Ignatieff: Conscription If Necessary?

In today's policy forum on Afghanistan, Michael Ignatieff stated that all youth should go overseas.

As soldiers???

If Iggy wanted to suggest we should have a national volunteer corps, he should have said so. He didn't.

If Iggy wanted to suggest that every Canadian youth should have sufficient economic security and resources to spend time in foreign lands developing a broader understanding of different cultures, languages, and ways of living so that they could return to Canada wiser and with a greater understanding for their fellow human beings, he should have said so. He didn't.

If Iggy wanted to say that he has travelled around the world from the plush chair of his human rights professorship, and he thinks it was a great experience that qualifies him to be the leader of the party and the country, he could have said so (although that would have underlined the fact that he is an elitist, aspiring philosopher-king). He didn't.

What he did say, in the context of a discussion of our role in a foreign war, is that all Canadian youth should be sent overseas.

I've been to about thirty countries, and I absolutely believe that travel is an incredibly rewarding learning experience, and a fantastic opportunity for personal growth. But as a political leader it's stupid to say that, unless you have a positive plan for ensuring that youths have this opportunity. It's even stupider to say it in the context of a debate on a foreign war, when the obvious (although surely incorrect) interpretation is that if youth can't or won't travel, they should be forced to through military service.

Igantieff's strategy at this convention should have been not to say anything stupid for these three days. He can't manage it. He quite simply lacks sufficient political awareness to avoid saying something stupid for three short, sweet days. How could this possibly be a man that enjoys a plurality of support among delegates?

Perhaps they were conscripted.

Negative Campaigning

A poll released today by Maclean's compares the "negatives" of candidates: some positive and negative information on each was presented, and people were asked whether they were more or less likely to vote Liberal.

ALL the top four contenders had overall negatives (as in more people said they would be less likely than said they would be more likely to vote Liberal if that candidate was the leader). But Kennedy's negatives were the lowest (e.g. people are the least concerned about his potential weaknesses), less than a third of Iggy's and Rae's. I'm confident Iggy and Rae are leading on name recognition, not because they're the best candidates, and when people have a chance to learn more about the candidate (as they will after the leader is chosen) they will shy away from Iggy and Bob, and warm to Kennedy.

Think the next Federal campaign will be dirty and hard-fought? Best pick a leader whose weaknesses don't outweigh their strengths.

Momentum Builds at Kennedy Party

Wow, what a great party at les 3 brasseurs. At peak there were several hundred people upstairs, with a lineup going down the stairs, more people on the main level, more people milling around outside. These were people from all camps, Iggy people, Rae people, Dion people, all of who presumably passed up the chance to spend that time at their own candidate's hospitality suite. I think the momentum is in the air, and i was really glad to see the broad support for my candidate because I believe he is best positioned to heal old wounds and renew this party as leader and Prime Minister.

Also, this guy kept trying to have his picture taken with me. Generally I avoid having my picture taken with anyone handsomer than myself, but I figured that in the spirit of party renewal and Kennedy momentum I could make an exception. Anyone recognize him?

Breaking News - Sgro's Dozen for MHF!

The power of undeclared delegates is only just beginning to make itself known. Not only does it put the kybosh on many bloggers' attempts to predict why the second round will go to their candidate (you know who you are), but tonight we learned that Judy Sgro is bringing 12 undeclared delegates from her Toronto riding who will all support Martha Hall Findlay.

That's just cool. I would vote for her on the first round if I could, just to make sure she doesn't come last on the first round. Actually, I hope she hangs in for a few. Good on ya, Martha!

Day 1 Convention Highlights

o A great speech by Shawn Graham, new Premier of New Brunswick. Here's a guy that took over the Libs there after a drubbing, fought like a cornered tiger, hung in through a loss to Bernard Lord by the thinnest of margins, and stood to fight another day. I also couldn't help but notice that his french was, well, schoolboyish, but he won a majority in the only officially bilingual province int he country, including a majority of the francophone ridings. Turns out that French-speakers actually want good leadership, not just any old turkey who happens to be bilingual. I have no doubt that Gerard Kennedy's french is just as good, and his ability to win the support of francophones is even better.

o A really heartfelt standing ovation for Bill Graham. The footage of him in the retrospective video reminded me of Pierre Trudeau and made me wonder how come he had never been the real leader, rather than interim leader. He is a great man, and I think a man of integrity - we could not have done better.

o A solid performance by Howard Dean. He talked friendship and brotherhood, and he talked election turkey, but best of all, he talked FRENCH. And then laughed at Fox news, who was here in Montreal to cover his speech, and who almost certainly had no idea what he was saying or what they were supposed to do about it. Classic.

Now it's off to the bloggers hospitality suite at the hotel Place D'armes, and then on to hang with the GK peeps at 3 Brasseurs (105 Rue St. Paul). See you tomorrow, nation!

Poll: Ignatieff name recognition strongest in Quebec

Carleton University published a poll of 500 Quebeckers (or Quebecois - they weren't specific) that basically resembles game of family feud and provides similar measures of usefulness and entertainment.

First, those polled said that "winnability" was the most important thing. They want a winner to win. Wow.

Second, when asked who was best to lead the Liberals and who was most likely to beat Harper, the answers were statistically identical. They shouldn't be, and there's a reason they are. That reason is name recognition - they believe what the newspapers and the liberal insiders have been telling them since February, that the guy who has been in Maclean's magazine umpteen times this year, who has had 15,000 word laudatory essays printed in otherwise reputable "news"papers is the right guy for the job.

Frankly, this is like taking a poll of 500 Quebeckers to find out who will win the Superbowl. What do you want to bet the runaway winner would be "the Cowboys," America's team? Because everyone knows the Cowboys. Everyone knows they're good. But the real question is whether that name recognition makes any difference on the field (it doesn't), and whether or not the other teams are not just good but better (several are).

Same goes here. I have no doubt if they had asked "which candidate is the most divisive?" or "which candidate makes the most gaffes?" or "which candidate more likely eats eggs for breakfast?" the answers would have been the same. It's name recognition, nothing more.

Will that make any difference in the spring, assuming we have an election then? Of course not. Whichever candidate is picked will have the party behind them. They will be front and centre, in the house or getting a seat, being the voice of the party and the conscience of Canada. We will build on their strengths where they are strong, and work to overcome their difficulties where they are weak.

So all this poll tells us is what we already know, that Iggy has been the 'presumed frontrunner' , that, Bob has spent enough money to put himself in second, and that Dion is famous (both loved and hated) in his home province. When we elect Gerard as the leader of the party, the people of Quebec will get to know him, they will admire his accomplishments, his integrity, his conviction, and they will respect his plan for making Canada a great place. They will want to be part of that Canada, and we will win more seats in Quebec under Kennedy than we did last winter.

Too bad that just doesn't fit in a polling question, 19 times out of 20.

Frontrunners Invincible?

Paul Wells gives the boring answer that the front-runner will probably win. He could have saved us the trouble and provided us a link to Cerberus' page, since he's been saying that since Iggy was only the 'presumed frontrunner' back in June.

Wells then quotes PHD candidate Peter Loewen, who as far as I can tell gets at least one thing absolutely wrong, which is shocking considering the obvious relevance.

According to our soon-to-be-doctor, a front rnuner with >30% support has never lost at a federal delegated convention, and the last time this happened at a provincial convention was Ontario 1958. However, look back at this post from the deep dark history of six weeks ago, and you will see that the most recent Ontario convention featured a front-runner with 30% support who was overtaken on the final ballot by the guy in 4th place. I repeat, for posterity, that I both hope and believe this will happen again, and Gerard Kennedy will cruise to 4th ballot victory, then lead the Liberal party to a series of majorities.

Bonjour, Montreal

Je suis arrive, et bien sur je suis tres occupe, mais je doit vous monter ce video de Rick Mercer avec GK!

Gerard Kennedy heads strong into convention

Grammar be damned - things are looking great for Gerard.

Of course, he recently added Tom Axworthy's endorsement to Justin Trudeau's, which pretty much makes him the official candidate of the Trudeau school, if there is such a thing. He has also been making headlines for his position on the Quebec resolution. And before I get started on it, let me merely say that whatever your personal position, I think these figures are relevant:

Four times as many Canadians say they would be less likely to elect a liberal leader who supported it compared to those who would be more likely; within the liberal party the ration is 3:1.

Even within our own party, we should have at least one credible candidate who is opposed; and one might idly wonder how we will presume to lead the country when the party's leadership is so out-of-touch with ordinary Canadians.

Which brings me to the issue itself.

Firstly, Kennedy is right that it's dangerous and divisive. We as Liberals were basically freaking out that this was going to humiliate us at the convention and leave the party more wounded than before. The only silver lining is that now Harper has adopted a similar motion in the house, the Tories are showing the same divisions. So, thank goodness he chose to borrow our gun and shoot himself in the foot, but I don't think we get much credit for that.

Secondly, Kennedy is right that it's vague and therefore dangerous. What is this saying "Quebecois" in french and "Quebeckers" in English? What does distinct mean? What does nation mean? What kind of nation is it? Who is included? If they get one, who else should? Is theirs more important, so it deserves recognition while the Cree do not? Should they be recognized in the constitution while the Metis and Inuit are not? Is the language and culture of Quebec more distinctive than the language and culture of Toronto's Chinatown? Shouldn't Chinese Canadians be recognized as a distinct society forming an ethnic nation in Canada, now that we finally got around to apologizing for the head tax? This is the sort of BS that gives politicians and liberals a bad name. Good for Kennedy and Ken Dryden for refusing to give in.

Let's get on with making this country a better place. We can start by electing Gerard Kennedy as the leader of the Liberal Party, and the next Prime Minister of Canada.

Dion Campaign Finished

I don't think the Globe has picked a winner in the entire time I've been a reader. So, when I saw that the editors in their wisdom had chosen to honour Dion with their endorsement, I knew for sure that his campaign was finished.

Well done M. Dion, and well fought. You have made a fine Minister, and you will again soon I'm sure.

Trudeau Endorses Gerard Kennedy

It just feels good to say that. Or write it, as the case may be.

"To my mind, Gerard represents the best chance for creating genuine solutions to appeal to all Canadians,” Mr. Trudeau said in a telephone interview from Calgary.

He said he had talked to the top candidates and found them to be decent people but said that the party needs bold leadership and “there is really one choice and that's Gerard.”

Now, Justin is not his father and he hasn't earned the same respect his father has. But he is a Quebecker and I do think he has a good understanding of Quebec in a federalist sense, and I think that makes this a very valuable endorsement for a man whose greatest weakness has been his lack of Quebec presence.

Justin also seems to emphasize something I very much believe in, which is that Quebeckers are normal, sensible people and the vast majority of them will be happy in a Canada that works and works well. Using government to create "genuine solutions that appeal to all Canadians" is the way to win Quebec, not interminable legal and semantic wranglings. It's this common-sense, hard-working approach that distinguishes Gerard Kennedy from the other candidates, and it's one that will be great for Canada.

NOBODY saw Quebecois coming??

The Hill Times reports today that "Nobody saw this coming." They are referring to Harper's announcement on recognizing the Quebecois nation. Now, of course by "this" they include the timing of the announcement, which certainly hadn't been foreshadowed.

But if they're talking about the content, then once again bloggers were way ahead of the curve. If you look down to Braeden's video, which I posted on November 8th (15 days ago, if you're counting, and I am) you will see the following comment by yours truly:

Braeden - great video. Aslo [sic] I agree - I think we should recognize "the Quebecois", which does not include everyone in the province of Quebec.

http://torontogavin.blogspot.com/2006/11/pierre-trudeau-on-quebec.html

Now, I authored the comment but not the idea, so please, for posterity, help me find out who did! Current race leader: me, on November 8th 2006.

Who's Counting?

I wrote about Bob's fiscal habits in my last post, and CuriosityCat told me my argument was pathetic. Of course a quick review of the candidates' returns shows that Bob has double the debt load of the next biggest debtor, having borrowed almost as much as he has raised. So he's the worst in terms of absolute volume of debt, and the second worst of the top four in terms of his ratio. In strange concidence, he also has relatively fewer, richer donors, as you can see from the DemocraticSpace analysis.

For those of you who were told there would be no math, I have done some more for you. The money reported on the second return covers only the second week in November (the first return covers the whole race up to that point). Staying on debt for just a moment, we see that Bob has borrowed another $140,000 from his brother, and Dion has borrowed another $50,000 (not from Bob's brother). Iggy and Gerard have no new debt.

But forget debt; budgeting is boring. I like momentum. The money raised from individual donors in the second report is:

Ignatieff: $44.5K
Kennedy: $30K
Rae: $23K
Dion: $11K

By all accounts Iggy is the front-runner, but it's nice to see that Gerard Kennedy is the one still inspiring new supporters to donate to his cause in greater numbers than the rest. It's also inspiring to think that you don't need to be able to borrow three quarters of a million dollars from your brother to run for the leadership of the party. As for winning it, time will tell.

Has Bob Rae learned anything?

So, everyone admits that Bob's time as Premier of Ontario is the big skeleton in his closet, his Achilles heel. Although the recession can be blamed, the fact remains that Bob raised taxes in a vain attempt to deficit spend Ontario out of a recession, a recession that lasted longer here than in the other provinces (or our neighbour to the south).

Bob says he's learned from his mistakes. But has he?

Since April, Bob has borrowed over $700,000 from his brother John to finance his campaign. If Bob can't even keep his fiscal house in order for an 8 month leadership campaign, how are we supposed to believe he can skipper the good ship Canada?

Actions speak louder than words, and clearly Bob hasn't learned much.

John Laforet Backs Kennedy for Leader

Ontario Young Liberal Riding Director and Scarborough Guildwood Riding President John Laforet threw his support behind Liberal Leadership Candidate Gerard Kennedy today. I understand he was previously an Ignatieff campaign manager for Scarborough. Says Laforet:

“The Liberal Party can’t afford to take time for on-the-job-training of our next leader. Kennedy carries the most opposition experience, having successfully won a seat held by the NDP for decades and remains the only candidate to have defeated a neo-Conservative government.”

Iggy supporters - does he know something you don't?

No Oktoberfest for Rumsfeld

According to TIME magazine, our friend Don is debating whether to attend a conference in Germany because a human rights group is seeking a war crimes prosecution against him there. Germany has a universal jurisdiction clause for war crimes, which allows its courts to take jurisdiction even when the alleged events took place outside of Germany's borders. Papers were filed with a prosecutor last year, who declined to take jurisdiction because:

1) Mr. Rumsfeld was in office an may have enjoyed immunity; and
2) The US Government was investigating.

The papers have been re-filed since Rummy is now out of office and the US investigation found - surprise! - no responsibility on the part of senior officers, thus establishinghte required unwillingness or inability of the home state to live up to its legal responsibilities. Just a few bad apples at the bottom, nothing to see here.

Obviously, the Germans are jealous of America's freedom; they hate America's democracy and christianity and wealth, and everything America stands for. They will not sleep until they have carried out another arrest on America. Let us all pray the Democrats can get the army out of Iraq quickly, so that it can be redeployed against the krauts, as it should be. Plus WW2 was the last war that America had any pride in, and coincidentally the last one it won, so everyone from the White House on down should be eager for a sequel.

Pot smoking profs win legal battle

Check out this story. Do they actually still grow pot at that Flin Flon facility?

Remembering

Probably not many of you will have a father and an uncle who fought in World War 2, as I do, both of whom are very much alive. So if you don't have anyone personal to remember and thank, maybe thank everyone instead:

Great War:

66,655 Canadian soldiers killed, 172,950 wounded
5,565,146 Allied soldiers killed
15,596,071 total dead

World War II:
45,300 Canadian soldiers killed
24,456,700 military deaths
32,326,700 civilian deaths

Also as most readers will already know there is are three veterans of the Great War yet with us: Lloyd Clemett (106 years of age), John Babcock (also 106 years of age) and Percy Wilson (105 years of age). Please sign this petition to give the last surviving veteran a state funeral. It seems a small token to me.

Gerard Kennedy at Ryerson

Gerard was at the shiny new Ryerson School of Business building today, and appropriately his comments centered on his vision for an 'enterprising' Canada.

As usual, the speech covered a wide range of topics. I really appreciate how Gerard tries to bring different threads together. Our society doesn't work in neat little compartments, and real leadership cannot be compartmentalized either.

Enterprise begins with recognizing a problem. We have become complacent, given a great country with many distinct advantages by our parents. But we have not increased that complement of advantages. We were able to succeed relative to many nations based on a manufacturing sector that rode a low dollar, and now on a resource sector buoyed by high world prices. We should not think that these temporary successes are to our credit. A number of pervasive gaps with our OECD competitors persist: in higher education, in productivity, in small business investment.

By contrast, other small nations (by which he means small in the OECD context, as we are) have been able to forge a consensus on a direction, and have been able to create real advantage in that direction. Ireland and Sweden are common examples.

But for Gerard, enterprise is not about business, and that's why it is not the same as entrepreneurialism. Entrepreneurship is about profit, whereas Enterprise involves government and the non-profit sector. Enterprise does share much in common with entrepreneurship, however, including a willingness to take risks, and the associated willingness to make mistakes.

This willingness to take risks must be fostered by strong leadership, leadership that strives to build a consensus on the direction that Canada should be taking. Gerard cited several top line goals for Canada: To push into the top 5 in productivity within 5 years; to halve the Canada/US gap in higher education; to sign bilateral trade deals with our five biggest trading partners. Some strategies for meeting these objectives include the national education strategy, tax credits for small business investments; attention to infrastructure (both of the bricks and social kinds); economic incentives to R+D; and clarification of IP rules governing public/private research.

Accordingly, Gerard thinks the role of the Federal Government is in identifying those areas where the economic and social interests of Canada are aligned, and driving towards a consensus in those areas to enable concerted action between government, non-profit, and industry. The immigrant success gap, for example, is a social problem with a healthy return on investment. The economic loss from their underutiliziation has been estimated at $6 billion a year. Solving the social problems associated with immigration is not simply a cost or a burden, it is an opportunity to better utilize our human capital and make Canada a wealthier place, from doctors driving cabs to Albertans who can't find employees.

Other particular areas Gerard mentioned included action on the environment (for example fuel cells or small-footprint oil sand extraction technologies, the implementation of a cap-and-trade system) and the opening protected industries to harness competitive energy (telcos and banks).

A key point, however, is that it is not the job of the PM to select these areas. A participative system involving a broad cross-section of Canadians has to identify these areas of censensus; they cannot be driven top down and so the plan is not about fuel cells and investment credits, but about breaking down the artificial conflict between our social good and our economic good, and thereby enabling their mutual support and improvement.

Finally, Gerard emphasized the cost of missed opportunity. Kyoto, for example, was an area where a lot of consensus was generated about the direction, but it was never translated to action on the ground. The longer we wait, the more the consensus falls apart and the more difficult it will be to make headway towards our objectives. This is not just about promises made - our failure will damage our competitive position as compared to many of our friends in the OECD.

I was really pleased with Gerard's speech and I'm excited about the prospect of co-operative enterprise. I have long been disappointed at the ability of certain stakeholders in industry to portray change as zero-sum (think record companies and oil companies), or to portray social ills as only drains on our purse, and not opportunities (as in environmental technologies and immigration). Gerard admits candidly that this kind of change is not easy, and there will be some dislocation. The result, however, will be a stronger and wealthier Canada, vigorous and competitive on the global stage, and not just a cork bobbing in a global ocean.

UPDATE
Get more details from the official press release here.

Ignatieff on the Constitution

"Creating the conditions to embark on another round of constitutional reform will no doubt take time. When the good faith is there, when the common understanding is there, when the political will is there, we must bring this unfinished business to a successful conclusion."

No nuancing or interpretation required. The Constitution is "unfinished business" and constitutional change to recognize the unique status of Quebec is simply a matter of creating winning conditions. Sort of like the ones for winning a sovereignty referendum, but softer.

So, Iggy supporters - is it that all the candidates agree? That Iggy is not committed to action? Don't believe those things. If you want to believe them, it's only because you are mistrustful of your own candidate's position. Stop with the cognitive dissonance and just find another candidate.

Also check out these embarrassing comments by William Hogg, the resolution's author.

Pierre Trudeau on Quebec

This deserves to be reposted.

Lest We Forget

Remembrance Day is not for honouring past glories but for remembering past lessons, learned by a lost generation that was butchered and damned. Yet, though three Canadian veterans of the Great War are with us still, Mr. Harper has hijacked its observance in the name of partisan propaganda. Using Remembrance Day's solemnity, McCrae's deep sadness, and scenes from the killing fields of France to glorify war is unconscionable.

Loyalty puts Gerard Kennedy campaign in race for 2nd

The title is a bit of hyperbole, but not of the worst sort - bear with me. The EKOS poll had something for everyone, but I have looked at two measures of delegate loyalty:

Delegates' Attendance Intentions
delegates saying they are likely or almost certain to attend (% of total delegates)

Gerard Kennedy 93.9%
Michael Ignatieff 93.0%
Bob Rae 91.9%
Stephane Dion 85.9%

Delegates' Second Round Intentions
delegates saying their first round selection remains their first choice

Gerard Kennedy 92.9%
Michael Ignatieff 89.0%
Bob Rae 87.9%
Stephane Dion 81.9%

By simply multiplying the retention rates we can find mathematically how many committed second round delegates we can expect (yes, a path fraught with perilous assumptions I know).

Decided, attending second round support (% decided delegates elected):

Michael Ignatieff 36.9% (36.0%)
Bob Rae 24.2% (24.2%)
Gerard Kennedy 22.3% (20.7%)
Stephane Dion 16.6% (19.1%)

Now, the data from the first table was presented (in order of candidate support under the caption "Dion Delegates Less Likely to Attend Convention." The second was on the next page with the caption "required first ballot support retention". I can see the Dion story for the first, but why don't we get "Kennedy Delegates Most Committed" for the second? I mean, he is first on both loyalty metrics.

Also, when looking at my (calculated) committed support numbers, you see that Kennedy leaves Dion in the dust and is virtually neck and neck with Rae. That could make a huge difference on the second ballot, after which Dion will have to decide who to support if he remains in fourth. It's also a pretty good story in and of itself, since we are mostly hearing about Bob as clear second and Kennedy and Dion fighting it out for third. If these loyalty figures bear out it will not be even close to a fight for third, it will be Gerard looking for the momentum to fight Rae for second.

With an enormous number of delegates coming in undecided, and hundreds more no longer intending to vote for their committed first round candidate, momentum on the floor will mean a lot. The leaky ships of the Ignatieff and Dion campaigns can have expected to lose over 200 delegates each by the second round, and it's hard to pick up steam while you're taking on water.
So for all those hoping this would turn out like that last Ontario Liberal leadership, too bad - Gerard's doing way too well, and could make the victory by the third round, fourth at the latest.

The Gang at Hugh's Room

It looks like I can only post one picture with each article, so here is another superb portrait (Katie, Jon, Jeanette, and me) taken by campaign photographer Théria Kennedy!

Gerard Kennedy at Hugh's Room

I attended Gerard's fundraiser at Hugh's Room on Sunday before heading off to my father's 84th birthday party (that's right). Hugh's room is a great little Jazz and Music venue in Gerard's old riding of Parkdale-High Park, and I got to spend the first half hour or so floating from table to table to the sweet sounds of the Jazz trio.

Gerard was introduced by Mary Jo Leddy and June "the conscience of Canada" Callwood. June provided a very powerful introduction, first describing Canada as a country that is too big and too harsh for s to survive without helping each other. She then related a personal story from her childhood in the depression, describing the particular way in which those who have not eaten in some time bolt food down. Her mother had told her not to stare. She thought that she would not see that again, but she sees it now in spite of the fact that we are so wealthy. That led naturally to the Food Bank - a 'monument' to Gerard, which he nonetheless considers a national disgrace because we should not be feeding people from food banks.

When Gerard took the mic, he admitted that he and June did not always see eye-to-eye on food banks: while he agreed that we should not need to feed people that way, the fact remains that there are people in our cities going hungry and something has to be done. That really set the tone for the rest of his comments, and the theme of getting your hands dirty and actually doing something was recurrent. He recalled how food shortage in Nicaragua was attracting a lot of media attention in those days, but that he was "not the kind of person to go there and tell other people how to live. We have lots of work to do right here... We don't have the luxury of just criticizing, something needs to be done." This view was ultimately developed into a sharp attack on the Harper Tories, who run a government that "says you get some money back, and someone to blame, and you don't have to worry about your neighbours." I also found it to be a sharp contrast to the ill-conceived foreign policy direction of Michael Ignatieff, who seems to have his mouth full of feet when it comes to telling other people how they should be living, be they Israeli or Iraqi or Afghani or Lebanese. I think our supposed ability to tell others how to live their lives and run their countries should be approached with a certain humility.

Gerard also spoke of complacency, a subject that must resonate with my generation. We had the keys to a compassionate and just future - things like health care and the Charter - handed to us by our parents, but our children cannot yet say the same about us. He thinks of Canada therefore as being a nation "waiting to be unleashed" - one that can develop its human resources as well as its natural resources and, while recognizing that we are a small player globally, "the PEI of the world," we can punch above our weight in economics and in reputation, a "confident Canada with its own moral voice." As an 'international country', Canada can recognize its role in helping shape how globalization develops. We need to be confident in the fact that we are respected and we are entitled to respect - from our southern neighbour, on issues like the softwood lumber deal, and from NATO with respect to our forces in Afghanistan.

Influencing how globalization develops is also an area where we have work to do right here at home, and not mere criticism of the way other countries view or handle globalization. Gerard spoke of immigrants as representing a $6 billion economic hole in Canada - the loss we suffer from failing to ensure they have the economic opportunities they deserve. He similarly spoke of first nations peoples - and the town where he grew up was close to 50% first nations. We need to be determined that they will have the same economic opportunities as the rest of us.

He also spoke, indirectly, about change within the party. He noted that, while more open than previous leadership races, this race was still not open enough or participative enough. He said that while many candidates are talking about the under-representation of women, what is required is simple determination to ensure that in 2 or 3 elections, the Liberal Party is 50% women. To me, this is one piece of the nation waiting to be unleashed: if we decide to do it, if we pick the directions in which we will exert our efforts, there is no way we cannot succeed. Gerard admitted that he is not the person with all the answers - he is the person that tries to set the questions.

Gerard's speech spanned many topics and issues, too many to repeat here, and was delivered with candour, confidence, and heart-felt sincerity. I believe that a Liberal Party led by Gerard Kennedy will be one that challenges Canadians to take a look at the tough issues facing our society, roll up our sleeves, and make sure we hand our children a worthy legacy, as our parents handed us. I agree with Gerard that we cannot have a government that will only be moved by its own self-interest. We are a nation waiting to be unleashed, and we need a kind of leadership that will demonstrate clearly the kind of people that we can be, remind us that we are capable of becoming that people, and then take off the leash and join us in getting our hands dirty in the becoming.

We need a Gerard Kennedy kind of leadership, and in less than a month we just might get it.

Théria Kennedy, photographer

I was at Gerard's fundraiser at Hugh's Room on Sunday, where I met a very talented photographer name Théria (pictured here, with her mother Jeanette). More on the event in a moment!

G

Ignatieff for PM?

"If he ever becomes prime minister and tries to advance on this file, I shudder for the country."

-Jeffrey Simpson, on Ignatieff's constitutional proposal.