Stephen Harper: I Heart Torture

Well, what else am I supposed to believe after reading this story:

All three opposition parties have demanded that a diplomat who may have crucial information about the alleged torture of Taliban prisoners be allowed to testify before a military watchdog inquiry.

The Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois each took turns peppering the Tory government Friday with questions about Richard Colvin, whom government lawyers are trying to strike from a witness list.

In this situation, being part of a cover up is as bad – as evil – as being part of the original transgression.  Torture has no place in the military operations of a liberal nation.  I’m not trying to put my head in the sand and say that it will never ever happen if it is not sanctioned by high-level decision makers, but when suspicions arise, our military and political structures have to be tuned to identifying and eliminating these abuses.

If the Conservative government wants to maintain a hawkish foreign policy, that’s fine; they’re the government and they get to take the lead in setting policy (though they don’t have the only say).  If, as part of this philosophy, they feel that certain interrogation techniques are valid, techniques that the rest of us might consider unacceptable, then they should be open and direct when questioned.  They should defend, in both practical terms and ethical terms, the interrogation techniques that our military sanctions, and they should do so in an open and robust debate.  They should not try to control the participants to an official inquiry.

Even the rhetoric they are employing is offensive, both to our intellects and to our soldiers.  Check out this exchange:

[Liberal MP Marlene] Jennings said the “honour and dignity” of Canadian soldiers demanded that the government be more open and stop “stonewalling” – something [parliamentary secretary to the defence minister, Laurie] Hawn, a former military officer, interpreted as a slight against those in uniform.

“To suggest the Canadian Forces or this government does not take seriously the type of allegations – allegations only – that have come forward is obnoxious,” he said.

This is utter nonsense, and Mr. Hawn should be ashamed, as I would think a man of his position is smarter than to actually believe the tripe he let out.  Ms. Jennings was defending our troops.  Our troops, on the whole, are honourable and they respect the inherent dignity of humanity as they carry out their difficult and dangerous tasks.  In order to maintain any sort of integrity in the military structure, when allegations of torture are presented we must shine as much light on the situation as possible.

This is the practical application of an interventionist liberal foreign policy.  Assuming that our soldiers are not, inherently, torturers (which was Ms. Jennings’ point), and deciding to fully investigate any allegations of torture is not “obnoxious”.  “Obnoxious” would be an obstinate stance that claims there can be no reason to be concerned about the possibility that the government and military are not doing there utmost to investigate and eliminate crimes against basic human decency.

I’m with Jim Manzi on the issue torture.  Even if we put aside the ethical issues relating to torture, torturous nations do not thrive; they do not persist.  This is not the type of nation that Canada should become.  Further, attempting to hide information about torture will serve us no benefit, either.  As a nation, we cannot survive by avoiding the truth and walling off information to the public.  Sticking one’s head in the sand serves no purpose but to expose one’s neck.

Ryan Hastman: The Next Generation of Conservative Leadership

Let it never be said that I do not give the people what they want.

Last week, after my interview with Mark Holland–whom I described as part of the new generation of Liberal leadership–readers sent me several emails and Facebook messages to express their interest in learning about the next generation of Conservative leaders.

So, today, I am here to respond to that request. I have three answers for you.

First, here is one prospect who may soon be the latest star candidate for the Conservative Party. If he wins the nomination and then the election, I have no doubt–none at all–that he will be mentioned in the same breath as Bernard Lord, Jim Prentice and Jean Charest as possible successors to Stephen Harper. Those are big ifs, though. He will have to beat this guy–not an easy feat for anyone.

Second, don’t forget about rising stars in the Conservative caucus, like him, her, him, her or him, among others.

And third, onto the business at hand. Allow me to introduce you to a rising star in his own right, one who hopes to join the Conservative caucus with a victory in the next federal election: Ryan Hastman, today’s guest in our continuing Meet the Players series.

A former special assistant to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and aide to Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, Hastman has been well trained in the ways of Ottawa and, if elected, will have little trouble navigating its labyrinthine institutional and political bureaucracies.

Hastman is ready for the election, whenever it is called. He won the nomination to carry the Conservative banner in the riding of Edmonton-Strathcona, currently held by NDP MP Linda Duncan and formerly held by Rahim Jaffer. (Yes, the same Rahim Jaffer you have no doubt read about recently.)

As is quite clear from my interview with Hastman, he is substantive, intelligent, witty, serious, plugged into popular culture, and is as comfortable at the Calgary Stampede as he is using la langue de Molière.

So, with no further ado, and as my gift to readers who asked me to introduce them to the next generation of Conservative leadership, here, for your enjoyment, is Ryan Hastman.

Richard Albert (RA): Your impressive experience in government and in the private sector belie your young age. Still, you are only 30–actually, not until October!–a fact that will perhaps give some people pause. So why you, and why now?

Ryan Hastman (Hastman): Why me? I am running because, first of all, I think that Edmonton-Strathcona deserves stronger representation than its current MP provides. I am from Edmonton and I have a solid business, community and political background. I care passionately about our community, province and country. No one will work harder than I will to listen to every voice and reach out to every corner of the riding. MPs don’t get to choose who they represent. They must represent everybody, not just the narrow interests of a small group of activists. We need an MP who understands what it’s like to run a business, raise a family, and work to make ends meet and get ahead. We need someone who not only understands the core values of the broader community but also has the political skill to effect change. I believe I am the best person to earn the trust of voters in Edmonton-Strathcona, and represent their interests in Ottawa.  And perhaps due to my relative youth, I am still idealistic enough to believe that I can make a difference in this world.

Why now? Electing an NDP member was a risky experiment and I think we’ve seen that experiment fail. The NDP doesn’t understand the economy and it cannot deliver results for the residents of Edmonton-Strathcona, to say nothing of the country as a whole. In the current economic circumstance, we cannot afford to be represented by someone who is out of touch with the majority of mainstream Canadians. Edmonton-Strathcona, the city of Edmonton, Alberta and Canada have an amazing potential and I am very excited about the future. I believe that Edmonton-Strathcona should be the home of the very best in all walks of life and I don’t see us getting there with the NDP. We should be leading the charge in terms of research and science. We should be the natural home for Canada’s next group of groundbreaking businesses and employers. Our children should be given every opportunity to excel and lead their generation forward. While the opposition parties are focused on tired old policies that didn’t even work in the 1960s, we want to take Canada forward.

RA: You’re running in a riding that has been a right-of-centre stronghold since 1972. However in the 2008 federal elections, a sharp leftward turn propelled NDP candidate Linda Duncan to victory over then-incumbent MP Rahim Jaffer. Is this a temporary shift or is there something more seismic underway in Edmonton-Strathcona?

Hastman: Well, the answer is “both”. In 2008 what you saw was a “perfect storm” for the NDP. The disastrous policies of the Liberal Party’s Stephane Dion gave Linda a boost. Many dissatisfied Liberal voters voted NDP in order to protest their own leadership. But I will be the first to admit that we Conservatives need to raise our game in Edmonton-Strathcona. We need to work harder and we need to listen more closely. We really believe Edmonton-Strathcona is looking to return to a broad-based, big tent, mainstream party with reasonable, sensible policies for important issues like the economy. Let other regions protest–Edmonton-Strathcona wants to lead Canada into the future.

But I do want to get back to what you said about a seismic change in Edmonton-Strathcona, because you are onto something there. Edmonton-Strathcona is a fantastic microcosm of Canada as a whole: it is diverse, it is growing, it is represented by many diverse voices, ethic groups and ages. It is vibrant and looking to succeed. I believe that many of Canada’s next leaders will be from Edmonton-Strathcona. There is a real energy here that is contagious.

RA: Have you asked Rahim for advice?

Hastman: Rahim and I spoke shortly after I won my nomination in June. He is now dealing with some well documented issues is his private life, but in his time as a Member of Parliament, Rahim proved not only to his own ethnic community but to all young people that being young or different isn’t a barrier to making a meaningful contribution to Canada.

RA: Have you spoken to Rahim since his arrest?

Hastman: No.

RA: Ok, getting back to your riding, what are the most pressing needs and priorities for Edmonton-Strathcona?

Hastman: #1 The economy. #2 The economy. #3 The economy. As someone once said, “It’s the economy, stupid!“. Without well-paying, stable jobs, most other things in life become less important. I want Edmonton-Strathcona to break out and reach its full potential, but we must make sure we give as many people as possible the best possible shot to succeed in their own lives. That means better jobs, safer streets, and lower taxes. We need to make some changes to the laws and tax system. We need streets that are safe for our children and seniors to walk alone on. We need to protect our local environment as a legacy for our children. We need to continue to attract the best and brightest from around the country and around the world.

RA: Can you say something nice about your NDP opponent, Linda Duncan?

Hastman: I have lots of nice things to say about Linda. She works hard and fights for what she believes in. She is a voracious environmental advocate. She will do very well in her next career as a post-MP, special interest activist.

RA: If you get elected to Parliament, who is the first person whose counsel you will seek once you land in Ottawa?

Hastman: The PM! No but really, I would probably say Jason Kenney. As a young guy from Alberta, Jason and I have a lot in common and I’ll probably pick his brain about how to set up an effective operation in Ottawa and serve my constituents with excellence. Jason has done a lot of good work in terms of building bridges to new communities.

RA: Apart from working to improve the lives of your constituents in Edmonton-Strathcona, are there any larger or more national legislative projects you would like to explore if you get elected?

Hastman: You’re right: working for the people of Edmonton-Strathcona will be my priority #1 and #1A. In addition to that, there are a couple of areas that I hope to make a contribution toward:

Improving our tax code. We need a simplified and reduced tax system in this country. First of all, our taxes are too high across the board. Second of all, despite the last three years of improvements, there remain many inefficient and/or unfair aspects of the code.

Crime and community safety. Again as with taxes, the Harper government has taken many positive steps, but there is more work to be done. People are sick and tired of common thugs ruling their neighborhoods through fear and intimidation. We need to give youth hope for a better future, to help them stay out of trouble before they are trapped.

National unity is also something that I am concerned about. We need to build the ties that unite our diverse groups. Also, I am a strong supporter of official bilingualism.

I could easily go on; there is no lack of worthy and important work to be done.

RA: Now let’s turn to the larger race outside of Edmonton-Strathcona. Why, in your view, is Stephen Harper a better leader for Canada than Michael Ignatieff?

Hastman: Stephen Harper knows what he believes, and why. He thinks about issues and takes a clear position, regardless of which ways the political winds are blowing. He sought the office of Prime Minister to bring change to Canada, and not simply as an entitled gambit to fill a hole on his resume. He wants to build a diverse, prosperous and secure country for the 21st century. Michael Ignatieff has never found an issue that he doesn’t both agree and disagree with. He dreams of returning our country to the tired old ways of Trudeau. After all, he described himself as a “tax and spend liberal.” We need a new approach to the issues of tomorrow, not an old approach that got us into some of the trouble we have today.

RA: I’d like to talk a bit about you for a moment. What is your biggest personal strength?

Hastman: That’s a tough question! I would say that I love rising to challenges. Call it competitiveness or maybe audaciousness, but I love doing things that “they” say can’t be done.

RA: What is your biggest weakness and how, if at all, have you tried to turn it into one of your strengths?

Hastman: Now this is even tougher. Politicians don’t like answering these types of questions… but I think that the opposite of my best strength is also my biggest weakness: I try to accomplish too much on my own. In business and in life I have found that the best way to succeed is to build a strong team around me and empower people to do their best, even if it’s a bit different from the approach I would take. It’s Maxwell’s 360 Leadership model.

RA: As we transition to a few more fun and lighthearted questions, I have to apologize for not saying this at the outset of our interview. But better late than never: Congratulations on your wedding last fall! Your one year anniversary is coming up. Any ideas yet as to what you’ll buy your wife to mark that special occasion?

Hastman: Well that depends on Michael Ignatieff! If we are in the middle of a campaign, we might skip a door knocking shift and head to Steeps for one of their unique teas. If we aren’t into a campaign then, we hope to get away and make up for the very brief honeymoon we managed a year ago.

RA: You helped found a not-for-profit called Her Dream Next Door, which helps women achieve their personal and professional aspirations. Are you concerned about the relatively low number of women in politics both generally and within the Conservative Party specifically?

Hastman: This is something that I feel passionately about. Too many young women today lack strong role models and mentors, keeping them from busting through society’s various glass ceilings. Generally speaking, I am encouraged by the strong women we see in politics today. Our party in particular has a very strong female cohort. And unlike the other parties, female candidates don’t get a special pass for their nominations in the Conservative Party of Canada. Try telling Nina Grewal, Lisa Raitt, Alice Wong, Cheryl Gallant, Rona Ambrose, Kelly Block, Candice Hoeppner, Diane Finley, or Josée Verner (just to name a few examples) that our party doesn’t value their contribution or that they are only plausible as politicians if they are appointed as part of an artificial female slate! Our party’s Vice President, Kara Johnson, is female. Many of our candidates last time who will be elected next time are female. Many of the PM’s key advisors, as well as senior aides to Ministers, are women. Our leader in the Senate, Marjory LeBreton, is female. Canada’s first female PM came from our party, and in 2002 and 2004 our leadership contests featured female candidates. So I would argue that our party is a leader among its peers in terms of female engagement. Of course it would be great if there were even more women involved, and I look forward to working with more and more strong females in caucus.

RA: Now just a couple of more questions before we move to our Lightning Round. Which three living non-Albertans would you most like to host for dinner at Packrat Louie, one of Edmonton’s very best restaurants? Why?

Hastman: If I were to host a dinner at Packrat Louie, my three choices would be:

Bill Gates–not only has he built one of the most successful companies in the world, but he has also transitioned into one of the strongest forces for public health. I would love to talk to him about how the private sector can partner with government and NGOs to solve some of the great issues that humanity will wrestle with this century. I want to hear more from him about how corporations, individuals and governments can partner together effectively.

Cesar Millan (aka ‘The Dog Whisperer’)–I love our puppy but we just can’t seem to reach an understanding on some of his behaviours. I would like to have a hearing with The Dog Whisperer and hope that he can clear up a few issues.

George Strait–My wife Lianne is a huge fan. I think she might wish I was a little bit more like George Straight, so maybe I could ask him for a few tips. I don’t know much about his political views, but I suspect he would take a common sense approach on most things. He definitely wouldn’t vote for the NDP!

RA: Parlez-vous français?

Oui, je parle français. J’ai eu la chance d’assister à l’enseignement par immersion en français ici, à Edmonton. Cela m’aidera à servir notre communauté franco-albertaine dans notre circonscription. Cela me donne aussi une appréciation de la double origine linguistique de notre pays. Je soutiens le bilinguisme officiel, et je pense que parler les deux langues contribuera à donner la prochaine génération un avantage compétitif dans un monde global.

RA: Ok, Ryan. Time for the Lightning Round. Blackberry or I-Phone?

Hastman: Blackberry! I need an actual keyboard.

RA: Facebook or MySpace?

Hastman: Facebook.

RA: Mac or PC?

Hastman: Mac.

RA: Less filling or tastes great?

Hastman: Coke Zero.

RA: Boxers or briefs?

Hastman: I’ll take the moderate position and say boxer-briefs.

RA: Favourite band?

Hastman: U2. I also really like Radiohead and Muse. For Canadian content, I’ll take Paul Brandt and Pilot Speed.

RA: Gretzky or Lemieux?

Hastman: Is that even a fair question? The Great One of course. My father was at the “50 goals in 39 games” game, and I’m fortunate enough to remember most of the 4 Stanley Cups that #99 was here for. The question would have been more tricky had you asked “Gretzky or Messier”, a local Edmonton guy who also went to my high school (St. FX.).

RA: Which was worse for western Canada: The National Energy Program or the Bristol-Bombardier scandal?

Hastman: The National Energy Program. People still talk about it at the doors.  Good on PM Brian Mulroney for cancelling it.

RA: Who was the better premier: Ralph Klein or Peter Lougheed?

Hastman: This is a tough one. Both of them contributed to the province and made tough decisions that needed to be made. Lougheed established a very sensible savings trust fund to diversify the economy; Klein got public spending under control. I guess it’s a draw.

RA: Greatest Canadian?

Hastman: Stephen J. Harper. His mastery of policy is second only to his incredible judgment of cabinet material. (Can you make sure a copy of this is sent to PMO?).

RA: Greatest prime minister?

Hastman: Didn’t I just answer that?

RA: Greatest politician never (never yet?) to become prime minister?

Hastman: Stockwell Day. Politics is a rough ‘sport’, a contact sport as they say, and his experience with national politics started out pretty roughly. He has shown not only resilience, but grace and forgiveness, which is usually not common to the profession. Watching him in his role as a senior Minister today makes me wonder what his contribution could have been had things worked out differently. I hope to model even a fraction of his resilience through my career. He’s been one of the most steady and consistent Ministers in our government. I’m also a big fan of both public safety and free trade!

RA: Public safety and free trade–those are two priorities that no reasonable person could disagree with. So in light of that common ground you’ve struck with all of our readers–those who wear Conservative blue, Liberal red, NDP orange, Green uh green, or otherwise–it’s a nice way to close our interview. Thank you for sharing your views with us. I think it’s safe to say that Linda Duncan is in for a tough battle when the writ drops. Edmonton-Strathcona will certainly be a riding to watch. Good luck to you.

___

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
• Mark Holland, September 12, 2009

Note: Post revised on September 23 to correct “George Straight” to “George Strait”

Keys to Victory in the Next Federal Election

Notwithstanding this analysis, it appears that an election is imminent.

As political parties and candidates gird for battle, they would do well to study the latest findings from some of Canada’s leading political scientists, who have recently released their analysis of the 2008 federal election. Entitled “The Anatomy of a Liberal Defeat,” the paper illuminates the reasons behind both the Liberal Party’s historic defeat and the Conservative Party’s road to triumph in 2008.

Three points from the paper merit mention insofar as they may hold the keys to victory in a widely anticipated, though as yet uncertain, 2009 election.

First, the Conservative Party benefited immensely from a mass exodus of Catholic and visible minority voters, who fled the Liberal Party and cast their vote for Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party. As compared to the 2000 election, for example, Catholic support for the Liberal Party dropped 24 points in 2008. And as compared to the 2004 election, visible minority support for the Liberal Party fell 19 points in 2008. Huge drops in both demographics.

Second, between the 2000 and 2008 elections, the Liberal Party witnessed the vanishing of its traditional edge in party identification among voters. This was largely due to the intervening consolidation of party adherents from the merger of the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive-Conservative Party. Today, the Conservative Party likely retains a larger number of party adherents than the Liberal Party. (I say likely, because recent news from the Liberal Party suggests that memberships are up, and significantly so.)

Finally third, the declining economy in 2008 may have actually helped save the Liberal Party from an even worse defeat. (It’s pretty hard to imagine a worse defeat given that the Party’s performance in 2008 hit a near-record low.) Insofar as voters tend to punish the governing party in times of economic hardship, the Conservative Party may have lost votes on that basis, which suggests that in a stronger economic climate, those votes could revert to the Conservatives. Today, with the Canadian economy showing signs of strength, the Conservative Party is less likely to lose votes on that score than it was in 2008.

There you have it. Those are the basic conclusions the authors reach in assessing the 2008 federal election. Some very interesting insights, in my view. Insights that a political party would do well to heed if it were, say for just instance, planning for the prospect of a possible election in the near future.

Kyle Seeback: Championship Swimmer Prepares for New Kind of Race

Meet the Players

The Third in a Series of Interviews with Political Strategists and Candidates

From an early age, Kyle Seeback has been successful–often at the very highest levels–in everything he has done.

He was a world-class swimmer on the Canadian national team. He then took his international medals to the University of Nebraska, where he was a star swimmer on one of best athletic programs in the NCAA.

Seeback later returned to Canada, entering law school, where he excelled academically while nonetheless playing and coaching for a varsity team in the CIS.

Then as a successful lawyer, Seeback served as president of the Brampton West federal riding association for almost a decade, helping candidates win local, provincial and federal elections.

Today Seeback, still an avid swimmer, is preparing for a new kind of race: running for Member of Parliament as the Conservative Party candidate in Brampton West.

Running for office is not entirely knew to him, though. He ran in the 2008 federal election against Andrew Kania, coming within a hair’s breadth–literally 232 votes–of winning the race. But now, says Seeback, the outcome will be different.

Whether or not Seeback will win is hard to say, particularly given that he is squaring off against an incumbent Liberal Member of Parliament in a riding that has been a Liberal stronghold since 1993.

But if Seeback’s record of athletic, academic and professional success has taught us anything, it is to never bet against him.

In this third installment of our continuing Meet the Players series of interviews with political strategists and candidates, Kyle Seeback takes a moment to field questions about his past, present and future.

Richard Albert (RA): You’re preparing to run for a second time in the riding of Brampton West. Last time, in the 2008 federal election, you came within fewer than 235 votes of winning the race against then-candidate, and now incumbent MP, Andrew Kania of the Liberal Party. What do you need to do differently this time in order to win?

Kyle Seeback (KS): I am sure that you don’t actually want me to tell what I will do differently. Given the size of your readership, any real plans I disclose would likely get back to Andrew Kania within minutes. What I can tell you, though, is that we will work harder than last time. The team will be bigger and more experienced. We have worked very hard at the grassroots level between the last election and now, and it will have an impact in the next election.

RA: Can you say something nice about your Liberal opponent, Andrew Kania?

KS: Andrew Kania is a dedicated and hardworking public servant. I can say that as I know Andrew personally. He is a little misguided, but so is virtually every Liberal. (I had to take a least one partisan shot in this interview, didn’t I?) Was that nice enough?

RA: Absolutely. Very gracious, just as I had expected given your reputation as an honourable person. So, moving on, the next election could be held as soon as October. What are the most pressing needs and priorities for Brampton West?

KS: There are so many pressing needs in Brampton and Brampton West that I could spend all my time dealing with this question alone. To keep things short, I think I will list three in no specific order.

First, we need a youth violence strategy. Youth violence continues to go up year after year in Brampton. We must develop a local strategy to deal with this, including more services for young people to keep them away from crime, namely programs for mentoring, drug and addiction, tutoring and educational assistance. All of these programs could be started and funded with some strong local leadership.

Second, health care. We need the Brampton Civic Hospital up and running at full capacity. We have one of the lowest ratios of population-to-hospital-beds in the country, and it is affecting people’s health.

Three, poverty and settlement services. We have one of the fastest growing immigrant communities in Canada and we need to make sure that new Canadians are able to access services that are going to allow them to obtain jobs and to overcome the economic hardships that many newcomers face.

RA: Despite the critical importance of local issues, federal elections often hinge on the performance and perception of party leaders. Why, in your view, is Stephen Harper a better leader for Canada than Michael Ignatieff?

KS: Stephen Harper is an average Canadian. He was raised in a middle class family like the vast majority of Canadians. He understands the issues that are important to Canadians because he has lived through the same issues that all of us face, like getting a job, raising a family and paying a mortgage.

I think that political leaders should personally understand the challenges that face average Canadians. Stephen Harper understands this perfectly insofar as he has lived through it personally.

Stephen Harper is also a person who does what he thinks is right, not necessarily what is politically popular. He governs on principle, not polls. That, to me, is a critical function of leadership.

RA: What is your biggest personal strength?

KS: Dedication and compassion. First, dediction–hard work and pursuing your goals and dreams–is the key to success in all aspects of life. Second, compassion and empathy for others are the fundamental building blocks to being able to properly represent people and their interests.  Being able to put yourself in someone else’s shoes is critical to understanding, and responding to, their concerns.

RA: What is your biggest weakness and how, if at all, have you tried to turn it into one of your strengths?

KS: Like many people, procrastination is my biggest weakness. Not sure how I can turn that into a strength. Do you think it is easy to make priorities? Bad joke, I know, but worth a try.

RA: If you get elected to Parliament, who is the first person whose counsel you will seek once you land in Ottawa?

KS: I would seek his counsel before I ever left for Ottawa. It would be my father. No person could ask for a better role model or person to go to for guidance.

RA: With a family–a wife and two very young children–it must be difficult spending so much time away from home in order to mount your campaign. I suspect you will be away from home for even longer stretches of time if you end up winning your race. How have you and your family dealt with that?

KS: It’s really hard. There is nothing I love more than spending time with my family. Nothing comes before my family, neither work nor politics. I am a very hands-on father and I miss my children terribly when I am away from them. I honestly don’t know how I will deal with being away from them five days a week, six months a year.

RA: Apart from working to improve the lives of your constituents in Brampton West, are there any larger or national legislative projects you would like to explore if you get elected?

KS: Health care. My mother passed away in January after a year-long battle with cancer. I saw first-hand how stretched our health care system really is. Don’t take this the wrong way, because throughout that difficult time I saw and met so many wonderful and dedicated doctors and nurses. That is not where the problem lies. What I witnessed, though, was how overworked they were and how stressed the system is. It must get fixed because healthcare is one of the things that Canadians hold dearly and are so proud of–and rightfully so.

RA: Let’s turn to some of your personal interests. While in law school at the University of Western Ontario, you coached the university waterpolo team. Were you really that bored with law school that you had to resort to waterpolo to pass the time?

KS: Yes, law school was extremely boring. How else can you describe having to read thousand of pages of legal cases day-in, day-out?!

Seriously though, I needed an outlet from law school. I had played waterpolo for a year for the University of Western Ontario during my first year of law school and it was a ton of fun. The coach retired and the university asked me if I would consider taking over. It was a great experience and, if I had stayed in London to practice law, I would have continued to do it. Mentoring and coaching young people is such a valuable and rewarding way to spend your spare time.

RA: So you’re a lawyer now. Great. I’m sure you’ve heard hundreds of lawyer jokes. Do you have a favourite one?

A man is standing in line at the bank. It is a long line and suddenly he feels his shoulders and back being massaged by the person behind him. He turns around and asks the person what he is doing. The person says, “my job is a massage therapist and I was just trying to help you out.” The lawyer says, “yeah so what, I’m a lawyer and you don’t see me trying to screw the person in front of me, do you?”

RA: Before jumping into politics, you were a scholarship swimmer at the University of Nebraska, a star member of the Canadian national swimming team, and ranked among the top 16 swimmers in the world. Wow. What have you learned from competitive swimming, if anything, that will help you win your riding and become a good public servant?

KS: Swimming was all about hard work. It is one of a few sports that is all about working hard day-in, day-out for hours and hours every day. Swimming taught me that the only way to be successful is to work harder than the other person. I think that my work ethic will be enormously beneficial to my constituents if I am privileged enough to get elected.

RA: Now for my favourite question: Which three departed Canadians would you most like to host for dinner at Aggie Martin, one of Brampton’s finest restaurants? Why?

KS:

1. Sir John A. MacDonald. What can I say? He was the best prime minister in Canadian history and a conservative to boot!

2. Alexander Graham Bell. Inventor of the telephone. Would love to give him my Blackberry and see what he thinks.

3. Billy Bishop. First World War fighter ace. The stories he could tell would be amazing.

RA. Parlez-vous français?

KS: Un petit peu.

RA: Ok, Kyle. Time for the Lightning Round. Blackberry or I-Phone?

KS: Blackberry.

RA: Facebook or MySpace?

KS: Facebook.

RA: Mac or PC?

KS: PC.

RA: Less filling or tastes great?

KS: Tastes great, of course. What’s the point of counting calories when drinking beer?

RA: Boxers or briefs?

KS: Boxer briefs, actually.

RA: Favourite band?

KS: Tough one, the Beatles when I was younger but now I don’t really have a favourite. I listen to all kinds of music now: Green Day, Black Eyed Peas, Third Eye Blind, Van Morrison, Eminem, Shania Twain. You name it, I like it.

RA: Sid the Kid or Super Mario?

KS: Neither. Gretzky all the way. 92 goals in one season, 215 points in one season. These days 50 goals is rare, and 100 points is a big deal.

RA: Who was the better Ontario Premier: Bill Davis or Mike Harris?

KS: Are you kidding? I live in Brampton just up the street from Premier Davis. Granted, he’s 80 years old. But don’t let that fool you. If I had chosen otherwise, he could still walk up the street and kick my… .

RA: Greatest Canadian?

KS: Without a doubt, Sir John A. MacDonald. Without him, there would be no Canada or certainly not the one we have today.

RA: Final Question, Kyle. Greatest politician never to become prime minister?

KS: Preston Manning. What a great person with such a great mind. He had it all.

RA: Kyle, thanks so much. I hope you had as much fun answering these question as I had interviewing you. A tough race awaits, so I won’t keep you any longer. Go hit that pavement. Very best of luck.

___

Meet the Players: Interviews with Political Strategists and Candidates

• Warren Kinsella, August 17, 2009
• Tim Powers, August 20, 2009

Tim Powers: The Prime Minister’s Lead Blocker

Meet the Players

The Second in a Series of Interviews with Political Strategists and Candidates

What do you get when you cross a rugby player, a communications professor, a top-ranked lobbyist, a compulsive tweeter, a regular blogger, an expert in everything from brassieres to bazookas, and by all accounts, a fun-loving dude?

Meet Tim Powers, Vice President of Summa Communications, a public relations and crisis management firm. He is also a trusted advisor and confidante for the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), and is the Conservative Party‘s top draft pick for television punditry.

Take a look at Powers performing his craft on television here and here, for example. Pretty good, eh? And he still has many years of broadcasts left ahead of him.

Powers hasn’t yet had to manage too many crises in the PMO. After all, let’s be fair, the Prime Minister simply does not make that many public relations mistakes. Or is it perhaps that the Prime Minister does not make communications mistakes precisely because Powers is there blocking for him?

Either way, the safest bet this side of pocket aces is that Powers can talk a story down from a crisis to a mere speedbump.

It is sometimes said that rugby is a hooligan’s game played by gentlemen. Judging by my interview with Tim Powers, it’s hard to conclude that this rugby player is anything but a gentleman. And a funny one at that.

Richard Albert (RA): So, our favourite adult soap opera returns to the air in just a few weeks when Parliament reconvenes on September 14. How excited are you?

Tim Powers (TP): My euphoria is boundless. Only a trip to the dentist for a root canal would be more appealing.

RA: What should we look for in the first month or so of the new session?

TP: You’ll go tone-deaf with every utterance of the word election. Another quarter, another round of will there or won’t there be a vote. Hopefully logical forces will prevail and everyone can focus on recovering from the recession.

RA: It seems not a week goes by–and when the House is in session, barely a day goes by–when we do not see you somewhere on TV, battling the likes of NDP strategist Brad Lavigne and Liberal über-strategist Warren Kinsella. Do you have anything nice to say about Warren? And what about Brad?

TP: Like any good fellow with Irish blood, I love to whack the hell out of my partisan opponents on the air. But I respect and like both Brad and Warren. Both fight hard for what they believe in, and I respect that. Both are huge assets to their parties. Both I consider friends.

RA: Now how about something not-so-nice but still playful and friendly?

TP: We call Brad the oxygen eater because he’ll run down all the time remaining in a panel discussion with limp Layton lines.

Warren says we are brothers. I am not sure which set of parents would be more upset after the DNA testing.

RA: Do you remember the first time you appeared on TV as a talking head? I bet you did great but I would love it even more if you had messed up and would agree to share a funny story from your first–or an early–appearance.

TP: My first time on national TV was as a commentator for CPAC during the 1999 Nova Scotia provincial election. I remember my brother-in-law called in using a fake name to throw me a softball question. It was classic.

When you are on TV, screwing up is part of the game. I like to laugh, and I remember I laughed when I was on-air with Warren when he did his famous Barney the Dinosaur joke on Canada AM. (For background on this story, read this and this.  –RA.)

Instead of feigning rage or disgust at Warren’s slight of Stockwell Day‘s religious beliefs, I broke into a fit of laughter. I know a few people who weren’t happy with me then, and probably still aren’t now. But having gone through the good and bad of a religious school system in Newfoundland, his wit struck a chord.

RA: You are a fierce and tireless advocate for the governing Conservative Party. How much of what you say is spin and how much of it is unvarnished fact? 60 percent spin, 40 percent unvarnished fact?

TP: It is all in how you tell the story and lay out the facts–which I always pray are accurate.

RA: Maybe you can clear something up for me about the “Just Visiting” Conservative ad campaign. Some people say it worked, others no. Who is right? (How is that for a softball follow-up to my question on spinning?)

TP: Time will tell who is right and what right means. But I do think it touched more than a few nerves because it was on the mark. Fairly or unfairly, Mr. Ignatieff comes across as a self-interested dilettante who’d rather be cavorting in Harvard Yard, not Harbour Grace.

RA: Bottom line: Why, in your view, is the Stephen Harper better for Canada than Michael Ignatieff?

TP: Stephen Harper has proven to be a solid leader no more so than now through this vicious economic recession. Harper is not flashy and he is workmanlike–people at some level respect that.

He plays his politics hard, and sometimes that might sting. But so far he has been a steady, capable PM in unsteady times. And so far, unlike his predecessors, he is generally free of scandal.

RA: You are originally from St. John’s, Newfoundland. The current premier, Danny Williams, has not had the best of relationships with the prime minister. (And that is putting it mildy.) Could you manage, do you think, to bring these two conservatives together to iron out the details of a truce? Who would have to make more concessions?

TP: I know them both and I am a fan of both. I could put my entreprenurial skills to work and do a made-for-TV cage match. Watch out Georges St-Pierre. The winner stays in politics. The loser goes.

Canada and Newfoundland can work together. Energy opportunities might be where they unite.

RA: People have compared you to one of Newfoundland’s most respected figures, John Crosbie, a devoted former public servant and colourful parliamentarian–not to mention your former boss. How big of a compliment is that to you? Must be huge.

TP: As long as they don’t say I look like him, I’ll accept the compliment. He is a great man and mentor, and I was fortunate to learn at his knee. If I am fortunate to do anywhere near what he has done in his life, I’ll die happy.

RA: You will soon celebrate your 41st birthday. Hard to believe that you recently doned your old rugby uniform to take on a team from the Canadian Forces in a charity game to benefit the Military Families Fund. How did the game go? I mean, apart from the Minister of Defence breaking his arm?

TP: Life doesn’t end at 40, you know. I can even Twitter. Watch the ageism or I’ll have to come ruck over The Politic.

Well before I got into politics and business, I used to play high-end competitive rugby. I was fortunate enough to make the national under-21 team two years in a row.

Rugby is now back in my life and it has become my release from politics. I am back playing competitively for the Ottawa Irish Rugby Club. The match on the Hill helped remind me what I missed. It was a great night for an excellent cause.

Sure, Peter busted his arm. But being the trooper he is, he never let that take away from the day–though P.T. Barnum would have liked the marketting value of the minister with the broken arm.

RA: Just a few more questions. Which three living Canadians (whom you do not yet know nor have never met either in person or virtually) would you most like to host for dinner at Bianca‘s, one of the finest restaurants in St. John’s? Why?

TP: Neil Young–anybody who has lived this man’s life would most definitely be a lively dinner companion. I might need to book the next day off for my own medicinal purposes, though.

Wayne Gretzky–what can I say? What sporting fan of my age wouldn’t want to hang out with this prodigy?

Conrad Black–I have a morbid curiosity about him. We could end up in fisticuffs by the end of the night or it could be a peaceable affair. Any good dinner in Newfoundland must have those options.

RA: Time for the Lightning Round. Blackberry or I-Phone?

TP: Blackberry.

RA: Facebook or MySpace?

TP: Neither–because I like some privacy.

RA: Mac or PC?

TP: Commodore Vic-20.

RA: Less filling or tastes great?

TP: Wimpy stuff–Screech is the best.

RA: Boxers or briefs?

TP: Stanfields.

RA: Favourite band?

TP: U2.

RA: The Great One or Sid the Kid?

TP: The Great One.

RA: Thomas Carlyle’s Great Man Theory or Herbert Spencer’s Theory of Social Statics? (Do you care either way?)

TP: Daniel Bell’s post-industrial society.

RA: Has Newfoundland ever known a better premier than Joey Smallwood? Doubtful, in my view. But you tell me.

TP: Danny Williams, for cleaning up the messes Joey left behind.

RA: Greatest Canadian?

TP: Terry Fox (sometimes I agree with the CBC).

RA: Greatest prime minister?

TP: Sir John A.

RA: Final Question. Greatest politician never (or never yet?) to become prime minister? (P.S. You cannot answer John Crosbie or your good friend Peter MacKay.)

TP: Maybe Don Mazankowski or Preston Manning.

RA: Hey, Tim, fantastic. Thanks for taking some time to do this. Best of luck to the Blue team when the Governor General fires the starter’s pistol.

___

Meet the Players: Interviews with Political Strategists and Candidates

• Warren Kinsella, August 17, 2009

Warren Kinsella: Prince of Darkness?

Meet the Players

The First in a Series of Interviews with Political Strategists and Candidates

Say what you will about Warren Kinsella–and people have done just that, calling him some very bad names, some very bad names indeed.

The Montreal-born, Toronto resident is known in many circles as the Prince of Darkness. That’s a pretty cool nickname, if you ask me. Who wouldn’t want to be a prince of something, anything?

Perhaps the best nickname ever ascribed to Kinsella, however, is the James Carville of Canadian politics. Now that’s a mighty clever nickname, actually. However it does not quite capture the full scope of Kinsella’s reach, influence and political acumen.  True, the Carville-Kinsella comparison is apt in many respects. But to do justice to Kinsella, we should probably rephrase the comparison in this way: James Carville is the Warren Kinsella of American politics.

Actually, I take that back. Carville is a giant of a strategist. But so is Kinsella. Imagine the team they would make working together? Wow. Now that’s a partnership that would give nightmares even to a campaign anchored by the very best conservative strategists in North America, namely Tom Flanagan, Rod Love, Frank Luntz and Karl Rove.

It’s easy to understand why Kinsella is regarded as the closest thing to a genius in Canadian politics. After all, he helped Jean Chretien‘s federal Liberal Party win three straight majority governments. He also guided Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal Party to victory in the last two provincial elections. And today he runs a successful consultancy–the Daisy Group–which has managed to score some of the land’s most prestigious clients.

That’s his record of accomplishment. Or at least part of it.

For more about what Kinsella is up to, what he likes and dislikes, and what he sees unfolding in the Canadian political landscape in the months ahead, I invite you to take a walk through Warren Kinsella’s World, as he participates in a blog interview with me, conducted earlier this afternoon.

Richard Albert (RA): So, our favourite adult soap opera returns to the air in just a few weeks when Parliament reconvenes on September 14. How excited are you?

Warren Kinsella (WK): “Excited” is not a word I associate with a party whose principal spokesman is, seemingly, Pierre Poilievre. It is a little like getting “excited” about a bad rash. It just isn’t done. What I am excited about, in all seriousness, etc., is the possibility of an election–and showing Canadians that we have a superior leader, and team, and plan. That’s exciting.

RA: What should we look for in the first month or so of the new session?

WK: Unfortunately, more job losses, more bankruptcies, and more deficit–because the Reformatories, since being re-elected, have been setting unhelpful records in respect of each one of those. Other issues–like health care, H1N1, isotopes and so on–will factor into the political calculus, too. But on balance, I think just-returned-from-Summer Canadians will conclude this to be the ballot question(s): Who is about hope, and who is fear? Who has a plan, and who is the status quo? Who wants to create jobs, and who just cares about jobs for political cronies?

If that’s the question, and I think it is, we will win the election that follows. And whenever it takes place.

RA: You are advising the current leader of the Liberal Party, Michael Ignatieff. Without getting into details that would risk compromising either your effectiveness as an advisor or your leader’s prospects in the next election, would you consider sharing with us some of the broad strokes of your advice to him? Please? Pretty please?

WK: I’m a volunteer in the Liberal Party, and I haven’t actually admitted–anywhere–who I may or may not be advising. That’s the great thing about being a volunteer: you don’t have to answer every question.

But, volunteer or not, my approach is always the same: I don’t talk about strategy in the media. When you do that, your opponent can pick up the morning paper and read all about your strategy for the cost of the morning paper. And I tend to think a good strategy is worth more than the morning paper, don’t you?

Ha.

RA: Bottom line: Why, in your view, is your man better for Canada than the man currently at 24 Sussex?

WK: He’s smart. He’s decent. He’s been able to bring the Liberal Party back to the middle–and back to the position of strength it once had.

He believes–as I do, as millions of Canadians do–that we deserve better than we have been getting. It’s not that Stephen Harper and his people are intrinsically evil or anything like that (although Mr. Poilievre tests my resolve in that regard). It’s just that they don’t have a plan for what we have been going through, or even care. It’s just that they don’t share the values of most Canadians. It’s just that some of them seem–truly–to dislike the country they have been given the privilege to serve.

Apart from those things, they’re just swell, I guess.

RA: And while we are on the subject of men, why are we not talking about women running for prime minister? Does your spidey-sense discern any prospective female prime ministerial candidates coming down the pipeline, from any party?

WK: You are right, and there can be no debating it. Why is it that this country’s political parties do such a crummy job of (a) attracting women as candidates and (b) making them into leadership candidates?

In the Liberal Party, Michael Ignatieff is using all of his powers of persuasion–and his authority as Liberal leader–to get us to where we need to be, which is a percentage of women in the House of Commons that reflects their percentage in the country. But can we do more? Yes, we can. And we will.

As someone who was rightly pilloried for making a sexist joke about a political opponent (Note to readers: Kinsella apologised for this on July24, 2007  –RA), I think the root cause of this shameful gender imbalance is just that–sexism. We need to change the attitudes of men–in the media, in political backrooms, in every other place, too. That’s going to take some work, but it has to be done.

RA: You are slated to run the Liberal Party war room in the next federal election. How are you preparing for that?

WK: I never said I was doing that. Other people have said I’m doing that.

Whatever I do, you can be sure of this: it will not have a title, and I will not show up on a flow chart somewhere.

I will, however, do all that I can to restore a Liberal government. It’s time.

RA: So apparently Paul Wells does not think you are as good a strategist as people say and think you are. What gives? Surely you deserve some credit for helping to engineer the only majority government victories Canada has seen in the last sixteen years. And you did write the leading book on campaign strategy in Canada. (But Paul Wells is no slouch either. He knows a thing or two about politics himself.)

WK: He’s right. I’m not particularly good at that, or anything else, for that matter.

But I love politics (for the cut-and-thrust, for the immediacy, for the passion of it), and I am a Liberal (because I always believe government has a role to play, because I am unenthusiastic about capitalism without limits, because I favour tolerance and diversity and hope). So, whether the Grits want me or not, they’ve got me.

If I’m good at anything, it’s obscure punk rock trivia. That is my forté.

RA: You were the Liberal candidate in North Vancouver in the 1997 federal election. I suspect that you volunteered (or were involuntarily volunteered) for this role in order to help the Liberal Party field a full slate of candidates, consistent with the Party’s policy of being a truly national party. Nonetheless, I still cannot believe that you actually ran (and lost). What happened?

WK: Honest to God: I ran because I felt I had a contribution to make. At the time, my wife thought I was crazier than usual–I think she voted against me, truth be told–but it was an honour and privilege. We hadn’t won the riding in a generation, but it seemed like the right thing to do at the time.

Some folks insinuate that I was parachuted into the riding, but that isn’t true: I fought for months to get the nomination, and was thrilled when I won it at a nomination meeting. But a variety of factors (calling an election during the ’97 Winnipeg flood was one) led to my keester getting kicked.

My wife, then pregnant with the second of four children, was delighted.

RA: You run one of the most popular blogs on Canadian politics. What makes your blog so successful? Is it that Warren Kinsella writes it—and that people want to know what Warren Kinsella has to say—or is it that the stuff you write is just that good? Or maybe both?

WK: I don’t know if it is successful, but some folks read it. How come? Three reasons.

It’s free. Seriously, that counts. If people have to choose between a Liberal columnist who is free, or one who costs them something, they’ll usually go for the former over the latter. People like free stuff.

I also get read, I suspect, because the blogosweird is so dominated by white, angry conservative fellas. Being a black helicopter-driving, One World-loving, secular humanist, I tend to stand out.

Finally, the owners of the mainstream media have cut back so much–cut back reporters, editors and resources–that they have taken away the reasons why readers were attracted to quality journalism in the first place. If you don’t believe in your own model, your customers won’t either. It’s simple.

The reason why web logs and the like are increasingly popular is also simple: they’re free, they’re controversial, and they’re filling a gap.

RA: Which three living Canadians (whom you do not yet know nor have never met either in person or virtually) would you most like to host for dinner at l’Auberge du Pommier, one of Toronto’s finest restaurants? Why?

WK: Pamela Anderson, Neve Campbell and Shannon Tweed.  Do the math.

RA: Are you sure you wouldn’t prefer taking your guests to a much less fancy—though no less tasty—place, say, Burrito Boyz on Adelaide?

WK: I’m sure.

RA: Time for the Lightning Round. Blackberry or I-Phone?

WK: I’m a victim. I have both.

RA: Facebook or MySpace?

WK: FB because it has multiple applications–you can make it whatever you want. Sad post script: I’m a Facebook “whale”–I am closing in on 2,000 friends. I even know some of them, too.

RA: Mac or PC?

WK: PC, simply because the piety of Mac users is so irritating. I also am driven to their distraction by their “no viruses in Macs” urban mythology, too. Uh-huh. Sure. Oh, look!  It’s a yeti!

RA: Less filling or tastes great?

WK: You will not be surprised to hear that I despise ad lines. That happens when you’ve drafted some.

RA: Boxers or briefs?

WK: Boxers. At a certain age, you need to consider the impact you are having on the visual environment.

RA: Favourite band? (P.S. You cannot answer your own band, Shit From Hell, whose song Barney Rubble (Is My Double) is synchronized with my bedside clock to ring as my morning alarm. No joke.)

WK: Are you kidding? Our song? Man, I like you more already.

Fave band is Florida’s Against Me! They are godlike geniuses, and you must rush out and buy (not illegally download) their records right now.

RA: The Great One or Super Mario?

WK: The Great One, even though everyone in Calgary (my hometown for most of my life) called him “Whine Gripesky.”  Not nice, but a guaranteed laugh-getter in Calgary pubs for years.

RA: Thomas Carlyle’s Great Man Theory or Herbert Spencer’s Theory of Social Forces? (Do you care either way?)

WK: I don’t care.

RA: Who is the real Captain Canada: Brian Tobin or Steve Nash?

WK: Nash. Sorry, Brian.

RA: Greatest Canadian?

WK: Terry Fox.

RA: Greatest prime minister?

WK: You don’t expect me to answer anyone other than my friend, do you?

RA: Final Question. Greatest politician never (or never yet?) to become prime minister? (P.S. You cannot answer Edward Blake, Stéphane Dion or the current Liberal leader.)

WK: Lloyd Robertson. I can just picture Lloyd as Prime Minister. He reassures me.

RA: Thanks so much for doing this, Warren. Good luck to you and your team when the writ drops. Whenever that happens to be.

Why the NDP Matters

On this sunny afternoon, I am watching the NDP Federal Convention streaming live from Halifax on CPAC (as usual, television correspondent Martin Stringer is doing a fantastic job).

The NDP is putting on a first-rate show with impressive speakers, featuring Nova Scotia premier Darrel Dexter, Manitoba premier Gary Doer and CLC president Ken Georgetti.

For the NDP, this convention is just as much about celebrating its past as it is about charting its future. The NDP has a distinguished lineage which rests in large part on the shoulders of the late Tommy Douglas, the founder of modern health care in Canada. This weekend, the NDP paid homage to two of its living legends—former party leaders Ed Broadbent and Alexa McDonough, both revered party-builders who continue to cast a long shadow over the NDP’s current leader, Jack Layton.

Although Layton has done well as leader, he will soon face his most daunting challenges yet: navigating the NDP through the potentially troubled waters that lie ahead.

First, there is the matter of what the NDP will be called going forward. Now officially known as the New Democratic Party, the party is weighing whether to rebrand itself as the Democratic Party, dropping the New and thereby aligning itself nominally and optically, though not necessary substantively, with the infinitely better known Democratic Party that currently holds the presidency, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and a clear majority of the governships in the United States.

The NDP name debate is presently unfolding at the convention, pitting the old guard versus the new, the former wishing to keep faith with the roots of the party and latter prefering to re-orient the party toward new horizons. It is a safe bet that the membership will ultimately unite around whatever the convention decides. But until the convention achieves some closure on this name game, the risk of internal party division continues to linger.

Second, there is the more interesting topic of the next election. When it will come, no one can say for certain… well, no one except perhaps Jack Layton. For he holds the balance of power in the tug of war that is sure to take centre stage between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party when Parliament reconvenes in September.

If the Liberal Party does indeed intend to ramp things up against the Conservatives—and this appears to be the case more clearly by the day—the Liberals will be mathematically unable to bring down the governing Conservatives without the votes of both the Bloc Québécois and the NDP.

So what should Jack Layton say when he gets a call from the Liberal leader asking for his support? Tough question.

As I see it, Layton has at least two sensible options, each with its own pitfalls and promise.

First, if the Liberal plan is to revive the December 2008 idea of a Liberal-Bloc-NDP coalition government, Layton, I think, would have no choice but to jump in. The coalition would change the political calculus in Canada and open up a number of possibilities that could bare fruit for Layton and the NDP.

But Layton should not join in without first asking for something, a lot actually, in return. Among what should be several NDP preconditions to joining the coalition, Layton should agree to offer the support of the NDP to the Liberal-led coalition only in exchange for assurances that his party would control at least one quarter of all cabinet portfolios—including justice (likely), foreign affairs (maybe), defence (unlikely), finance (least likely)—in the new government.

Second, if the Liberal plan is quite simply to trigger an autumn election by defeating the Conservatives on a vote of confidence, Layton should exercise restraint instead of pushing ahead to force an election. Three reasons convince me this is the right choice for the NDP.

For one, the NDP is unlikely to make substantial gains in a federal election held this fall. With currently 36 seats in the House of Commons, the NDP  has very little room to grow, particularly given the very real threat it faces from the Green Party on its left and the Liberals on its right.

Moreover, the Layton should not agree to defeat the government and head to the polls because he will begin to hear deafening calls for his resignation if his party comes out of the election with fewer seats (as is likely to happen). As things stand, Layton is already starting to feel the heat from supporters of Quebec’s lone NDP Member of Parliament, Thomas Mulcair, a master debater in both official languages, an orator of great skill, and one of the rare breed of Canadian politicians who can connect with everyday Canadians.

Finally, Layton should not join the effort to the defeat the Conservative government on a vote of confidence because he stands to gain much more by propping up the Conservatives than he does by knocking them down. How so? Lending the NDP’s votes to the Conservatives, at least for the next session of Parliament, could well serve not only Layton himself but more importantly the NDP as a political institution.

Imagine the goodwill Layton would cultivate with his party if he managed to extract, in exchange for the NDP’s support, a promise from Stephen Harper to appoint Broadbent or McDonough to the Senate when the next vacancy arises in Ontario or Nova Scotia, respectively. (Set aside for the moment that Layton has previously called for the abolition of the Senate. Yikes.)

Both Broadbent and McDonough are highly esteemed Canadian statespersons. They command respect from parliamentarians of all political stripes and they have earned the gratitude of citizens in all provinces. If either Broadbent or Mcdonough were appointed to the Senate, the appointment would give the NDP its first official Senator—a pretty significant event of high moment in the history of the party. As for Layton, it would allow him to solidy his leadership and buy himself more time to build a winning team, the latter of which is all a party leader can ever really ask for.

For Harper, this could be a victory for him too. In addition to averting an election he says he does not want, Harper would score some major political points. Specifically, were Harper to agree to appoint either Broadbent or McDonough, or both, Harper would cast himself as a magnanimous Canadian prime minister who, far from being blinded by partisanship, is readily willing to recognise and show appreciation for the years of devoted public service that Broadbent and McDonough have given to Canada. At a time when we are all thirsting for unity over division, Harper could tap directly into the vast reservoir of goodwill that awaits any leader committed to a new culture of cooperation in Canada.

There you have it. That is what Layton should do. But whether the opportunity presents itself—and whether Layton is getting advice as good as mine (it’s free advice, after all, so you get what you pay for!)—is another question altogether.

Nonpartisan – Is this really possible, or even wanted?

What really is ‘Nonpartisan’? Surely such a noble concept is worthy of political aspiration isn’t it? Shouldn’t we as a democratic nation seek to enshrine such a wonderful concept in the very fabric of that system?

In a word, no.

On Sunday March 1 2009, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was interviewed by Fareed Zakaria on CNN wherein he stated the following:

“We’re not going to win this war just by staying,”

“Quite frankly, we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency. Afghanistan has probably had – my reading of Afghanistan history (is) it’s probably had an insurgency forever of some kind. ”

“What has to happen in Afghanistan is we have to have an Afghan government that is capable of managing that insurgency.”

In response to this, Opposition Parties in the House of Commons attacked the Prime Minister for agreeing with them.

Yes, you read that right. The Opposition Parties and their Shadow Cabinets are attacking the Government for speaking in a manner that reflects what they believe. Nevermind the fact that we always knew going into this conflict that a permanent NATO presence in the country wasn’t an option. Nevermind the fact that killing every last member of the insurgency was never possible or indeed, even a stated goal.  No, the Opposition Parties want Stephen Harper and the Conservatives to be the enemy on this issue. They don’t want him to agree with them, or more dangerous for them, to be seen as agreeing with him. To that effect, they are attempting to paint this as a “flip flop” and try to make hay with it.

“By the way, Mr. Speaker, remember ‘cut and run’? Remember ‘we’re not going to leave until the job’s done’? What’s going on, Mr. Speaker?” said NDP MP Paul Dewar.

Not that we’re really listening to the NDP these days, but you’d think they’d at least be cheering about the idea of Canada leaving Afghanistan instead of attacking the government on that position. Oh that’s right, they flip-flopped themselves on that issue when their ‘Obamessiah’ came on board with Afghanistan. Or did they? The NDP confuse me regularly with their inconsistencies…

‘Nonpartisan’ is becomming the political catchword of 2009. With the new Administration in the United States ‘reaching across party lines’ et al, the constant stream of pleas from Canadian Political Parties to take nonpartisan approaches to governing and the expectations of Canadians to get on with governing, one might think that politicians would do just that.

The problem is, we don’t want it. Not really. When you get right down to it, we voted in (at least those of us who did vote) a Member of Parliament who represented the largest share of a particular belief and philosphy in a particular area. Those beliefs and philosophies are usually contrary to the other candidates. We then expect that person to go forth to Ottawa and defend and if possible, implement said positions; positions which are contrary to those who stand in “Opposition”.

The concept of a nonpartisan government would hand us such a homogenized, bland and stale system in which we might as well vote on every issue ourselves in national referendums. That would become tedious in short order and would ultimately fail miserably.

What surprises me though, is the track the opposition parties are taking on this issue. Instead of acknowledging the accuracy and maturity of the Prime Minister’s statement, they want to attack it as a reversal and somehow twist it into something offensive for their own benefit.

To me, it seems like the Prime Minister is attempting to put a realistic face on the mission and provide some serious and conscientious leadership on an issue that today, more than ever, needs clarity and vision.

Leave it to the Opposition to muck it up.

Again.

Separatists in the Canadian Senate: Rumour

If this is true, it’ll be the move that will truly ignites western separatism:

Minister Cannon tells Mike Duffy that the latest rumour on the Hill has 6 separatists being appointed to the Senate under the coalition deal…

« Previous Page