Dear Helena Guergis: Don’t quit!

I know I’ll be swimming against the tide here, but if I had one piece of advice for Helena Guergis it would be this: don’t quit!

Certainty, the Liberal Party isn’t offering that same advice. They just moved a press release succinctly titled: Minister Guergis must step down. I agree with all of the reasons cited in the release, from her staff letter writing club to her airport meltdown and, well, her just plain general incompetence for the job. She shouldn’t be a cabinet minister in the Government of Canada. She is plainly just not up to the job.

Why, then, do I not want her to resign? Because of all the grief and abuse she has been taking from her own party leadership who, instead of backing her up, have cut her adrift, and have taken to giving comments on background to every reporter on Parliament Hill bad-mouthing her, insulting her personally, and expressing their strident wish that they be free of this meddlesome woman.

When her male cabinet colleague, Jean-Pierre Blackburn, was in an airport incident of his own involving a now infamous bottle of tequila, what did a senior government official tell CTV? "He remained polite. He didn't pull a Helena apparently." Classy, throwing your own minister under a bus like that. The Conservative punditry such as former Harper communications guy Kory Teneycke, usually tightly scripted by the Harper PMO, have been unleashed to attack Guergis and demand she quit.

They’ve also certainly been feeding Bob Fife lots of anti-Guergis vitrol. This piece he filed today is a doozy, where he reports Conservative officials have told him Guergis has a revolving door of staff, has made no friends in caucus, PMO officials want her to resign to end the misery (they’re praying before a Buddha, apparently), no one in caucus or the party is defending her, she’s not very popular, no one really likes her in caucus, and so on. They also reportedly won't let her join in any reindeer games.

If you believe that we wouldn’t be hearing all this negativity on Guergis from official Conservative circles without Harper’s say-so, then I have a bridge in New York to sell you. It is obvious that the Harper Conservatives have launched a campaign to make Guergis as unwelcome as possible in the hopes that she will just take the hint, do them a favour, and just go away already.

A Guergis resignation would solve all their problems. They’d be free of the dead-weight, and could say how they’re so sorry to see her go, they’ll miss her, what a shame, etc. If they boot her out involuntarily, it’s more of a reflection on Harper: how could he have appointed someone so obviously unqualified in the first place, and why didn’t he cut her loose sooner?

What’s happening now is all about the optics and framing of her inevitable departure, whether it’s now, or later in the next shuffle. It’s also all in the very spirit of constructive dismissal (not legally, of course, since ministers serve at pleasure).

So that’s why I make this plea to Helena Guergis: don’t resign. No matter how many dirty stares they give you in the hallway, or nasty things Conservative surrogates say about you on Power and Politics, don’t give in. Don’t let them win, and give them the satisfaction of seeing you slink away. Just keep enjoying the ministerial limo and the business-class travel (just get to the airport on time, please) until the Harper crew finds some stones.

Don’t quit, Helena.

If they really want rid of you, make them fire you.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why are they all leaving Stephen Harper?

Yet another member of Stephen Harper's inner circle, communications director John Williamson, is fleeing for greener pastures:

Four flaks and counting. John Williamson, who joined the Prime Minister’s Office late last summer as Stephen Harper’s communications director, is leaving. Was it something we said?

No. The 39-year-old Atlantic Canadian wants to try his hand at elected politics – he is seeking the Conservative nomination in the federal riding of New Brunswick Southwest.

Greg Thompson, who recently stepped aside as Veteran’s Affairs Minister, has represented that riding for nearly 20 years and has decided not to run in the next election.

Mr. Williamson, a past federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, did not make much of an impression in his short time in the key PMO post. He was barely visible.

It once again raises the question: why are they all leaving Stephen Harper?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

All my Canada at 150 Coverage

Here are links to my full coverage of the Liberal Party's Canada at 150 policy conference in Montreal, where I was lucky enough to be accredited as a blogger:

Day One Blogs

• A BCer in Montreal for Canada at 150
• Liveblogging Canada at 150
• Education and Innovation: Back to liveblogging Canada at 150

Day Two Blogs

• Families, aging and man, I'm getting old: Liveblogging Canada at 150, Day Two AM
• Green shift, what green shift? Live-blogging energy, environment, and economy at Canada at 150

Day Three Blogs

• Canada and the world: Liveblogging the last morning at Canada at 150
• Youth and Asia: Liveblogging the final afternoon panels at Canada at 150
• The most important speech since Moses on the Mount? Livebloging Michael's closing speech at Canada at 150

Wrap-up blog

• Montreal an important step in the road – but just one step

Videos

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Montreal an important step in the road – but just one step

I wanted to step back and take some time after my three days in Montreal for the Canada at 150 conference to try to put it all in perspective, and I think at the moment the impact of the conference can be summed-up thusly: Montreal was an important step in the road, but only one step. Will it be another Kingston or Aylmer? Only time, and what the Liberal Party does with what they heard this weekend, will determine that.

(Click here for all my coverage, including videos, of the Canada at 150 conference)

It was definitely an important exercise, and on a number of levels, from engaging the citizenry and the party grassroots, to putting on the table the challenges Canada is facing as it approaches 150, and to begin thinking about how the Liberal Party – really, how any party that hopes to govern – can hope to meet those challenges.

On the engagement side, this was an impressive success that I hadn’t really anticipated a few months ago. When I first heard of the Canada at 150 concept, and when I was asked for my thoughts on what the conference should be, I was concerned it could turn out to be the elitist, insular academic exercise the usual critics panned it as. To be successful it had to be more about just that room in Montreal, it had to be a much broader exercise.

It turned out to be a much broader exercise than I imagined it could be. The entire conference was streamed live over the Web, allowing anyone to tune-in across the country, and around the world, and take part in the web chat. At the grassroots level, Liberal ridings organized satellite events across the country where party members gathered to watch the proceedings live, and many organized their own conferences where panels debated the issues facing their own communities. Within the conference, the questions to the panel alternated from the floor to the Web chat, and even Skype. I saw Gerard Kennedy during a break, standing in the corner with a laptop doing a Skype chat back to a satellite meeting in his riding. And Michael Ignatieff did a web video Q&A live with the web audience. It was far from an isolated group of Montreal elites, but a real fusion of online and offline interactivity on a scale I certainly haven’t seen at a political conference before.

As great as it is that more people were engaged though, the question remains, what did they see when they tuned into Canada at 150?

From my perch at the back of the room on media row (I was accredited as a blogger), I certainly heard much more about problems than I heard about solutions. There are certainly big challenges, and tough choices, coming for our country, and those chosen to govern it.

If I had one personal take-away from the weekend, it was that I really need to get focused on retirement planning and savings because, right now, I’m nowhere on that.

We heard of massive demographic shifts, and a skills shortage that will lead to a future of jobs without people, and people without jobs. Of the massive shortfall on retirement savings, the need for pension reform, and the inability of the current generation to care for ageing boomers. We heard that pricing carbon is the only effective way of dealing with climate change. We heard that poor, unemployed men are the major unaddressed global security concern in the 21st century. We heard that our health care system is in crisis and we need to make tough choices, none of which are politically popular. And we heard of the need for a re-centring of our foreign policy, and a plea to not abandon Africa.

We heard a lot on problems. On solutions, we heard substantially less (never mind how to pay for them) but there were a number that I liked. We heard that we need a national strategy on life-long learning if we hope to address the coming demographic shifts and resulting labour shortages. And we heard that it’s too important to our economic competitiveness to be left to the provinces alone – there must be federal leadership but as a coordinator and facilitator, not a dictator. We heard a call for more funding for home care to help people care for their elderly loved ones while reducing strain on the medical system, and for a shift from treating illness to preventative medicine as another way of constraining health care costs. All good ideas. So is a carbon tax but trust me, no way in hell we’re running on that one again.

Frankly, the problems, by and large, weren’t new to those that have been paying attention. Neither, frankly, were many of the proposed ideas and solutions. What is significant, I believe, was that for the first time a political party gathered the experts on a high profile stage to put it all on the table, and broadcast it to the world. An open and adult conversation, writ large. These are issues that any party that hopes to govern Canada in 2017, or next week, are going to have to deal with. And, by and large, all parties have been ignoring these elephants in the room.

No one claims to have all the answers, of course. But you need to start by having the conversation – by putting it on the table with Canadians. I think that began this weekend, and it will need to be a continuing process.

The question though, of course, is do Canadians want to have that conversation? Are they ready to be confronted with the harsh realities of these challenges, and the difficult choices they entail? And are we as a party ready to run on those choices? Particularly when faced with political opponents that will refuse to acknowledge the obvious challenges, and present an unrealistic but appealing don’t worry, be happy promise of much gain without pain? Do we want the mythical adult conversation, or do we want to remain with eyes closed?

I was thinking of this when I bumped-into former Liberal leader Stephane Dion, and I asked him if Canadians still want or expect big things from government, or if they just want competent, stay out of the way management. He said, basically, you’ve got to do what needs to be done. I agree; the trick though is getting elected first.

This weekend wasn’t about finding all the answers. It was about putting the challenges on the table, and beginning a conversation, as a country, about how we want to tackle them. The conversation will continue – I’m told to expect regional conferences soon – and the Liberal Party will gather its policies in a platform that is to be ready in the summer, although of course held for release, like every party, until the election.

We did get some nuggets in Ignatieff’s closing speech. The main one was a promise to freeze corporate tax rates, an eminently sensible proposal largely supported by the business community that increasingly recognizes, in the current budgetary climate, that restraint is in order. The Conservatives are already attacking but, really, how would it play with the mythical Tim Horton’s crowd to tell them “we’re freezing your taxes and cutting your services, but we’re giving the owners of Tim Horton’s a tax break?” We also got a promise that any new spending will be budget-neutral, meaning revenue or offsets will be found to support it without increasing the deficit, an important context-setting for what’s to come.

Otherwise, much of what we heard in Ignatieff’s speech I’ve heard before, particularly around a lifelong learning strategy. I think he used some of the same lines in his Vancouver convention speech. I support the idea, but I’m getting hungry for more details. He did pick-up on the shift to preventative care, which I support, but clearly there’s more thinking to be done on health care.

This weekend wasn’t a cure-all for the Liberal Party, and it was never intended to be. We have much work to do, both on policy development and on party organization. But it was an important step in the process, and will hopefully lead to a policy platform worthy of the challenge, and worthy of the Canadian people.

These challenges need to be addressed, so it may as well be us that addresses them. It won’t be easy – ignoring them, while fatal, is too tempting politically. But you need to fight the fights that are worth fighting. So I’m hopeful that, just maybe, as we move down the road from Montreal—the Liberal Party may just be willing to stand and fight for something once again.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Highlights of Michael Ignatieff's closing presser at Canada at 150

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The most important speech since Moses on the Mount? Livebloging Michael's closing speech at Canada at 150

2:36 PM: And here it is, the most important speech ever (TM) as Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff takes to the stage to a loud standing-ovation to deliver his closing address. Noting the great web interactivity, he says we've changed Canadian politics and it will never be the same. Let's not exaggerate Mike, but it was really fantastic.

2:39 PM:As Michael speaks we've just been handed the press release drawing on his still in-progress address. Skimming it while still trying to listen to his speech. He's committing on stage to a pan-Canadian learning plan, including early learning and childcare for every Canadian family that wants it. Also, closing the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal attainment, and seriously tackling illiteracy. Also need to make higher education affordable for the average middle class Canadian family, so if you get the grades, you get to go. I've heard that line from Michael before. It's a good line, but I'm still waiting on the how.

2:43 PM: Talking about families now, believes families are the core of life. He’s concerned about the burden of elder care on families though, and says government needs to help families with that growing challenge. And need to balance the growing costs of elder care and chronic care. And he sees a strong federal role there around a national strategy of preventative care, saying it’s the only way we can deal with the rising costs of health care.

2:46 PM: He wants extended home care support from the federal government, including extended compassionate leave, saying 16 weeks isn’t enough. He talks about a woman who came in to talk to him because she was caring for her dying husband and needed more help – he delivers a good like when he says he doesn’t want to have to have conversations like that in Canada, he wants to help her and so do Canadians.

2:50 PM: “I’m proud of the time I’ve spent out in the world, and I want more Candians to have that opportunity,” says Ignatieff. And I say finally, finally he takes that Conservative canard on directly and says, basically, bite me Steve.

2:54 PM: Shifting to the press release for some policy nuggets: A Pan-Canadian Learning Plan, Pension Reform. Energy Innovation, Deficit Reduction by getting to a deficit to GDP target of 1% within first two years of government, spending restraint through finding savings in partnership with public services and promising all platform promises will be priced within current budget framework without raising deficit, and a freeze of corporate tax rates at current levels.

2:59 PM: He's getting to the fiscal stuff now, promising while there's many things we want to do in 2017, loading our children with debt and deficits won't be something a Liberal government will do. No new spending unless we can clearly identify a source without increasing the deficit. We have to make prudent choices and make some room to realize some dreams.

Will also freeze corporate tax rates, he's now saying. It's Jeff talking for a bit now. The NDP will chortle, but one big difference. While in government, and in opposition, we lowered and supported lowering them down to current levels to encourage economic growth. It has worked, while the NDP opposed it every step of the way. With the current fiscal framework it makes sense to freeze them, but when this passes we'll go back to making sensible and mature economic choices while the Dippers go back to braying about corporate bogeymen.

3:07 PM: Says he's making these announcements because it needs to move people talk, because he respects these discussions here this weekend and now it's time for leadership, and he needs us with him.

3:17 PM: Web got unusable so updates slowed. Speech is over, more thoughts soon but up to the press conference now. Will be interesting to see how the media spins it, we'll get an early indication from their questions.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Youth and Asia: Liveblogging the final afternoon panels at Canada at 150

1:04 PM: We’re back for the afternoon session on this final day of the Liberal Party’s Canada at 150 conference in Montreal. Well, kind of back. The Hyatt’s WiFi has now become officially useless, so I don’t know when this will get online. Seriously, the Via Rail WiFi is better than the Hyatt’s. They’re clearly not ready for Canada and the digital world.

The afternoon keynoter is up though to set the scene for the final panel of the day, which is ending the day’s look on foreign policy with a look at Asia, and then young Canadians making a difference in the world without government backing.

And then Michael Ignatieff will give, according to the media that I’ve read, what will be the most important speech of his life and one that, if he doesn’t hit the ball out of the park, will lead to his immediate ritual suicide. And then he’ll have a press conference. So look forward to that.

Apparently Ignatieff had a conference call with the caucus over lunch, so I’m sure whatever he says will leak any minute anyways…

1:09 PM: OK, back to the hall though. The speaker is Dominic Barton, worldwide managing director of McKinsey & Co., and he’s speaking of Asia’s role in the World of 2017 and, I guess, what it will mean for Canada.

He’s talking now about the massive urbanization that’s underway in China, showing before and after pictures of cities like Shenzen. The difference in just a few years from sleepy historic-looking city to booming modern metropolis is astounding.

Some interesting statistics. Some 900 million consumers will enter the middle class in Asia by 2017, representing a massive new market. There’s also a massive shift from rural areas to cities, which carries many repercussions. What do they want? Education is one, and there’s opportunity both to grow institutions there as well as attract foreign students.

1:14 PM: It’s not just China, he adds. India, Indonesia, many countries are growing, need infrastructure, and are looking for partners.

1:18 PM: A Japanese mentor once told him Asia was a Western invention, the countries of the region don’t have that much in common with each other. Barton says he’d argue that’s changing, though, because of trade. Inter-Asian trade is expanding dramatically. Some 20 universities in China are now dedicated to teaching Mandarin speakers Arabic to facilitate trade.

1:21 PM: Where are these Asian companies going to build their North American headquarters? Barton says it could be Canada, but they’re not going to if we’re not out there actively engaging with them.

Interesting, he says the Europeans, and particularly the Spanish, are much more engaged in Asia than we are.

1:29 PM: There will soon be over 5 million annual Asian tourists, and we need to build an infrastructure to support and engage that opportunity.

Overall, Barton says there is a fantastic opportunity in Asia and we need to be more proactive than we have been or it’s going to pass us by.

1:31 PM: A few questions now, Barton is saying he’s like to see more eastern and Asian history taught at the primary level, and greater faculty exchanges at the post-secondary level. Also, our universities opening satellite campuses in the region, and vice versa.

Last question is from Penny Collenette, former Liberal candidate in Ottawa-Centre, and now at the University of Ottawa. I was afraid for awhile we’d have to go an entire Liberal-sponsored policy conference without mentioning water policy, but Penny saved us that fate.

1:40 PM: And now it’s the final panel before the MOST IMPORTANT SPEECH EVER by Ignatieff. It’s on Canadians making a difference in the world, particularly young , Canadians. Panellists are Yasmine Charara of Observatoire jeunesse Oxfam-Québec, Ryan Hreljac of Ryan’s Well Foundation, and Parker Mitchell of Engineers without Borders. It’s chaired by Dr. James Orbinski, a former president of Doctors Without Borders.

1:24 PM: Hreljac makes everyone wonder what the hell we were doing at 18.

1:44 PM: Mitchell says his group didn’t start out to be influential, it started out to make life better on the ground. RIM didn’t start to change communications, it started to make a really cool technology. His advice is let’s stop thinking about influence, let’s start doing things, having bold ideas, setting bold targets and going after them.

2:04 PM: Mitchell suggests a student loan interest/payment holiday while young people are volunteering with NGOs or overseas. Wouldn’t cost too much. I like that idea.

2:07 PM: Slight correction to my notes on this panel. Parker Mitchell isn’t here. Filling in for him is George Rota, also a co-founder of Engineers without Borders. So anything that was attributed to Michell, attribute it to Rota. My bad.

2:28 PM: I think this panel is up. It's been interesting, but I'm re-setting for Ignatieff's closing address. Buzz on press row is possibility of actual policy to be contained therein. We'll see. Catch you on the flipidy-flop.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Canada and the world: Liveblogging the last morning at Canada at 150

8:31 AM: We're running a little behind on the last morning of Canada at 150 in Montreal, but I'm settled into press row and looking forward to a morning of interesting speeches as debate as the topic turns to foreign policy, and Canada's place in the world.

There's a number of interesting speakers on the docket this morning. First-up, and the one I'm most looking forward to, is Robert Fowler, the Canadian diplomat and UN special envoy who survived a harrowing kidnapping ordeal in Afghanistan last year.

Also interesting will be Derek Burney, our former ambassador to the U.S and, interestingly, a senior Conservative and the fellow that ran Stephen Harper's transition team when he formed government.

In other news, after two days of fruit and sticky buns for breakfast, the Liberal Party sprung for a full hot breakfast buffet on press row this morning. Bacon, eggs, sausage, potatoes, the works. You may scoff but trust me, a well fed press is a happy press. And this is a big day, with Michael Ignatieff's closing speech and presser this afternoon. Already, the media seems in a much happier mood... Although, CanWest's David Akin just wondered by and mentioned that the coffee and mentioned the coffee apparently ran out...

Still, much larger press turnout today, the hall is full and we're getting started with the morning program. It's online at can150.ca, and live on CPAC today as well I believe.

8:46 PM: Robert Fowler says he won’t be mincing words and tells the non-Liberals in the room it won’t be him. He also says he is very grateful to the Harper government and owes it his life for getting him out of his kidnapping, but he’ll still call it as he sees it on their foreign policy.

He believes the Liberal Party has lost it’s way in policy terms, particularly in policy terms, and is in danger of losing its soul. It is willing to embrace anything in favour of getting power. It’s not the party that governed Canada during his time in public service, and hasn’t given Canada a coherent vision of what it’s about.

The Canada at 150 conference though he says does give him hope that things may be changing, it’s been a great conference, great discussions, he’s enjoyed being here, and presents hope we may be finding our soul once more.

8:52 PM: Fowler says Liberals and Progressive Conservatives did well in Africa, so it seems the Conservatives want to do something else to make their mark. Not that our hemisphere isn’t important, we can’t abandon Africa. Canada isn’t Liberal.

We’ll be seeking election to the UN Security Council soon; Fowler says our winning is far from a given. Indeed, he seems pessimistic. If we do win, it won’t be on our recent activities, but on our past reputation and on hope for what we may do in the future.

The world does not need more of the kind of Canada they’ve been getting, says Fowler. As the world has been getting smaller, countries have been turning inward and adopting me-first policies and attitudes.

8:55 AM: Most of the world doesn’t understand what we’re trying to accomplish in Afghanistan, says Fowler, including Canada. He says we won’t prevail there, we’re not willing to pay the price in blood and treasure it would take to colonize it and replace their culture with ours, because that seems to be what we want. We won’t outlast the insurgents/Taliban: we fight to go home to our families, they fight to die. With no vital interests at stake, we won’t pay the price. It’s time to leave, he says.

8:58 AM: When was the last time a Canadian idea made a difference on the world stage? Fowler says probably Lloyd Axworthy’s responsibility to protect initiative, with an assist, he notes, from Michael Ignatieff.

How about actions? He mentions Axworthy again in Canada’s push to band landmines. Also, the Canadian role in establishing the International Criminal Court.

How about leadership? Where are our Louise Arbours today?

9:02 AM: He’s on to the Middle East now, and speaking strongly against Israeli settlement construction, saying the government has sold out Canada’s international reputation for balance and fairness to lock-up the Jewish vote in Canada. He laments our “reckless posturing” in the region.

He says there will need to be a two-state solution, each with a piece of Jerusalem.

It didn’t begin with our present government, though, although they did ramp-up the volume. And it goes into the wider courting of ethnic constituencies, mentioning Liberals courting Tamils in Toronto, or all parties taking part in Sikh spring parades in Vancouver where photos of terrorists like the Air India bombers are displayed.

It’s a myth Canadians don’t care about foreign policy, he says. When its grounded in Canadian values, they will be behind it strongly. But when only given small-minded, mean-spirited, whatever the US wants, they’ll have little choice.

9:08 AM: Fowler notes after four budgets the Conservatives have clearly failed to live up to their commitments on raising foreign aid to a certain level and, to be fair, the Liberals did no better. Meanwhile, the billionth African will be born shortly, and in 2050 the continent will be 20% of the global population. The population is also increasingly urban.

9:17 AM: References work of Paul Martin done on African development helping African countries realize part of the way forward is encouraging investment and removing regulatory barriers to investment. We have failed though to live up to our development investment commitments.

A billion Africans depend on counties like ours to help them improve their break lives. They know we can’t do it for them, but they do expect our help. We need to renew our commitment to Africa, he says, and be long-term partner, and exits the stage to strong applause.

9:20 AM: Up now is Tim Gartell, former national secretary of the Australian Labour Party. He applaud Michael Ignatieff for having this event, noting there aren`t too many parties in the world that would invite people to come and speak to them, give them a pasting, and sit there and listen to it. And certainly not any right-wing parties.

9:24 AM: Felt the need to hydrate after Fowler’s interesting and hard-hitting speech, much of which I agree with, some of which I don’t. I thought he was a little off-base on Afghanistan and, while I do agree that both Liberals and Conservatives policies that are too one-sided on Israel with an eye to domestic political considerations, I felt his characterization of the conflict was incredibly one-sided the other way. There is lots of blame to go around, and it’s worth noting that the two-state solution Fowler called for has been offered and rejected by Israel as recently as Dayton, if I recall correctly, and was rejected and met with terrorist bombings.

Back to our Australian friend, though, now that I’ve gotten some water. Gartell is talking about differences and similarities between Australia and Canada, and how the countries see each other. Haven’t heard any jokes about speech plagiarism yet.

9:37 AM: Ah, here’s the mandatory speech plagiarism joke, as Gartell says he’ll now be quoting some excerpts form speeches by Australian prime ministers, which he understands is en vogue in Canada, although he’ll be only quoting labour PMs.

9:44 AM: Derek Burney is up now, wearing a suit and tie made in Canada. Thanks everyone for agreeing to listen to a discussion on foreign policy early on a Sunday morning, and thanks Michael for a great and important event.

He thinks Canada/US relations should rise above partisan politics which explains if you’re wondering, he says, why he’s here today (as a Conservative partisan speaking to Liberals.)

He says a single coherent voice for Canada is necessary, saying we have a unique ability to divide and conquer ourselves, which the US will exploit. We’re not served by a variety of voices at either the federal or provincial levels, he says. (I think he’s off-base here, is he telling opposition to shut it? And its not like US speaks with one voice, with their political system they’re way more fractious then us, Congress says one thing, White House another.)

Also, we’re not served by a frosty relationship with the US. Even if it may serve domestic interests, it’s counter-productive overall. We can disagree without being disagreeable. They’re the masters of grandstanding and spin, so they recognize it easily.

9:52 AM: Suggests the establishment of a new multi-national border commission that would streamline customs and border practices and remove barriers that are purely protectionist, not security. Give business stakeholders direct access to commission to air grievances.

He also wants harmonizing of manufacturing regulations, immigration policies, trade tariffs, and more policy cooperation on cross-border issues.

Says must be bi-national, not tri-national, because Canada/US issues are way different than US/Mexico issues, and we need to make sure US/Mexican issues don’t drive US/Canada border policy.

He wants NORAD expanded to land and sea, saying more security can make border entry easier.

9:57 AM: Climate and security is linked, and energy security is important. We need to act, even though cost is now and political benefit later, which politicians tend to prefer be reversed.

Back on his recommendations for harmonization in a variety of areas, I need to take issue. Our views and values on many of those issues, particularly immigration, tend to diverge widely from the U.S. But any harmonization is almost certainly to be on their terms, not ours. I’m not willing to sell out our values to the U.S. for expediency, and I don’t think most Canadian will be either.

10:03 AM: Says we need a more robust approach to the U.S., but accompanied by increased focus on trade and investment with Asia. Seems more opportunity there than trade with Europe, and says should begin building infrastructure for energy export to Asia.

Ends saying we need to bring the “own the podium” spirit to our foreign policy.

10:19 AM: Apologies for the long delay in updates, the Web has been acting-up again but it’s a break now, so I’m getting some bandwidth again. Lots of chatter in the halls about the Fowler speech.

As I write, Fowler is doing a Q&A with the Web cast audience, and just took a question on African development from a viewer in Italy. Cool.

10:34 AM: And the break is over, which means my bandwidth is also evaporating. So could be a bit before I get these updates online.

We have a panel now though on Canada’s presence on the world of 2017, where are the priorities? First, the panellists are asked to give one priority they’d give if they had 5 minutes with the PM.

Pierre Martin, a political science professor at Universite de Montreal, says as we reach out to emerging Asian powers we can’t forget the dominant reality of our relationship with the U.S. in our trade and life. Also, he’s disagreeing with Burney on the idea of Canada only speaking with one voice to the U.S. Martin says we don’t just have one line in hockey, we have many lines. In Copenhagen, who expressed Canada’s voice better? Not Jim Prentice I’m betting.

10:40 AM: Up now is Jeremy Kinsman, a former Canadian ambassador to the EU and high commissioner to the UK. We need to reconnect, the 21^st century will belong to those who connect, and we need to reconnect on the issues where we have credibility. Conflict mediation and resolution is one example. We need to get back to what we’re good at. Also, think of ourselves, and don’t think that means becoming more American. Americans like big ideas, and it’s time we came to them with something other than complaints. Co-managing the border, climate change, let’s have big ideas and get the Americans onboard. Co-managing stewardship in the Arctic, he says the US would welcome strategic leadership form Canada on big issues that show we’re thinking of North American issues.

10: 45 AM: Janice Stein from the U of Toronto’s Munk Centre says it’s time to end some myths: we’re not a middle power, whatever that is, and we’re not peacekeepers. We need to leave the 20^th century behind and look to the 21^st. We need to use a serious of institutions, trade, development, NGOs, to connect to developing world. Also, must consider what does the digital world mean to our place in the world, and how can we use digital tools to help? Gives example of paying Afghan police digitally to their cell phones to reduce corruptions.

10:50 AM: Stein says Canada has a very poor record on development assistance and it’s not that we don’t spend enough money at it; it’s that we do a poor job of it. And there won’t be more support for development assistance form Canadians unless we get better at it.

10:58 AM: Kinsman says culture, and promoting our culture abroad, is fundamental. You have to tell people who you are. Creativity and culture is synonymous with innovation, and cutting promoting our culture abroad is just plain dumb.

11:06 AM: Kinsman says if we stand for human rights somewhere, we have to stand for human rights everywhere. But that doesn’t mean we don’t engage with countries like China; he says engagement helps human rights.

11:15 AM: Kids interested in foreign affairs today shouldn’t be diplomats, they should go into NGOs. NGOs are largely delivering our foreign aid today, that’s where it’s at, says Kinsman.

Stien disagrees with Fowler that Canada has no strategic interest in Afghanistan, but says she does agree we’ve accomplished none of out strategic objectives, and as we move toward 2017 it will be important to understand why.

11:21 AM: Stein says the biggest security challenge in the world today is unemployed adolescent young men with no prospects and no hope, and it’s a huge security issue we’re not addressing through our development policies.

Kinsman agrees on unemployed young men, but adds under-employment of women is another major global issue. Stein responds emphasis on women is overlooking a major and growing challenge around young men,

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Green shift, what green shift? Live-blogging energy, environment, and economy at Canada at 150

1:52 PM: I’m running late, had to get some things done in the press room and then head over to the mall to pick up a few necessities. So I missed the bulk of the afternoon keynote from Sheila Watt-Cloutier, former Canadian President and International Chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council.

I did catch a bit of her address though, and what I heard was very interesting. She was largely talking about energy and climate change, also adding her perspective as an Inuit leader.

A few bullets: the Conservatives are doing nothing on the environment, the Liberals talked a lot but did very little as well. No matter which party is in government, she said we need more than words on climate change. We need a strong, comprehensive, meaningful plan for action.

She also added she worked with Stephane Dion on these issues, particularly when he was environment minister, and she said his commitment to these issues is substantial.

2:07 PM: It’s a two-speaker panel on Geopolitics and Canadian Interests in the North American Energy Market. First speaker is Michael Phelps. No, not that Michael Phelps. It’s the former chairman and CEO of Westcoast Energy Inc.

One of the things he said that struck me was that there is no will or consensus for meaningful action on climate change in the United States. He’s never seen it more divisive, and doesn’t expect any real action from there soon. The message being, Canada can’t wait for the United States to get its act together before we take meaningful action – which has been Stephen Harper’s consistent excuse for inaction.

Also, he said fossil fuels aren’t going away (well, they are running out, but you know what he means) so we need to make them cleaner and more sustainable, but also find, develop, and support as many energy alternatives and other forms of energy as possible.

2:15 PM: We’ll never get to 0 carbon says Dan Gagnier, chairman of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, but we should get it as low as possible. He dreams about getting to 0, and I tries in my own life. But carbon is a fundamental element of the universe. But if we got to 80 per cent of our goal of 0, he said, he’d be ecstatic.

Phelps said you have to price carbon, and in his view the only way to do it effectively and meaningfully is through carbon taxation. And myself and the other five Dion loyalists in the room applaud, while the others look uncomfortable.

2:26 PM: Phelps says the only thing that will change consumer behaviour is price – in the context of gasoline prices, reducing consumption, and getting out/away from cars. Hard to disagree with that. If se saw gas regularly at over $2.00/litre, even the well-off would drive less.

Maybe we do need higher-priced gas? Eddie Goldenberg just breezed by, I should ask him how that would look on a campaign brochure…

2:32 PM: Questioner asks if you crazy panellists seriously want the Liberal Party to go our and campaign – again – on a carbon tax, because, seriously, were you around during the last election. OK, I editorialize, but that’s the gist.

Phelps gamely steps up and says he knows the politics of it. He’s looked at cap and trade but calls it opaque and open to gaming; carbon tax is still the right policy. BC did it and it’s working, but they don’t want to talk about it. He said “I’d be standing on a soap-box and saying you should use less carbon because you’re going to pay for it.” Still, he recognizes while it’s the right policy, politically it’s suicidal, “I’d rather do the Mackenzie Valley project that run on a carbon tax.,” he said, referring to the controversial pipeline project I believe he helped sheppard.

2:39 PM: Next questioner says he takes issue with the position that the last election was about a rejection of a carbon tax by the electorate (he didn’t mention if he believes it was Stephane’s English or something). We lost the last election on many things, he says. If it’s the right thing to do, we should do it, which gets strong applause, and not just from the Dionistas this time.

Gagnier says people need to understand the benefits, if they see it as tax they’ll run for the hills. There are carbon taxes in Europe and there it’s revenue neutral. If you cut back other taxes, like income taxes it can work, he says. Give people a choice and they’ll make the right one.

I have to say, here is an issue where the gap between academia/policy wonkery and real politick is illustrated starkly. What do you do when you know, from a scientific, from an academic, from a fact-based discussion, what the right thing to do is, when you also know it is near death to sell politically. Because if you can’t get elected, you can’t do sweet all.

I’m not sure a carbon tax is necessarily unsaleable. I think we just did a particularly shitty job if selling it, and had a number of strikes against us before we even started. So I think it is possible for politicians to make these tough sells.

Should we go back to a carbon shift platform again, though? Well, I was talking with a friend yesterday about the need for our party to find some balls, and that would be pretty dammed ballsy. I’m certainly not eager to dive back into that pool, though. I’d need to see a lot more consensus, and public buy-in, before I’d support campaigning on it.

As a Dion guy, while I can’t help but feel a degree or ironic vindication, I also can’t help but wonder, where the hell were all these people when we were campaigning on this, and getting savaged on BS distortions? Now industry is coming out in favour, joining the environmental groups. We could have used them in 2008.

I guess my feeling is if they want us to put a carbon tax on the agenda, they’re going to need to step up and buy into the idea first. They should start campaigning for it, soften the ground, then maybe we’ll be comfortable jumping in. But not before.

2:55 PM: Next energy panel is up now, but I was writing through the break so I’m going to grab a beverage, back shortly.

3:07 PM: Really delicious treats in the coffee break; as a BCer I rightly choose a Nanaimo bar.

We’re back with another panel, dubbed Clean Energy and Canada’s Potential in the Low Carbon World: What’s Missing? One of the panellists, I think it was Steven Guilbeault, Co-Founder of Équiterre, just said that one in four of people that voted Liberal in the last election did so on the Liberal environmental policy, much higher than the other parties. That’s an interesting stat.

3:23 PM: And we’re back to a carbon tax again. I wonder how this very interesting debate would be going if this Hyatt was in Calgary, not Montreal?

One panellist says even Exxon is in favour of a carbon tax now and if Exxon is in favour, he’s not sure who could possibly be still opposed – except, perhaps, Stephen Harper. Oh, I’m sure we could find a few others. Or Harper could...

3:29 PM: Another panellist makes an interesting point about thinking more broadly. In Spain, he says, they wanted to get cars out of the city centre so they put a heavy tax on bringing cars downtown, although they didn’t call it a carbon tax. They got the intended result – much less cars in the city centre – but there were also unintended consequences. Cars are a major household expense, and once that capital was freed-up, spending increased substantially on health, on education, on entertainment. So you need to look beyond the immediate goal to the spinoffs.

3:45 PM: Hey, it's former Chretien-era natural resources minister Herb Daliwhal! Long time, no heard from. Is David Anderson here? Maybe he and Herb can arm-wrestle for old time's sake.

4:08 PM: Coffee break time again, lots of great conversation on the topics in the room continues out in the hall during the breaks. Lots of discussion on the policy and political merits of a carbon tax.

Meanwhile, saw Gerard Kennedy during the break, holding up a laptop as he stood in a corner, doing a skype webcam call back to the satellite Canada at 150 event in his riding of Parkdale-High Park. Great to see, and a fantastic example of how this event is not just limited to those in the room, but is interacting with Liberals and interested Canadians across the country.

4:23 PM: Last panel of the day is on a digital economy strategy. Hope Stephen Harper is listening, his throne speech said Canada needed a digital economy strategy, but declined to say anything about what it could be. Maybe something to do with computers. So maybe some ideas for him here.

If we’re going to get into copyright though, let me just say, why in the hell does the copyright lobby have such a vice-grip on the nads of all our political parties? It pisses me off. Find some balls to bring sanity to copyright, there’s my digital economy plea.

Also, apparently they have the Internet on computers now.

4:29 PM: Maybe I’ve followed these issues too closely, as it crosses over into my day job, but I’m not really hearing anything yet that I haven’t heard before. Or anything about what we should do about it.

4:36 PM: I misread the session title, it’s not about the digital economy, it’s about culture and the digital world. And my interest level just dropped substantially. Expect light live blogging or here on out.

4:54 PM: Pretty sure I just heard a panellist ask if these questions coming in to the panel over twitter were “live” and saying that, if so, that’s cool? And they’re on a panel on something involving the digital world? Wait until they see how I can predict the weather with my phone!

5:10 PM: I’m sorry but I’m shaking my head about this call for cultural protection for Canadian cultural creators in a digital/Internet world. They need to stop playing the victim-card. You could say the fittest will survive, but it’s not just that.

Artists should look at the Internet as the best thing that ever happened to them. Why? Because it’s a low-cost transmission medium. No longer do creative professionals need a publishing house, or a broadcaster, to buy their show and broadcast it to audience and compensate them through a portion of advertising sales. That model is passé.

Smart content creators can use the Internet to bypass the middlemen and go straight to their audience. They need to monetize, but going direct to their audience, if they have content people value, will be cheaper for their audience and more lucrative for the artists.

So don’t kvetch to me about the need for cultural protectionism because of the web. The web is an opportunity they could seize – if they don’t insist on seeing themselves as victims in need of protection.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Stéphane Dion on Canada at 150

Grabbed a brief minute with former Liberal leader Stéphane Dion today to ask him about what he wants for Canada in 2017, at age 150, and if people still expect big things from government.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: David Dodge scrums on health care

After his morning keynote at the Liberal Party's Canada at 150 conference in Montreal, former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge scummed with the media, and I joined in. He had some interesting things to say on health care reform, the political will to act and the need to find that will, as well as the impossibility of balancing a budget and maintaining services without tax increases. He also spoke of the need for an adult conversation on health care.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Turning the camera on the media at Canada at 150

Here at Canada at 150, the accredited bloggers have been given media passes and we're embedded with the infamous mainstream media, attending the press conferences and hanging-out in the back of the room on media row. It's been interesting talking to the journalists about their impressions of the conference, and how they cover things like this.

I thought it would be interesting to turn my camera on the media, and ask a few of the journalists here what they think the Liberals need to get out of the Canada at 150 conference this weekend. That's the question I put in this video to CanWest's David Akin, CP's Joan Bryden and the National Post/Calgary Herald's Don Martin.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Families, aging and man, I'm getting old: Liveblogging Canada at 150, Day Two AM

8:38 AM: And we're back for day two of the Liberal Party's Canada at 150 conference. After some late-ish dinner and drinking by everyone last night with various Montreal hot-spots, it's good to see a large crowd here for the first session, both attendees and back here on media row. No drop-off at all that I see, and certainly most people look more fresh and rested than I feel.

Maybe everyone made sure to drag themselves out of bed for our first speaker, former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge. He's going to do the scene-set on the morning topic, "real issues for Canadian families, how do we care? Basically, retirement planning and health care.

They're doing the pre-game show now, Dodge will be up shortly. Be sure to tune-in online at Canada at 150. I heard the web traffic greatly exceeded expectations yesterday, and with it now being the weekend, we're expecting even more today.

8:48 AM: Dodge looks back to the policies that were born of the Kingston and Alymer conferences, but notes the challenges of 50 years ago and today are greatly different. Then the baby boom was entering the workforce, now it’s leaving. More women are in the labour force. And the regular increases in prosperity and earnings are now tapering off, and are trending to even drop in coming years.

It’s a troubling trend that I’ve heard from others before: we’re getting to a point where, for the first time, the next generation may have it worst than the last. It’s a sobering thought.

What do we do? Dodge says it’s essential to increase productivity, and put in place measures, tax or otherwise, to incent growth. Tax policy needs to favour job creation and investment. He wants EI restructured to remove restrictions to labour mobility created by the regional nature of the program.

Dodge We should stick to a Canadian-focused approach to regulating the financial sector, instead of buying into the international panic to solve problems that we don’t have in Canada. (Here is where I insert a mandatory reference to the regulatory decisions of Chretien/Martin. David was probably around then too… ;))

The question of how do we care becomes moot, says Dodge, if we don’t have the financial wherewithal to do so. True enough. We need a pan to deal with structural deficits he sees sticking around as long as into the next decade.

8:55 AM: Now he’s saying something about bond rates, and I’m completely lost. Go read Report on Business or something for more on that.

Now he’s back on productivity, saying we need to get more productive or we’ll have to work longer hours, which will hurt family life. A good point.

On to retirement planning now, Dodge says we need to save more, and workers need to support themselves more – the government can’t be relied on. People will be working longer, and taking a lifestyle hit once they do retire.

Average worker, to retire at age 65 with income of 70 per cent of final earnings, needs to save 11% of earnings a year. That’s sobering, and reminds me I really need to get on that one of these days.

9:01 AM: Dodge is turning to health care now, pointing out that the issue is costs but with technological improvements, medical science can do more than ever before, and we want access to those advances. It’s increasing costs by at least 1.5% year, and with population increasing 1% annually and population ageing, health care costs will accelerate even more greatly than before. Long-term care costs will also be increasing by 8% annually by the end of the decade, growing at double the rate of government revenue growth. And even the most optimistic projections won’t cover it.

What do we do? There are options. One is to way for it directly, such as a dedicated health tax. Another is to reduce the scope of the public system, forcing people to rely more on private insurance. The third is co-pays. And the fourth is pure two-tier, let the public system decline and those with the wherewithal go private.

There are no easy answers, says Dodge, but it’s time to actually have an adult debate on the topic, and fully and frankly consider these issues.

9:06 AM: Finally, he turns to long-term care. People often relied on their children to ship them off to the home or for long-term care, but Dodge notes boomers have had less children then past generations. So there will need to be a possible government role, and we’ll need to come up with new ideas on long-term care,

Concluding, he says we need to face up to these problems now, and there needs to be federal leadership: the feds can’t dump it on the provinces, and all governments can’t just dump it on people to fend for themselves. We do care as a country, and we need to act.

9:32 AM: The panel is now on retirement is up now an I'm back in the room getting up to speed, after leaving the room for a post-speech media scrum with David Dodge. Shot some video, he had some interesting things to say on the choices for government.

Speaking of video, I'm just posted one where I turn the camera on the media and ask them what they think the Liberals need to get out of the conference this weekend.

By the way, they've been very good at the conference about taking questions both in the room, but as many from the Webcast, and often via Skype video. Great interactivity to take the conference outside of this room into the many satellite events across Canada, and to people watching from home.

9:57 AM: Interesting discussion from the panel on retirement, and lots of interesting questions from the floor and the Web. I’ve been listening more than taking notes the last little bit. Interesting to see Canadian Labour Congress president Ken Georgetti on the stage at a Liberal-sponsored conference. Pretty hard to call him a Liberal partisan.

Also, just joined on press row by Macleans’ Paul Wells, totting a copy of, of course, Le Monde. CTV's Roger Smith also just came in.

10:05 AM: Lots of talk of defined-benefit plans (you get a guaranteed benefit on retirement) vs. more market-based systems where your benefit is based on the performance of the markets. Nortel is coming up often, and what happened with its pensioners through their descent into bankruptcy.

Some dissent on the panel on this issue. Obviously, we’d all prefer a guaranteed income. It seems to be an increasing anachronism, though. It’s expensive, it puts significant fiscal pressure on both management and labour, and too often plans have been allowed to drop below full-funding for various reasons, and have often been downgraded through collective bargaining. Some say we need government regulation, others say it’s a market issue.

I’d say the old model of large defined-benefit plans provided by an employer in partnership with labour is probably outdated. It worked better in an era where someone stayed in the same job for all their lives. We’re past that, though. People now will work many, many jobs in their lifetimes. And younger workers don’t want to stay with one employer all their lives.

I think by wanting that labour mobility, we as younger workers accept certain trade-offs. Large-scale defined employer plans may be one of them. Possible solutions? I’d say among them are either the government stepping in with a large-scale defined plan, perhaps with mandatory savings, maybe expand the CPP, or just put the onus on people to sink or swim.

At a minimum, though, I think a minimal government social safety net is needed, because too many seniors live below the poverty line, and that’s only going to increase. That means fixing CPP, at a minimum.

Off for a break, then a panel on healthcare.

10:50 AM: And we’re back for a panel on healthcare, the ever looming but presently ignored elephant in our country, and indeed the world. Costs spiralling out of control, population ageing, what ya gonna do?

10:56 AM: The panel is three doctors. Certainly very learned ones, and from a variety of areas of the medical field, but I wonder, isn’t having a panel of just doctors kind of a limited perspective?

There seems to be a consensus from the doctors on shifting away from disease and more towards encouraging and managing health. That makes sense, prevention will always be cheaper than prevention. It’s the same theory the left argues on crime – better, and cheaper, to prevent crime by addressing root causes than spending a fortune jailing criminals.

Very sensible, and easy to say, but what would it mean to shift our medical system from focusing on disease to focusing on health? What would that involve, specifically? I’m not entirely sure. But preventative medicine seems like one way (and there will need to be many more) to address the issues with the system.

11:17 AM: Lots of talk on nutrition, childhood obesity, and so on. On another matter, though, also talk of service delivery. I wonder if it’s time for the left (I’m including myself here) to consider if who delivers the service is perhaps less important than who pays for it.

We do have private delivery of publicly-funded health services today, that’s a widely known but largely ignored fact. We tend to shy away from talking about it for fear or being drawn into a two-tier healthcare debate.

There are good, sensible reasons for private service delivery though: they can usually do it more cheaply and efficiently. Not always, there will always be services where its not a fit.

I think, though, that we should be less focused on who delivers the services. As long as it’s still public pay, I think the fundamental tenets of public health care are protected, and universality and access can be ensured. So let’s get innovative and creative around service delivery.

11:29 AM: Frank McKenna asks a question on health care. Well, more of a speech really – maybe he misses them. He wants the feds to do more, and he wants the feds to have the courage to do more. The lack of catastrophic drug coverage is a major hole in Canada. Also, he wants the Canada Health Act opened-up to allow experimentation around service delivery to happen at the provincial level, looking at things like more nurse practitioners, to find best practices that can be replicated in other provinces.

11:54 AM: And the health panel is wrapping-up, lunch beckons. Panel asked for one recommendation. They are: invest in innovation in new ideas. Prevention, not consequences. And nothing matters to Canadians more than their health.

The environment and the economy after lunch, new blog post then. Off to eat.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Jean Chretien and Michael Ignatieff at Canada at 150

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Education and innovation: Back to liveblogging Canada at 150

1:53 PM: And we’re back to live-blogging. Michael Ignatieff had a press conference over lunch, a few interesting things from that. Also, a lot of interest from the Quebec press on the niqab issue. I don’t think he really gave an answer per se, at least not in English.

I have some video of Jean Chretien and Ignatieff that I’m rendering now, it will be online later this afternoon, web-connection willing.

I was editing while listening to a keynote from Sheryl WuDunn, co-author of Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide. I hope you caught it online because it was a great speech with some inspiring stories of women and girls around the world overcoming challenges to achieve amazing things. She also talked about very simple things we can do to help them, from maternal care to idioized salt to micro-loans.

The afternoon panel is up now on education and life-long learning, and includes Lloyd Axworthy. Looking forward to hearing his thoughts.

2:02 PM: Paul Cappon is speaking now, he’s a fill-in speaker and president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Council on Learning. I like his story about a UK senior university administrator. He told Capon how he meets with the PM four times a year to brief him in the state of education in the country, and progress made since the last report – just three months ago. It really helps top focus the system on continual improvement, and improvement now. We need that level of federal interest, and scrutiny, in Canada.

Constitutional separation of powers can’t be an excuse for federal inaction on education. Australia has a similar system, but they have national standards, benchmarks and goals, and it makes a difference. Even in the European Union, there are pan-European moves on standards and harmonization of goals. Canada is doing nothing in this area, and it must.

2:08 PM: Carolyn Acker, founder of Pathways to Education Canada, is making a good point by turning our attention to the still unacceptably high, high school drop-out rate. Because we’re not going to get more post-secondary grads without more high school grads.

We absolutely need better schools, says Acker. That’s where our efforts have been focused for years, though, and clearly it’s not enough. It goes into the community. We need to address poverty, we need to give youth role models, and we need to give them real-world opportunities to link education to their lives and make it relevant. Pathways seeks to help with this.

2:15 PM: And Lloyd Axworthy, former Liberal foreign affairs minister, social policy guru and U of Winnipeg president, is up. He says we need a national learning strategy. We need a network that combines universities, schools and community development. You can’t separate early childhood development from k-12 from post-secondary. Education is now inter-woven and life-long.

Lloyd asks, why not a granting council for community learning, to support efforts across the country and coordinate pan-Canadian efforts? He wants to develop a national learning network in Canada to make education seamless and break down the barriers to different forms of education in the country.

He sees the universities as hubs for this, as they have many resources that are being underutilized. At the U of W, he’s reaching out to First Nationals communities. Even letting people without access to computers come in to use their labs is making a difference, he says.

2:49 PM: Popped upstairs to upload video over the hardware, back to the conference soon.

3:08 PM: Checking back in on the education panel. Apparently, the children are still our future. Take note.

3:52 PM: And we're back from coffee break for a panel on innovation.

3:53 PM: Open Text’s Tom Jenkins is a tech guy, but he says when thinking about innovation we need to move beyond technology, because it’s really about economics. Linda Hasenfratz of Linmar Corp. talks about manufacturing, and Roger Martin of the Rotman School of Innovation says invention isn’t the same as innovation. Invention comes from the inventor, innovation comes from the user. It’s not about technology, it's about improving the user experience.

Also, my Chretien/Ignatieff video is up.

4:08 PM: Now we’re moving into commercializing on innovation. This is veering into my day job area so I’m going to stay away from this one here. Hopefully somewhere Paul Wells is watching the Web cast, though, he loves this stuff.

And hey, there’s Errol Mendes of the U of O, oft-quoted expert on legal stuff and secret documents, at the mic asking a question on innovation. He’s wondering about giving tax incentives for people to upgrade their skills, matched or supported by private-sector employers. He wants a bigger private sector role.

Also, Rotman's Martin wants the same focus on math and science education put on art. Wonder how many art classes the Rotman School of Business offers?

5:08 PM: Closer form Jenkins on his advice for politicians/government: measure outputs. If it ran his business the way he sees policy being run in this country, he’d be bankrupt. Measure the outputs, not the inputs. We measure the inputs because it’s easier, but it’s the outputs that matter.

5:10 PM: And Mauril Belanger is wrapping the day. Cocktail reception, then I’ll try to wrangle some dinner with some blogger peps, then probably more cocktails. Have a great night, see you tomorrow.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liveblogging Canada at 150

9:54 AM: Hi everyone. I'm settled into press row at the Liberal Canada at 150 policy conference in Montreal. It's actually overflow seating here on press row, big media turnout for day one. Liberal Arts and Minds is to my right, and fellow National Poster Don Martin is to my left. They should really switch spots, shouldn't they?

I'll be live-blogging the proceedings with this post, so check back and refresh it throughout the morning.

Just shot some video with Jean Chretien, will try to get it up soon. Also spotted: Paul Martin. John Turner has also been spotted, and Stephane Dion is supposed to be here.

10:06 AM: Don Martin has moved, now Leslie McKinnon from CBC is to my left. Hope I didn't scare Don off.

The conference co-chairs are now opening the conference. We had a media technical briefing earlier this morning. Among the highlights: the media (and bloggers) will be fed lunch. That's important, because a hungry media is an angry media.

Other more pertinent briefing details, though: the theme of the day is jobs. The keynoters will set the stage, then we'll get into the nitty-gritty. Michael Ignatieff will make a keynote, but then he'll be sitting in the room and listening like all the other participants.

Over the weekend, 70 satellite events will be held by local Liberals in ridings across Canada. Today, 20 are underway. One of the more ambitious is in Peterborough, which is holding its own three-day event, including townhalls with local speakers.

Much has been made of the presence of MPs. I'm told 1o to 12 will be here at different points during the weekend, all with policy or platform responsibilities. The rest are organizing riding-level satellite events to bring the event closer to local Liberals across Canada.

Also, a team of 10 party live bloggers, tweeters and Facebookers will be at at the event. It`s all being webcast at the Canada at 150 site, and I`m told they`ll be doing regular pre and post-game shows as well, so if you`re at home, tune in.

10:12 AM: A very nice welcome from a local First Nations chief, including an accapella rendition of O'Canada in what I believe was Mohawk. Hope Stephen Harper won't fiddle with the lyrics, it was very nice.

10:21 AM: Michael Ignatieff is giving the opening address now. He says he looks out at this room and says you’re described as intellectuals and thinkers, but you’re much more than that. You’re doers, man and women of action that have lived the dilemma of passing from reflection to action. That’s the challenge of this weekend. Reach out, be bold, but ask what’s doable and practicable.

An interesting bit of expectation-setting there, I think. Practicality is important for political parties, obviously, but so is thinking big, I belive.

He says the party held 50 public hearings during prorogation. What was incredible was the deep longing and learning of Canadians to speak to and demand more of their political representatives. Engage with us more, and more honestly.

10:27 AM: We’ve been here before, says Ignatieff. Lester Pearson called the Kingston Conference, which set the stage for a government that gave us medicare, pensions, and more. And Jean Chretien called the Alymer Conference, which helped set the challenges of the economic crisis Canada was then facing, and that the Liberal government conquered.

We’re here for our children, to leave them a better county.

Setting an objective, 2017 is very close. Ignatieff says it allows us to focus on what kind of country we want at age 150. He wants the most educated, the most green, and above all the most international, interested and engaged in the world. Competing, thriving, never settling for second best.

“I’m here to welcome controversy, I’m here to welcome passion, I’m here to welcome debate,” says Ignatieff. It can’t be a mutual admiration society, he wants heated debate and challenging ideas. “You can’t lead if you don’t listen, you can’t learn if you don’t listen, and if you don’t like hearing opposing ideas you shouldn’t be in this room.

10:41 AM: I’m backed, popped out of the room after Michael’s speech so I could get a simultaneous translation do-hickey and understand the French speakers. Such as Marie Bernard Meunier, a former Canadian Ambassador to the Netherlands and Germany who is speaking now on the evolving global reality.

10:50 AM: Meunier makes a good point when, talking about the increasing about of information we have available to us in the digital age, we know more and more but understand less and less. As Oscar Wilde said, we know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

She says he hopes after the next wave of austerity measures we’ll still have a foreign policy, and enough resources to implement it. We need a more robust foreign policy, and it needs to start in Canada. If we can’t get our act together internally, we won’t be taken seriously on the global stage. We need to engage diversity of stakeholders across Canada.

We also need more robust, or new, international organizations. But meat on the bones of G8, G20, make them real and relevant.

10:55 AM : Now speaking on emerging pressures and approaches in social policy is Sherri Torjman,Vice-President, Caledon Institute of Social Policy. Talking of advances such as medicare, she says a social agenda can’t be a trade-off for an economic agenda. We need both.

Speaks to importance of access to education, both economically and socially. Fighting poverty. Availability and spread of EI has narrowed, we should consider a guaranteed annual income, and welfare reform. We have many of the policy levers to address poverty issues, but she says there’s a poverty of interest and a poverty of will to really address the challenges.

Speaking to the importance of early childhood and learning. She points out (without mentioning the Liberals) that we had agreements in place across the country in 2003 that have now been allowed to lapse for a cash payments scheme that is a lot of money for not creating a single childcare spot. Also need to consider in-home caregivers, both for children and for seniors.

Should consider a modest caregiver allowance like in the UK, or build on existing programs. Don’t be distracted by low-hanging fruit, just topping up existing programs. Need targeted help where needed.

Pensions, and lack of retirement savings, is a major issue. Reform needed. Mandatory savings, perhaps?

Cost, how do we pay for it? She wants to look at boutique tax incentives to the wealthy going away, as well as, basically, corporate welfare. Also, look at preventative measures (such as crime prevention) to reduce the money we spent on prisons and incarcerating criminals.

11:10 AM: The wireless here at The Hyatt officially sucks. Apologies for the updates getting sporadic. I’ll take notes and upload as able.

11:12 AM: The phrase “fiscal imbalance” makes an appearance, and half the Liberal Party groans. Not in the room, though. Metaphorically. But she’s right that the challenges at the municipal and provincial levels are vast.

11:24 AM: There’s another speaker now but I’m still trying to get the Web to stop sucking, it’s really aggravating. I can’t post anything. Also, John Turner just sat down in front of me. He’s looking a little better than when I saw him last in Vancouver for convention.

11:43 AM: Web may be cooperating a bit again, fingers crossed. I'll try to get caught up.

11:39 AM: Up now is Rick Miner, professor emeritus at Senneca College. He’s giving a statistics-heavy presentation, focusing on changing demographic trends, and how the boomer retirees, birth rates and immigration impacts labout availability and the talent shortage. Basically, how many people do we need for the future economy, and are they out there? Right now, he says there’s a major gap. We have increasingly unemployable people, and growing the population alone isn’t enough. We need more education and a larger labour pool.

There’s no silver bullets, he says, no easy answers. But something has to change, or we face a future of jobs without people and people without jobs. Immigration also isn’t the answer, he says, and by and large it takes an immigrant 10 years to reach Canadian workforce participation levels. We need to work on that though, as well as Aboriginal participation rates. Also, we need to leverage disabled Canadians to raise their participation rates.

11:54 AM: Miner says we should consider bringing back more three-year bachelor programs. But says there needs to be an attitudinal change that post-secondary education must now be mandatory, it can no longer be optional for the new jobs.

Also, mentions the need to address adult literacy seriously.

We need 4 million more workers by 2031. Need to seriously invest in re-training, but it will pay off-long-term. The recession may have bought us a year, but we need to act now. And it can’t be left to the provinces, we need national leadership and a national strategy on education, it can’t be dismissed as a provincial issue alone.

11:59 AM: Miner will be wrapping shortly. So I will too. Expect a new blog shortly, or maybe tweets, for Ignatieff's press conference starting around 12:15.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A BCer in Montreal for Canada at 150

I'm heading downstairs shortly for a Travelodge breakfast and then it's down the street to check-in for day one of the Liberal policy thinkers' conference, Canada at 150, in Montreal.

Got in last night, went to the Canadiens game, and joined some fellow bloggers and some media folks for a drink. I walked by the convention centre on my way to the game and realized the last time I was there, and in this city, was the weekend why Stephane Dion won the Liberal leadership. It seems like a lot longer than three-and-a-half years ago. So much has changed, and yet so much is the same. Many of the challenges facing the party have nothing to do with the leader, and we're still trying to address them.

Skimming the media headlines this morning was interesting. A few weeks ago, the media declared the conference an inevitable failure before it has even began. Today I'm reading headlines that indicate either it's a waste of time, or it's a make or break last-stand for Michael Ignatieff. Such extremes.

And such drama. My expectations are considerably lower, although not has low as perhaps the party has been trying to set. This weekend isn't make-or-break, but it is important to have a wide-ranging, no-holds-barred discussion that pushes the traditional boundaries and generates some real ideas we can take into the next election, and -- more importantly -- beyond.

I want to hear more than the usual platitudes -- the children are our future -- and instead hear some big ideas, some critical thinking on the major issues of the day, and some thinking that goes beyond the next confidence vote or the next election.

I'll be blogging throughout the weekend, tweeting (@jeffjedras) and shooting some video as well, so stay tuned. And tune in to the Web cast to watch from home.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers