Tag Archives: liberal party of canada

Thoughts on Azzi’s Biography of Walter Gordon

Frankly, no one reads enough Canadian history… so I’m trying to do my part. I just hope Rudyard takes note.

For those who’ve never heard of Walter Gordon, he was Lester Pearson‘s first Finance Minister. Of course, he was also much, much more. For Liberals, Gordon was the man who organized the party back into fighting form while it served in opposition to Diefenbaker and, in doing so, won the Liberals the 1963 election. Perhaps more importantly however, Gordon was one Canada’s first nationalists who, among other things, founded the Committee for an Independent Canada the predecessor (or inspiration of least) for the Council of Canadians.

Azzi%20-%20Walter%20GordonWhat makes Gordon such an interesting study are not only his accomplishments, but the numerous, and often contradictory threads that made up his life. Here is a man who founded several firms, including one of the most successful private sector consulting firms in the history of Canada. As a consultant, he was thus able to keep one foot in the world of public policy and government – advising ministers and deputy ministers – while keeping other foot in the private sector, advising presidents and CEO’s. As head of these firms that he also helped broker the sale of large Canadian firms to American buyers. And yet, here is a man who was a strong Canadian nationalist, who sought to introduce structural limitations on foreign ownership in Canadian industry. He was also, on the one hand, a man with incredible organizational skills and yet, when given strategic control, had a modus operendi that was often problematic. According to Azzi he seemed to always identify problems, solve them hastily, and then apologize for the shortcomings — however dramatic — of his already implemented plan.

Azzi’s biography of Gordon was also illuminating in how it reminds one of the old adage “plus ca change…”

For example, Gordon’s first major postwar appointment was as chair of the Royal Commission on Administrative Classifications in the Public Service. In other words, Public Service Sector Reform. Needless to say this issue is once again a hot topic (one I happen to take great interest in and write on occasionally). Interestingly, this report had negligible impact – a fact Azzi attributes to poor research and analysis – but nonetheless hinting at the fact that public service sector reform may have been as difficult in 1947 as it is in 2007.

Ironically, Gordon inability to effectively draft and garner support for his Royal Commission Report may have contributed to some of the frustration he later experienced as Finance Minister. His frustration with the public service seems straight out of an episode “Yes Minister” or possibly the diary of our current Prime Minister. This passage sums it up beautifully:

When Gordon’s private secretary, Nancy Burpee, ordered a red typewriter, a high official in the treasury Board sent a long memorandum explaining why government issue typewriters had to be grey. Douglas Land summarized Gordon’s attitude: “If you can’t get a damn typewriter, how can you draft a municipal loan fund in a month?” Incidents like this led Gordon to doubt whether the bureaucracy could draft a bold budget… Despite these problems, he still wished to move swiftly to carry out his plans. After a few days in Ottawa, Gordon described the situation to Douglas Land: “I thought I was back at the Royal Commission with everybody explaining why no idea could work and why everything would take ten years to do. I have ordered some dynamite and hope to stir things up.”

The real focus of the book however – mirroring Walter Gordon’s life – is the rise of Canadian nationalism or, more specifically, Canadian economic nationalism. In many ways Gordon is the grandfather of the various forces that in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s would first oppose free trade and then, globalization. It was this topic that both ended Gordon’s political career – after his disastrous 1963 budget – but that also made him a folk hero among particularly left-wing nationalists. Interestingly, based on Azzi’s assessment, it is hard not to feel that Gordon was less of a nationalist then simply anti-American. Today we can see how these roots of Canadian nationalism have shape the tree’s growth. Even 30 and 40 years later many ardent nationalists on both the left and right cannot separate out anti-Americanism from their Canadian nationalism.

Azzi never passes judgment on Walter Gordon the man. However, he is clearly deeply uncomfortable with his essentially protectionist and nationalistic economic policies. And for good reason. Gordon’s construction of the problem was, at best, less than scientific. As he himself stated, his views “cannot be analyzed scientifically or proved absolutely. But the fact that judgment or belief is arrived at in part intuitively or through personal experience does not necessarily make it any less true.” It’s a somewhat shocking statement, analogous to saying “he felt it in his gut,” exactly the type of thing the Left would justly mock President Bush about today.

Azzi spends some time talking about some of Gordon’s true accomplishments, specifically helping transform the Liberal Party into a progressive, thinking institution. Sadly, he spends very little time talking about Gordon’s contribution in the ultimate implemention of this agenda, largely set out in the Kingston conference of 1960. The policies implemented by, or initiated by Pearson and Gordon, such as the Canada Pension Plan, Medicare, Canada Assistance Plan, regional-development programs, unemployment insurance and a government student loan program, along with the foundation Gordon later created, are probably his real accomplishment. Indeed, many these institutions embody, in part, what it means to be Canadian. This alone should prompt one to overlook the book’s dry style and encourage you to get acquainted with a major influencer of Canadian history.

The Day in Print

Two interesting pieces out today:

Veronica Kitchen and Karthika Sasikumar published an op-ed in today’s Globe and Mail. Entitled Air India’s Lesson for Promoting Security at Home it discusses how human security needs not only to be championed abroad, but is a basic principle that should be used when designing security policy at home.

Also, Peter MacLeod sent me this interesting piece in the Hill Times about the (failed) Liberal Renewal Commission. As many of you know most of the Liberal Renewal Commission reports were never formally published or translated. Several of those on the commission released their reports independently after the fact. I’ve posted links to three of them here.

Research on the 1960 Kingston Conference… any leads?

I recently read John Beal’s 1964 book “The Pearson Phenomenon” I found this little gem in the library while looking for books that would have something to say about to Kingston conference that the liberal party held the week of September 6, 1960.

The book is interesting for two reasons. The first is that it is written by an American. (and I thought Americans didn’t care about Canadian politics, especially in 1960?) The second is that it was written in 1964, while Pearson was in office and so reflects the optimism and challenges of that time.

What drew me to the book was what it had to say about the Kingston conference – for which it had a reasonable blow-by-blow account, some transcripts and interviews with key player. Not a ton of material, but at least 15-20 pages worth.

I’ve been struck by how little has been written about the Kingston conference. For those who are also looking for accounts of the event, this book has some of the play-by-play but will almost certainly leave you wanting. If you found a good account of the conference, both of its organization and/or a description of the events, please let me know by e-mailing me or posting a comment. Would appreciate any thoughts ot help…

Stephen Clarkson's Big Red Machine

Not sure I’ll ever get around to writing a full review of this book but, I thought I’d share these thoughts.

Stephen Clarkson’s writes from an old school left perspective. At its best, this perspective can have some significant benefits, as it teases out certain types of conflicts that can be profoundly important. However, in this regard it is also a fairly blunt instrument. By focusing on certain data points and trends it can be helpful in analysing the past, but it locks one into the prism that prevents you from seeing the opportunity of future change (the very problem with this book – as it seems to predict an endless future of liberal victories). At its worst however, it is barely even an instrument of analysis. For example, Uncle Sam and Us : Globalization, Neoconservatism, and the Canadian State was very long on opinion and quite short on analysis. Moreover, data was carefully selected that would confirm his thesis, while contradictory data was summarily ignored.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But what interests me are perspectives that spark new insights and new debate. With Clarkson, one knows his conclusions before reading the book and as a result, I suspect the readership generally self-selects itself. Those who already agree with Clarkson pick up his books, those who don’t, don’t.

Big Red Machine is in keeping with this approach and so has its own hard to swallow statements, like this one of page 5:

“Surprisingly for a party that ultimately help build and manage the capitalist state, it (the Liberal Party) emerged to express the grievances and demands for social justice and economic freedom of those oppressed by the oligarchic power structure that prevailed in the British North American colonies drain the first half of the 19th century.”

Why are social justice and economic freedom incompatible with a capitalist state? From what I have seen social justice is no more at odds with capitalism then it is with every political economic system, be it authoritarian, communist, socialist, nationalist, etc… The real question is how do we manage our political economy to maximize its benefits and minimize social injustice. This was the goal of the progressive movement for much of the 20th century: applying the minimum rule set necessary to enable capitalism to sustain itself and ensure its compatibility with our democratic and social justice values.

In sum, Big Red Machine is an okay book (mind you, having never written a book myself I still have enourmous respect for those who’ve written one, not to mention five or more). But if you’ve must prioritize your time, I might skip it.

To be fair, I’m also bummed that this book displaced Free Culture on my “recently read” list. Now there’s a book that should be mandatory reading!

Why Elizabeth May doesn't want to win…

After the mocking this theory generated in some friendly conversations, I wish I’d blogged on this before it became official!

Ever since Elizabeth May said she would run against Peter MacKay I’ve thought something was up. Why would Elizabeth May run against a popular maritimer, in his home riding, in a province (and region) where environmentalism isn’t high on the agenda?

The answer. Elizabeth May is a pragmatist who doesn’t want to win. Not only that, she doesn’t even want the Green Party to do (too) well. Sound strange? Consider these five points:

  1. Elizabeth May is a liberal (former card carrying member) and beyond her frustration with their inactivity on the environment, she is broadly aligned with them ideologically, policy-wise and politically.
  2. Elizabeth May likely believes she can be more effective championing the environmental outside parliament then inside. Being one of 308 MPs, representing a party without official status (and the resources that come with it) all while burdened with constituency work and the need to log significant time in Ottawa would limit her ability to press her cause. She is freer, more powerful and more influential on the outside.
  3. Elizabeth doesn’t want to further split the centre/centre-left vote. However weak the Liberals environmental record she likely believes the greatest threat to the environment is the Conservatives. Creating a viable Green party increases the likelihood of a conservative majority and the negative environmental policies that come with it.
  4. Elizabeth May realizes her party will never be a viable alternative. The Green’s are a coalition of libertarians, red tories, socialists, and environmentalists. On issues other then the environment there is a lot of poor thinking, little coherence, and virtually no agreement on a broader agenda. This lesson must have been ground home during their most recent policy convention. To become a viable party the Green’s will have to be about more then just the environment and drafting a platform will be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
  5. In the unlikely even that both Elizabeth May and the Liberals pull off upsets and win the election, she may have secured herself a cabinet position. If she doesn’t win her seat, she can continue to threaten to bleed votes from the Liberals if they don’t act swiftly and decisively enough, on the environment. From an influence perspective she is in a win-win situation.

In short, Elizabeth May doesn’t want to win elections or build a party. She wants to shape the national agenda and redefine the Liberals. That’s why she cut a deal with Dion and that’s why she’s running against the virtually undefeatable Peter MacKay.

Toronto Star op-ed on Prime minister and the afghan prisoners

Thursday’s blog piece “the prime minister, the taliban and human rights” was published in the Toronto Star today as an op-ed. You can catch the Star’s version here.

My fear is that this piece will never attract any conservative readers (not because it is in the Toronto Star, but because it is critical of Harper). The fact is, this is an important issue. Ensuring our PoW’s are treated in accordance with the Geneva Convnetion is an essential tactical and strategic tool for our soldiers in Afghanistan. Ethics and values aside, it would be a mistake to discard even on purely military grounds, especially to simply win some small political points at home.

However unlikely the possibility, if the PMO reads this piece I’d understand why they might get angry. That said, I hope it doesn’t prevent them from taking its underlying advice to heart. This is not a partisan issue, this is a “how do we achieve success and protect our soliders in Afghanistan” issue.

(Updated 10:38AM PST) Want to say thank you to the numerous friendly emails. Also my friend Taylor Owen sent me this fantastic piece, which highlights how the current British PoW crisis in Iran feeds off this problem as well…

The Prime Minister, the Taliban and Human Rights

Harper’s comment’s regarding the Liberal’s ‘passion’ for the Taliban was more than just a new low point in Canadian political debate, it reveals the government’s disturbingly shallow grasp of the strategy and tactics necessary to win in Afghanistan.

For the sake of both our military and the mission, the Prime Minister would be wise to read Lieutenant David Grossman’s landmark book, On Killing. In the book, Grossman, an Army Lieutenant Colonel and professor at West Point, describes the psychological implications of killing, both legally and illegally, in battle. Of specific interest to the Prime Minister would be the author’s argument and the historical evidence that explain why adhering to the Geneva Conventions and treating POW’s humanely is of supreme strategic and tactical importance to any organized army.

In short, enemy forces are much more willing to surrender when secure in the knowledge that in doing so they will be treated fairly and humanely. Enemies that believe otherwise are likely to fight to the death and inflict greater causalities even in a losing effort.

During the Second World War the Western allies’ adherence to the Geneva Convention resulted in German soldiers surrendering to US forces in large numbers. This was in sharp contrast to the experience of the Soviets, who cared little for POW’s. But one need not go back 60 years for evidence. Lieutenant Paul Rieckhoff, who fought in Iraq and then founded and became Executive Director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, makes a similar argument regarding today’s conflicts. Prior to the Abu Ghraib debacle he noted how: “on the streets of Baghdad, I saw countless insurgents surrender when faced with the prospect of a hot meal, a pack of cigarettes and air-conditioning. America’s moral integrity was the single most important weapon my platoon had on the streets. It saved innumerable lives…”

When members of parliament, and ordinary Canadians, ask about the treatment of Afghan prisoners they don’t do so out of contempt, but out of a deep respect and concern for, Canadian soldiers. Canadians know we can ill afford to treat enemy combatants inhumanely. They know this because it is in opposition to our values and our very purpose in Afghanistan. However, they also know there is a compelling military reason: it would rob our soldiers of possibly their single most important tactical and strategic tool – moral integrity. Without this tool, who knows many Canadian lives will be needlessly lost in battles where an insurgent, believing that surrender is tantamount to execution, will instead opt to fight to the death.

The Prime Minister may believe that talking like a cowboy about Afghan prisoners and human rights will make the Government appear tough. The unfortunately reality is that it only makes him a danger to both the mission, and our soldier’s lives.

The Prime Minister, the Taliban and Human Rights

Harper’s comment’s regarding the Liberal’s ‘passion’ for the Taliban was more than just a new low point in Canadian political debate, it reveals the government’s disturbingly shallow grasp of the strategy and tactics necessary to win in Afghanistan.

For the sake of both our military and the mission, the Prime Minister would be wise to read Lieutenant David Grossman’s landmark book, On Killing. In the book, Grossman, an Army Lieutenant Colonel and professor at West Point, describes the psychological implications of killing, both legally and illegally, in battle. Of specific interest to the Prime Minister would be the author’s argument and the historical evidence that explain why adhering to the Geneva Conventions and treating POW’s humanely is of supreme strategic and tactical importance to any organized army.

In short, enemy forces are much more willing to surrender when secure in the knowledge that in doing so they will be treated fairly and humanely. Enemies that believe otherwise are likely to fight to the death and inflict greater causalities even in a losing effort.

During the Second World War the Western allies’ adherence to the Geneva Convention resulted in German soldiers surrendering to US forces in large numbers. This was in sharp contrast to the experience of the Soviets, who cared little for POW’s. But one need not go back 60 years for evidence. Lieutenant Paul Rieckhoff, who fought in Iraq and then founded and became Executive Director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, makes a similar argument regarding today’s conflicts. Prior to the Abu Ghraib debacle he noted how: “on the streets of Baghdad, I saw countless insurgents surrender when faced with the prospect of a hot meal, a pack of cigarettes and air-conditioning. America’s moral integrity was the single most important weapon my platoon had on the streets. It saved innumerable lives…”

When members of parliament, and ordinary Canadians, ask about the treatment of Afghan prisoners they don’t do so out of contempt, but out of a deep respect and concern for, Canadian soldiers. Canadians know we can ill afford to treat enemy combatants inhumanely. They know this because it is in opposition to our values and our very purpose in Afghanistan. However, they also know there is a compelling military reason: it would rob our soldiers of possibly their single most important tactical and strategic tool – moral integrity. Without this tool, who knows many Canadian lives will be needlessly lost in battles where an insurgent, believing that surrender is tantamount to execution, will instead opt to fight to the death.

The Prime Minister may believe that talking like a cowboy about Afghan prisoners and human rights will make the Government appear tough. The unfortunately reality is that it only makes him a danger to both the mission, and our soldier’s lives.

Liberal Renewal Commission – Report on Civic Engagement

As I discussed in this earlier post the Liberal Party has not published all the Renewal Commission Reports. Of those not published I had thought you could only download the Aboriginal Task Force Paper and the Environmental Task Force Paper.

Apparently, the paper by the task force on Civic Engagement has also been available for some time via its commissioner’s website. You can download it directly here.

Sadly, none of the above reports have been translated…

[Tags] Politics, Public Policy, Liberal Renewal Commission[/Tags]

Liberal Renewal – Aboriginal Task Force Report

Download the Report here.

In the spring of 2006 Tom Axworthy was tasked by the Liberal Party to set up a Renewal Commission that would brainstorm policy ideas to help renew the party’s platform. Let us, for now, put aside the numerous problems inherent in this process (I promise to write about that soon) and instead focus on the output of this commission.

In the late summer of 2006 the Party began to publish some of the reports on its website here. However, while the link remains active only a handful of the reports commissioned and completed were ever released. Moreover, as some of you have observered, the “renewal” link has disappeared from the Liberal Party webpage.

The authors of the Aboriginal Report (of which I was the only non-aboriginal) have jointly decided to put forward our ideas independently. So please click here to find our report. Please note that this report is not an official Liberal Party report and is not Liberal Party policy. It is merely the effort of several young progressives to reframe the debate and provide interesting ideas in an effort to move this important issue forward. Please also feel free to post your concerns, critiques, ideas, thoughts, praise… anything.

We continue to believe in renewal and the ideal that healthy political parties encourage and promote healthy debate – particularly on the most pressing policy issues facing our country. If other renewal commission heads are out there and would like to post their reports (as independent pieces – not official Liberal Renewal Commission Reports) I’m happy to do so. I know that the Environmental Report, which was also never released, is available here. Let’s let a thousand flowers bloom.

19/03/2007: Some of you may have noticed this piece in the Toronto Star that talks about the Aboriginal Report. Clearly copies made it into circulation before it got posted on this site.

[tags]liberal party of canada, aboriginal, public policy [/tags]