LPC national board candidate interview: Maryanne Kampouris for national policy chair

From February 20-23, federal Liberals will gather in Montreal, and one of their tasks will be to elect a new national executive. In the coming days, I’ll be publishing interviews with some of the candidates seeking election to the party’s national board.

Maryanne Kampouris won a contested election at the 2012 Liberal Party of Canada biennial convention in Ottawa as national policy chair and, with no one stepping forward to contest the position, she’ll begin a second term later this month in February. Kampouris, who calls a farm between Ottawa and Montreal home, is a former LPC(Ontario) policy chair and made national reform of the policy process a priority. The fruits of much of that labour will come together at the Montreal biennial, but Kampouris says there is much left to do.

I recently spoke with Kampouris about her first term as national policy chair, what we can expect on the policy front in Montreal, and her plans for the next two years. The following is an edited transcript of our conversation.

How would you describe the role of national policy chair?

The role of the national policy chair is to find consensus. It’s to give our members a voice within the Liberal Party of Canada. Part of what you need is an understanding of how the party work and the various components. In my world, policy is the engagement mechanism for the party, so you have to make sure people are equipped to do that. It’s build the architecture for that voice, building so the capacity at the EDA (electoral district association) level so we can talk with Canadians, not just talk at them but have them talk to us.

The job is to work with the PTAs (provincial and territorial associations) and the commissions who are then given the capacity to work with the EDAs to make sure the capacity and tools are there, whether its access to expert information or research. The national policy chair is the glue that brings all these things together.

That’s the job. And then there’s the minutiae. The national policy chair does chair a committee that includes caucus chairs, as well as commission and PTA VPs of policy. Its job is to build consensus on the process, not to develop policy. I’m not supposed to pass judgement on someone’s policy position; I’m supposed to facilitate the discussion.

The national policy chair is one of five table officers, so it’s not just about policy. It’s about budget. It’s about everything. To be aware of and respectful of the different components of the party, and be part of the decision making process on almost everything.

It’s a very hands-on job that’s all about the members.

What was your plan and what were your priorities going into your first term?

My plan going in was very ambitious. I worked with the national policy and platform committee members to create a four year plan; we’re now ending year two and I’d like to finish it.

The first year was all about engagement, and building the capacity to do all the things (described above). That meant also training the VPs of policy at the PTAs to train EDAs in what we call Policy 101. It’s policy as engagement, the tool by which every policy chair at each EDA should be part of the engagement, the events management, and the guts of the management of each EDA. How do we reach out to Canadians, and how do we hear them? At the national level, we had planned to update the Have Your Say manual, which didn’t get done. We got more involved in coordinating the missions and values statement of the party. Have Your Say is updated, but we haven’t done the detailed job we’d like to do. That will be for the second term.

In refocusing people from resolutions to open policy discussions, we have worked within the party but haven’t put online (publicly) yet some of the discussion groups. We do have discussion groups at liberal.ca/groups, with 15 themes where we talk policy and moderate the discussions, but we need more people there.

What I want is a policy tab, one tab where you get all the policies summarized, and all the information and research related that, with links to white papers and research, and its open for people to come to. Another part of the (planned) architecture is getting members of the party active as experts. That’s a component we’ve wanted to build in, but we’ve been so focused on rebuilding in other ways that will be for the second term. We’ll put the call out to members to self-identify as experts so they can peer review papers and participate in discussions as experts. It’s not about book learning; it’s about life experience. If you’ve been homeless, if you’ve had a student loan, those are things you can weigh in on as an expert when we get to those topics.

The first year was building the architecture, and the second year was preparing for convention. I’m really happy to say we’ve had 152 resolutions submitted. I’m very proud of how the party submitted these ideas. Before they got here, they spent a lot of time consulting and discussing and blending, so a lot of the material coming to convention has been blended by the participants, not by us in the back room. That’s another win.

Going forward, the third phase will be turning policy into platform. That’s a collaborative effort between the policy committee and the caucus, and the leader has the final word. We now have a caucus accountability officer, who will report to membership on what has been achieved vs. what members submitted to us (at the last biennial) in 2012.

With experience, I wouldn’t have set as ambitious a timeline as I did going in, but I’m very confident we can get the full engagement process out there and modify the policy development process in such a way that people don’t feel they’re left out. Canadians’ ideas need to be reflected in who we are as Liberals.

What can we expect at biennial, policy wise? Will there be prioritization workshops?

There will be prioritization workshops. We’re still working out numbers, but we’re looking at seven or eight workshops. Every submitting organization within the party was able to identify one priority resolution that will go directly to plenary. This is very much an old style convention. We hope to have as many workshops as possible as one offs, so people don’t need to choose between one topic or another. LPC(Quebec) has also proposed a couple of open policy discussions, and we’re trying to find a spot for that in the program. They want to talk about our ageing population, and the impacts and different policy components that matter.

Once biennial in over, what’s your plan for the next two years?

I want to implement more of the online architecture, such as the research and party expert functions. The party expert functions is one initiative that will allow us to have an in-house think tank-like methodology.

Second is to get us to the platform. There’s a subcommittee of the national policy committee led by caucus to get us to the platform. That includes having information for EDAs, talking points for candidates, and information not just about the details of the platform, but of the broader Liberal platform. And supporting the on the ground campaign with information and, god willing should we win, helping with the implementation plan.

All along I want to increase the number of people who use policy as their engagement process. I want to not just create the consultation process but be accountable for that to the board, and actually have performance indicators on how many people are engaged, are using the policy engagement mechanisms, what kind of events, that kind of thing. And accountable to responses from individuals, and actually coordinating the information we get so we have an evergreen process.

People shouldn’t be dependent on EDAs to influence policy. The party needs to hear from Canadians on an ongoing basis. The biennial isn’t the be all and end all. It’s about our communities.

How do you balance member-driven policy passed at biennial with the leader’s desire to put their own stamp and own priorities into the platform they run on?

The basis of the platform has got to be in the direction we’ve heard from our members. It can’t cover off every resolution and direction we’ve received from members, or we’d end up with a shopping list of a platform that doesn’t resonate with Canadians. And we have to have a platform that resonates with Canadians.

When I do Policy 101 workshops, I say we have to look at what is practicable, what is legal and within the federal jurisdiction, and we have to look at costs. We also have to look at what will resonate with Canadians.

We put out a platform of very focused ideas, but there’s a whole subgroup of directives the party gives us that we can work on whether we’re in a campaign or not. Caucus works on it in private members bills, in committee, working with the government where possible, and in their own communities to get things one. And we report back to members to tell them what we did, what we didn’t do, and why.

Ultimately, the leader has to be comfortable with the message. And there’s accountability after the campaign, formally required at each biennial, and at every board meeting.

(Other party office interviews)

• Liberal Party of Canada presidential candidate interview: Brian Rice
• LPC national board candidate interview: Arif Khan for national membership secretary
• LPC national board candidate interview: Leanne Bourassa for national membership secretary
• LPC national board candidate interview: Chris MacInnes for vice-president, English
• Exit Interview: Liberal Party of Canada national membership secretary Matthew Certosimo
• Exit interview: Liberal Party of Canada president Mike Crawley

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Ontario Liberals pick our policies: Transportation, bees and early childhood education

Ahead of the Liberal Party of Canada biennial coming up in February in Montreal, Ontario Liberals gathered in Kingston this weekend to debate over 60 policies and pick the 10 priority resolutions that  our province can send on to be debated by Liberals from across the country at the national conference.

Saturday's LPC(O) policy biennial was the culmination of a process that began months earlier, as riding associations from across the province canvassed their communities and drafted policy resolutions. These resolutions were sent by the ridings to a regional prioritization meeting. Liberals from each region debated and considered these resolutions, and each region sent 10 to this weekend's meeting for consideration.

The first stage of this weekends meeting saw policies debated and then accepted or rejected; the next stage was casting  a preferential ballot cast to rank the policies and arrive at the 10 priority resolutions to move forward.

No resolutions were defeated in this first stage and there wasn't too much debate; only two came close. One was a motion I opposed that sought to encourage youth engagement; I'm in favour of the spirit certainly, but it didn't propose anything concrete beyond open communications (say, use Twitter) so I voted no. The debate was much more heated around a pro-supply management motion which passed, but only by a small margin. I voted no; it's time to consider new approaches that balance the concerns of both farms and food consumers. I was annoyed when rural delegates would say this isn't an urban issue; it's not. It's an everyone issue; everyone eats food.

 There were three policies I felt strongly about:

1. National Transportation Strategy: This was a blended resolution coming out of urban, suburban and rural ridings, as it truly is an issue that impacts every community. We need a national transportation. That could mean transit, or rail, or highways -- the infrastructure needs to move people and goods will vary from community. And the priorities should be set in the community. But we need the federal government at the table as a partner, working with the other level of governments to identify priority projects and, most importantly, provide  a predictable and long-term funding commitment for at least a 10-year period to facilitate planning. The current situation -- Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty saying yes to one project and no to other randomly, out of the blue, seemingly because they went fishing with the Mayor -- is untenable.

2. Death with Dignity: Physician Assisted End to Life: This policy came from the Ontario Young Liberals and Parry Sound - Muskoka. It's a difficult issue. It's a tricky issue. But it's an important issue, and I think it's a debate we need to have. This policy would spark that debate, and state the party's broad support for moving toward physician-assisted end of life, and hopefully spark a national debate.

3. Undoing the Ban and Organ Donations Based on Sexual Orientation: From York-South Weston, this policy would have Health Canada remove the five-year donation ban  for any male who has had sexual contact with another man, and support its replacement with an behaviour-based screening policy for all donors. For me this is an issue of discrimination and human rights. There is absolutely no scientific basis on which to support the existing ban; the science is clear. And all donations are screened anyway. The current policy is discriminatory and borne of historical prejiduce; we need a new policy based in evidence and science.

Unfortunately, my second and third-ranked policies were not prioritized and will not go forward to Montreal; at least not from Ontario. Hopefully one of the other provinces may have chosen to prioritize similar resolutions.

I was pleased to see a National Transportation Strategy was prioritized at No. 1; a strong message from Ontario delegates about how this is an issue that impacts all areas of the province. As it is such a national issue as well, I'm confident it will find success during the policy debate at biennial. The efforts of Jason Cherniak, who is seeking the Liberal nomination in Aurora-Oak Ridges-Richmond Hill, were crucial in seeing this policy prioritized at the top of the list.

Another important issue I was pleased to see prioritized was one regarding first nations, and I was pleased to see it coming out of an urban riding. Amy Robichaud, who is seeking the Liberal nomination in Scarborough-Southwest, made a number of persuasive arguments that helped get this policy from her riding prioritized. many Aboriginals are moving off-reserve to cities, so this is also an urban issue. We need to get back to the spirit of the Kelowna Accord, and work in partnership with First Nations to move beyond the Indian Act.

The policies prioritized by Ontario, in order, are as follows:

1. Nation Transportation Strategy
2. “Bees and Farming” Resolution: Moratorium on Neonicotoids in Canada
3. A National Strategy for a Universal Early Childhood Education…
4. Honouring Our Commitments: The Kelowna Accord, Restructuring of the Indian Act and Aboriginal Renewal
5. Innovation Strategy for Canada
6. Climate Change Action
7 Canada a Knowledge Based Society
8. A National Manufacturing Strategy for Canada
9.  National Housing Action Plan
10. Pensions: Old Age Security and Canada Pension Plan

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liberals mustn’t have any sacred cows, dairy or otherwise

I confess to knowing practically nothing about supply management. I know that people that support it say it’s necessary to keep Canadian farmers competitive and alive, and those that oppose it say it forces Canadians to massively overpay for milk, cheese and other products compared to people in other countries.

I also know that it’s considered somewhat of a sacred cow in Canadian politics to the degree that all parties routinely proselytize themselves at the altar of supply management and any discussion of the merits of the system or whether it's in need of review or re-consideration is unthinkable. A policy motion reaffirming Liberal support for policy management was passed in a pro forma way at the party’s January convention. I can’t remember the last time an open and frank debate on the pros and cons of supply management has happened; usually all we hear is “pass this or rural Canada will run you over with a combine.”

The Liberals have made a lot of noise over the last year or so about being the party of “evidence-based policy.” It remains to see whether that’s actually true or is just empty platitude. We may begin to get a sense of that if possible leadership contender (though she should really pay off her 2006 debt first) Martha Hall Findlay succeeds in sparking a debate on supply management.

In a recent op/ed in the Globe and in interviews in the media and elsewhere, and in a report, she argued in favour of dismantling supply management.

It is simply untenable that Canadian families pay upwards of $300 more a year than they need to, for milk alone, let alone higher prices for other products like cheese, yogourt and ice cream, to subsidize a tiny number of relatively well-off farmers. Worse, it’s regressive, which means that the ones who suffer most are the low-income families – the very ones who most need affordable access to nutrition. Many others, including processors and restaurants, have been calling to an end to supply management for years.

As I said, I’m not yet on either side of the supply management debate, mainly because we haven’t actually had such a debate in recent memory. But I am in favour of having the debate, and getting all the facts on the table. People such as Hall Findlay are making their arguments, and the Dairy Farmers are firing back with their arguments. That’s healthy; I look forward to hearing all the facts and deciding where I stand on the issue.

Because that’s what being an evidence-based party, if that’s what we want to be, is all about. If the evidence for supply management is as strong as its proponents insist, then the debate will surely end with our support for its continuation. But let’s have the debate and go where the evidence takes us.

SPEAKING OF DEBATE: Mike Moffat on the policy implications, Rob Silver on the vote implications, Steve V. on the farmers and Dan Arnold on the debate.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Barely news today, forgotten tomorrow: live-blogging the policy plenary

1:30 PM: And we're back, or we will be in 5 minutes, the voice from on high just informed the hall. It's time for the policy plenary, and apparently we have 30 or so to deal with in one-and-a-half hours. We'll see how that goes.

Policy plenaries are a funny thing. Well-meaning people spend months getting a policy to the plenary and lobbying for its passage, with much vigorous debate. The media and opposition will loo for controversial policies to highlight. And then after the next day, we'll never hear of these policies again because party leaders write their own platform, never mind what their memberships have to say.

It seems to be a bit of a kabuki play in all parties; after all, developing policy should be a prime reason for joining a party if you're joining for the right reasons. Alas, it's usually just for show.

1:37 PM: They're reading the rules. One requires a "clear majority" to demand debate on a policy for there to be debate. Hmm, how will Guy define a "clear majority"? Is it 50+1? More? Jack Layton definition or Clarity Act definition? Ah, fun.

1:45 PM: After 15 minutes of rules, we're underway. They're not naming them, so it's a it hard to follow. No debate on the first, which I think was basically we love veterans. It passed. They also oppose human smuggling.

1:48 PM: Still no debate. Policy on shared parenting (joint custody mother and father) passes. And motion on family and marriage, saying we don't want to force religious institutions to marry people they dont' want to. Which no one is forcing them to do. Anyway, it passes. This is going too fast.

1:50 PM: Finally debate on a motion which I support, to remove parental means test from student loan eligibility determination. Ridiculous speech against saying it's the millionaires resolution that kids of rich people that don't need it could be getting loans. Really, why would they? That's dumb. Speaker for makes point families can be asset rich/cash poor, like farmers, and shouldn't have to sell land to put kids through school. Glad to see it carries fairly clearly.

1:53 PM: Point of order from a delegate asking the chairs to slow the heck down is met with applause from the floor. I agree, but no clapping allowed on media row.

1:55 PM: This is too fast so I'm not going to comment on each one, just the major ones, and I'll let you know if one is actually killed.

1:59 PM: Point of order from floor, if it's close to wanting debate just have the debate, don't waste our time with the electronic voting. Given that it's two minutes of debate and takes at least that much time to do the e-vote, makes sense to me, and the floor and chairs agree.

2:00 PM: Now it's a motion to require immigrants adhere to "Canadian values." A speaker against asks just how you would define Canadian values anyway. It goes to an e-vote. It passes 65-35 on vote count, and it gets 9 of 11 provinces/territories, so it passes.

2:05 PM: A lot of people's votes aren't being counted electronically, because they're not using the machines properly. First you need to initialize it with the number of people using each machine, to a maximum of six. When you enter the votes, the yes and no votes must equal that number. Apparently people are trying to initialize six, or are trying to enter more votes than they initialized. In the last vote over 30 machines were invalidates, that could be as many as 200 lost votes.

2:08 PM: Debating a motion on refugee determination, #75, and it's the first to be defeated. It would be tougher on refugees, basically, and seems similar to government policy around the ship/s of Tamil refugees. So its defeat was interesting.

2:13 PM: Tension between delegates at the back and the chairs. Delegates say there's an echo in the room, we can't hear what you're saying and don't know what we're voting on, so slow down. Chairs have little sympathy, say we're following the order in your booklet so pay attention losers. Guy and friend are getting a bit chippy; so are delegates.

2:22 PM: That was social policy, now we're on to Government, Taxation and Crime.

2:23 PM: What looks to be a stealth anti-Sharia law motion passes soundly (B-98).

2:24 PM: Legalized prostitution? Not these Conservatives. They also oppose government waste. Wish I could have seen how Tony "Gazebo" Clement voted on that one. And ha, they're in favour of tax code simplification. Et tu, Jim Flaherty? This government has done more than any other to complicate the tax code than most, with all these ridiculous tax credits designed to buy the votes of target groups.

2:28 PM: Debating a motion to lower the number of convictions for dangerous offender status from three convictions to two. Young guy speaks against saying you don't want to have some lowly pot dealer named dangerous offender; I laughed, delegates not so much. I thought it passed by hands, but it goes to e-vote. And the "two strikes you're out" policy passes handily.

2:38 PM: And now it's the Khadr motion, which would remove right of citizenship even of people born in Canada that take up arms against Canada or its allies. I mean seriously, how do you strip a person born in Canada of their citizenship? Where would you send them exactly if they're not a dual citizen, Atlantis? Narnia? This is silly and dangerous. And it's thankfully defeated on a hand vote; good job delegates.

2:39 PM: Vote on clean air and green house gas policy that can be summed up as an anti-cap and trade policy. It appears to pass by hand, but they go to e-vote and confirm that yes, it carries by only by seven provinces to four. One speaker said this policy would condemn the government's current policy. Opps. I suspect they'll get over it though.

2:44 PM: Resolution that basically supports ending the per vote subsidy, passes easily but still with opposition. And now we're on to economic issues.

2:46 PM: Motion for union strike votes to be by secret ballot passes without debate, as does one to oppose penalties for picket line crossers. They also oppose red tape and support arctic sovereignty.

2:51 PM: We're actually now well ahead of schedule, knock wood. Just a handful of economic policies left and nothing controversial.

2:59 PM: And with the last motion passing, the policy plenary finishes one hour early. That was speedy. We'll see if they can move to the closing festivities early or not. Fingers crossed.

3:02 PM: Closing fun moved-up by 15 minutes to 3:45 pm, so see you then.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Reforming the Liberal Party: Who are we, and why are we here?

In my Liberal reform posts so far I've focused on questions of leadership and questions of structure. These are important to building the party into an accountable and efficient vehicle, but unless you know where you're driving to and why you'll still be going in circles. That's why it's important that as part of this renewal process we also consider something more fundamental: who we are, what do we stand for and what do we have to offer? Because if we don't know, no one else will know either.

I think it would be a useful starting-point for each Liberal to reflect on why they joined the Liberal Party in the first place. I joined when I was 16, around 1994, although I'd followed politics for a few years already through the implosion of the Mulroney Conservatives in Ottawa and the implosion of the Vander Zalm Socreds in B.C. I liked Jean Chretien, and I found myself drawn to the Liberal Party because of its history of social justice and compassion balanced with a recognition that we need to act within certain fiscal constraints. I could have been a Red Tory, but the Mulroney legacy was pretty toxic and unappealing. So I rolled-up my sleeves and became a Liberal in a rural B.C. riding where we hadn't elected a Liberal since the early 1970sbecause it was the party that closest shared my values.

I don't think it's entirely fair to say we've completely lost touch with what we believe in. We've always borrowed from the best ideas of the left and the right, but I think our last platform did come from certain values and ideals: valuing education and the knowledge economy by investing in early childhood learning and post secondary education, helping families and seniors get ahead, for example.

I think it is fair to ask if Canadians moved on though, and is what we have stood for still relevant in today's Canada? I think Toronto Star columnist Susan Delacourt asked a useful question the other day that we should all consider: if the Liberal Party didn't exist in 2011, would we need to reinvent it?

That's an interesting question. I think most Liberals considered this question at least tangently after the election results came in: is there still a home for me in the Liberal Party and should I fight to save and fix it, or would I be more at home with the party of the left or the party of the right, or just staying at home? For me, the answer is yes, I still want a Liberal party. I wouldn't be at home with the small-c conservative values of the Conservatives, their values aren't mine. If there was still such a thing as Red Tory, maybe, but they're long extinct. And the NDP lacks the pragmatism and grounding in fiscal realities I'd need to be comfortable with their direction.

So, I still want a pragmatic party of the centre, a party that supports targeted investments to help students, families, seniors and the less fortunate and will protect and improve public health care, within the framework of a balanced budget and targeted tax relief for families. The questions are though, do Canadians still want a moderate party of the centre? Or do they want the clear choices of the left or the right? The fact is, people don't think in terms of left, right or centre. They look at what a party wants to do and what it means for them.

I think over the next four years with a clearly defined government on one side and clearly defined official opposition on the other, there will be a public appetite for a more nuanced and balanced approach. But we need to be prepared to give it to them.

Still, it's not enough to just figure out what they want and give it to them. They can tell if you're faking it. Trying to find where the parade is going and attempting to lead it isn't the way to go either. And once you decide what you stand for, there's still the matter of communicating it. That has been our challenge being in the middle: it's easier for the parties on either side to define themselves, and start to squeeze us out.

We need to start from scratch and ask ourselves the basic questions: what is the role of government in society, and what is our vision for Canada. Personally, I believe in government as a force for good. I've always liked this quote from Toby on The West Wing:

We have to say what we feel, that government, no matter what it's failures in the past and in times to come for that matter, government can be a place where people come together and where no one gets left behind. No one...gets left behind. An instrument of good.

Once we decide what our core beliefs are, we can begin to develop policies around then. And we need to reform the policy process so that the membership writes the policy platform, not the leader and his hand-picked advisers. I can see having some ability to filter out the random craziness and setting timelines with the need to present a costed and affordable plan, but the core of the policy platform should be the result of the member-driven policy process.

Today, the policy development process in the Liberal Party is a huge waste of time: a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. Countless hours of effort are expanded as members and riding associations research and draft well-intentioned policies that are submitted to a provincial biennial for debate, discussion and voting. Some are promoted to the national biennial where again there are hours of passionate debate and voting, and some are officially adopted. And then they're ignored and the leader puts whatever they want in the platform.

I've never invested too much energy in this process because while policy should be central to why people get involved in a political party, in our party the policy process is completely irrelevant. It's a make-work project to make members feel valued while the important people focus on important things. And this sort of the top knows best, focus on polling and strategy over things as basic as what we believe in as a party is a huge part of the problem.

If we're going to delay the leadership, let's take the time as a party to reform the policy process, undertake a defining "core beliefs" exercise and as members develop policy that will flow from those core beliefs that will form the basis of what we run on in 2015 . Then the next leader can either agree to get behind it before they're elected, or they can choose to not stand for leader.

Let's decide what we stand for, develop policy that flows from that, and stand behind it. And it's not about trying to find out what's popular or what will sell. It's about standing behind what we believe in and if the people come, they come. As long as we're standing together and for something we believe in, I'm fine with that, and the rest will come from there.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Shhh! The Liberals are talking policy again!

If there’s one oft-repeated meme from the opposing parties, the media punditry and others, it’s that the Liberals aren’t talking policy, and they really should be, because people need to know what they stand for other than not liking Stephen Harper.

The problem with this criticism, of course, is that it requires the observer to not pay any attention to the reality that, hey, actually the Liberals have been talking specific, detailed policy for some time.

Yesterday, for example, Ujjal Dosanjh, Carolyn Bennett and Hedy Fry fanned-out across the country to try to kick-start a national debate on the future of medicare. (The Citizen gave it 95 words)

Health care is the focus of what will be one of the signature pieces of the next Liberal election platform: the Liberal Family Care Plan. Announced earlier this year, it includes a new six-month Family Care Employment Insurance Benefit similar to the EI parental leave benefit, and a new Family Care Tax Benefit, modeled on the Child Tax Benefit.

Want more health policy specifics? How about:

* a National Food Policy
* a national brain strategy to help Canadians fighting Alzheimer’s
* a program to get more doctors and nurses to rural Canada by forgiving up to $20,000 in student loans

How about economic policy? In October, Ralph Goodale, Scott Brison and Marc Garneau fanned-out across the country to talk about the economy, and outline Liberal economic policy prescriptions.

Like what? Well, how about:

*a deficit reduction path of one per cent of gdp within two years
*fiscal prudence by restoring the budgeting buffer
*new programs must be financed without increasing the deficit
*freeze corporate tax rates by postponing decreases we can’t afford

The Liberals have also discussed a Rural Canada Matters strategy, a pension reform plan, an environment and clean energy plan and a pan-Canadian learning strategy. Not to mention a Global Networks Strategy to grow trade.

And here’s one that really deserves more attention: the Liberal Open Government Initiative. It will:

*Immediately restore the long-form census;
*Make as many government datasets as possible available to the public online free of charge at opendata.gc.ca in an open and searchable format, starting with Statistics Canada data, including data from the long-form census;
*Post all Access to Information requests, responses, and response times online at accesstoinformation.gc.ca; and
*Make information on government grants, contributions and contracts available through a searchable, online database at accountablespending.gc.ca.

Confronted with the reality that, wow, the Liberals are actually talking all kinds of policy, I expect to soon be hearing the media and punditry complaining: why are the Liberals wasting their time talking about policy! They should be attacking the Conservatives; no one cares about policy!

When they do, remember you heard it here first.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

I'll be back...just not quite yet...first, to Israel

Apologies for this corner having gone dark recently.

It's been a busy stretch at work, including spending most of the last week in Las Vegas for HP's Americas Partner conference. It's an event that always generates lots to cover for us, but then throw in HP deciding to drop $1.2 billion to buy Palm while I was there, and it got even busier. Was a fun trip though. Stayed at one of the newer Vegas properties, Aria, and I quite liked it. Unlike most cavernous Vegas properties where they don't want you to be reminded of the world outside, Aria has lots of glass and natural light. And there's also a route from your room to the conference centre that doesn't involve going through the casino , a first in my Vegas experience and surely a design flaw... And speaking of the casino, I'm not a big gambler but did finish in the green, including a win in the sports book from taking the Habs in game six. Didn't bet on game seven; they surprised me there.

After less than three days back home though, on Sunday afternoon I'm on the road again, but this time for pleasure. I've been invited on a week-long trip to Israel, organized by the CIC and funded by a private donor. Steve at Far and Wide will also be coming, along with some NDP/left-wing bloggers I look forward to meeting. Steve has a good run-down in the itinerary so I won't re-hash it, suffice to say it's busy, diverse and interesting. A good mix of sight-seeing and meetings with an interesting group of local politicians, journalists and bloggers, and even our ambassador to Israel. I shall try to approach it all with an open, but slightly skeptical mind. (If you're interested, here is the current Coles Notes of my opinion on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.)

I'm not sure the schedule will allow for much time for blogging during the trip, but I shall try, and certainly I'll have lots to say and share upon my return. All I ask are for two things while I'm gone: my Canucks to still be playing hockey, and my country not to have bumbled its way into an election.

Since my hiatus is to continue a little longer, a few brief thoughts on recent developments in Canadian political land:

* While we've all been distracted with either Jaffer/Guergis nonsense or the detainee docudrama, the Liberals have actually been talking and releasing policy. And much of it is aimed at rural Canada. First was some very sensible ideas around getting more doctors and nurses into rural areas by, among other things, forgiving part of their student loans if they make that commitment. This was followed by a "Canada First Good Policy" to support and promote local farmers and access to safe, healthy food, and a commitment to rural postal service.

Of course, policy isn't sexy enough for media coverage these days so you may not have heard about any of this, and the punditry that scolded the Liberals for not talking policy are, when they talk about it at all, scolding them for talking policy. Outside the Ottawa bubble, however, Canadians are much more concerned about finding a family doctor than they are about who Rahim Jaffer e-mailed. So I hope we keep pushing the policy.

* That's not to say the Jaffer/Guergis stuff isn't important. The investigations should proceed, and if serving ministers acting inappropriately or in contravention of the rules, that should be exposed and they should face the consequences. The e-mails and other documents that came out this week certainly seem to show that the Conservatives have been far from honest about Jaffer's access and influence in his seemingly not overly successful non-lobbying career. And it's often more the lack of honesty than the actual deeds that seems to hurt more in these stories, in my experience.

* On the docu-drama, the speaker's ruling this week was certainly very significant, as was the reaction of Conservative partisans. I think what some of them fail to recognize is that this isn't really about detainee torture anymore. It's about democracy, and it's about the right and responsibility of the legislative branch to be a check on the activities of the executive branch. Harper was elected by a little over 38,000 people in Calgary Southwest; he has no right to thumb his nose at the Parliament of Canada.

One has to think saner heads will prevail here. Ignore the testosterone-fueled rantings of the likes of Kory Teneycke. The Conservatives don't want an election over this. They won't be able to make it about coddling the Taliban, it's an asinine argument. It would be about a dictatorial leader refusing to respect the will of the people's elected democratic representatives. And the Cons didn't exactly fare well during the prorogation drama, now did they?

There will be a compromise reached that allows the opposition access to the uncensored documents, likely in a secret or confidential manner that respects national security concerns. We've seen signals along those lines already from Conservaland. Ironically, always concerned about political posturing and positioning, they're already trying to paint such a compromise as an opposition back-down. Truth is though, the opposition has been proposing such a scenario for months; the government has continually rebuffed it. So, as much as it matters, it would be them backing down. Let's just hope saner heads prevail all around though.

* Speaking of saner heads, the head of our military, General Walter Natynczyk, is cool with giving all of the un-redacted documents to parliament, saying the military has nothing to hide. Which raises two questions for me. One: must it be the Harper government with something to hide then? And two, if we employ standard Conservative logic here and respond as the government would in question period, I have to ask, why does our Chief of Defence Staff not support our troops, and why is he a Taliban sympathizer?

* Speaking of interlopers in our midst, turns out that pollster Frank Graves, who the Conservatives are portraying as some kind of undercover Liberal mole polluting the public airwaves of the CBC pretending to be unbiased, has actually been getting millions of dollars of polling contracts from the Conservative government. Including $131,440 from Harper's own Privy Council Office.

I'm sure Dean Del Mastro will join me in demanding that a Parliamentary Committee immediately investigate how this government could give millions of dollars in polling work to a know Liberal stooge. Or maybe they could just, you know, admit this whole manufactured drama is stupid and move on to serious issues. Either one would be fine.

* And on Graves and this culture war nonesense the Cons are hyper-ventilating about, I could go on at length but let me just say this: the Cons have been fighting a culture-war for years in this country. Urban vs. rural, Tim Horton's vs. academic elites and fancy gala goers, support the troops vs you're all taliban lovers, tough on crime vs hug-a-thug. They've been fighting a culture war, we just haven't been fighting back. All Graves "advised" was for the Liberals to start employing some wedges of their own, to fight back, to basically use some of the same tactics Harper et. al. have to some success. And this is news, somehow? For the Cons to be all bitchy about someone suggesting their own tactics be used against them, tactics which have been part of politics, by the way, forever, is just stupid.

* Lastly, I have a great deal of respect for Ujjal Dosanjh, for what he has consistently and resolutely stood for throughout his career, the principled approach he takes to public life, and the energy and commitment with which he approaches it. And I join those who have condemned the threats and attacks against him and others who have dared to stand up to extremism in any of its guises. I'm no sure I agree completely with his take on the impact multiculturalism is having on Canadian society. But it's an important issue we should be debating, and it should be a debate free of threat and intimidation, in the best of Canadian traditions.

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

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

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