Daniel D. Veniez2013-05-24T15:33:05-04:00Daniel D. Veniezhttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=daniel-d-veniezCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Daniel D. VeniezGood old fashioned elbow grease.This Isn't Your Grandmother's Liberal Partytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.30482382013-04-10T08:20:55-04:002013-04-10T08:49:29-04:00Daniel D. Veniezhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-d-veniez/
I was no exception. Although the increasing coarseness of our public life has greatly diminished the respect with which we hold our democratic institutions, I hold steadfast to the conviction that elected office is a profoundly noble and important calling.
As a senior ministerial advisor in the mid-1980s, I observed how rewarding being a member of cabinet and parliament could be. This truth is I wanted to be one of them when I grew up.
At age 48, I tried, but didn't get there.
While I don't have the temperament of a "natural politician", I felt that once I got over the hurdle of getting elected, I would make a pretty good parliamentarian. The hard reality is that getting elected is job one for any aspiring politician.
I thought I was a hotshot. After all, I was born and raised in a Quebec working class family and became "self-made." I've read widely, travelled to over 50 countries in the world, am fluently bilingual, been to every corner of Canada many times, and have lived in British Columbia for over a decade. My professional life has been varied and substantial. I have more than my share of battle scars and have seen both big success and big failure up close.
I ran as a Liberal because that's my philosophical natural home. I identify myself as a pragmatic centrist. I am a free-enterpriser with a strong sense of social justice; believe that strengthening national unity is an enduring imperative, and am an internationalist. I am a staunch supporter of the Charter of Rights, believe in a robust federal government that promotes and defends the national interest, and reason that there is no inherent contradiction between environmental protection and economic growth. In fact, they are and should be indissolubly connected.
Like many who ran under the Liberal banner in in 2012, I got my posterior handed to me in the most public of ways. Losing is never fun; but losing so publicly and ferociously is devastating. I was the first Liberal in memory to come in third in a riding where that spot was owned by the NDP. I was humbled like I never had been before. Despite the constant reminders from friends and loved ones that there were other factors beyond my control involved, losing is losing. Rationalizations notwithstanding, it was my name on the ballot, no one else's.
I first met the new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Michael Ignatieff, in February 2009. I found myself as impressed with him in conversation as I was reading his substantial body of work. He was head and shoulders more qualified, was more broad-gauged, had more real-world experience, and had more insight into the issues in the world and in the country than any of the other party leaders. He's also a lovely human being.
I was relieved when Ignatieff announced the convening of a "Thinkers Conference" in Montreal, modelled after previous conferences in Kingston and Alymer. I was invited to attend, and on the first morning, I took the microphone to make a brief observation and ask a question.
Vancouver Island MP, Keith Martin, did the same. During the coffee break Keith and I were both approached by Pat Sobora, a stranger who I had not previously met. She was Ignatieff's "chief operating officer", and reminded me of that scary nun in the movie Doubt, played by Meryl Streep. She told us in no uncertain terms that MPs and candidates were not welcomed to ask any questions or make comments during the conference. I was taken aback, and Keith was livid beyond words. Why, I asked him, was I so dumb as to spend $5,000 of my own money to be there? The answer soon became clear; this was a public relations exercise, not a genuine effort to flesh-out anything.
At the conclusion of the conference, Ignatieff announced that a Liberal government would rescind the corporate tax cut, which was part of the budget that Liberals had voted for. Corporate taxes did not come up at all during two days of meetings. It was the one and only policy announcement he made coming out of the Montreal meeting.
A week into the election campaign, a large box came to the house. It was the "Family Pack", the campaign platform that only staffers and a few MPs had seen. I certainly hadn't, and like others, had to scramble to get up to speed while convincing myself that this was the best thing since sliced bread.
It wasn't. Just like the "Green Shift" before it, the party and its leaders were tone deaf to what really mattered to Canadians. Justin Trudeau will never make that mistake. He possesses a precious attribute that you can't learn and is indispensible to successful leadership: political judgment. In fact, not since Jean Chretien has a Liberal Party leader had it in such abundance.
In Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party there will be no tablets delivered to doorsteps a week into an election campaign. What the party stands for will certainly have Trudeau's imprinteur on it -- as it should. A strong sense of shared values will be woven into the fabric of this new enterprise.
Owing in no small measure to the resolve and courage of Bob Rae and the dynamism of Trudeau, today this is a different party. It is far more grounded, optimistic, forward-looking, and hopeful since anytime I can remember. It is also pragmatically focused on the economic and social policy bread-and-butter issues that move the dial on our collective well-being and standard of living.
The genius of Trudeau's approach is his direct appeal to Canadians, over the heads of the shrinking Liberal Grand Poobah class. A vast majority of Trudeau's audience are not and will not be actively engaged as partisans in any political formation. No, these are Canadians of all ages that want and need a breath of fresh air on our political culture and institutions.
Trudeau's remarkable reach and celebrity ensures that power returns to the people. Vested interests will take a back seat to Canada, for a change.
Cynicism, treating voters for fools, and ultra-partisanship and all that goes with it has become passé. We see this shift in the upcoming shellacking the government of British Columbia's Christy Clark is about to take at the hands of a positive and smart NDP leader, Adrian Dix.
A new culture and mindset is emerging where entitlement is being exorcised from the Liberal Party of Canada's DNA. Trudeau personifies a new attitude: Canada and the national interest are coming first. The country seems to believe -- with good reason -- that Justin Trudeau and this renewed party, free of its black eyes and self-doubt, is in this for the right reasons and for a noble purpose.
I believe that Canadians will unify around Trudeau, a remarkable individual that has connected on a visceral level with the country. I also have no doubt that his unifying force will rally our best and brightest again to the service of Canada.
As I was on a stage in the middle of the election "debates" in my riding, I vividly recall thinking of the Groucho Marx line: "I would not join any club that would have someone like me as a member." I need not have worried. The voters had no intention of issuing an invitation to me. Yet deep down, even today, I would love nothing more than to serve, especially at this moment in our history.
That's the compelling power of renewal and hope.
]]>Vietnam Becomes an Asian Tigertag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.28678042013-03-13T12:46:47-04:002013-05-13T05:12:01-04:00Daniel D. Veniezhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-d-veniez/
The Vietnamese are a profoundly resilient and fiercely independent people. Scars are fading away and are being replaced by a sense of possibility and optimism.
Home to 88-million souls and roughly the total area of the State of New Mexico, Vietnam has become an energetic source of economic and political progress. Change has been quick and spectacular. According to the World Bank, Vietnam's poverty rate fell from 58 per cent in 1993 to 14 per cent in 2008. A staggering 35-million Vietnamese have been lifted out of poverty.
In 2007, Vietnam became a member of the World Trade Organization. Since then, foreign direct investment has been on a steady upward trajectory and a tireless entrepreneurial class is making its mark. This month, Pham Nhat Vuong, 44, who heads real estate developer Vingroup, made the Forbes billionaires list with a net worth put at $1.5 billion. That news was met with cheers throughout Vietnam.
World leaders have taken notice and are beating a path to Vietnam's door. With an average annual GDP growth rate of 7.2 per cent in the 10 years before the 2008-2009 financial meltdown, Vietnam has been one of the fastest growing economies in the world. It has a rapidly expanding middle class and the market for consumer goods is strong and getting stronger. Since the '80s, Vietnam has adopted market-oriented policy reforms that have accelerated since 2007. Vietnam has achieved middle-income status, with a per capita income of $1,200, an unimaginable threshold a few decades ago.
At the heart of Vietnam's astonishing transformation has been Nguyen Tan Dung, elected by the National Assembly to serve as the prime minister. When Dung took office in 2006, GDP was $52 billion. Despite the seemingly impenetrable obstacles, it hit $124 billion last year, a whopping 138 per cent increase in six years.
Inflation has been a consequence of exponential growth. Dung and his colleagues moved decisively to stabilize the Dong and wrestle inflation to the ground. In 2011, inflation hit 19 per cent. Politically bold but painful monetary tightening resulted in a dramatic improvement of macro-economic conditions last year when inflation stood at 9.2 per cent.
Prime Minister Dung and his colleagues have held the line on public spending. Total public debt was 48 per cent of GDP. That's a pretty impressive accomplishment when one considers that Japan's public debt, for example, is 219 per cent of GDP. The United States is 105 per cent, France 89 per cent, United Kingdom 89 per cent, and Canada 84 per cent.
The Government led by Dung has done all of this while keeping unemployment down to 4 per cent, improving health care, education, and modernizing national infrastructure. It is easy to underestimate the gargantuan complexity of rebuilding the country and ushering it into the 21st century. The political skill and managerial discipline of underpinning Vietnam's steady recovery has been nothing short of miraculous.
In a new report, "Growing Beyond Asia," Ernst & Young economists forecast a return to robust growth by 2014-2015, with Vietnam's GDP climbing to 7.1 per cent.
E&Y says stability of the banking system and streamlining foreign direct investment rules is key. Vietnam's political leadership strongly concurs with these observations. Last December, Victoria Kwakwa of the World Bank congratulated Hanoi for stabilizing the Dong, which took "strong political commitment and resolve, which has allowed the needed bold actions."
However, problems are inevitable in any country in the midst of such remarkable growth and transformation. Complications arising from poor management of certain state-owned enterprises, a weak banking and financial sector, and some inefficiency in public investments necessitate restructuring. Here too, Dung has confronted the issues head-on by instituting reform and accountability measures.
Of course, none of this is unique to Vietnam. Yet the self-righteous criticize the Vietnamese Government and Communist Party for SOE's that functioned beyond their mandate and became overextended.
Effective governance is a major test of national leadership everywhere in the world, including all western democracies. The financial meltdown had its genesis in the United States. It cost the world economy tens of trillions of dollars and their state-owned or controlled organizations are no better.
According to ProPublica, the cost of the fix of mortgage insurers, Fannie May and Freddie Mac was $142 billion. The banks received hundreds of billions for taxpayer-funded bailouts. Meanwhile, their executives received pay packages in the hundreds of millions.
In Vietnam, executives were fired, and some sent to prison. And some have the nerve to give lectures to these people?
Vietnam's miraculous advancement in the past 15 years has been remarkable. Still, no one in the country -- much less its leaders such as Dung and his colleagues -- is satisfied or smug about the arduous task that remains.
Yet, skeptics persevere. What far too many observers of Vietnam fail to understand is that at the root of its struggles is an unquenched thirst for national independence and self-determination.
Fredrick Logevall chronicles that fight in his wonderful book, Embers of War. He describes the attempts made by the remarkable Ho Chi Minh to reach out to various U.S. Presidents.
Ho was a great admirer of the ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence and was inspired by the American Revolution. He believed that Americans would innately grasp the resoluteness of the Vietnamese anti-colonial mentality. Ho naturally thought that he would find a kindred spirit in the United States. It was not to be. While Franklin Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower resisted U.S. intervention in Indochina and encouraged France to let go of its colonial ambitions, a fragile and treacherous post-war geostrategic environment trumped all else. Vietnam became a battlefield of the Cold War.
As has been the case throughout its long and rich history, Vietnam is intent on securing the peace while fiercely protecting its sovereignty. This and strengthening economic ties is the heart of Prime Minister Dung's aggressive foreign policy outreach strategy.
It is unmanageable for those of us born and raised in a prosperous western society to conceive how infinitely more complex the task of leadership is in Vietnam. An uncommon finesse and statesmanship was needed to navigate Vietnam from the Third World debacle it was to the thriving "Asian Tiger" it is.
Our instant gratification culture is too often an impediment to reasoned perspective. It blinds us to the formidable feats of leaders like Nguyen Tan Dung of Vietnam and the immensity of the contributions of this new Vietnam on the regional and global stage. It is in our interest to notice. Our economic self-interest depends on active engagement, and steadfast support for the transformative work underway.
]]>Adrian Dix and the Cynical B.C. Liberalstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27936552013-03-04T08:37:01-05:002013-05-04T05:12:01-04:00Daniel D. Veniezhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-d-veniez/NDP policy. What genuinely astonishes Dix is the unconcealed cynicism of the B.C. Liberals. "The public deserves better than a government that sees the budget as an exercise in game theory," Dix told me this week.
He has been on the receiving end of a relentless barrage of paid political attack ads. In them, he is framed as a radical left-wing ideologue that will inflict irrevocable destruction on B.C.'s fragile economy. The bluntness of the B.C. Liberal "free-enterprise" storyline is shrewdly reinforced by a $15 million taxpayer funded government advertising campaign. Polls seem to show that the scare tactics are falling on deaf ears, and use of public funds for pre-election advertising is further eroding the already tenuous standing of Clark's B.C. Liberals.
Adrian Dix remains philosophical about the personal attacks: "I don't let it distract me; but I do worry about how it affects my parents."
However, Dix is anguished at the lack of civility in public life and the consequent corrosion of trust in government. "There's a reason why people are voting less, why young people are turned off and disengaged from the political process, why trust in their elected representatives is so low."
The B.C. Liberals have been working to define Dix and the NDP as a band of anti-capitalist, anti-business, class warrior ideologues determined to "tax and spend" the province over a precipice. Dix shakes his head and laughs at the line of attack: "A healthy and growing economy is not secondary; it's absolutely fundamental," he says. "Without a vibrant and competitive private sector, nothing else is possible."
Dix grew up in an entrepreneurial family. Until it was sold recently, his parents were the owners of a small, but very successful insurance brokerage business in Vancouver. The Dix family is close, and they raised Adrian to value hard work, education, fiscal prudence, and fairness.
Dix worries about growing income inequality and wealth gap. "The levers at the disposal of a premier are very limited," he acknowledges. He dismisses that old conservative economic bogeyman of "redistribution" as neither desirable nor feasible. "My goal is to address the pre-distribution of wealth through smarter and better investments in education and skills development."
Dix's economic policy approach is as practical and rooted in common sense as they come. The precondition for social justice is a growing economy. A competitive tax regime, skilled and educated workforce, judicious use of tax dollars, sensible environmental stewardship, and honest government is how Dix plans to get there.
Despite B.C. Liberal claims that provincial books are in balance, Dix believes the province is in structural deficit. He rejects balance budget legislation as political gimmickry, pointing to the consistent deficit spending ways of the current government.
He told me that he has no plans to increase personal income taxes beyond what was just announced in the provincial budget. "There's little room for a tax increase," he told me. As far as corporate taxes, Dix is holding to a 1 per cent increase to 12 per cent, which restores 2008 levels.
In a preemptive move designed to show that he plans to raise the bar on appointments to the public service, Dix recently announced that Don Wright be appointed Deputy Minister to the Premier. Wright earned a doctorate in economics at Harvard and is a highly respected senior executive with deep private and public sector experience.
While taking nothing for granted, Dix is intent on making his time in government count. He is a reflective, not an impulsive, manager, and wrestles with making the right choices within the fiscal and policy constraints that he'll likely inherit. Contrary to the caricature Christy Clark is attempting to define, Dix's approach is reality and evidence-based, not ideological. And his management style is professional and measured. In stark contrast to Christy Clark, who seems to loose a staffer a week to scandal, Dix's office staff has not changed since he became NDP leader and caucus is united behind him. That includes his predecessor, Carol James, who Dix is proud to say plays a key role.
So my advice to my fellow "free enterprisers": Be not afraid and breathe easy. If Adrian Dix becomes premier, B.C. will continue to be a great place to do business. And the public and fiscal affairs of the province will be in very capable hands.]]>Why Free Trade Within Canada Is an Illusiontag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27691842013-02-27T11:54:26-05:002013-04-29T05:12:01-04:00Daniel D. Veniezhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-d-veniez/makes Ottawa's self-righteous homilies
to the European Union on the evils of trade protectionism an even more unqualified hypocrisy.
In its report, "Top 10 Barriers to Competitiveness", the Canadian Chamber of Commerce estimates that obstacles to internal trade cost the economy at least $14-billion a year. Right on cue, this report was ignored, joining a long and distinguished list of excellent studies that gather dust.
Recurring admonitions usually conclude the same: Our economic union is weak. The collaged system of regulations within Canada structurally impedes our country's productivity and competitiveness. They limit growth, innovation and asphyxiate investment. The inattention of federal and provincial parliamentarians costs us tens of billions annually.
Integration within domestic markets is a precondition to being a competitive player in the world economy. Canada's economic health is not only at issue; the very unity of the nation itself depends on a closer and stronger open market within Canada.
The free mobility of goods, services, labour, capital, and technology is central. To do that, Ottawa must lead the drive to coordinate and harmonize policy instruments. By its very nature, federalism can enhance Canada's ability to manage a complex economy. It can also provide an effective way of securing the benefits of economic integration while responding to local needs and aspirations.
We're lucky. The federation has the institutional tools to think and act both locally and globally. But we have seldom used them effectively. Petty politics and jurisdictional rivalries have restricted a coherence of action in the national interest.
The genesis of many of the weaknesses of our highly decentralized federation came in the period following 1867. To a large degree it stemmed from judicial rulings in favour of the provinces. The built-in conflict between the federal role, especially in the making of international treaties and trade and commerce, on the one hand, and the provincial role in property and civil matters on the other hand, has simmered for decades.
Canada has not been able to deal with a wide range of internal market barriers that prevent the economic union from functioning effectively. These barriers include:
- Barriers to goods and services, including discriminatory government procurement, agricultural marketing boards, product standards and regulatory barriers;
- Barriers to labour mobility, including discriminatory hiring, licensing, and accreditation, incomplete portability of pensions, varying labour standards, varying education standards and residence requirements for access to welfare and other public services;
- Barriers to capital mobility, including discriminatory limits on ownership of land, federal, and provincial influence on investment decisions, tax incentives and other locational incentives.
A critical role for Ottawa is to ensure that the domestic marketplace is conducive to innovation and investment, through for example, modern market framework laws. Government can also provide the support for economic activity through modern physical infrastructure such as pipelines, electricity grids, transportation, communications, and financial services. Improved performance for the Canadian economy over the longer term will also require sustained improvements in productivity and the transfer of economic resources into the production of higher value goods and services which are able to compete successfully in the domestic and international markets.
The quality of the labour force is a key determinant to our international competitiveness. There are no minimum standards of education achievement in the basic skill areas that are relevant to the labour market. Wide variations in achievement levels among provinces adversely affect labour mobility. Skill standards also vary and certifications are a deliberate barrier and parochial regional protectionism. This comes at a time of looming skills shortages that could put a break on the economy.
The provinces have generally given lip service to these questions and Ottawa has been AWOL on them for years. Yet, there's nothing more important to our cohesion as a nation and our standard a living than dealing with these structural impediments to our future unity and prosperity. This isn't an area where the market can solve the problem. This requires political leadership.
Chamber president and former Mulroney cabinet minister, Perrin Beatty, told me this week: "At the end of the day, it's all about political will. Only when politicians start putting the broader public interest first will we see change."
]]>Liberal Leadership Debate: Six Candidates Should Step Asidetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27037552013-02-17T10:05:45-05:002013-04-19T05:12:02-04:00Daniel D. Veniezhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-d-veniez/
Six of these candidates should step aside and call it a day. They have no prospect of winning and they've made whatever point they wanted to make. Their vanity project has run its course and 15 minutes are up.
That includes the self-described "smart", "courageous", "tough" Martha Hall Findlay. She has made the centerpiece of her campaign trashing her former colleagues as being "afraid" and not having "substance". The irony is that the only policy she has unveiled is eliminating supply management. She did muse about raising the GST, but wisely backtracked on that one.
Hall-Findlay has lost more elections than won and this is her second run at the top job. Her record as an opposition MP was undistinguished. She lost a seat she should have won, and it took her six years to pay off her debts from her last place finish in the 2006 leadership contest. Despite this reality, Hall-Findlay continues to suggest that her "substance" and "experience" is what we need. No thanks. Why she thinks she should be leader of the Liberal Party is a mystery.
Martha and others persist in their tiresome calls for "specific policy" and "substance". Yet, they should know that the days of three guys around the Leader in Ottawa writing a platform and releasing it like the Sinai tablets are long, long gone. Canadians are all grown up. It's about time Liberals started treating them like it. Otherwise, we're on our way to extinction as a party.
The other candidates are part sideshow, part curiosity, and unquestionably a distraction. Nice people, perhaps, and maybe even decent MP's one day. But they are far from remotely electable national leaders. Only three can legitimately claim to have earned the right to stay for the next rounds: Trudeau, Garneau, and Murray.
While I may differ with Joyce Murray on some of the content of her program, she has proven herself to be one tough cookie and a very serious candidate. Besides her track record of actually winning contested nominations and close elections, she has positioned herself squarely as an important voice on the "progressive" wing of the party.
Murray has a thoughtful, comprehensive, and cohesive set of ideas. And whether I like it or not, Murray has shown a lot of guts to be the lone voice and intelligent advocate for "cooperation" with other parties.
Marc Garneau was a disappointment in this debate. He appeared to step out of character -- perhaps on the advice of whoever is advising him -- and go for the jugular last week in a vain attempt to stop the Trudeau freight train. He appeared to feel it necessary to prop himself up by diminishing Trudeau. It didn't work. It just made him look small, floundering, and somewhat frantic.
Better for Garneau to focus on his strengths and champion his ideas. Unfortunately, on that front, like Hall-Findlay, although he talks a lot about "substance", a cursory view of Garneau's website shows that he hasn't released a single number to suggest how much any of what he is proposing would cost and how he would pay for it. Not one.
If Garneau is to recover from this, he should return to being the intelligent, content-driven statesman. His stature and gravitas is important to the Liberal Party and he shouldn't jeopardize it by trying to best Martha Hall-Findlay in the cheap shot department.
As for the frontrunner, Justin Trudeau, he continues to impress. He has remained calm and composed all week. He never seems to panic, takes it all in stride, and stays focused on the bigger game. His understanding of the country is far superior than many give him credit for. His hopeful, optimistic, pragmatic Liberalism is entirely consistent with where most of us are.
The political operators that watch and organize these things still don't seem to get the Trudeau phenomenon. It has nothing to do with being famous for being famous, as his critics charge. It doesn't seem to have occurred to some Canadians just might like Trudeau's ideas. Clearly they do otherwise he wouldn't be leading the pack by every metric that matters.
Trudeau attracts massive crowds everywhere he goes. That's no coincidence and no fluke. It happens because they like what he has to say and want to hear more. And people really are, as he said on Saturday, sick and tired of being cynical. They want to believe that we are better than they've been seeing out of Ottawa. Deep down, they know we are. Trudeau is the only candidate that seems to hear what Canadians are saying and is reflecting back to them the kind of leadership they so crave.
Trudeau is bypassing the Liberal Party and reaching for the hearts and minds of a broad-cross section of Canadians. He knows full well that the Liberal Party didn't create Canada; Canada created the Liberal Party. And if Liberals want to be relevant and successful again, we had better create room for Canadians in our party.
In the broad scheme of things, this is as significant, profound, and yes, "substantive" as it gets.
]]>You Can't "Modernize" an Act of Faithtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.26975482013-02-15T16:50:18-05:002013-04-17T05:12:01-04:00Daniel D. Veniezhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-d-veniez/will resign the papacy at the end of this month. Benedict's timing cannot be coincidental.
The declaration came a few days before the start of Lent. That is the forty days before Easter that many Christians customarily use to reflect on the suffering and sacrifice of Jesus Christ, as well as his life, death, burial and resurrection. It is also a time of hopeful renewal.
The last time a pope resigned voluntarily was 1294 when Celestine V abdicated. Legend has it that the great poet Dante was so incensed that he put the retired pontiff into the antechamber of his Inferno. In the seven hundred years since no other pope has ever taken the name Celestine.
On Ash Wednesday, I met for a two-hour discussion with The Most Reverend Michael Miller, Archbishop of Vancouver. Miller is a globally respected papal scholar and author of seven books on topics ranging from the Holy See's teaching on Catholic schools, to the development of the papacy and the encyclicals of Pope John Paul II. Before coming to Vancouver, he was senior official of the Roman Curia, in the Vatican's Secretariat of State, and served as secretary of the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education and vice president of the Pontifical Work of Priestly Vocations.
Miller worked closely with Pope Benedict and calls him "one of the great intellectual, scholarly popes." He told me that the pontiff has a "masterful mind and a sweet disposition" -- someone who, although a keen and attentive listener, was always the "smartest guy in the room."
Miller is also close to one of the leading contenders for the papacy, Cardinal Marc Ouellett of Quebec. He and Ouellet attended seminary together and served at the same time in Rome. Today, Cardinal Ouellet of Quebec is at the very pinnacle of the Vatican hierarchy as Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops. Miller is obviously a great supporter of Ouellet and believes he has all the necessary attributes for a great pope.
Whether Ouellet emerges as the new Holy Father or not, Archbishop Miller is sanguine about the selection process. Despite the view of some that the meeting of the College of Cardinals is largely a political process, Miller insists that no "campaigning" takes place. He told me that this is a quiet, reflective, and prayerful process. "Decisions are based on spiritual reflection and who Cardinals truly believe is the best man for the job at the time", Miller told me. Each Cardinal takes a Latin oath, which translates to: "I call as my witness Christ the Lord who will be my judge, that my vote is given to the one who before God I think should be elected."
Miller emphasized that participants in the Conclave are deeply spiritual people who understand the solemnity and momentousness of their charge.
Archbishop Miller embodies all I love about the Catholic Church. He's warmhearted and gracious, approachable and sympathetic, sincere and authentic. He's a brilliant and erudite pastor and teacher. And he is also a tough and resolute disciple, guardian and teacher of church doctrine.
The selection of a new pope always gives rise to those who hope to "modernize" the Church. This view reflects a misunderstanding of the very foundations of the Catholic Church and its sacraments. No pope has authority to alter essential doctrine, and by definition, it is inconceivable that someone who isn't orthodox could ever be called to the papacy.
At its core, belief in the doctrine of the Catholic Church is an act of faith, and as such, cannot be modified to "fit the times." In an era of rapid technological, social, and economic transformation, there is a comforting tranquility in the rock of Catholicism and its institutions. It may be tough for non-Catholics or non-believers to grasp, but the Church isn't in business to adapt to the ever-changing dispositions of our society.
For Catholics, it is incumbent on us to embrace Jesus Christ and His teachings. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says: "efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions."
I am the product of a Catholic school education in Quebec. While my faith has never fully left me, it has certainly been severely tested. I doubted the relevance of the church and its sacraments to my daily life. But my search resulted in rediscovering the magnificence and power of my faith. For me, it has been an even more profound and rich blessing the second time around.
And I feel a great sense of gratitude to Archbishop Michael Miller -- and countless others like him -- who hear and accept the call to serve.
]]>Don't Disparage Democracy If You're Not Doing Your Parttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.26587752013-02-10T20:06:37-05:002013-04-12T05:12:01-04:00Daniel D. Veniezhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-d-veniez/reported that Canadians' satisfaction with democracy is at an all-time low -- 55% -- down 20 points in just eight years.That same research found only 27% of Canadians think Ottawa deals with the issues they care about satisfactorily. As the Samara report's introduction put it, "These statistics echo comments from Canadians who are disengaged from politics: 'Politicians are concerned for their own interests.' 'They don't really care what people want.'
Why should we blame politicians for how we feel about the state of our democratic institutions? Don't we elect them? Thomas Jefferson once wrote: "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves."
Complaining about politicians has become a national pastime, and granted, there is much to complain about. We say that the system is "broken," which gives us an expedient justification for shirking our responsibilities as citizens. We are voting less and participating less, and are increasingly disengaged from our public life. But democracy is not a one-way street. Philosopher Benjamin Constant once said that liberty could only be protected and strengthened when citizens have "an active and constant participation in collective power."
In a country like ours, there will always be what Pierre Elliot Trudeau called a "creative tension" of opposing forces between regions and parties. These tensions exist within parties themselves and often clash. That's where leaders are truly tested.
While it is true that we have not seen it in a few years, courage in our political leaders is not as rare in the Canadian experience as some would like us to believe. Trudeau's patriation of the constitution and Charter of Rights; Brian Mulroney's attempts at constitutional reform, tax reform, privatization of Crown Corporations, deregulation, environmental protection, free trade; Jean Chretien's decision to keep Canada out of George W. Bush's "Coalition of the Willing" to invade Iraq, repairing our national balance sheet, and raising the threshold for any separatist government intent on destroying Canada.
Real leaders don't pretend to have the corner on all wisdom; they try to bring people together in search of broad-based consensus to act. Real "courage" isn't in low-hanging fruit. It is only found in the will to take on seemingly intractable questions such as reform of health care, national productivity, or strengthening the efficiency of our social and economic union. Leadership defines and shapes an agenda and then meticulously builds the necessary coalitions and public support to bring it to life.
And that is never as easy as it looks, nor without great political risk. That too is the very nature of politics in a democracy. By its very nature, democracy intrinsically defies "right" and "wrong." So does politics, which is the art of the possible. Politicians receive hopelessly inconsistent and contradictory demands that must be balanced. The question of "courage" is very easy for those who do not bear the responsibility for elected office.
If party labels are to mean anything to voters, MPs and candidates have a responsibility to adhere to party platforms. But parties must also be flexible because circumstances change. And the only way for parties to grow, renew, and remain relevant is by demonstrating tolerance to dissent and new ideas.
Contradictory allegiance is a perpetual and innate struggle for politicians. Is their first responsibility to their party, their constituents, or to their individual consciences? This is never easy, nor should it be. MPs must sometimes lead, inform, educate, correct, and sometimes even ignore the opinion of constituents. Ultimately, politicians must exercise their judgment.
For a democracy to function effectively, two-way commitment must be the imperative. Just as the politician must trust the wisdom of the people, the people must have confidence in the judgment of their representatives. If that trust is broken, so goes the relationship. That is the very essence of democracy and that is why elections are so crucial.
However, this necessarily implies engagement. More than two thousand years ago, Thucydides quoted Pericles as telling his fellow Athenians: "We do not say that the man who fails to participate in politics is a man who minds his own business. We say that he is a man who has no business here."
Our political culture will only change for the better when we decide to engage. It is time we realized that the indispensable condition of our freedom is the participation of citizens in our public affairs and a passion for the public good.
]]>Liberal Leadership Candidates Who Call for "Substance" Must Show Sometag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.26123022013-02-04T07:34:03-05:002013-04-06T05:12:01-04:00Daniel D. Veniezhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-d-veniez/
Some observers may find that characterization rather charitable.
Like the U.S. primary debates, it would have been far better, albeit more risky, if a professional journalist asked hard and specific questions tailored to each candidates relative strengths and weaknesses. The benefits would have far outweighed the risks. Marginal candidates would be exposed for all to see. And more importantly, Canadians would have been engaged and learned something useful about the Liberal Party. Candidates would also have been tested under pressure.
Repetitive softball questions do nothing to advance the public policy discourse Liberals say we need. Nor are they a meaningful gauge for the agility, knowledge and authenticity of candidates.
This was a very unfortunate missed opportunity.
Once again, very little, if anything was said on the most pressing issues facing the country. Canada's economic future, fiscal federalism and all that entails, health care, education, the plight of First Nations, and the rapidly changing world beyond our borders were AWOL. Instead, at least these Liberals appear to believe that weed, cheaper milk and eggs, rural farming, and a pipeline that will never see the light of day, are important enough to virtually monopolize two hours.
BLOG CONTINUES AFTER SLIDESHOW
The other repetitive and vexing question was on the matter of whether candidates preferred exporting natural resources raw or processed. That's like asking if you'd like ice cream on top of your slice of warm apple pie. Who wouldn't prefer that we process and refine our resources in Canada? No candidate bothered to take a stab at the complex historic, economic and regulatory root causes of our commodity-based mindset. The easy default position on this -- as in many other issues for some of these Liberals -- is to appeal to the partisan applause line by slamming Stephen Harper. This is substantively wrong and politically stupid.
It's all strangely reminiscent of the alternate reality of the Liberal "Green Shift" or "Family Pack" platform announcements. They sounded and felt good to a room full of arch-partisan Liberals, but were largely irrelevant to most Canadian voters.
A jaw-dropping moment for me came when Martha Hall-Findlay asserted that prior to the 2011 general election, Liberal MPs voted for the Harper Conservatives' law-and-order legislation that they were viscerally opposed to. Evidently, Hall-Findlay was one of those voting in favour of legislation that she believed was wrong on the evidence, wrong headed, and contrary to the interests of Canadians. So why did she do it? "We know they're wrong ... but well, we don't want to look like we're soft on crime, we don't want Stephen Harper to make us look like we're soft on crime."
Hall-Findlay suggests that she and some of her former colleagues voted on critical pieces of legislation that they opposed in private, yet voted for.
I cannot think of a more damning indictment of what's wrong with the political culture in Ottawa and the herd mentality of at least some Members of the House of Commons.
Above all, we elect Parliamentarians to be lawmakers. Legislators are duty-bound to rigorously scrutinize government Bills and hold the executive branch accountable for them. Unfortunately, we cannot expect Conservative government backbenchers to do that, which is why the role of opposition MPs is so vital. There can be no more solemn and important task in a democracy than for legislators to act with intellectual integrity in their role.
This isn't the first time Hall-Findlay has charged that Liberal MPs "feared" taking positions on various policy matters because of a dread of being attacked by Stephen Harper's Conservatives. A few weeks ago, she suggested that many Liberals, including current and former MP's, "feared" a discussion on raising the GST from 5% to 7% for the same reason.
Many Liberals -- myself included -- believe that given our fragile economic reality tax increases are simply is not on the table, especially when there is so much waste and inept management of our tax dollars as it is. To Ms. Hall-Findlay, that position means that I'm "scared" to talk about raising taxes. No I'm not. I just think that its an utterly stupid idea and pointless, distracting sideshow that completely ignores the far broader and more critical imperative.
First and foremost, Liberals must focus on growing the economic pie, expanding the middle class, and making life easier for Canada's working and middle class. The numbing bean-counting mantra of "fiscal prudence" has become a catch-all and empty phrase for some that want to superficially impress us with their managerial bona-fides. Setting the direction and priorities for a complex national economy requires far more sophistication, skill, and finesse than the ability to read a balance sheet.
Ms. Hall-Findlay' appears to believe that Liberal MPs were more concerned about their own electoral prospects than serving the interests of Canadians. Liberal MPs -- past and present -- must respond to these extremely serious charges. It not only impacts the credibility of current and past Liberal MPs, but those like me who proudly stood for office to become one.
I have gotten to know a majority of current and former members of the Liberal caucus. They are an outstanding group of public servants that have never -- ever -- been fearful or "afraid" of taking tough and controversial positions on a wide variety of issues. Ms. Hall-Findlay consistently implies that Liberals don't have the "courage", as she puts it, of their convictions. This is demonstrably false. And to this former candidate, it is also a deeply offensive accusation.
Ms. Hall-Findlay never misses an opportunity to remind people of how "smart" she thinks she is. She and others also talk about the great "substance" they have, and decry "celebrities" and the "platitudes" that come from them. There's more to leadership than cheap shots disguised as high-mindedness. Canadians deserve better than this.
Meanwhile, the obvious target of those not so subtle sideswipes, Justin Trudeau, engages by demonstrating real substance, not just talking about it. Just last week, he outlined fundamental reform proposals to return power to MP's and accountability to the House of Commons. These are the kind of consequential improvements that will go a long way toward repairing the battered confidence Canadians have in parliament. They will also serve to attract outstanding people that have no "fear" to do the job that Canadians entrust them to do.]]>Defeating Harper Is Not Reason Enough to Sleep with the NDPtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.25763252013-01-29T16:28:55-05:002013-03-31T05:12:01-04:00Daniel D. Veniezhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-d-veniez/
Progressives are generally considered to represent the left or far left. They typically view business as a necessary evil. They embrace social justice, pacifism, environmentalism, human rights, and are rarely in the same corner as Israel in middle-eastern policy.
These might be perfectly legitimate viewpoints. But most Canadians' values are more practical and pragmatic, moderate, free enterprising, balanced, and certainly more centrist.
High on the "to-do" list of some of the Liberal Party of Canada's self-described "progressives" is legalizing pot, banning pipelines to BC's West Coast, and of course, cooperation with the NDP. None of those should be on the top 30 list, much less top three, for the next leader of the Liberal Party.
They also seem to think that the 60 per cent of those who voted for parties other than Conservative are by definition "Progressive", and would vote together, en masse, to defeat the Harper Conservatives. Their assumption also seems to be that "defeating Harper" is inherently more important than what some "progressives" stand for. Or that the Liberal Party is an intrinsically "progressive" political party.
I believe that these are simplistic assumptions, a serious misreading of the election results, and demonstrate a lack of understanding of the priorities of a majority of Canadians.
It also appears to escape the attention of certain "progressives" that Thomas Mulcair has categorically ruled out the idea of "cooperation" with Liberals and the Green Party. So have eight of the nine candidates for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. If that's not a show stopper, I really don't know what is.
But there's more than this that makes "cooperation" impossible. Just this week, Thomas Mulcair tabled legislation that would require a result of only 51 per cent of "yes" voters in a Quebec referendum to trigger negotiations to separate from Canada.
It takes a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons, Senate, and every provincial legislature representing at least 50 per cent of the national population to amend the constitution. Then why on earth would Thomas Mulcair and the NDP believe it adequate or acceptable that 51 per cent of those voting in Quebec can destroy the country? And some Liberals seek "cooperation" with the NDP, a party whose leadership panders shamelessly to those who seek Canada's end?
But wait, there's more! According to its constitution, the NDP says "the production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to individual needs of people and not to making a profit." To meet this objective, the NDP's core principles call for the extension of state ownership, and active social and economic planning.
This an outmoded, discredited, and dangerous ideology that many Liberals have spent their lives fighting. To us, these notions are as divisive and illusory as the irrelevant theology championed by the far right. "Cooperation" with left-wing ideologues? Forget it!
Proponents of "cooperation" with the NDP suggest that electoral reform will fix everything. Their basic premise, of course, is that Canada's embarrassingly low voter turnout rate is a direct consequence of a "broken system".
This suggests that because we lose and they win, the "system" is somehow at fault. The implication of this argument is that the voter is misguided and wrong. But that is not how a democracy works. You can't call yourself a democrat while believing that the will of the people is consistently wrong-headed.
While it's fashionable for some to talk about electoral reform and promote models such as proportional representation, they have yet to be convince me that our system is flawed.
If there is a flaw anywhere it is with a political parties that have not been relevant to a majority of Canadians, particularly on issues they care about. Instead of issues like legalizing weed and proportional representation, Liberals for instance, must and are focused on the economic bread and butter ones that deeply impact our lives.
As reformers, we should also fix what we know to be broken and impediments to our long-term prosperity, such as health care, education, productivity, and innovation. Canada's economic and social union must be strengthened to meet the needs of the 21st-century economy. And we must move to settle treaties and modernize our relationship with Indigenous Canadians.
Of course, there is urgency in parliamentary reform. However, it doesn't require electoral cooperation; it only requires that MPs do the jobs that we pay them to do. Their main task is to be a check on the executive branch. They must scrutinize legislation and government expenditures. And they must be the guardians of the integrity of our system of accountability.
MPs represent us and it shouldn't be too much to expect them to serve and act with respect and dignity. Watching MPs scream at the very top of their lungs in feigned outrage or reading mindlessly from a preposterous script is an affront to all Canadians. Our parliamentary system is only as good as the people in it. Without the constant and diligent attention of Members of the House of Commons, our system collapses, and so does our trust in it.
The burden of proof is on the promoters of electoral reform and "cooperation". To be taken seriously the case must be a lot more substantial than "We have to get rid of Stephen Harper". Thus far, at least, I have only heard shrill tribal slogans. That may be good for a cheer at a partisan gathering. But it isn't good enough for Canada.]]>The Public Lynching of John Furlong Isn't In The Public Interesttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.25393182013-01-24T12:52:57-05:002013-03-26T05:12:01-04:00Daniel D. Veniezhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-d-veniez/
The case of John Furlong is instructive. Former president of the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee, Furlong has been subject of serious allegations first published in the Georgia Straight. The story featured sensational accusations that he engaged in all manner of inappropriate, and possibly illegal conduct decades ago. Furlong adamantly denied the allegations and has sued the publication and the reporter for defamation.
In response to Furlong's action, defendants piled on by filing even more astonishing allegations. Once again, they were reported and immediately became national news. And again, Furlong issued a statement rejecting it all and looking forward to his day in court.
Most consumers of news believe what they read. Yet, none of these claims have been backed-up with evidence, tested under cross-examination, or in any fashion proven in a court of law. Quite the contrary, and they have nothing more than the full weight and legitimacy of a salacious rumor. That's it.
Nevertheless, it is treated as bombshell "news," and reported as such. None of that seems to matter to the media who "report" unsubstantiated accusations as "news." Even worse, they pretend -- or at least may have convinced themselves -- that repeating them is somehow in the "public interest." What public interest is possibly served by publicly humiliating a man without knowing what the truth really is? How can we find it acceptable practice to cause harm to a man and his family by publishing unsubstantiated accusations?
I don't know John Furlong -- I have never met the man. What I do know is that once again, without knowing the facts, the character and hard-won reputation of a human being is being ripped to pieces and likely irreparably damaged. What is happening to Furlong is a nothing less than a public lynching. The damage to him and his family is significant. Who will ever run into him and not wonder: Is this true? This cloud is enough to dramatically impact his career prospects and professional economic value, not to mention his health.
Blair Wilson, the former MP for the federal riding of West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country, and his family continue to live the same nightmare.
Following the death of Wilson's mother in law, Norma, his wife Kelly found herself in a financial dispute with her stepfather, William Lougheed, who was also the executor of Norma's estate. The matter did not involve Blair Wilson directly. He was never a party to it; it was between Kelly and Lougheed.
A reporter with the Vancouver Province, Elaine O'Connor, was tipped about the issue and called Wilson for comment. Wilson told her reporter that this was not a public matter, but a private one. "This is a Lougheed family matter between my wife and her stepfather and at this emotionally difficult time the family is trying to work through it," he was quoted as saying.
That didn't stop O'Connor. She stitched together a salacious story published over two days that portrayed Wilson -- a sitting Member of the House of Commons -- as an incompetent businessman, a philanderer, and a cheat. The sources for the story were Blair Wilson's political opponents -- both within the Liberal and Conservative parties -- and his father-in-law, William Lougheed. Not long after this was published, Wilson was expelled from the caucus of the Liberal Party of Canada.
In the case regarding Norma Lougheed's will, Madam Justice Ballance of the British Columbia Supreme Court awarded a judgment and costs in favour of Kelley Wilson against Lougheed. In her judgment, Balance wrote: "Mr. Lougheed had breached his fiduciary duties." She called Lougheed's behaviour "reprehensible conduct" as executor of his wife's will. She termed his financial claim against Kelly Wilson "flimsy," "reckless," and with an "ill-conceived personal sense of entitlement to misappropriate proceeds from the estate." In her penultimate finding, Justice Balance wrote: "I find that Mr. Lougheed had a vendetta to grind Ms. Wilson and her husband into the ground."
Rarely does one read "we got it wrong" stories on the front page. They are buried deep in corners of newspapers, as this one was.
In a separate defamation case, now slowly making its way through the court system, Blair Wilson has sued Lougheed, the Vancouver Province, their reporter, and numerous political operatives. What is on the public record in numerous preliminary court decisions in that case so far is a story of personal retribution and political intrigue. The Wilson cases seem to show that for financial and political reasons the dispute between Kelly Wilson and her adoptive father was a perfectly justifiable rationale to politically assassinate Blair Wilson. The media appeared all too ready and willing to become a key accomplice.
In our system and as fair and decent people, all accused are entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and all are innocent until proven guilty. Yet, the tragic reality is that John Furlong, Blair Wilson and others like them, are guilty in the court of public opinion irrespective of the facts, the evidence, the truth, and a judgment rendered by a court of law years later. At its core, this is prejudicial, unreasonable, decadent, and wrong. It is also fundamentally un-Canadian.
Our bedrock principles are under assault. If we're not careful, Canada will become a reality show culture where public figures irresponsibly, maliciously and indiscriminately become target practice. And we cannot afford less good people involved in our public life.
]]>Trudeau's Celebrity Should Be Seen as a Plustag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.25218712013-01-21T17:36:25-05:002013-03-23T05:12:01-04:00Daniel D. Veniezhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-d-veniez/MP Dominic LeBlanc observed that the campaign to select the next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada shouldn't be about raising one's profile, but a test of vision and ideas among leading politicians. He was right about that.
Nine people have officially registered as candidates. Only three of them are office holders. A rudimentary test for any aspiring political leader is the capacity to do in the first instance what any successful politician absolutely must: Get elected and re-elected. That doesn't diminish the impressive backgrounds of the six candidates. The country would be very well served with them in parliament, but not as party leader.
Joyce Murray is a capable and devoted MP. However, being the leader of a proud national party is incompatible with a policy of retreat from the field of political competition as a matter of short-term convenience. It is also incompatible with a policy of cutting access to world markets of Canada's strategic natural resources. The West Coast cannot be Canada's "Pacific Gateway" if that gate is closed shut. At least for me, Murray's positions on cooperation with the NDP and opposition to transporting Alberta oil to our West Coast eliminate her from consideration.
Marc Garneau and Justin Trudeau have a strong focus on the economy and are pragmatic, moderate, centrists. Both have demonstrated significant national reach that crosses social, economic, and political boundaries. That is another key measurement of successful political leadership. And both are unwavering in their confidence and belief in a strong Liberal Party. While the contrast could not be greater, Marc Garneau and Justin Trudeau have striking personal stories. Their campaigns to date have been substantive. They are smart, serious, tenacious, and dedicated public servants.
Garneau is a genuine Canadian hero, a man of great integrity, and remarkably credentialed and accomplished person in everything he has touched. His positions are sensible and realistic. However, Garneau's lack of broad appeal as a political leader and his less engaging disposition as a political practitioner, make him my second choice.
My first is Justin Trudeau.
None of the other eight candidates come close to generating the range and depth of national interest that Trudeau does. This is fundamental for someone who aspires to lead a third place party into first place and the highest elected office in the land.
Another fact of political life in our democracy is the ability to raise money. Lots of it. For a party like ours, financial strength is vital. For years, people have opened their wallets for Trudeau. His star power means that he will have coattails. Quality candidates will vie for an opportunity to run if he becomes leader. Attracting top people is a critical attribute of successful leadership.
Justin Trudeau's entire life -- from his very youngest days -- has been a unique and exceptional preparation for national political leadership. He was born and raised at the prime minister's residence. He sat at the knee and learned from one of the most remarkable Canadians of the 20th century.
The uniqueness of his upbringing provided him with a profound education. He interacted with exceptional people from around the world and in all conceivable walks of life. He socialized with heads of state, and broke bread in the far north with Inuit elders. To suggest that Trudeau isn't "experienced" is to ignore the fact that for much of his life he was a front row witness to history.
Some suggest that Trudeau's "celebrity" is somehow a disadvantage. Yet, that is an incredible asset that most political parties would kill for. His critics demonstrate a triteness and unbecoming envy. The pertinent question is what Trudeau has done with his celebrity. He could have done anything. The alternatives would have been considerably more lucrative, nowhere near as grueling, and wouldn't have subjected him and his family to a constant barrage of scrutiny, ridicule and attack. Instead, he has chosen public and national service every time. It has become his vocation.
Once he entered politics, the path was far from easy. Many in the Liberal establishment had no interest in seeing Justin Trudeau as a candidate. The riding of Outremont would have made sense; but they told Trudeau he wasn't welcome. Never a "yes man" to anyone, he ran in Papineau, a Bloc Quebecois fortress.
Only a 15 minute car ride from Outremont, Papineau is a world apart. It is a gritty working class place where people struggle every day. Every skin colour, language and religion imaginable is found there. These folks are the absolute salt of the earth. And they absolutely adore Justin Trudeau.
They don't care who his father was; they respect and have a deep appreciation for Trudeau because he's earned it. They know that he chose them instead of the life that he could have had as a rich dilettante trading on the family name. These are the kind of people that can't be bamboozled by phonies. With Trudeau, they found themselves the real deal.
Many Canadians have, too. Authenticity matters in a leader and with that, the ability to connect with people. That is the essence of effective political leadership.
Justin Trudeau has used his great gifts to do good and to encourage others to do good. His hopeful and optimistic message is already having a transformative impact on Canadian public life. He has a vibrant personality that people are naturally attracted to. It makes them want to help him, to support him, to believe in him and his causes. They sense in him compassion and empathy. They also see rock solid values that mirror theirs, and a character of steel.
Trudeau has the self-confidence of a man with firmly entrenched values, a focused discipline, and a steadfastness of purpose. Throughout his life, Trudeau has demonstrated a profound resilience that has fortified his will and self-confidence. He has been to every corner of the country and most of the world. He also has had an intimacy with tragic loss. A familiarity with pain imbued him with a strength and understanding of human frailty.
Apart from being a vigorous lifelong learner, Trudeau has earned two degrees and began work on a third. He has read widely on a broad range of topics and has an intimate understanding of the significant policy questions of our times. Already, Trudeau has staked out more substantive territory (oil sands, gateway, Quebec language laws, the Constitution, gun registry, foreign investment, trade, etc.) than all the other candidates combined.
For a great many Canadians, the Liberal Party of Canada has lost its compass. Those who once voted Liberal no longer know what the party stands for. They have lost confidence that the Liberal Party can be relevant to them and embodies their hopes and dreams. Trudeau's candidacy is predicated on changing that and reestablishing the bond with the middle class. He knows that for the Liberal Party to have a future, it must become a platform for the aspirations of Canadians.
At his core, Trudeau believes in pragmatic, non-ideological Liberalism. While other candidates talked about legalizing pot and a "national strategy" for everything under the sun, Trudeau's focus is on growing and expanding the economic pie. That's why productivity, innovation, competitiveness, trade, and education are recurring themes for him. All are vital to restoring a broadly shared prosperity and expanding the middle class.
Trudeau has the instincts and reflexes of a reformer. He's someone with a great impatience for a status quo that makes us weaker. He's offended by the proposition that we somehow cannot change for the better. Throughout his public life, Trudeau has shown a sophistication, finesse, and deep understanding for the Canada that is, and the Canada that he hopes to help shape. His values are his bedrock. His thinking on our economic, social and political future represents everything I entered public life to champion and why I proudly did so as a Liberal.
Leadership requires far more than a five-point plan. It takes the capacity to inspire hope, to motivate action, and to unify a nation around a shared purpose. Canada needs that kind of leadership. I am supporting Justin Trudeau because I know he possesses the matchless gift to provide it.
]]>Why Hating Politicians Doesn't Help Ustag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.21463922012-11-16T15:12:16-05:002013-01-16T05:12:01-05:00Daniel D. Veniezhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-d-veniez/
These are unquestionably part of every politician's DNA. However, my experience is that in most cases at least, it is a very small part. The pre-eminent qualities for the politician are passion, a feeling of responsibility, and a sense of proportion, as Weber suggested.
A cynicism has seeped into our political culture that is blinding us to the nobility of elected public office and those with a genuine calling to serve. As citizens, we should reflect on the central part we play in the corrosive undermining of our democracy.
We've come to think of politicians as somehow a lesser species. More often than not, they are subject of ceaseless ridicule. Sometimes that is perfectly deserved, but mostly it's not.
Fuelled and often informed by a media that is far more interested in the contest than the content, we've come to view the political process and its practitioners as being entirely divorced from our reality. That is a largely unfair characterization. They certainly do represent different points of view and have varying levels of skill and competence. Most politicians do try their best to serve us because doing anything less is self-destructive.
The great irony is that we have become scornful of the very people whose mission it is to advance our collective well-being. Are politicians "only in it for themselves," to paraphrase the devastating and ridiculous personal attack ad on Michael Ignatieff? No they are not. Not even close. Our negative perceptions of politicians and the political process are ultimately at variance with our own self-interest.
A great majority of politicians have entered the arena because they care. Theirs is a profound desire to serve. They possess great pride in doing so in the elected councils of our democracy. When I ran last year, I was bursting with pride at the honour of even possibly sitting in the House of Commons, despite the fact that the campaign process itself was a less than honourable one, and usually rather demeaning.
Still, given the corrosive political age we are in, it's really difficult for some of us to comprehend why good people would sacrifice so much time away from their loved ones for an extended period of time. The life of a politician typically requires that you get used to being a human punching bag. You must feign indifference when scorned by the media and pretend to be impervious to hurtful insults and bullying by political opponents.
There's nothing remotely glamorous about any of it, unless you like seeing your name in the paper for that $8 scotch and soda hotel mini-bar charge. Of course, that well-deserved drink came after you put in a grueling 18-hour day on behalf of the people.
Which brings me to the race to become the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. By my count, there are seven confirmed and potential candidates for the job that is, we can all agree, hardly a coveted one. That hasn't stopped these remarkable people from putting their lives on hold for six months and longer to try to get it. They are risking their professional standing, reputation, and financial stability -- not to mention the relationships with those they love the most.
Every one of these people is serious, accomplished, and sincere. They are business people, entrepreneurs, military officers, prosecutors, economists, teachers, and even an astronaut.
With the exception of the teacher and the astronaut, none have a national - or any - profile. That doesn't matter. What we owe these public servants is the respect of a meaningful hearing. All bring unique attributes and perspectives to our national conversation.
These aren't party hacks. Not a one. These are serious and dedicated people who love Canada and want to serve. They deserve our encouragement, attention, and also our admiration, respect, and thanks. They certainly have mine.
]]>Don't Blame Trudeau for Being Populartag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19405332012-10-04T17:50:26-04:002012-12-04T05:12:01-05:00Daniel D. Veniezhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-d-veniez/launched his campaign this week and did it as well as anyone I've seen in a long time. The cosmetics were slick, attractive, and even powerful. The broad themes were solid, and the delivery persuasive. He did it to packed houses in Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver.
Since Bob Rae's decision to sit out the leadership race, the media glare has been almost exclusively on Trudeau. The coverage of Trudeau's coming out party has blanketed the media. Before he announced, Trudeau was framed as a shining figure with massive appeal and the capacity to catapult the third place Liberal Party of Canada to new heights. That's certainly not his fault.
Other "prospective" leadership aspirants were quoted as saying that they will "wait to see what Justin decides" before making their decisions on whether to jump into the fray. That's not Trudeau's fault, either.
Much of the commentary -- including commentary from some Liberals -- has taken on a decidedly personal character. This is uncalled for, cheap, and I think tinged with more than a bit of envy. It's as if they think that somehow Trudeau is in control of the attention he has received.
What the attention signals to me is that there is a genuine thirst out there for positive engagement. And it isn't limited to the "next generation," but finds itself in people of all ages that are fed up with politics -- and Liberal politics -- as usual. It is ironic that the eldest son of a Liberal icon is the one to drive this message.
On his first few outings, Trudeau has shrewdly laid out his values in broad terms. He has answered direct questions on a variety of issues. That including yesterday, when on a visit to Calgary he tackled a touchy question directly when he said that any policy that divides and doesn't unite Canada is "unhelpful."
Good for him. The National Energy Program has been an albatross around the neck of the Liberal Party for 30 years. Trudeau, very appropriately, refuses to carry that baggage, and shouldn't. Three decades later, neither should Liberals. He is turning the page, and that is precisely how it should be. I have heard of no other Liberal with the guts or intellectual integrity to tell it straight -- the NEP may have been well intentioned, but it was a mistake. Period.
Yet the narrative that has emerged from the pundit class has been almost solely focused on how "light" Trudeau has been on a wide variety of policy areas. How on earth do any of them know that? The fact is, they don't. But sadly, this is all too predictable.
Today Andrew Coyne writes in the National Post about the motherhood of the "middle class" as Trudeau's campaign theme. He's right about that, assuming of course there's nothing behind a substantive definition of what Trudeau's Liberals would do to help the middle class. But that's a wildly premature assumption. Six months is a long time and Trudeau has plenty of time to clearly define what he would propose to do to create a widely shared prosperity.
I have no doubt that Trudeau understands the economic importance of broadening the middle class. I also have no doubt that he understands how crucial they are to the political success of the Liberal Party.
However some cynics may deem the message of a more vibrant middle class, it was Aristotle who first figured that out when he wrote: "It is manifest that the best political community is formed by citizens of the middle class, and that those states are likely to be well-administered in which the middle class is large, and stronger if possible than both other classes."
I find it rather sad that the usual occupants of the cheap seats are beating up a guy for not articulating a detailed program in the first six hours of a six-month campaign. So far, he's the only one with the guts to step up, and put himself and his family out there. He is doing it with the full knowledge that he's a target, unfortunately even within his own party. Trudeau is doing it anyway because he believes in his party and has a profound commitment to Canada. There's nothing "entitled" about that. It shows strength of character and steadfastness that Canadians want and expect of their leaders.
It goes without saying that Liberals and Canadians need and deserve an intelligent conversation about the future. That includes specifics on some of the tough policy choices we must make. I have absolutely no doubt that will come from Trudeau in due course. What is as important -- to me at least -- is the essential character and values of the man. As far as Trudeau is concerned, I like what I see. A lot.
It's up to others now to step up and contribute substantively to the discussion, as my father used to tell me, or shut up.
]]>Calling Trudeau's Credentials Thin? A Fat Lietag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19312132012-10-02T00:37:50-04:002012-12-01T05:12:01-05:00Daniel D. Veniezhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-d-veniez/
Remember that term? After Bob Rae decided not to be a candidate, credible people declared the race for Liberal leader "wide open." Tell that to all those "exploratory committees" populated by other candidates. There is still time for credible challengers to emerge. But there's no question that this is Mr. Trudeau's race -- or marathon -- to lose.
While I am very skeptical that he would do so, I would throw my support behind Bank of Canada Governor, Mark Carney, should he chose to run. As I wrote last week, Carney would be an incredibly compelling candidate and, I would have no doubt, outstanding parliamentarian.
Mark Garneau has said that he is seriously considering it. I hope he does. He would be a formidable candidate. So would Dominic LeBlanc, although we've heard nothing from him on his intentions. The other declared and undeclared candidates are all good, smart, and hard-working people. All of them bring something unique to the conversation that Liberals and Canadians must have.
I sincerely hope that Trudeau's official entry in this race does not discourage them from participating, although many of them will no doubt be reassessing their plans.
The press coverage and commentary leading up to Trudeau's announcement has been fawning or vitriolic, but you can't find much in between. Comparisons to his father, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, have been and are incredibly unfair.
The hypocrisy of pouncing on Justin Trudeau's "thin" professional record is nauseating. Arguably, Trudeau has a more substantive and varied background and education in the real world than Joe Clark, Stockwell Day, and Stephen Harper combined before they became leaders.
Not nearly enough credit is given to a fact that more Canadians will see for themselves in the coming months: Justin Trudeau is an outstanding politician. He's also a tremendously smart guy. He has been giving stirring speeches in front of audiences for years and I have never once seen him give one with prepared notes, and I have never once seen him ignore a question.
Trudeau's audiences are generally younger ones. These are people who weren't even born when Pierre Elliot Trudeau was in power, and don't even know who he is and what he stood for. In many cases, they weren't even born before his death.
They come to see and hear an attractive, authentic, sincere, and engaging member of the House of Commons. They don't get too many of those in the neighborhood, and when they do, they like it a lot. That should be encouraging to all of us that want a higher level of civic engagement, particularly among young people.
For the over 45 crowd, Justin Trudeau's celebrity is in large part derived because he is his father's son. But for everyone else, this isn't about the father; it's about Justin Trudeau himself and his message.
That message is one of hope and opportunity. Trudeau talks about having the power to "change the world," about how all of us can make a difference, about how we must engage and participate to do that.
I've had a long dinner with Trudeau. We had a long walk together in the frigid cold of a January evening in Ottawa. He's come to my constituency in Vancouver to help me on four different occasions. He's called me on Saturday afternoons to give me political advice.
This guy has worked harder than I have ever seen anyone work in politics. On one memorable trip to my West Vancouver constituency, my wife and I picked Justin up from the heliport in downtown Vancouver. I dropped him off at his hotel so he could change into a suit and tie.
Then we drove to a packed fundraiser where he posed for every picture, shook every hand, and gave a stirring speech. After that fundraiser, I took him to another, where he did the same thing. At about 10:00 p.m. that night, we arranged a ride for him to the airport. He was taking the overnight flight back to Ottawa to be in the Commons for a vote.
Trudeau had nothing to gain from any of this. He did it to help the Liberal Party and one of its candidates -- me.
Whenever he came to my riding, he packed the room. Every time, he raised money. Every time, people left wanting to hear more. Every time, people bug me for weeks later about the pictures I promised to send. And every time, they talk about how moved they were by what he said.
This isn't the reaction to a fad or a flash in the pan. Justin Trudeau has a genuine and deep personal connection with people he comes in contact with. That is a gift. Trudeau knows he has it and is intent on using it to do some good. This guy is the real deal.
It is terribly unfair to Canadians that Justin Trudeau be introduced as anything other than his own man. If Liberals respect Justin Trudeau, it is for a lot more than his father's legacy. It's because he's earned it the old fashioned way -- for being himself.
]]>Move Over Trudeau, Mark Carney's Got it Alltag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19210592012-09-28T07:55:51-04:002012-11-28T05:12:01-05:00Daniel D. Veniezhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-d-veniez/official entry of Justin Trudeau next week, the rumour mill is running wild.
Greg Weston, the CBC's National Affairs Specialist, reported on Thursday that some "influential" Liberals are attempting to persuade Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney to enter the race. If this reporting is accurate, I say to them: Good luck with that!
I have trouble imagining why would Carney even consider doing this. He is at the summit of the global central banking world. He is highly respected and influential from Washington to London to Beijing and everywhere in between. He can literally write his own ticket in the financial, business, academic, and global governance world. Carney obviously doesn't need a job, and taking on the Liberal leadership, today the third party in the House of Commons, would be, to be put it delicately, a step or two down in stature and influence.
But let's say these "influential Liberals" aren't totally delusional and Carney can indeed be convinced to run. If that were the case, it would be a noble and remarkably selfless expression of his commitment to service to his country. A genuine thirst and calling for public service can be the only reason why Carney would even consider doing this. And if that is even remotely the case, then Mark Carney has a duty and responsibility to run.
I have written at length about how badly Canadian democracy needs people of real accomplishment and experience to stand for office. Carney would be a star, a genuine celebrity, and one with real substance and experience behind him.
A decade ago my partner and I acquired a large forest products company in Northwest British Columbia. We bought it out of bankruptcy protection from the B.C. Government. It was shutdown and the business model broken. To raise the $100 million we needed to restart it, we had to fix it. As chief executive officer, that was one of my main tasks and it wasn't easy. At the same time, George Petty and I had been scouring the planet in search of financing.
One morning, my assistant came into my office to tell me that a partner from Goldman Sachs was on the line and wanted to arrange an appointment to meet me. It was a guy I had never heard of. I took the call and we agreed to meet in my office the following week. It was Mark Carney.
We spent well over an hour together. I told him our story in detail -- he wanted to understand what we were doing and how we were doing it. At the end of the meeting, Mark said: "I admire what you are doing and your entrepreneurship. Canada needs more people like you. What you are trying to do to resurrect this company is good for Canada. I want to try to help you."
I have met a lot of investment bankers, but this was the very first -- and last -- time one came close to saying something like that to me. I was genuinely touched and moved. Carney understood what we were going through, the risks we were taking, and the importance of our success to the economy. I was incredibly impressed and his encouragement and support made an indelible and lasting impression on me.
Unfortunately for my company and me, a short time later Carney accepted an appointment as Associate Deputy Minister of Finance in Ottawa. My loss, however, was Canada's gain. He distinguished himself in his new role very quickly, and to Stephen Harper's credit, was appointed a couple of years later as Governor of the Bank of Canada.
In 2009, I was part of a small delegation of business people that visited him for a private discussion in the Bank of Canada boardroom. It was a wide-ranging conversation, and Carney did not disappoint. All of us left feeling good that there is a steady and capable hand on the tiller of the central bank at such a crucial time.
Since Paul Martin's retirement, one of the greatest weaknesses of the Liberal Party of Canada has been a lack of leadership depth and experience in the one area that trumps them all -- the economy.
Carney is a westerner, bilingual, young, attractive, articulate, and has real-world experience. He knows better than most how the wheels of the economy turn, His beginnings are humble. He made it on his own through his tenacity and brains. And while he is a smooth and sophisticated operator, he is the furthest thing you can imagine from the cynical, ambitious, fame-seeking politicians we have become all too accustomed to in Canada.
When it comes to the future of the Liberal Party, I am not a seeker of silver bullets. But leaders do matter a great deal. And I believe in talent and the power of ideas. Carney has both. This guy would be a game-changer in all the right ways, not only for the Liberal Party, but also for Canadian democracy. A person of Carney's calibre would attract others like him to stand for office. His participation would raise the bar in the House of Commons and raise the game of all parliamentarians.
So if there is any basis to the speculation that Liberals and other Canadians are calling on Mark Carney to enter the public arena by seeking the leadership of the party, count me among them. If he's in, so am I. With bells on.
The country needs him -- and people like him -- in our House of Commons. And we need them fast!]]>