Martha Hall Findlay: “Not Left. Not Right. Moving Forward.”

Meet the Players

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

“Not Left. Not Right. Moving Forward.” That is the slogan that greets all visitors to Martha Hall Findlay’s website. It’s easy to write off that greeting as mere political rhetoric, empty words, or, as we say in my native French, la langue de bois.

They may indeed be empty words when spoken by most politicians but they aren’t when spoken by Hall Findlay. (Or at least I would like to think they aren’t!)

Proof positive is the text of the interview that follows below. Hall Findlay, as you will read, appears genuinely interested both in inviting and engaging in constructive dialogue. Whether ideas trace their origin to the left or to the right does not seem to matter to her as much as whether those ideas can lead to better solutions to enduring problems.

Why can’t we have more people like her in Parliament?

There is much to find compelling about Hall Findlay. A quick look through her life’s work will show you why. Championship skier, distinguished graduate of the University of Toronto and Osgoode Hall, attorney at a high-powered international law firm here, corporate executive there, 2006 Liberal leadership contender, and now Member of Parliament for Willowdale—all while raising three children, aged 24, 26, and 28. To describe all of that as impressive might be the understatement of the year.

What impresses me most about Hall Findlay, though, is a certain quality she possesses, one that eludes most people in her current line of work: authenticity.

Some are eloquent, some have great organizational skill, others have born leadership ability, many are smart, most are ambitious, and all have worked indefatigably to win their seat in the House of Commons.

But few exhibit authenticity.

Whether Hall Findlay is authentically authentic, or whether it is a carefully developed and deliberately managed strategy developed over her years of successfully navigating vast and competitive social structures, I cannot say for sure. But I sure hope she is authentically authentic because I’m convinced that she is.

But you can decide for yourself in this eighth installment of our continuing Meet the Players series.

One quick word about the mechanics of the interview: Hall Findlay received my questions by email on September 12, 2009—just as speculation about a Fall election reached its apex. But I did not receive her answers until a few days ago. To be fair, September and October were busy times for Liberal MPs, so I hope you will forgive her delay, as I have.

You will see that it has been well worth the wait.

Richard Albert (RA): So, Martha, what’s your latest take on whether Canadians are heading to the polls this Fall? I’m skeptical. So much so, in fact, that I’ve issued an open invitation to my readers: I’ll give 30-1 odds against an election taking place this Fall. (And while I got you on the line, you’re a lawyer, right? Perhaps you can tell me whether the famous Carbolic Smoke Ball case applies to my open bet. I hope not!)

Martha Hall Findlay (MHF): Wow, it sure shows how long it’s taken me to answer your questions, when the first one is about whether we’ll have an election this Fall. My feeling badly about taking so long is reinforced by the fact that it now already feels like winter outside. The good news is that we’ve come so far this Fall without an election.  Did anyone take you up on your 30-1 bet against one happening? You’re looking more prescient every day…  As for whether the Carbolic Smoke Ball case would apply (even though it was 25 years ago when I first studied it, I remember it fondly)—you didn’t put any money on the line. No consideration, not a valid contract. A no-risk proposition, one might say, other than reputational damage if you turned out to be way wrong. Good news for all, it looks like you might be right.

RA: Your predecessor in Willowdale, Liberal MP Jim Peterson, held your seat in Parliament since 1980 (with one term of interrupted service as a result of the conservative sweep of 1984). Based on my back-of-the-envelope calculations, Peterson achieved over 50 percent of the vote in every federal election since 1988, including the last election he contested in 2006.

In 2008, which was your first general election following Peterson’s resignation, you earned less—a little less, but still less—than 50 percent. Any idea why Peterson’s supporters did not all move to you?

MHF: Jim Peterson indeed did very well in almost all of his campaigns in Willowdale.  An almost continuous run of 27 years. (We don’t talk much about 84-88, or his first run in 1979 which he lost.)  You are correct that in the General Election I managed just under 50%.  I will note that in the by-election in March, 2008, when I was first elected, I managed just shy of 60% of the vote.  In the general election of 2008, the same thing happened in Willowdale as happened all across the country—the Conservative Party vote in fact went down; the NDP vote went down.  The problem was that a lot of Liberals stayed home, and the Liberal vote went down even further.  We look forward to getting those wonderful Willowdalean liberal voters back out the next time—just not anytime soon.

RA: You recently said that the next election will be “fought on attitudes.” Interesting. What did you mean by that?

MHF: Attitudes—Ken Dryden put it best when he described the Harper government as “pinched”.  It’s the perfect word. “Let’s see what little we can do. Let’s give as much up to the provinces. Let’s see how far back we can pull from our Canadian participation on the international stage.” It’s pinched. I find it all rather grumpy. I just don’t believe that Stephen Harper has much optimism about Canada—I get the impression that he’d be just as happy if we were one of the United States of America. I don’t. I see Canada as a place, and as a group of people, with immense potential to do so much, both at home and abroad. Glass half full v. glass half empty. I am definitely a glass half full person. I feel a personal responsibility to start a de-grumpification process. (Yes, that’s my own word, but it’s pretty good, no?)

RA: Bottom line, though, Martha. Why is your leader better for Canada than the current prime minister, Stephen Harper?

MHF: Michael Ignatieff is better than Stephen Harper for a number of reasons, but first and foremost relates to my last answer.  Michael is hugely optimistic about Canada and Canadians—what we are, what we have been able to accomplish, what we can do going forward, what we can become—leaders once again in the combination of economic prosperity, but prosperity with a purpose—a social justice purpose.

RA: My very first guest in this interview series was Warren Kinsella, the master Liberal strategist who is apparently slated to run your Party’s war room in the next election. I asked him whether he thought the Liberal Party was doing enough to be more inclusive to, and encouraging of, female candidates. To his credit, he said no and expressed his wish that your Party do more. Surely you agree, as I do. But can you articulate for our readers precisely why it is so important to have more women in Parliament?

MHF: We do need more women in government. At the federal level, we make up only 21% of MPs. Compare that with the fact that we women make up 52% of the population as a whole (yes, that’s a majority!).  As such, we are the ‘consumers’, or ‘recipients’, if you will—the majority of those affected by—legislation. My answer is therefore simple: women make up more than half of those affected by legislation, therefore more than half of the people around the table when that legislation is put forward, debated, and passed, should be women.

RA: Does it bother you at all that you are always asked for your thoughts on how to bring more women into politics? It seems to be everyone’s go-to question for you. Kind of like what I am doing now.

MHF: It used to bother me a bit. As a lawyer and businessperson, with a considerable focus in past lives on international relations and international trade and business, I used to respond with, “Can we please talk about economics, finance or foreign affairs?” But particularly after the 2006 Leadership campaign, I recognized that I am seen as representing a minority that shouldn’t be one, and I do feel a responsibility to work to effect that kind of change. I also realize that an awful lot of women, young and old, are really interested in getting involved, but don’t really know how—and more importantly don’t know just how accessible political involvement is. I really enjoy encouraging more women to run, by sharing my experiences, giving advice, occasionally being a shoulder, etc…  I rebel at the label “a woman in politics”—I am “a politician”.  But (based on the last time I checked ) I AM also a woman, who happens to be in politics, so therefore have a role and a responsibility that I enjoy taking on.

RA: It is admittedly still a little early, in my view, to assess people and events from the 1990s. We need more distance. Nonetheless, how do you think history will remember Kim Campbell, Canada’s first and only (until you become Liberal leader, perhaps?) female prime minister? Has she been treated fairly since her departure from Canadian politics?

MHF: Kim Campbell will be recognized, rightly and importantly, as the first female Canadian Prime Minister. She faced a huge challenge insofar as the federal Conservative Party itself was facing a huge challenge from the Reform Party at the time—and the story of what happened in the election in which she, and the Conservative Party, suffered so much, was in my view much less a story about her (despite much of what was said and written) but rather much more about the success of the Reform Party. As such, I do not think she was treated fairly, nor do I feel she was treated fairly by her own party as the situation became so clearly challenging. The fall, at the time, of the Conservative Party was by no means the fault of Kim Campbell alone, yet she bore, unfairly, much of the blame. Remember that she was, before that, an extremely highly respected Minister of Justice and was highly regarded for her performance in other roles.

RA: So, on another topic, where is your Big Red Bus? It is still fueled up somewhere, ready to go next time around?

MHF: The Big Red Bus did its job well, and has been granted appropriate retirement—at least from me. The MHF wrapping was removed, and my “home” for many months was sold. I hope that the new owners are enjoying travelling across this fabulous country as much as I did!

RA: Let’s transition to a couple of lighter questions as we prepare for the super-fun lightning round. If you could have any superpower, what it would be? And why?

MHF: Any “superpower”? Is  “wisdom” a superpower? I think it should be, although it doesn’t exactly make for exciting comic book material. No matter—I choose “wisdom”.  I dare you to come up with an exciting costume for that one.

RA: (A costume for Captain Wisdom? I bet some people would think a mask that looks like this would be just right. Others, though, might think this is more like it. My own personal choice, though, would be this.)

Which three living Canadians (whom you do not yet know nor have ever met either in person or virtually) would you most like to host for dinner at Pourquoi Pas?, one of the finest restaurants in your riding? Why?

MHF: Having been to Pourquoi Pas? a few times already, I would certainly love to go back with any of my favourite people. As for three living Canadians whom I’ve not yet met … Hmmmm … That’s a challenge because I’ve been so fortunate to have met so many interesting Canadians with whom I’d love to have longer conversations. So I’m going to break your rule, and list three I’d love to have longer conversations with, whether I’ve met them or not.

Alice Munro, because I love her work. Her stories suggest that she’s had many experiences that resonate with my own personal experiences, and it would be fascinating to hear more about them.

Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of Canada, because he occupies an incredibly influential position that, ironically, prevents him from doing too much—I’d like to know what he really thinks.

Preston Manning, because although he and I disagree on many policy issues, I am a big fan of his trying to make change that he honestly felt would benefit Canada and Canadians—I’d like to learn from his experiences.

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

MHF: Blackberry.

RA: Facebook or MySpace?

MHF: Facebook.

RA: Mac or PC?

MHF: PC (although kudos to MAC for great marketing).

RA: Less filling or tastes great?

MHF: Oh, good heavens—it has to taste great! Our team actually has to work to make sure I eat enough. “Less filling” is not an issue for me.  (Example: I never drink “light” beer—that’s for girls.).

RA: Favourite band?

MHF: I’m listening to Dave Matthews’ Band as I’m writing this, but that’s just because they were next in my iTunes library list. There are so many great bands… so instead of “favourite”, I’ll plug the newest addition to my collection, a great young duo from Toronto called Dala. Great harmonies and some really good songs.

RA: The Great One or Sid the Kid?

MHF: Sid the Kid. (Sorry, Wayne.) I mean, that Tim Horton’s ad where he gets off the bus and joins the kids on the outdoor rink? How can you not love the guy?

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

MHF: I bristle at the concept of “Great Men”, but only because it ignores all of the great women who either influenced history and events themselves, or hugely influenced the men who ended up as “great” in their influence of history and events. That being said, I agree with Carlyle’s theory. I believe in the power of individuals to make change. If, as Spencer suggests, those individuals become who they are because of other factors, so be it—it is the individuals who ultimately go through those doors, take those chances, take those risks, make those decisions.

RA: Stéphane Dion or Edward Blake?

MHF: Not having met Blake and despite political challenges, my great respect for Stéphane Dion’s honesty, integrity, vision and passion for Canada remains strong and undiminished.

RA: Greatest Canadian?

MHF: There is no one Canadian who can be called “greatest”. That does a massive disservice to all of the many, many Canadians, some unsung heroes, who have contributed so much to this country and its people. Sorry, I know that’s avoiding the easy answer, but that’s how I really feel. When you think of it, maybe that’s quintessentially Canadian—we’re not big on singling out individuals, but really proud of what we can do collectively.

RA: Two more questions, Martha. Greatest prime minister?

MHF: I have a three-way tie.

Pierre Trudeau, mostly because of how he inspired Canadians and made us all feel so hopeful about what we could, individually and collectively, accomplish, both here and abroad, but also, of course, because of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Lester Pearson, for the obvious peacekeeping initiatives and how he established such respect for Canada abroad, but also because under his watch we established health care, CPP, the flag—no small feats.

And Louis St. Laurent, for quietly accomplishing a great deal for this country, but doing so in a way that was always conscious and respectful of the English and French duality of Canada, and his insistence on conducting politics with respect and civility.

RA: And greatest politician never (or never yet) to become prime minister? (P.S. You cannot say the current Liberal leader, nor can you choose Stéphane Dion or Edward Blake.)

MHF: I can’t speculate on the future, and you’ve limited my options. I also assume you mean Canadian politicians (as opposed to others from other countries) who have not become Prime Minister. My Liberal friends may not be happy, but out of Canadian history, I would say Robert Stanfield. He was respected by a great many people, of all political stripes. That says a lot.

RA: It does indeed say a lot. Not only about Bob Stanfield. But about you. That you would say such nice things about a Tory like Stanfield and also about a movement conservative like Preston Manning is out of the ordinary for a Liberal politician, at least in the current political climate enveloping Parliament. I hope some of your grace rubs off on your colleagues—of all parties.

Thank you for participating in our Meet the Players series, Martha, and for sharing a bit about yourself and your views with our readers. We’re grateful. Continued best wishes 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
• Ryan Hastman, September 21, 2009
• Elizabeth May, November 1, 2009

One Life the Gun Registry Couldn’t Save…

…it’s own.

MPs voted by a clear margin Wednesday to repeal the federal long-gun registry, signalling for the first time since the program was adopted 14 years ago that it is headed for the scrap heap, despite police assertions that it saves lives.A private member’s bill, sponsored by Conservative backbencher Candice Hoeppner, had the backing of all the Tories, from Prime Minister Stephen Harper down, and enough opposition MPs to clear its first major hurdle of winning support in principle.

The bill passed by a surprising 164-137, winning more supporters than expected as 12 New Democrats, eight Liberals and one Independent cast their votes with the government.

The Gun Registry has been a supreme waste of tax money.  That alone should be sufficient to kill it off (even if it has taken 14 years).  This is pretty much a no brainer for conservatives and libertarians.  What’s great to see is a number of MPs from left wing parties supporting it also.

The thing is (and conservatives and most libertarians will admit to this), sometimes it is necessary for the government to do things.  Sometimes, they have to spend our money.  It is for this reason that progressives, liberals and big government conservatives (and anyone else who supports lots of government intrusion in our lives) should be especially horrified by the Gun Registry.  It has become such a punch line – such an emblem of wasteful, useless government – that it damages the credibility of the government.  By extension, it hurts our democracy.

The Greenest of Jobs: Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada

Meet the Players

In 1980, a newcomer to the game of politics set out to challenge the powerful, to force those in government to take notice of matters relating to the environment.  In the election of that year, Elizabeth May ran for Parliament in the riding of Cape Breton Highlands – Canso.

She earned 272 votes, and it would be 26 years before she would again seek office.

In the meantime, Ms. May – a writer, lawyer and activist – held numerous positions within the environmental movement.  She was a founder of the Canadian Environmental Defence Fund, held the position of Associate General Council for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, and was the founding Executive Director of the Sierra Club of Canada. She was even a Senior Policy Advisor in the Mulroney government.

In 2006, she again became an active politician, securing the leadership of the Green Party of Canada. That fall, she ran in the by-election in London North Centre, finishing second with 26% of the vote. Next, she took on Peter MacKay, a senior cabinet minister, in the 2008 election. Again she was the runner-up, this time garnering 32% of the vote.

Come the next federal election, Ms. May will be the Green Party candidate in Saanich-Gulf Islands. Being both friendly and tenacious, Ms. May has the political chops to be a threat to Gary Lunn, Minister of State (Sport) in the current Harper government.

Jonathan McLeod (JM):  I would just like to congratulate you on the nomination in Saanich-Gulf Islands.

Elizabeth May (EM):  Thank you, although it was really not in doubt.  It was only because of the strong support I had in this area that we made the decision as a party that I should move here.  I’m a strong believer in living in any community in which you are running for office, other than a bi-election, of course.  To make the decision to run in Saanich-Gulf Islands I’d already moved, was living here, so it was something of a surprise that a Green Party member who doesn’t live in the area would decide he wanted to contest the nomination. But you know, fair enough, it does demonstrate that the Greens are very grassroots and that there is no top down decision making, even in the case of the leader’s riding.

JM:  Well that’s fantastic.  And it is great that you are actually going to be a representative there rather than just a carpet-bagger.

EM:  Exactly, and it’s a very exciting move for me.  You’re younger, but try to imagine being a 55 year old single woman whose daughter has just gone off to university.  It’s kind of a good plan to move to a new place.  It’s very encouraging.

JM:  Alright, so to begin with my questions:  why did you, and why should anyone select the Green Party? Would your talents not be better used within a larger, more established party with similar philosophical underpinnings, like the NDP or the Liberal party?

EM:  Well if those other parties had similar philosophical underpinnings, that would be possible.  My life in what you might call politics – small-p politics –  has been  one where I’ve been asked numerous times, because of being well known in the environmental movement.  I’ve been flattered to be asked numerous times by various NDP leaders, by the liberal party and even by the Progressive Conservatives, in their day, to be a candidate federally for parliament and often offered something that was supposed to be a safe riding or as a “star candidate”.  They’re very good at dazzling you with these types of offers, and whenever it came right down to it, as much as I could see my way clear to working with and liking lots of people in those parties -working with and finding acceptable some of their policies – when it really came down to it, I couldn’t accept these really nice offers for an easy route to Parliament.

So, if I wanted an easy route to Parliament, I wouldn’t have decided that the right thing to do was run for leadership of the Green Party of Canada.  What I’ve been desperately concerned about, and more as I’ve gotten older, is to watch the deterioration of civility in Parliament; the abandonment of principles at a moments notice by all the parties in Ottawa right now, with the weird  exception, I must say,  of the Bloc Quebecois, which has stuck to its guns on climate as an issue in ways that the other parties haven’t.  But of what relevance is that when you’re a party that wants to see Quebec sovereign and doesn’t care about the rest of the country?  So it’s a very strange political climate right now, and my conclusion at the end of the 2005/2006 election was that none of the existing parties could be relied upon to raise issues consistently.

And injecting respectful discourse and ideas whose time had come – ideas with the power of history behind them – that was not going to come unless there was a new kind of politics and a different voice.  So that’s why.  I actually think that your question is also flattering, that I have talents and skills that might be used anywhere.  The truth of the matter is if I were elected in any of the other parties, I would be squashed by the top down political partisanship system that requires of members of parliament to do what the leader tells you to do.  And that would be a situation in which I would be entirely unhappy and likely would resign the first time it happened.  So I think I’m better staying with a party whose philosophy I completely embrace and where, as leader, I know that when I have a caucus in the House of Commons, I won’t be squashing anyone – just as we didn’t squash Mr. Hertzog’s attempt to run against me for the nomination.  We respect people who come forward and have a view, even if it’s not the official party view.  If we have a vote in the House of Commons and we have a caucus of Greens and a member says ‘look my constituents, the people who sent me here, simply will not tolerate it if I vote the party line on this.’  Well, that’s something you have to respect because that’s how democracy should work; that’s how the parliamentary system should work. So I think I would be utterly miserable in any other party.

JM:  Well that’s a good reason not to join them.  I’ve found dealing with a lot of these politically involved people that they are getting tired of the partisanship.

EM:  Yes, it’s gotten to the level that it actually is corrosive to the functioning of democracy and to the health of government.  So, our constitution calls for Peace, Order and Good Government, and we’ve got… well thank goodness we’ve got some peace, but we’re also apparently at war in Afghanistan; and we have order but it’s of a stultifying Nixon-era like order; and we have absolutely putrid government, so this is not good and something needs to fix this.  And I think that the presence of Greens in the house will be a tonic to the whole system and to other MPs who feel the way I do, who would like to say, ‘yes let’s form a non-partisan caucus on climate; let’s form a non-partisan caucus to address issues of poverty or what we do about immigration – how we should respond to refugees on our shores.’  These are issues that really matter, and there are bright engaged committed people in all the other parties, but they can’t break out of this partisan straightjacket which really is the enemy of democracy.  We have to face it and reduce the power of organized political parties, because five of them can run rough shod during an election, but once their MPs have formed government, that political party structure should back off and let MPs work together to come up with the best possible solutions.

JM:  Now moving on to the political game, if you will, I read that in 1980 you ran for the Small Party.

EM:  Yes, I started it.  It is worth noting that I started it not because I want credit, but I paid dearly for it, because it was the days before internet and to find twelve candidates to run in six provinces, we tried to get a candidate in every province… anyway, to make a long story short, at the end of the campaign, I had this horrific telephone bill for long distance calls which prompted me to sell my car to pay my phone bill.  Which made a very good decision in changing my life and I didn’t end up owning a car between 1980 and 2007, so that was a good outcome of starting the small party.

JM:  But in the race you were against Allan MacEachen who was a very decorated politician.

EM:  Yes, he was Deputy Prime Minister at the time.

JM:  And I think he held other cabinet posts throughout his career.  It must have been a real learning experience.

EM:  Well it was great.  One of the things that was a surprise for me was – and I really admired Allan MacEachen for lots of reasons: the fact that the agenda for decent social programs in those days; he made a real difference in terms of pensions, and unemployment insurance schemes, and all kinds of things that improved, the health care system, which came in during the era of his time in parliament – there was a lot to admire about him, but he didn’t have any notion that environment mattered, and the Trudeau government was busy building up the nuclear enterprise in Canada, and we wanted to make sure those were issues.  So the big surprise for me was that there were no all candidates meetings.  There wasn’t a single all candidates meeting.  So I never did get to debate him on any issues, and he wouldn’t go into any communities in the riding unless they’d raised a minimum amount of money for the liberal party.  But where I did know that I affected him was that I spoke in a lot of schools, and high school teachers would tell me that when McEachen would come, if all the questions were on environment and nuclear, he’d say to them, somewhat testily, ‘was Elizabeth here already?’  It was the only time he got any hard questions.

But we’ve remained friends over the years.  And I didn’t expect to win; the point was to raise issues and change the tenor of the election campaign.

JM:  Speaking of important issues, and poverty being a big one these days, going through the Green Party’s web site, I noticed that your party supports going towards a Guaranteed Annual Income.

EM:  Yes.

JM:  Now some of our readers might be interested to know that this is a position that was also supported by the noted University of Chicago economist, Milton Friedman.

EM:  Was it?

JM:  Yes, he supported doing it more through a progressive income tax system, but he supported some sort of Guaranteed Annual Income.

EM:  Well, I don’t think that Milton Friedman’s approach looks anything like ours.  The person we quote in our policy document is Martin Luther King.  Milton Friedman’s approach is so antithetical to Green Party values that even if he supported what we wanted and were alive to say so, I would reject his support.  A more relevant example is Senator Hugh Segal, who is a Conservative, but comes from the last – well I don’t think he’s part of Harper’s circle – part of that caucus who actually represents something of a Red Tory.  But his view and my view aren’t that far different, and the party did a lot of policy research on it.  We actually called it a Guaranteed Liveable Income, because it’s very important that the amount people receive is actually something on which you could live, but which would impel you to want to live better so that you could actually earn more money on top of your Guaranteed Liveable Income cheque; there wouldn’t be a clawback.  We could eliminate all of the shame-based poverty programs, whether we’re talking about disability payments, welfare or EI… or even minimal pension programs – all could be replaced with this one simple plan, administered through the tax system.  There are a lot of savings to be accrued through it, but I’d have to go back and look to see what Milton Friedman’s approach was, because, given his vision of an economy, this can’t be the same program.

JM:  It is often surprising where viewpoints overlap for people at different points on the political spectrum, and why it is worthwhile not to just get caught up in your own partisan circle.  That being said, if you were to form the government next time, what three people outside of the Green Party would you seek for guidance?

EM:  Can I just say, first of all that I’m not delusional, and that we’re not going to form government at the end of the next election.  Where we will be useful, immediately at the end of the next election because I will be a member of parliament and I hope other Greens will be there with me, is that we can advance ideas and advance a co-operative approach to solutions immediately.  I see the Greens in a political evolution as being about where Tommy Douglas was at the point that Canada embraced universal health care.  He didn’t wait to become Prime Minister to bring about an idea that was critically needed and for which all Canadians are deeply grateful.

That said, what three people outside of the party would I consult regularly?  That is a very interesting question.  Peter Victor comes to mind, because I think his most recent book – he’s a professor of economics in Toronto – Steady State Economy by Disaster or Design is an extremely useful guide to how one could re-invent an economy in such a way that it both was more resilient and not as prone to bubbles that burst as the wildly speculative financial markets that got us into the current recession.  So I think Peter Victor would be someone.  I do consult him now, as it is.

Another person I consult now actually is Jim McNeil.  You may not know his name but Jim McNeill is one of Canada’s leading international diplomats.  He is retired.  He worked with Tommy Douglas, actually.  He worked with the Saskatchewan government, and was one of the national figures in the CCF in his day.  He then went to Ottawa and became a deputy minister.  He then led a number of U.N. summits, including the Habitat Conference in Vancouver, and then went to the OECD and ended up being the Secretary-General to the Commission on Environment and Development.  Jim McNeil is actually the author of the Brundtland Report: Our Common Future.  I find on almost every issue that we end up discussing together, he has the most clear eyed, realistic assessment of where we are on the planet and what needs to be done.  And he doesn’t get fooled by political rhetoric, so he’s been a really important political advisor for me.

And the third person, if that covers economy and sustainability, I think Gro Harlem Brundtland, actually.  I’d like to talk to another woman who’s been Prime Minister, who brought in a carbon tax, who made it work, who was head of the World Health Organization so could advise me on health issues, and who I know will answer my call.  So that would be it.  If I could get advice from the former Prime Minister of Norway and from Jim McNeil and from Peter Victor, I’d be getting really good advice.

JM:  That’d be a pretty strong team to have helping you out.  Do you have a couple more minutes for what we call our lightning round?

EM:  Oh sure.

JM:  BlackBerry or iPhone?

EM:  Blackberry.  Canadian technology, please.

JM:  Facebook or Myspace?  Or Twitter?

EM:  Facebook, and Twitter, I do both.

JM:  Mac of PC?

EM:  Oh, here’s the ideological rift.  I’m a PC person and I try not to fight with my Mac friends.

JM:  Less filling or tastes great?

EM:  Tastes great.

JM:  Favourite band?

EM:  It’s still The Beatles.

JM:  The Great One or Sid the Kid?

EM:  Sid the Kid, I mean I’m from Nova Scotia.

JM:  But you’re out west now…

EM:  Yeah, but I’m not in Edmonton, so I don’t have to abandon Sidney Crosbey.

JM:  But you might have to go with Roberto Luongo, now.

EM:  I really like Steve Nash.  Different sport, but way impressive, and impressive politically.

JM:  Really, I’m not actually aware of his political views.

EM:  Well he wore an anti-Iraq War t-shirt in a workout with his team, I think in Houston TX, a few years back.  And I thought, “now I’m proud; I’m proud of that young Canadian lad.”  I don’t know anything about him except that he’s the Most Valuable Player.  I think you’re the Most Valuable Player when you’re willing to put yourself out in any way out there like that in Texas.  I can’t remember what the slogan was, but it was pretty explicit and he wore it in front of media at a workout in Texas.

And he’s from Victoria.

JM:  Thomas Carlyle’s Great Man Theory or Herbert Spencer’s Theory of Social Forces or do you care either way?

EM:  I don’t believe in either.  It’s not The Great Man theory and it’s not social forces.  It’s a combination of both and it’s a large dose of serendipity.  Often it’s people who aren’t the so-called Great Man who happened to be in the right place at the right time.  I think the fact that both of those theories come from men might explain the fact that they missed the effects of networks, serendipity.

I’m more in the school of Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping Point theory, that is a bit of both.  I’m much more of that school of thought of what makes change.

JM:  Who is the real Captain Canada: Steve Yzerman or David Suzuki?

EM:  David Suzuki

JM:  Who’s the greatest Canadian?

EM:  Tommy Douglas.

JM:  And who’s the greatest Prime Minister?

EM:  Tommy Douglas, though we never had him.  I’m going to go with Sir John A. Macdonald, for what he did, for what he pulled off.  He came from a coalition.  It was the great coalition and to pull together a country and make all the regional divisions work and to have the vision of a national train – which we need again; we need high speed rail coast to coast.  The mediocrity of recent leadership; the failure to see any bold vision for the country makes me kind of nostalgic for Sir John A. Macdonald.

That, and that he was a leader who ran in Victoria for a seat when he couldn’t win at home.

JM:  Well, yes, that’s definitely a good thing.

___

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
• Ryan Hastman, September 21, 2009

Are Liberals suffering from a millstone named Quebec?

It’s debatable I think. The main comparison I’d make is that Liberal fortune is so dependent upon the good graces of Quebec and the Conservatives are not. Liberals can’t obtain a majority government without Quebec and that’s mostly because they don’t have The West, whereas the Conservatives can technically obtain a majority without Quebec, even if that’s unlikely by virtue that they DO have The West by and large.

On Steve Janke’s blog post about Michael Ignatieff firing his Chief of Staff, Soccermom made a comment that got me to thinking about this:

Any Quebecker who becomes Liberal leader in the next couple of years will get laughed out of the West.

Now, while most Liberal leaders recognize the importance of wooing Western votes (even if unsuccessfully), doing so earns them the scorn of too many Quebeckers for them to put a serious effort into it lest they lose their support. This is mostly because many (not all) Quebeckers view themselves above and apart from Canada, especially those western places.

Now don’t get me wrong. I love Quebec, it’s culture and it’s people, I just wish that they’d come down from their cross sometime and accept that they are fully a part of Canada and not above or separate from it.

So Liberal leaders become hamstrung from “including the west” too vigorously and end up simply speaking hollow words to Westerners (which comes across as patronizing, and rightfully so because it is) which further wides the rift between the East and West. As a result, in order to achieve their majority governments, Liberals dig themselves deeper into the graces of Quebec by lavishing praise, concessions and money on them. Again, this practice is abhorrent to other Canadians, and especially to the Westerners who don’t hate Quebec but just want the special treatment to end and achieve equality.

Unfortunately, until Quebec officially signs onto the Constitution, this divide will continue to exist and fluctuate. And why should they? They get so much more with really no consequences. Again, this isn’t personal, it’s politics.

Now, the only way I see this changing is if the Conservatives are able to secure a Majority Government without having to be obliged to Quebec for it. Technically, it’s possible; it’s just REALLY unlikely.

If Quebec suddenly becomes not so important to the ever important majority it could spur one of two things, and this is the risk that politicians aren’t willing to take:

1) Quebec becomes aware that it needs Canada

If Conservatives were able to achieve that majority without needing Quebec, it may send the message that the time of blackmail is over for Quebec, at least for the next 4 years. It would no longer have the numerical leverage it has used to hold the rest of the country hostage. This might jolt them into conceding that unless they join the Confederation as an equal partner, they could be handed only what the rest of the country deigns to give them.

2) Quebec fears being ostracized and separates

This is the greatest fear of politicians. We know that practically, Quebec as a sovereign nation would ultimately fail without massive provisions and support by Canada or the United States. The problem is that Quebec would still have to give up part of their absolute sovereignty in order to do that. They want all the benefits without any of the consequences. Our currency, our Passports, our National Defense Organizations, our inter-provincial trade agreements etc. etc. But if they feel that becoming subject to Canada is a worse fate than trying to go it on their own, Separatism could well rise up in sufficient numbers to make it happen.

Legally.

And so, in order to avoid this disastrous event for Liberal fortunes, they continue to bribe Quebec into staying like some fair-weather spouse whom they can’t bear to leave, but can’t afford to keep indefinitely.

Who’s agenda is actually hidden Mr. Ignatieff?

Mighty Michael Ignatieff is backpedaling once again. This time, it’s to deny rumors that he plans to approach Canadians in an “adult conversation” about how to deal with the deficit that includes increasing taxes.

This isn’t the first time he appears to have told his caucus one thing and then had to reverse his position when word of it leaked out into the media. Not too long ago, Michael Ignatieff was going on a tear about the Unemployment Insurance crisis (yes yes, I know they want to call it Employment Insurance. That’s another discussion), then when the Government brings forward legislation to reform the UI system, they’re not interested in looking at it. Not a backpedal you say? Well, they were willing to call an election over it before the summer break, and have since totally backed away from it.

Michael Ignatieff is an self-admitted “Tax and Spend Liberal”, and backed it up during a speech April 14th, 2009 to the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce:

“We will have to raise taxes,” but not at the expense of hurting the recovery from this recession. He added that “an honest politician” cannot exclude a tax hike as an option.

And then today he goes on to say this today:

“I’ve been clear,” he said. “Tax increases are not part of my plan.”

No Mr. Ignatieff, you have not. You have in fact stated the exact opposite.

So which is it Mr. Ignatieff? Are you a dishonest politician now, or will you be raising taxes?

Canadian Election Open Threads

Scott H. Payne at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen and I have started some open threads about potential issues that we should be debating should we find ourselves in a federal election anytime soon.  Here’s a tease:

The possibility of yet another Canadian federal election being triggered this week has been averted by the Bloc and it would seem that NDP, while not first off the gates, has provided even more padding. This seems to be good news for the Liberals, despite their best intentions to perform yet another electoral nose dive. But no one can say definitively how long support for Harper’s minority government will last…

I’ve started one at Canned Goods & Ammunition.  Feel free to stop by both sites to share in the debate.  This is a really good chance for some good back and forth.  The League definitely tilts left, and they have some very thoughtful and intelligent writers and commenters.

So let’s get to it!

Michael Ignatieff is playing games with Parliament

Yeah, so I read a very short time ago that Michael Ignatieff, the man who can not “Prop Up” the Government anymore, is more than happy to facilitate the speedy passage of the EI Bill that is the focus of so much attention lately.

As stated in the CTV Article:

“We don’t want to give Mr. Layton any alibis,” Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said.

Seriously? So Michael Ignatieff’s sole reason for supporting the passage of this bill is to stick it to Jack Layton? What kind of responsible “Government in Waiting” is THAT!?!

Although Liberals believe the EI bill “falls radically short of serious employment insurance reform,” Ignatieff said they want to expedite its passage.

“We’re not going to hold it up. Let’s get it through and get to the motion of non-confidence which we will bring forward in due time.”

It seems Michael Ignatieff is so desperate to take us to an election, that he has decided to play games with the Parliamentary System and stick it to the other leaders of the opposition just to have his way.

If I could describe this in a word?

Despicable.

Contemptible, Irresponsible, Ignorant, Careless, and Immature also come to mind, but I think Despicable sums it up.

Still, if Michael wants to work with the Government (???) and get this legislation passed, that’s great. It will only serve to highlight his hypocrisy when he goes to his desired Non-Confidence motion.

Jack Layton: A Defense

I admit it: I kind of like Jack Layton.  I may not agree with his politics, but I have a soft spot for our moustachioed left wing leader.  And, as per Richard’s post, I think the NDP does matter, and I am glad that Mr. Layton is part of our national political discourse.

When the NDP tapped Jack Layton to be their next leader, I thought he was a total lightweight who would wind up hurting the party (and I was crying no tears about that).  I thought the former city councilor wasn’t quite ready for the big leagues, that he would become the NDP’s Stockwell Day.

But that hasn’t happened.  Taking the reins from such inept leaders as Alexa McDonough and Audrey McLaughlin, Layton has helped regain some of the stature that the party had in the 80s under Ed Broadbent.  Sure, the recent focus on what name they should use has perhaps set them back a half step as a party to be taken seriously.  Nonetheless, they are now in a position to impact Canadian politics.

I had been thinking about Layton’s status for the last day or two (before Sean posted about him this morning).  Scott H. Payne at The League of Ordinary Gentleman has a very good post about the the opportunity that is now in front of Layton’s NDP; a sample:

So it would appear that the New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP) has been handed a golden opportunity in Canada’s latest election run-up drama with the Conservatives’ eleventh hour bid to avoid an election. Stephen Harper and the Conservatives  are attempting to woo NDP support for their ways-and-means motion by floating potential changes to Canada’s employment insurance protocols that will extend the length of time that “long-tenured workers” are able to receive benefits.

I would offer that the NDP should do whatever they can to negotiate in good faith, come up with changes that both they and the Conservatives can accept, and provide their support to the motion, thereby avoiding a fall election in Canada.

I agree with Scott.  The NDP have not been shy about their willingness to be part of a ruling coalition.  They now have the opportunity to affect any legislation proposed by Harper’s Tories.  There’s no way that the CPC and NDP are going to come together on a lot of joint initiatives, but if the NDP can be seen to be a mitigating force on the Tories, they can score big, politically.  Sure, a lot of us around here won’t be too happy if Layton pushes Harper even further to the left, but it will probably play well with the median voter… and it should definitely play well with potential NDP voters.

Sean notes that Layton may have waited too long to throw his support behind the Tory’s EI proposal, allowing Gilles Duceppe to swoop in and save us all from yet another election.  Sean sees this as a blown opportunity.  I think that Layton might be in an even better position now.  He didn’t reflexively support or reject the Conservative initiative, but was open to working with the Conservatives.  Now, his party is freed from the proposition of either propping up the government or causing a fall election.  They can vote their collective conscience.  In the long run (and as long as the government stands, they needn’t worry too much about the short run), they can come out of this as the magnanimous and thoughtful party, willing to work with others, but unwilling to cynically fold to the pressures of short term political calculations.

I’m still a little skeptical that Layton will be able to capitalize on this.  Eventually, he will need to step up and lead the way as Duceppe has this time, but we have already seen him take a party that had floundered under the two previous leaders and make them relevant again.  Even after Ed Broadbent parachuted into Ottawa Centre, Layton flourished.  The mere presence of the beloved Broadbent could have crushed his leadership, but still Layton led, and held together the sometimes unwieldy coalition of urban progressives and union members – no small feat.

I still predict that Jack Layton will fail – and by fail, I mean he will never lead a government, majority or minority, and he will never be Prime Minister – but he has the chance and the potential to capitalize on Ignatieff’s obstinacy.  I, for one, hope he meets with some success.  I think the Canadian left deserves a strong and principled alternative to the Liberal Party, and I think that will be best for Canada.

Jack Layton wakes up briefly, then hits “Snooze”

So, for a brief shining moment, Jack Layton opened his eyes, let in the light of day, and saw the real world. Then he promptly hit the snooze button and went back to bed.

At least, that’s they way I see it.

Jack Layton is starting to see that Michael Ignatieff doesn’t seem about (able?) to back down from his insanity and it’s put him into the very uncomfortable position of having to seriously look at what the Conservative government is doing and consider it’s merits, and possibly support the interests of Canadians. In a brief and shining moment of my own, I thought perhaps he had grown up. Then he opened his mouth.

“It could be a start” he says. Jack Layton appears to be laboring under the delusion that the Conservatives are going to yield to him on a number of issues in order to stay in power. I’m sorry Jack, I just don’t see it happening for a number of reasons.

First (and most obviously), it’s clear to most people that Jack Layton is backpedaling. The NDP are in no way ready for an election, and he’s looking for any straw that might allow him to retain some sort of dignity in the face of the utter destruction of his false-bravado. EI reform happens to be the carrot that Stephen Harper is dangling in front of him.

Second, with the BLOC coming out and stating that they will support this EI initiative in the ways-and-means motion on Friday, the BLOC has effectively undermined any NDP leverage. Pretty crafty of Gilles Duceppe actually. If he can get rid of the NDP, then he becomes the balance of power at all times.

Third, the Conservatives are not about to call an election, and as such, they’re perfectly content (and perhaps eager) to lay the blame at the feet of the Opposition Parties; and rest assured, that is exactly how it will pan out in an election.

Finally, as has already been discussed here, the NDP have painted themselves into a corner and have no good-will left with any of the other parties in Ottawa, and as such, they have no credibility remaining; a fair-weather friend on Parliament Hill.

The party of Tommy Douglas has become the Party of Jack Layton, and that’s been a disaster for them. Hopefully the NDP will soon re-invent itself or fade away.

Mark Holland: The New Generation of Liberal Leadership

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?

MH: Spirit of the West

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?

MH: Pierre Elliott Trudeau

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

« Previous Page — Next Page »