we got to know each other for a few months we started dating. How’s this for a honeymoon: I was in Kitchener-Waterloo, Hamilton and Sudbury on parliamentary work–all without her! She just started a new job, and things are too busy politically to go anywhere. We hope to make up for not honeymooning by getting away in January.
RA: Mark, I think you’ve just locked up the vote of all those people in your riding who put a premium on hard work in their candidate for MP. Imagine an MP not taking break even for his own honeymoon!
Well, apart from planning and celebrating your wedding, you’ve spent your summer pounding the pavement, not only in your riding but across the country, meeting with Canadians and getting a sense of their fears, concerns and hopes. What are you hearing?
MH: Over the summer I travelled to eight provinces and one territory, holding roundtables, meetings and touring facilities related to my critic area–Public Safety and National Security. Certainly the economy and jobs are top of mind for everyone, but so is community safety. Everyone I spoke with, from police chiefs to enforcement officers on the front line, worry about federal funding being slashed from crime prevention initiatives and programs that help rehabilitate criminals. They know that these funding cuts make their jobs more dangerous and the communities they protect less safe. They worry about the effect that cuts to addiction programs will have on spurring-on the deadly cycle of crime to feed drug habits, and about the way that jails are being used as hospitals for the mentally ill, with devastating consequences. For most of the people I spoke with, the worry is that we are following a failed “Republican” approach to crime that results in over-flowing jails, higher rates of recidivism, crushing cost and communities that are less safe. It’s an approach that even most Republicans now admit is a failure and yet Harper keeps trying to emulate it.
RA: So now, looking back on your extensive summer tour of Canada, are you able to conclude that Canadians have faith in the governing Conservative Party?
MH: No, I can say confidently that they do not. That said, we have to demonstrate our qualities as an effective alternative. It’s not enough for the Canadian public to have lost faith in the Conservatives. Canadians have to have faith in us. That is something I am confident we can earn.
RA: You have recently returned from the Liberal Party’s summer caucus retreat in Sudbury. What is the plan of attack coming out of that meeting?
MH: We are done trying to negotiate with Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. At the best of times, it has been a one-sided exercise where they refuse to compromise or to work at all in the spirit of cooperation that a minority Parliament demands. If the Conservatives are to be propped up, it won’t be by us. We will articulate a new path for Canada–one that seeks to build upon our strengths rather than conquer by playing on divisions. I think Michael’s quote really sums up well our message heading into the new session and potentially an election: “We can choose a small Canada—a diminished, mean, and petty country. A Canada that lets down its citizens at home and fails them abroad. A Canada that’s absent on the world stage. That’s Stephen Harper’s Canada. Or we can choose a big Canada. A Canada that is generous and open. A Canada that inspires. That leads the world by example. That makes us all proud.”
RA: You guys sound pretty serious about this. No more games, in the words of one of favourite childhood bands, the New Kids on the Block.
Whenever a federal election is called—either this fall or in the future—you will personally have your hands full in your riding. You won your first race handily in 2004 with approximately 22,000 votes and a margin of roughly 7,000 votes. In the 2006 election, you increased your vote total to about 26,000 and your margin of victory to an overwhelming 9,000 votes or so. But then, last year in 2008, your margin of victory decreased to about 3,000 votes and your vote total dropped back down to 22,000. What happened?
MH: It wasn’t a fun election–no question about it. What happened was the worst election in terms of percentage in our party’s history. We lost scores of amazing MPs who I thought we would never lose. I count myself deeply fortunate to have survived it. We were reduced to only 38 seats in Ontario–that’s from a high of 101. Our message didn’t resonate with voters and we didn’t effectively counter nasty personal attacks on our leader. Lastly, our voters didn’t show up. They knew it was going to be another Harper minority, and in many ridings, like mine, too many people thought that the Liberal incumbent would be a shoe-in, and didn’t bother voting. I don’t think anyone will be taking anything for granted this time around.
RA: On the subject of connecting to voters, you are one of the dozen or so Members of Parliament who makes the most effective use of new media—namely video messaging and social networking tools like Facebook and YouTube—to keep your constituents informed. (Although, in the interest of full disclosure, I have to note that you still aren’t on Twitter.) Do you see any disadvantages to these new forms of interactive media?
MH: Yeah, I don’t Tweet–I’ve really been resistant to that. I’m just not convinced that people really want to know what I am doing minute-to-minute. My own wife would find that boring! One real downside is the possibility of something being used on you out of context. Social media increases the frequency of contact which is great but it is also much less formal. You have to remember that there are always people who are on the prowl looking to twist and distort an otherwise benign comment in order to do damage to your name and reputation. I wish it wasn’t the case but, in politics, you always have to be mindful of that scenario.
RA: Let’s talk leadership politics, just for a moment. In 2006, you and a group of young Ontario MPs moved en masse to support your fellow young Ontarian, Gerard Kennedy. Was this a strategic effort to recruit more young people into politics?
MH: In Gerard, we saw a new beginning for the party. It was clear at that moment that the Liberal party was badly in need of renewal, and, for us, he best represented hope of renewal for the party. I should also add that Gerard had been a good friend since 1996–someone whom I have deep respect for–a big factor in my decision to support and work for his leadership campaign.
RA: Fast forward to 2008. Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae and Dominic Leblanc declared their candidacies for the Liberal leadership contest. But Gerard Kennedy chose to sit out the race. Were you disappointed about his decision?
MH: No, I think it was clear to everyone that Michael was the right person. He had done amazing work as our Deputy Leader and I had the opportunity to work along side of him and saw first-hand just how capable and personally strong he is. There was no doubt that Michael was the right choice. I joined on early and became Co-Chair of his Ontario Campaign.
RA: What was it about Michael Ignatieff that convinced you he was the right candidate, at this time, to lead your party?
MH: He is someone who is deeply intelligent but most importantly is open, kind and passionate. When he is presented with good ideas, he listens and acts. He knows how to lead and isn’t afraid to make tough decisions. He has united our caucus and party in a way that it hasn’t been for a generation, and he has done it through respect rather than a heavy fist.
RA: Bottom line question, Mark. Why is your leader better for Canada than the current prime minister, Stephen Harper?
MH: Michael understands the role Canada can play in a world that is fundamentally changing. Ruling by diktat and division as Harper does with a narrow world view will marginalize Canada–both on the world stage and economically. Stephen Harper isn’t up to the task of leading Canada through this tranformation–Michael is.
RA: Ok, Mark, here we go. This is our Lightning Round. Blackberry or I-Phone?
MH: Blackberry–I’m an addict. Besides, that I-Phone keyboard is awful.
RA: Facebook or MySpace?
MH: Facebook–that debate is dead I think.
RA: Mac or PC?
MH: Mac but I have to use a PC. I curse it daily, though.
RA: Less filling or tastes great?
MH: Taste great! Who wants to be less filled.
RA: Boxers or briefs?
MH: Briefs
RA: Favourite band?
RA: The Great One or Sid the Kid?
MH: The Great One–the name says it all.
RA: Stéphane Dion or Edward Blake?
MH: Stéphane. I really like Stéphane and I didn’t get a chance to meet Edward. ;-)
RA: Greatest Canadian?
MH: Terry Fox
RA: Greatest prime minister?
RA: Terrific, Mark. That seems to me like a good place to stop firing questions at you and to say thank you. You’ve been a great sport. Thank for sharing your candid views on a wide range of subjects with our readers.
I am sure I speak for all of our readers at The Politic when I say two things. First, you may not have won all of them over to your side but you have certainly shown yourself to be a committed public servant who takes the function of MP quite seriously. And that is not only refreshing but inspiring. And, second, good luck to you in your upcoming campaign, whenever that may be.
___
Meet the Players: Interviews with Political Strategists and Candidates
- Warren Kinsella, August 17, 2009
- Tim Powers, August 20, 2009
- Kyle Seeback, August 26, 2009
- Rocco Rossi, September 2, 2009
What ever happened to his contempt of parliament?
Seems to need translation.
Rebuild the party = use media to try and frame the PM.
Articulate and vigorous = screaming banshees frothing and hyperventilating.
devoted and quite vigorous public servants = party loyalists who will sink to any low.
No wonder nobody knows the real history of Canadian politics the Libs keep rewriting it.
Besides all the Liberal party line, I wish people would stop using decimated in the sense of wiped out. It means lose one out of ten – check out the latin root and derivation if you don’t believe me.
Thanks for the tip, Nicola. Here, from the Cambridge dictionary, is the definition I was hoping to capture by using the term “decimate”:
Definition
decimate verb
/ˈdes.ɪ.meɪt/ [T usually passive]
to kill a large number of something, or to reduce something severely
For example, “Populations of endangered animals have been decimated.”
The page is available here: http://dictionary.cambridge.or.....;dict=CALD.
Thanks for reading!
Is it strange ? Or is it a MassMedia facade! The last 3 leaders in the Liberal Party were “Foreign Implants. 2 of these, including the current “Leader” , are emissaries for international interests. 1 of the 3 was at least an “International Humanitarian”. His greatest dream, was to have Canadians provide even more “Free Vacation Condominiums” in the Middle East, for the Toronto “Homeless”. Most recently the Liberal Caucus has just acquired, from Transylvania, someone that will certainly help the anemic Canadian economy (so we are told by the MassMedia). They do look a little “Royal-y Peak-ish” from their long journey. It’s been long search, from the days of Pierrette II. The New Slogan is “Canadians can take on the world”, or are they being taken in by “International Interests”? This must be for the Political Olympics in Vancouver “n’est pas”? Well with the Average Canadian attention span near the 10 minute mark , (that’s the TV time between commercials). They may be on the right track with this MassMedia blitz. Give them A for Effort. The other proposed “leader”, well what can be said ? At least he spoke real French , not some Provincial Dialect. That is all that can be said! The Liberal Party is scanning the Horizon looking for their Don Quixote.
Thank-you Richard. I have to admit I’m enjoying these, even if I don’t care much for their politics. It’s unfortunate that they can’t seem to escape the rhetoric however. I guess we’ll have to see how it all pans out come the next election, whenever that may be.
Thanks, Sean. It is getting less and likely that we are heading to the polls this Fall. As I wrote on my Twitter page long before this madness began, I am offering 30-1 odds to anyone who thinks that we will have a Fall election. By the looks of things, the leader of the New Democratic Party wants me to win some money on this bet.
It’s an interesting interview, but I get the sense he’s just repeating party talking points – at any rate, he’s hitting on all the same things Ignatieff does.
It really doesn’t matter what he has to say. While my riding has a Liberal MP (Keith Martin) and I like him quite well I’ve never seen the Liberals in aggregate act as anything other than opportunists. Their primary goal is always to get in power and, once there, to stay in power; to be out of power is an aberration they’ve become unused to dealing with. In addition, I never want to see Michael Ignatieff as our Prime Minister. He chose to spend most of his adult life outside Canada; he chose to consider other nations his home; in 1995 he had basically resigned himself to Quebec separating (read Blood and Belonging; that’s the book that turned me against him for good); and he returned as an act of political opportunism. I want a Canadian, who values Canada and wants to live here, as my Prime Minister; that’s not at all the sole requirement but it’s a minimum one. His support for neoconservatism and his vocal belief in US imperialism as a positive transforming force (again, he wrote a book on it) is also deeply disturbing.
You’re just taking over, Katherine! I’m glad you’re enjoying the site. Please come back often.
I also never truly believed we were going to be in an election this fall, and I still believe that. There’s just too much at stake for the other parties to take a gamble on electorate mood and reaction to another election.
In this respect, I think that Stephen Harper has adequately managed the opposition parties. Naturally I think there are things he could have done better, but that’s neither here nor there. It’s easy to forget that you can’t always be and do what you’d prefer in a Minority situation. Especially when half your focus and energy is managing your opponents.