Day 2 a Wynning day at #olpldr

After about two hours sleep, I made the trek downtown from Scarborough bright and early Saturday morning to see if I had a shot at being promoted from alternate to voting delegate, and would have the opportunity to casta vote for Gerard Kennedy in the Ontario Liberal leadership race. Alas, I wasn't on the list, so I could only watch, cheer, persuade, and hope for the best.

Paths to victory

Going in, Kennedy was a long-shot, but there was a path to victory for him. It had to happen early, though. 

The first ballot results were pretty well set based on the results of delegate selection. In my mind, we would know in the 20 minutes between the announcement of those first-ballot results and the deadline to drop off 2^nd ballot voluntarily if he was going to have a shot at winning. If he – or Charles Sousa or Harinder Takhar for that matter – were going to have a shot at winning, one of them had to go to the other before that ballot was set. If Kennedy picked up someone's support it would have shown momentum and moved him within reasonable striking-distance of the two frontrunners, Kathleen Wynne and Sandra Pupatello, making him a legitimate choice for delegates not sold on either of the top two. But if he didn't pick up that support early, in that 20 minutes, the victory of one of the top two would be inevitable, and delegates would make their choice between the two.

Rumours abounded on the hospitality circuit that Takhar would drop to go to Kennedy, and early, perhaps delivering an endorsement during his speech. It seemed likely Eric Hoskins would go to Wynne, possibly delivering an endorsement during his speech, so Kennedy needed Takhar to have a path to victory on Saturday.

So maybe speeches do matter

Once the program got underway, the focus of the morning was the demonstration and speeches, with each leadership candidate having 30 minutes to make their final pitch to the delegates.

I hadn't been following the leadership race too closely, having been somewhat preoccupiedwith the federal affair, so I was interested in learning more about the candidates. Of course I knew Kennedy, and had formed impressions of Pupatello, Wynne and Hoskins, but knew little about Sousa and Takhar.

Takhar had a strong speech, with some good policy but a very compelling personal narrative. His story about his immigration to Canada, and the compromises he had to make to his religious and cultural identity in order to find employment, was powerful. It reminded us of how far we have come, that he could now be on this stage as a leadership contender, but also reminded us of how far we still have to go. For those hoping for an early move to Kennedy though, the speech ended with no announcement.

Kennedy was up next, and his team's blue day two swag (tied to a Kennedy wave message) was a visible presence in the arena. Someone on Twitter remarked he delivered an address that reminded his supporters why they supported him, but may not have swayed other delegates. I think that was probably fair. I know his message resonated with me. It hit the issues I care about, from party reform to education, and made me proud to have supported him. But as much as I like the message, it seemed to lack a certain energy, a certain call to movement.

Wynne spoke third, but it was undoubtedly the climatic moment of the morning. There are some pundits that say speeches don't matter at these things. These people are full of crap. This was a delegated convention, her audience was all in that room, and their second choice votes were up for grabs. And with the two frontrunners in a dead heat, the speeches could make a real diference. And her's did. While the dancing was high-risk, it played to the fun and high-energy nature of her presentation. She was throwing a party, and you wanted to join. Her speech offered vision, and it offered unity. It was aspirational. And it was bold, taking head-on the “Ontario isn't ready for a gay premier” bullshit and swatting it away. It dared us to be better. I was leaning that away before, but she solidified my second choice support in those 30 minutes.

A lot of my organizer friends were involved on Team Sousa, and they had a presence at the convention that belied their delegate count. Their #CS521 (Charles Sousa 5^th to 1^st) slogan bespoke their plucky underdog spirit. His speech was well delivered and offered some interesting and important policy prescriptions. But after the emotional high of Wynne's address, he had a tough act to follow.

Pupatello's presentation didn't really connect for me. It was well crafted and delivered, it was professional, but it was just missing something for me. She was a bit more blunt, a bit less conciliatory, and the tone seemed a bit more suited to a post-vote victory address than an appeal for support from people that may not have you as their first choice. Contrasted to the tone of her brief concession remarks after the final ballot – energetic, magnanimous, fun and spot on – the tone just seemed off to me.

Rounding out the program was Dr. Hoskins, who had the unfortunate slot of being between the delegates, the media, and lunch (I had Chipotle, it was excellent). Many were also expecting an endorsement from the stage, with the rumour being a move to Pupatello, who, according to several reports, had sent delegates to don Hoskins shirts to bolster his floor demonstration. So between their desire to get to lunch and watch for an endorsement, many missed the content of a strong address from a very accomplished man. Hoskins is one of those people we always say we should have more of in politics, with as impressive a personal biography as you'll ever see. Sadly, with the lowest delegate count his first-ballot exit was inevitable. His speech ended with no endorsement, and lunch could be procured (chicken burrito, no beans).

Ballot One

First, though, we would get the results of the first ballot. This was less important than what would happen immediately after: while the last place candidate would be automatically dropped, the other candidates would have 20 minutes if they wanted to withdraw voluntarily from the next ballot. And it was in this 20 minutes that the course of this race would be decided.

On ballot one, it was:

Pupatello 599 votes 28.7%

Wynne: 597 votes 28.6%

Kennedy: 281 votes 13.5%

Takhar: 235 votes 11.3%

Sousa: 222 votes 10.7%

Hoskins 150 votes 7.2%

For my preferred candidate, Gerard Kennedy, the next 20 minutes would determine if he had a shot or not. The problem was that he was in the middle – far enough back of the top two to be out of the pack, not far enough ahead of the others to separate himself from them. He needed to pick up Takhar, Sousa or Hoskins to vault himself into consideration. Basically, if one of the 3rd-5^th candidates going to win, one of the others had to fall on their swords and make an early move to one of the others. Otherwise, either Wynne or Pupatello would win, and each ballot they remained would only prolong the inevitable.

Hoskins quickly made his way to the Wynne camp, as most expected. It was an early momentum boost for Team Wynne, who seemed to me to have greater growth potential than Pupatello. When no further dropoffs were announced, I began to wade through the crowds of people lining up to vote on ballot two and head for the street, and my burrito. With Takhar staying on the second ballot and no move to Kennedy, it wasn't looking good for Gerard but it wasn't completely over yet. And then I made it to Carlton Street, and it was.

Overhearing two Pupatello delegates discussing Takhar's move to Sandra's camp, I immediately turned to my BlackBerry and Twitter to confirm. Bad rumours of moves to Pupatello had abounded all morning, but sadly, CP24 confirmed this one has true. While he was still on the second ballot, he had moved to endorse Pupatello. For her, it was a much needed move to counter the momentum of Hoskins to Wynne. And for Kennedy, it was the closure of his last path to victory. While it seemed like a deal had been done the night before, it's never done until it's done. Harinder decided to go another way, and the die was cast: it would be Wynne or Pupatello, and Ontario would soon have its first female premier.

Ballot Two

Coming back to the hall from lunch buoyed by Chipotle goodness but saddened by the inevitable defeat of my preferred candidate, many were already looking ahead to second choices. The tide, to me, definitely seemed to be with Wynne. I made arrangements to procure a Wynne scarf, which unlike much convention swag is actually high quality and very warm, and shall be my daily scarf through the rest of the winter. While some of my Kennedy friends tried gamely to create scenarios, for most there was a sense of resignation, and a strong feeling for Wynne as the next best choice. Team Sousa seemed less willing to consider what would come next, even as hopes for a CS521 faded. Team Wynne was energetic, Team Pupatello, the frontrunners going in, seemed nervous.

The second ballot results solidified the die that had been cast earlier in those crucial 20 minutes:

Pupatello: 817 votes, 39.4%

Wynne: 750 votes, 36.2%

Kennedy: 285 votes, 13.7%

Sousa: 203 votes, 9.8%

Takhar: 18 votes, 0.9%

Kennedy only gained a handful of votes; his path to victory was already closed. He could stay on for further ballots, but it would only delay the inevitable. Sousa had gained another ballot with Takhar not getting off the 2^nd ballot in time, but he too had no path to victory.

While Pupatello had actually gained ground on Wynne from the first ballot, I actually still liked Wynne's chances better. The gap wasn't wide enough, and her growth potential was greater. At this point, the thinking was Kennedy to Wynne, and Pupatello to Sousa. I saw Kennedy delivering most of his support (which ideologically would be unlikely to go Pupatello) with Sousa's likely splitting, creating a narrow Wynne victory.

Again, we had 20 minutes to see who, besides Takhar, might drop from the ballot and move to another camp.

It happened quickly, it happened dramatically, and it happened unexpectedly. Sousa was the first to make a move, leaving his section of the arena stands (which was beside Pupatello) and moving across the arena, toward Wynne's. It was an unexpected move, and as I strained to follow from the rafters, I wondered if he'd pull a fake-out and loop back around the media risers to Pupatello's box. Then the cameras found him in Wynne's literal and figurative embrace, a scarf draped around his neck, and it was done. While there was much talk going in of Kennedy as the queen maker, it was Sousa that sealed the deal, and likely the finance minister's post in next week's cabinet shuffle. Kennedy's move to Wynne shortly thereafter seemed inevitable, and wrapped a bow around the likely outcome.

With the third ballot cast, I headed out to the Holiday Inn to enjoy an adult beverage with some Liberal friends without convention passes. What did give me pause on my way out though was a large gaggle of Sousa delegates at the coat check, clearly heading home without having voted. This thing wasn't decided yet – either candidate could come out on top.

Third and final ballot

As I enjoyed a glass of wine next door at the hotel bar, I noted a good number of bar goers wearing Wynne swag, but couldn't spot one wearing the gear of the other front runner. I decided this could mean one of two things: either Team Pupatello was working the vote too hard to take a break, or they were in no mood for adult beverages. While I pondered this, I learned that some sort of flood in the voting room had delayed things, and so I ordered another glass of wine.

I finally did make my way back into the arena – this time the protestors had cleared, leaving behind only discarded protest signs and littered Tim Hortons cups – and set back up in the rafters to await the result. And after several false ten-minute warnings, it came:

Wynne: 1,150

Pupatello: 866

With both Sousa and Kennedy moving to Wynne, the result wasn't as close as it seemed it may be earlier – it was a clear victory for Wynne. Pupatello was magnanimous and genuine in defeat, and Wynne conciliatory and inclusionary in victory. She promised a quick return to work with a speedy recall of the legislature, and wasted to time reaching out across party lines to the NDP and the Conservatives, the latter of which wasted no time launching an attack ad.

It will be interesting times ahead. Some pundits wasted no time saying a gay woman from Toronto (actually, Richmond Hill, to be accurate) would never sell outside the GTA. I have to say, I'd hate to be someone that has such a low opinion of his fellow citizens. The people are often much more progressive than their representatives or, to be more accurate, more concerned with pocketbook issues than so-called values attacks. Whenever the next election is, whether it be sooner or hopefully later, everyone would do well to remember that.

I was proud to have supported Gerard Kennedy. I don't know what the future holds for him, but I hope we'll see him back in the legislature, as his talents are needed. And I was proud to support Kathleen Wynne, and to have been there when such inspiring change came to Ontario. I heard one astounding number later that night – 85 per cent of Canadians will now have a female Premier. Maybe we're almost to the point where it will no longer be noteworthy.

Here are my tweets from Saturday:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Day 1 is for Dalton at #olpldr

I'm increasingly of the belief that the way to cover a political convention, social media-wise, is to Tweet during the day, and provide a more thought-out perspective at night. So that's what I'm going to try to do for my coverage of the Ontario Liberal Party leadership race this weekend, where I'm a Gerard Kennedy alternate and unofficial blogger at large.

Below you'll find a Storify of my tweets during this first, short day of #olpldr. And I do mean short. All that was on the agenda was the official opening and a tribute to outgoing leader Dalton McGuinty. At a federal Liberal convention, that would be five hours at least. The provincial party knocked it out in about an hour-and-a-half.

It was nice enough. Two of his children MC'd the entertainment portion, with brief performances covering every musical genre except opera. There was the video of Dalton with famous people. And then a speech from the man himself. It was touching for the personal notes -- his wish his father could have lived to see him enter politics, his love for his mother and her influence on his life. He reflected more on what he'd accomplished than where he thinks we should go -- natural enough for the setting and occasion  but I'd like to have seen a nod to his view of the path forward.

And then suddenly, and surprisingly, it was over. Not with a bang, seemingly, but with a whimper. And as the delegates began to file from the hall before 9pm, I sat there for a moment with a "is that really it?" feeling. Really, though, it was business like, and so was Dalton. When time has softened the edges of recent dramas, I think history will look well on his tenure.

Otherwise, today was about registering, and connecting with our respective campaigns. And, of course, the hospitality suites. As mentioned, I'm a Kennedy alternate. I'm told our full slate from my riding will be coming, so my chances for promotion are slim to none. I'm still proud to cheer Gerard on though, as he truly is the best choice for Premier, and, as the polls show, to lead the OLP into the next election.

The challenge for Gerard will be to show strong enough on ballot two that a Wynne/Pupatello showdown isn't seen as inevitable. If he can gain enough delegates to get into striking range, he's in the battle and will have a shot at winning his fair share of delegates as ballots continue. But I think he needs to make an early move. He needs someone to come to him early. Otherwise, people will see it as Wynne or Pupatello and they'll pick their horse. We'll see what happens Saturday morning.

Hospitality suite report: lots of food at Charles Sousa's, which was down the street away from the others and was quite spacious. Also, wine and Martinis. Kennedy's was wall-to-wall-packed and had a line to get in. I'm told there was micro brew on tap -- I couldn't get close enough to the bar. All the others had suites as well, but I had to get back to Scarborough.

Day One at #olpldr

Picking Ontario's next premier at the Ontario Liberal Party leadership convention in Toronto.

Storified by Jeff Jedras· Fri, Jan 25 2013 21:50:22

On my way downtown for #olpldr. Looking forward to my first #olp conference; think I picked a good one for my debut. Go @GKennedyOLP!Jeff Jedras

Kind of detracts from your message when your protest leaves a pile of trash on the street. #olpldr #onpoli http://lockerz.com/s/279319828Jeff Jedras

Just received a brown envelope from #TeamGK. Wonder what's inside... #olpldr http://lockerz.com/s/279320322Jeff Jedras

#olpldr swag bag includes mini-cans 3 different kinds of coke. These people are clearly convention vets. http://lockerz.com/s/279321132Jeff Jedras

No bullying? Bold leadership. #olpldr MT @l_stone: Wynne said her camp will not be bullying delegates but reaching out to consider her...Jeff Jedras

Wynne Now is kind of direct. Wynne Soon, Please? would be more modestly Canadian. Still, Wynne won name lotto http://lockerz.com/s/279325843Jeff Jedras

Spoke to @calgarygrit and he's guaranteeing first ballot Kennedy victory. I was skeptical, but he's a mathematician. #olpldr #MayTakeLongerJeff Jedras

Waiting for the doors of MLG to open. GK all the way! #olpldr http://lockerz.com/s/279351362Jeff Jedras

Steve Del Duca is one of the #olpldr convention chairs. Took me a minute to remember whose keester he kicked. Is Turncoat Tony NDP now?Jeff Jedras

GK! All the way! #olpldr http://lockerz.com/s/279363134Jeff Jedras

Good to see Kristy Duncan on Team GK as @GKennedyOLP pays tribute to @Dalton_McGuinty at #olpldrJeff Jedras

I think Charles Sousa used the same scarf vendor as Iggy. Wynne's look warmer. #olpldrJeff Jedras

I think Team Sousa brought their own led board. Impressive. Trust me, looks good in the room. #olpldr http://lockerz.com/s/279364530Jeff Jedras

Hip hop dancers performing and the stage is literally rocking. This seems a bit dangerous. #olpldrJeff Jedras

Last #olpldr was my first year at Carleton. I recall thinking Dalton reminded me of William Shatner. 60s Shatner, not aging Shatner #olpldrJeff Jedras

Emerging from the smoke, it's @Dalton_McGuinty. #olpldr http://lockerz.com/s/279372199Jeff Jedras

Most packed suite I've seen so far is next Premier's, @GKennedyOLP. Off to drink someone else's wine. #olpldr http://lockerz.com/s/279389155Jeff Jedras

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Gerard Kennedy is my choice for Ontario Liberal party leader

If you’re an Ontario Liberal voting in leadership election meetings this weekend, I hope you’ll consider supporting Gerard Kennedy and your local Kennedy delegates. And if you’re voting in Scarborough-Centre, I’ll be running as a Kennedy delegate and I’d greatly appreciate your support.

We have a lot of great candidates running for OLP that bring a diversity of experience and perspective to the table. While it’s hard to find fault with any of them, I feel that Gerard stands out from the pack for a number of reasons.

One, he balances experience with fresh perspective. As the minister of education from the first McGuinty government, he has governing and cabinet experience. And having left for federal politics in 2006, he has some distance from some of the issues that developed in the later years.

It’s going to be a tricky balancing act – we can’t run away from our record, we need to recognize that tough decisions had to be and were made in good faith, that some mistakes were unfortunately made, and that changes do need to be made. I feel Gerard is best positioned to strike that balance. His experience on the education file also offers the opportunity for a reset on what has become a fractured relationship with the province's teachers, which I think would be welcomed by all sides.

Second, I like Gerard’s policy positions. (Yes, I’m one of the rare breed that thinks policy matters in a leadership race).

Third, with experience in both the federal and provincial Liberal parties, he has first-hand perspective on what’s right and what’s wrong internally, perspective that has informed his positions on much-needed party reform. And his point about shaking off  “governmentitis” is bang-on.

Finally, for me picking a leader is about the intangibles. It’s about judgment, temperament, and leadership style. I don’t expect to agree with a leader on every issue. But I want to know that I can trust their decision-making. While I may disagree with where they end up, I want to know they will listen to all perspectives, weigh them carefully, and make the decision they feel is best for the people.

I think his career, from running a food bank in Edmonton to the Ontario cabinet to the federal Liberal caucus, shows that Gerard Kennedy is in public service for the right reasons, is inclusive in his decision-making, and will make the right calls for the right reasons.

That’s why he has my support this weekend, and I hope he’ll have yours too.

* As always, my blogs are my own and don't necessarily reflect the opinion of any other organizations I may be involved with.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

What do Gerard Kennedy and The Fraser Institute have in common?

What do Gerard Kennedy and The Fraser Institute have in common? They both want to have a conversation about raising the GST.

To be fair, that’s probably about all they agree on. For example, I don’t think the PMO is preparing an attack piece against their think tank friends like they did on Kennedy. But they do both raise interesting points worth considering.

A couple of weeks ago Kennedy raised the issue in a press conference, saying that a growing chorus of experts say a sales tax increase to help tackle the deficit should be discussed:

Leading economists, former Finance officials and Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page have all said sales tax increases are required to balance the books. It has not gone unnoticed among some Liberals that in Britain, the Conservative opposition is leading the polls and winning praise for "authenticity" after proposing specific deficit-fighting measures that include some tax increases.

"I think we do need to talk about it," Mr. Kennedy said yesterday in an interview with The Globe and Mail.

"I do think we need to talk about a fiscal plan. That debate is internal to the Liberal Party now and I'm not pronouncing on it."

Gerard appeared to be freelancing a little ahead of party policy here, as the Liberal powers that be quickly made clear. And the Conservatives wasted no time heading to the attack. They likely won’t be attacking their ideological cousins at the Fraser Institute, who came out in a recent National Post op/ed in favour of increasing the GST:

For the next several years Canada will be hamstrung by deficits that will hinder any improvement in Canada’s competitiveness, especially on the tax front. However, increasing the GST would create the revenue needed to reduce other, more damaging taxes (i.e. those on income and capital gains) that would dramatically improve Canada’s competitiveness.

I disagree with the Fraser Institute (probably Gerard does too) that we should use increased GST revenues to lower other taxes while making massive cuts to government spending. I don’t think the budget can be balanced on their rosy timeline (not without the massive structural cuts they want and I don’t) so we need that GST revenue to balance the books and preserve core programs. Still, we are agreed that a sales tax increase should be a legitimate topic of discussion for dealing with the current economic situation.

And were we in rosier times I’d actually find more agreement with the Fraser Institute on swapping income tax revenue for sales tax revenue. Long-term, cutting income tax makes sense. Heck, their op/ed is basically a validation of the Liberal taxation policy of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, who favoured income tax cuts once the budget was balanced and introduced the largest personal tax cuts in Canadian history. And the Fraser Institute op/ed is also a condemnation of Conservative economic policy, as it was the Harper Conservatives that raised income taxes (by cancelling planned Liberal cuts) to pay for their GST cut.

Anyway, we’re getting signals now that the Conservative budget coming in a few weeks, despite the vitally necessary prorogation, will largely stay the course with no major program spending cuts, no tax changes, basically nothing new. Basically they’re continuing with their “we’ll balance the budget by magic” plan.

That’s not good enough, and Canadians know it. Unfortunately, the Liberals have thus far opted for the magic approach to budgeting as well, wanting I suppose the Conservatives to show their cards first and also not wanting, I’d imagine, to set themselves up for easy attacks.

Well, it’s coming to put-up or shut-up time, and it may be time for one of those mythical “adult conversations.” It’s time to start having an honest conversation with Canadians about how we see the fiscal situation shaking-out in the next five to 10 years, how we’re going to get back to balance, and what the choices are going to be that we’ll have to make. And magic won’t be part of the equation.

Myself, I think we should consider a sales tax increase if we can tie it to preserving specific core services (or new ones, such as early learning and child care). Polling shows Canadians will support taxes if the revenue goes to services they value and think are important.

We need to lay-out a timeline for returning to surplus. And I don’t think it needs to be overnight. I want us balanced but we shouldn’t slash and burn to get there. We should chart a course that makes an argument for preserving important programs and even investing in new priorities (because we can’t afford to stand still and stop investing in the future), while outlining the measures that will need to be taken to return us to a surplus track.

It will be a challenging debate. The Conservatives will distort and attack any proposals made, while still refusing to admit to Canadians that hard choices will need to be made. We need to expose their empty rhetoric and the inadequacy of their projections.

And if this debate shapes up as one of interventionist government vs. small government that’d be just fine with me, and I know which side of that one I’d like to argue. And I think most Canadians would be with me too.

It’s starts, though, with adult conversations. Gerard and the Fraser Institute have gotten us started. Let’s all take it from there.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Gerard Kennedy introduces war resisters bill

Liberal MP Gerard Kennedy discusses the introduction of his private member's bill dealing with war resisters on CTV's PowerPlay program.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Gerard Kennedy fights Conservative porkbarreling

Gerard Kennedy keeps kicking ass in question period, highlighting how the Conservatives are majorly diverting stimulus funding to their own ridings, while other areas with higher unemployment go wanting.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Videos) Ujjal Dosanjh and Gerard Kennedy in QP

From Monday's question period, Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh asks the Harper Conservatives why they won't provide equal protection abroad for all Canadians:



And Liberal MP Gerard Kennedy asks why the ridings of Conservative cabinet ministers are getting the lion's share of Ontario's infrastructure funding:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: 78% of infrastructure $ going to Conservative ridings

Michael Ignatieff and Gerard Kennedy tag-teamed the Conservatives in question period today on the over-distribution of infrastructure funding to Conservative-held ridings, an admitted and unabashed Conservative practice.



Background:
* 78 per cent of Building Canada Fund announcements made in Conservative ridings

Media:
* Tories bulking up own ridings with infrastructure funds: Liberals
* Feds rewarding Tory ridings, say Liberals
* Taking care of their own

Other Blogs:
* 78% of Building Canada Fund projects in Conservative ridings: Kennedy
* Conservative Pork Barrelling of Canada continues
* There should not be Conservative infrastructure, it is Canadian infrastructure
* Vote Conservative or else...
* Ignatieff Gets Harper To Nibble, Kennedy Sets The Hook
* Con Ridings get 78% of Infrastructure Funding

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Gerard Kennedy's question period debut

From Thursday's question period in the House of Commons, Parkdale-High Park MP and Liberal industry critic Gerard Kennedy asks his first questions, with response from finance minister Jim Flaherty.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Before this leadership race begins in earnest...

…and we begin being bombarded by requests to get involved in this race or support one candidate or another, I’d like to encourage everyone to drop a few dollars, whatever you can spare, to the candidates from the last leadership race that are not running again and are still carrying debt.

Myself, I’ve just made small donations to Martha Hall Findlay, Gerard Kennedy and Stephane Dion to help them retire their leadership debts. For Stephane particularly, I think it would be great if everyone could chip-in a few dollars to help our outgoing leader retire his leadership debt.

Remember, after the tax rebate it practically costs you peanuts. Please give what you can to the past leadership candidate/s of your choice.

PS. Don't forget Scott Brison, Hedy Fry and Ken Dryden too.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Gerard Kennedy makes it official

Statement by Gerard Kennedy, MP Parkdale High Park on Liberal leadership

Source: Canada NewsWire
Nov 12, 2008 13:58

News release via Canada NewsWire, Toronto 416-863-9350

Attention News Editors

TORONTO, Nov. 12 /CNW/ - "Over the past few weeks I have received encouragement and support from hundreds of grassroots Liberals from across the country to run again for leader of the Liberal Party.

I have come out of these discussions, and the election itself, very energized to help take on the challenges that Liberals face.

The choice for me, however, is whether to embark on yet another significant campaign, or to work on behalf of Canadians more directly.

In the past two and a half years, I have contested an eight month national leadership campaign, subsequently travelled extensively to many other ridings and won a previously unheld riding following what proved to be a very lengthy run-up period.

On a personal level, my young family has already felt the impact of successive challenging campaigns. And, on a practical level, this contest has arisen quite suddenly after the election. Before and during the election, I had put all of my energies into supporting the party and Leader, not maintaining a leadership team.

While I greatly appreciate all of the confidence expressed in me and believe I could have mounted a stronger campaign than last time, I will not be a candidate in this leadership race.

Instead, I will focus on acting for Canadians and the people of Parkdale-High Park at a time of particular need, and on working hard in my riding and elsewhere in the country to ensure the Liberal party is renewed the way it must be for these times.

Canadians need the Liberal Party to be a strong Opposition, inside and outside of Parliament. I believe I can draw on my years fighting rightwing Conservative governments in Ontario to help compel the Harper Conservatives to confront the economic problems the country faces.

I am convinced that I can also help ensure the Liberal party will not be vulnerable to a snap election, by joining with Liberals to rebuild beyond the leadership race. I believe strongly that the parliamentary and membership wings of the party must do their part to ensure we have an open, effective and accountable modern political party ready to fully regain Canadians' trust. A change in a leader alone is not sufficient.

There is a growing recognition of the need for real change following the election. Each of the likely current leadership candidates have already spoken at some length of "renewal" of the party, the main focus of my 2006 leadership campaign.

I look forward to enthusiastically playing my part in moving the Liberal Party and Canada forward."

BACKGROUND

----------

Gerard Kennedy is the Member of Parliament for Parkdale-High Park in west downtown Toronto. Born and raised in The Pas, Manitoba, he lived for eight years in Edmonton before moving to Toronto.

At age 22, Gerard was the first executive director of Canada's first food bank in Edmonton and developed the Toronto food bank into the country's largest in conjunction with the food industry and public support. Elected three times to the Ontario provincial legislature he served as opposition critic for consumer relations, housing, health and education. As Minister of the $18 billion Education ministry from 2003 to 2006 he was credited with a turnaround in publicly funded education following a period of crisis.

As leadership contestant in 2006, Gerard elected the third highest number of delegates, brought in the largest number of new members, won the most delegates in Alberta and close second totals in Ontario and BC, before coming fourth at the actual convention. Just over 10 per cent of costs of that campaign remain outstanding.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Leadership leaderboard updates

Martha Hall-Findlay is out:

Martha Hall Findlay, the appealing underdog candidate for the national Liberal leadership in 2006, announced Tuesday she won't be running for the office when the party holds its next leadership convention in Vancouver in May.

Denis Coderre is out:

Il y a longuement et sérieusement réfléchi, mais Denis Coderre a finalement pris une décision. Le député de Bourassa ne se portera pas candidat à la direction du Parti libéral du Canada (PLC). Son heure, croit-il, n'est pas venue, et il est en outre déçu que sa formation n'ait pas osé moderniser la formule de sélection du leader.

Gerard Kennedy is probably out:

Kennedy will issue an official statement later today, CTV's Roger Smith reported Wednesday. Although he is well known within the party, Smith reported the Liberals may not want a "third choice" contender after selecting current leader Stephane Dion the last time. Dion came from behind to beat out frontrunners Ignatieff and Bob Rae in 2006.

"I think Mr. Kennedy would face questions about his judgment considering how Mr. Dion performed as leader," Smith said. Dion led the Liberals to one of the biggest defeats in party history, after losing nearly 20 seats following last month's federal election.

And Michael Ignatieff will be in shortly:

Michael Ignatieff is poised to formally announce Thursday that he will run for the leadership of the federal Liberal party.

And, of course, Bob Rae and Dominic Leblanc have already signaled their intent to run.

It’s disappointing that Martha and Gerard are not running. I’m sure they have their reasons for making their decisions, which I respect. They’re bright lights in the Liberal Party though, and definitely leaders of the future. At the least, it will be good to have them in the House of Commons with Stephane Dion in the coming months, holding the Harper Conservatives to account. With Iggy and Bob out on the trail, it will be a chance for Gerard in particular to take a leading role in Question Period and on the Hill, and I look forward to seeing grow into the role and nail it.

The suspense has been killing me, so it’s good to see Ignatieff confirming he actually does intend to run. I was beginning to wonder if he has going to sit this one out…ok, not really.

It’s shaping up to be a very interesting race, with three strong candidates so far. Ignatieff is a charismatic orator with an inspiring vision that has learned a lot about retail politics since 2006. Rae is a veteran and skilled politician that is one of the best campaigners in the game. And Leblanc marries generational change with strong Liberal roots and a compelling focus on party renewal.

We’ll see if anyone else gets in, but that’s not a bad field at all.

P.S. I think Roger Smith is full of it on Kennedy and Dion. No one “blames” Kennedy for Dion, not that there’s any need for blame. Liberals voted for Dion for a variety of reasons I needn’t rehash here and now. WE voted for him. If someone wants to question judgment, they should question their own. Anyway, anyone who seeks to gain leadership support by attacking former supporters of Gerard Kennedy or Stephane Dion will find themselves up shit creek pretty quickly.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper’s Quebec constitutional foray, and where’s Rona?

I find it interesting that this…

The Harper government is telling Quebec that if the Conservatives win a majority in the next election, they will look to reopen the Constitution and give more meaning to their recognition of Quebeckers as a nation.

Emphasizing the Conservative receptiveness to “Quebec's historical demands,” Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn raised the possibility of winning 30 to 40 seats in the province, up from the current 11.

“The recognition of the Quebec nation within Canada allows us to think that we can put some meat around it, and that a majority government is more able to do a number of things, while being respectful of all of the provinces,” Mr. Blackburn said in an interview.

…comes just a few days after this:

Mr. Dion also appointed Gerard Kennedy, who will run in a Toronto riding in the next election, as intergovernmental affairs critic. It is a potentially contentious move because Mr. Kennedy, who threw his delegate support behind Mr. Dion in the December, 2006, leadership contest, had not backed the idea of the Québécois as a nation within Canada.

I suppose the timing could be coincidental, but I suspect it’s not. It will be interesting to hear Gerard’s first public comments on this. And speaking of intergovernmental affairs, interesting that the Conservative minister, Rona Ambrose, is no where to be heard from in this story. Instead it’s a senior Quebec minister, Jean-Pierre Blackburn, making the comments.

I wonder if Blackburn gave Ambrose a courtesy phone call? Hopefully Rona keeps her mouth shut; we all remember what happened to her predecessor when Harper first brought-up this Quebec as nation nonsense:

The federal Parliament formally recognized Quebecers as a "nation united within Canada" Monday night, but it came with a high cost for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who suffered his first resignation from cabinet over the divisive move.

Michael Chong, the minister of intergovernmental affairs and sport, prefaced his resignation by telling reporters he continued to have faith in the government, the Conservative party and the prime minister. But he charged Harper's recognition of Quebecers as a "nation united within Canada" smacked of what he called "ethnic nationalism."

"The reason why I got involved in politics is my belief in this nation we call Canada. I believe in this great country of ours and I believe in one nation, undivided," he said. "This is a fundamental principle for me, not something on which I can or will compromise. Not now, not ever."

While Michael made a move of principle, opting to resign when he was cut-out of a matter squarely within his ministerial responsibilities and asked to defend a position he disagreed with, I suspect Rona will want to keep the car and driver instead. And it’s not like she hasn’t been busy.

Why, look at these media releases for 2008:



Well, maybe 2007 was a busier year:


OK, well, maybe not. It’s probable telling though whose picture is on the front page of the ministry Web site, and whose is not:


Maybe some enterprising member of the parliamentary press gallery will track down Michael Chong down in the hallways and ask him for his thoughts on Blackburn's promise. Anyone?

Anyway, back to the Conservatives; constitutional musings , which have generated quite a bit of blogsphere reaction. I thought the nation motion in 2006 was supposed to be the end of it, was that not what Harper told us? I think the only person that wanted to re-open the constitution for this, at least back then, was Michael Ignatieff.

Anyway, even if I favoured putting this in the constitution, and I don’t, it would never work. You couldn’t do just this one thing. You need to get the other provinces to support it. You can ask them to give this to Quebec and ignore the Senate inequality concerns of the West, the seat distribution concerns of Ontario, and other issues. We’d quickly get bogged down again in the constitutional moray and that’s not the priority of Canadians.

This is all just politics, of course: the Conservatives sense Liberal weakness in Quebec, and they’re looking to gain ground. It’s a continuation of their fighting with the BQ for the soft nationalist vote. It’s akin to Russian roulette though, because every vote Harper gains in Quebec by pandering to soft-nationalists is going to cost him one in the West. And that’s if he can convince Quebecers he’s serious. The BQ and PQ are going to constantly be moving the goalposts, and will use any failure to meet them as a betrayal of Quebecers, stoking the separatist fires.

And whatever Harper does, they’ll just raise the stakes higher. We saw that in 2006 with the nation motion. Duceppe was pleased as punch with how it played out, and his next demand was ok great, now let’s constitutionalize it. Now that Harper is doing that, I wonder what the next demand will be?

To square the circle, frankly I’m glad Gerard Kennedy, with his lack of support for the nation motion, is now our intergovernmental affairs guy. I think he’s actually the right person for us on this file.

We can’t compete with the BQ and the PQ for the soft-nationalist vote in Quebec. But there is an opening in Quebec, and in the rest of Canada, to be the strong federalist champion. It has been a traditional Liberal role, but it’s one we’ve gotten away from since the aborted Paul Martin era began. Let’s pick that federalist mantle up again.

If we do we’re appealing to a segment of Quebec the other parties are ignoring, and a segment that actually thinks positively of Stephane Dion. We need to get those voters back; if we do we’ll hold our own there. And we’ll gain ground across the rest of Canada as well.

We’ll have to wait and see what play gets called though. It's not without risk, but as Warren says it could galvanize the party. So for god's sake, don't wuss-out yet again.

Anyway, I leave you with these comments from Stephane Dion the leadership candidate on this issue back in 2006:

"People are all mixed up about this." Dion says. "It’s a very interesting discussion at a seminar of political science, but the moment you talk about putting that in the Constitution and you blame the other candidates for being afraid to raise the issue, then legitimate questions come: If you are a nation, what am I, mashed potato?"
--
"Now all of a sudden, the burden of proof is back on our shoulders. We need to deliver this mysterious constitutional change that will change Canada into a Federation of Nirvana through a magic word that everybody would agree upon. It will not work. Keep the burden of proof on the separatists."

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

So long Denis

As far as I’m concerned, this is the biggest news out of today’s shuffling of the Liberal critic portfolios:

• Denis Coderre becomes the Liberal Critic for Canadian Heritage, la Francophonie and Official Languages;

• Bryon Wilfert, formerly Associate Foreign Affairs Critic, becomes Defence Critic;

I know little about Wilfert’s views on defence issues, it’s certainly a promotion though for the Dion loyalist.

He has to, however, be an improvement in the defence portfolio from Denis Coderre. The guy was ineffective and an embarrassment and I’ve been arguing for some time that he had to go from that job. So I’m glad he is, and moving to heritage would have to be seen as a demotion. I shan’t shed a tear over that either.

• Bob Rae continues as the Liberal Party’s Foreign Affairs Critic and will join the Priorities and Planning Committee;

• Martha Hall Findlay becomes Associate Finance Critic, and will also join the Priorities and Planning Committee;

• Joyce Murray becomes Vice-Chair of the Caucus Committee on Environmental Sustainability;

• Geoff Regan replaces John Godfrey as Chair of the Caucus Committee on Environmental Sustainability;

• Gerard Kennedy becomes Critic for Intergovernmental Affairs; and

• Senator James Cowan and Dr. Bernard Patry join the Priorities and Planning Committee.

Good to see Gerard Kennedy in there, as a former Ontario cabinet minister he could be a good point-man against the Harper/Flaherty Ontario sucks campaign. Working his way into those stories would also help to raise his visibility and be a good boost in his campaign to unseat the NDP's Peggy Nash in the next campaign.

And no sign of the move supposed “senior Liberals” or “Dion advisors” or whatever they’re pretending they are these days called for in the media earlier today, namely dumping Michael Ignatieff as deputy leader and replacing him with, I suppose, the unnamed person whose agenda they’re really advancing.

Thank-goodness that, for once, the really stupid advice of these supposed “senior Liberals” was ignored. Lets hope it starts a new trend.

ELSEWHERE: Also with takes on the shuffle are Calgary Grit and Cherniak on Politics.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Gerard Kennedy lectures at Ryerson

After work yesterday I headed downtown to Rye High for Gerard Kennedy’s first public lecture as a visiting lecturer at Ryerson’s school of management. The topic of his lecture was Towards a New Enterprising Canada.

It was a decent-sized crowd of what looked to mainly be university types. Also in the crowd though were prominent Liberals like Tom Axworthy and Sergio Marchi, as well as Kennedy’s former deputy minister at the provincial education ministry.

As for the topic, I don’t agree with all of Gerard’s points but I did agree with most of them. His main thesis I can agree with, and that’s that we’ve become complacent in Canada. We’ve come to take our success and prosperity for granted; we’ve come to believe Canada can advance without conscious effort, or sacrifice, on our part.

That’s a problem for Canada, he said. We need to have some sort of a shared vision to move forward. In a comment sure to annoy the small government conservatives, he also said since the 1982 recession government has not called on the national capacity to innovate, like it did with medicare and pensions.

He also added we’re slow in Canada to recognize excellence, regularly holding-up two different examples of the sort of excellence he says we need to emulate, and recognize: Jean Vanier and Gerry Schwartz. I'm not sure about Schwartz, but I guess it is a business school.

They’re examples, he says, of the kind of enterprising we need to encourage. Schwartz is successful in business, Vanier in charitable service. Both, however, have encourages entrepreneurship and made contributions to society.

Many people that aren’t leading organizations have great ideas, he said, but they’re not being listened to. We need to create a culture that rewards innovation and original thought. That’s what he tried to do as Ontario’s education minister, he said, give the stakeholders the freedom and capacity to be creative and innovate.

What Canada needs, he said, is a way to get people active and participating in the going-forward of the country. And we need to make government part of our competitive advantage,

All in all, an interesting, non-political speech. I agree with his feeling Canada needs to galvanize the national capacity for innovation. We have become complacent. While it wasn’t a political speech, I would like to see our politicians talking more about a vision for Canada, about national projects. We’re certainly not going to get that from the Harper Conservatives.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers