Seven ways to have a real political conversation about bullying

 Bullying is the topic up for debate in the House of Commons today. You may be saying: "At last!"

But no, it's not political culture that's getting a hard look by our federal politicians, even though this would be an ideal time to put some issues on the table. Although it's a very worthy and timely topic, I'd argue that MPs, political folks and yes, even journalists could make this conversation far more meaningful today if they talked about their own practices on this score; their failure to lead by example.

First, start with a definition of bullying, this one obtained from the U.S.  stopbullying.gov website:

In order to be considered bullying, the behavior must be aggressive and include:

• An Imbalance of Power: Kids who bully use their power—such as physical strength, access to embarrassing information, or popularity—to control or harm others. Power imbalances can change over time and in different situations, even if they involve the same people.
• Repetition: Bullying behaviors happen more than once or have the potential to happen more than once.

By that definition, it's not hard to see where we can make political comparisons. And with that in mind, here are seven ways in which we could have a serious conversation about how politics  veers dangerously close to  the type of bullying behaviour being condemned today by the MPs.

1. Question Period and members' statements. I don't really need to say anything more than that, do I? The insults, the shouting, the cheering-on of people who can yell the loudest and mock the most? As is repeatedly stated, if this happened in any other workplace, we'd call it bullying. But it's constantly air-brushed here as "vigorous debate." So vigorous that many of us can  barely stand to watch it anymore.

2. Relatedly, the level of debate on Twitter, Facebook and in the comments sections of political blogs or online stories.  Yes, I put this right after that last point in case anyone in the spectators' stands is feeling  smug.   Staring  into the black screen of Tweetdeck, I too often see (from all political stripes), comments  intended to scare or rattle people who  are simply speaking their minds.

3. Rewarding bad behaviour.  We keep being told (and we in the media perpetuate this image)  that  true leaders are strong, aggressive,   ruthless and "in control."  They gain friends by fear, not kindness. That is also the description of a bully. Think about it.

4. Mocking differences over which people have no control, such as physical appearance, accents, etc.  For some reason it's seen as totally  OK  in politics to  poke fun at NDP caucus members for their youth, women MPs for their voices, some male MPs (guess which) for their hair. And we who work in the world of politics want to lecture high-school kids on how to talk to each other?

5. Negative ads. Some say all's fair in love, war and politics, but I find it hard to look at some of those ads in recent years, especially the ones against Stephane Dion, and not think of sand being kicked into someone's face at the beach. (And in case anyone's tempted to see this as partisan sympathy, I was similarly unimpressed by the personal insults levelled against Stephen Harper when he was opposition leader. We want to call this 'attacking" in the political context, but if it was high school, it would be called "teasing.")

5 (a) Threatening people's jobs. Okay, okay -- at base, politics is about one group of politicians (the opposition) trying to take the jobs of other politicians (the ones in power.) But does that mean that every disagreement in Ottawa  has to be distilled down to a job threat? I've seen a real increase in this rhetoric in the past 10 years or so in Ottawa: feuding Liberals threatening to deny jobs to rivals, Conservatives putting clouds over careers of people deemed to be Liberals or other rivals. When someone with power and influence  is threatening someone with less power and influence, that could well be described as bullying.See the definition above.

5 (b) On that same score -- trying to get people in trouble with their bosses. This is another bullying tactic that has increased exponentially in Ottawa in  recent years, and it is intended as intimidation, pure and simple.   It works this way -- rather than deal with a critic (whether journalist, blogger, rival  or simple commenter) head on, the complainer simply calls his or her boss. The idea is to show your potential critic/rival  that you have more power than he/she does over  his/her job. It's a repellent way of handling disagreement. It's also cowardly, but bullying is often cowardly,  isn't it?

7. Temper tantrums. Maybe it's the high stakes of the  political world  (see previous point about jobs in the balance) but I've been constantly surprised through the years about stories of political staff here and the way they've endured hot-tempered outbursts and harangues  from their MP bosses. Not just the low-level MPs, either. Former prime minister Paul Martin became famous for what people around him cheerfully called "beatings" and current Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been known to kick chairs.  Bosses aren't supposed to scare the bejeezus out of their  employees, period.

 

 People in politics don't like to admit that bullying goes on here, or worse, that it's happened to them  -- it's viewed as a sign of a weakness or "whining." But that's the whole thing about bullying, right? It persists exactly because of this mentality. And until the political people here starting owning up to the practice in this workplace, whether as perpetrators or victims, Ottawa is not really in a position to preach.

 

Text of Trudeau speech

Here is the text of Justin Trudeau's speech to launch his leadership campaign in his home riding of Papineau, in Montreal, on Tuesday night. Since I've never seen him deliver a speech from text before, thought I'd note it for the record. It's also, I'm told, pretty much the same speech he will be delivering in all the launch events this week.  

 

 Make no small dreams, they have not the power to move the soul" [-Goethe]

Now that'll take courage, but more than that, it'll take hard, honest work. So let me start by telling you about the folks who taught me that best, here in Papineau.

On this side of the riding, it’s Parc Ex. People from every nation live here. They make this neighborhood so vibrant. On the other side of Jarry Park, Xavier and Ella-Grace’s favourite park, is Villeray, one of those solidly francophone neighborhoods that defines Montréal. Artists and intellectuals live there, but so too do many families. 

In the east side of the riding, there is St-Michel, where you find people like my good friend Ali Nestor – a boxer – who teaches us how to fight poverty, social exclusion and, from time to time, conservative senators. 

This community is not just remarkable for our diversity of ideas, of cultures, of beliefs. What is truly remarkable is that this diversity thrives peacefully.

Here, we trust each other and we look to the future together.

This trust that binds us together here in Papineau is the trust that binds this country together. 

My friends : I love Montréal. I love Québec.  

And I am in love with Canada. 

I choose, with all my heart, to serve the country I love. That's why I'm so happy to announce here, tonight, my candidacy for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada.

So I’m here to ask for your help, because this road will be one long, Canadian highway. We will have ups and downs. Breathtaking vistas and a few boring stretches. And with winter coming, icy patches. 

But we will match the size of this challenge with hard, honest work.

Because hard work is what’s required. Always has been.

Canada’s success did not happen by accident, and it won’t continue without effort. This magnificent, unlikely country was founded on a bold new premise. That people of different beliefs and backgrounds, from all corners of the world, could come together to build a better life for themselves and for their children than they ever could have alone.

This new idea that diversity is strength. Not a challenge to be overcome or a difficulty to be tolerated. That is the heart and soul of the Canadian success story. 

That, and the old fashioned idea of progress. The idea that we owe a sacred duty to Canadians who come after us. To work hard. To build a country that offers them even more than we had. More opportunity, more choices, more success, just as our parents and grandparents did for us.

These are the values that define and unite us.

I have seen a lot of this country. And I can tell you that those values are alive and well, from coast to coast to coast. 

My fellow Liberals, these values are not the property of the Liberal Party of Canada. They are not Liberal values; they are Canadian values.

I’ve too often heard it said in Liberal circles that the Liberal Party created Canada. This, my friends, is wrong. 

The Liberal Party did not create Canada. Canada created the Liberal Party. 

Canadians created the Liberal Party.

The great, growing and optimistic middle class of the last century created a big-hearted, broad-minded consensus. And built a better country. For themselves, yes. But more important, for each other, and for their children.

Canadians built medicare. 

Canadians built an open and dynamic economy. 

Canadians welcomed newcomers from around the world into their communities and businesses.

Canadians developed an independent foreign policy, and when necessary, bled for our values in faraway lands.

Canadians brought their constitution home. 

Canadians demanded that their inalienable rights and freedoms be placed above the reach of politics.

And Canadians balanced the budget.

The Liberal Party was their vehicle of choice. It was the platform for their aspirations, not their source. 

 

When we were at our best, we were in touch, open to our fellow citizens and confident enough in them to take their ideas and work with them to build a successful country. 

 

If there is a lesson to be drawn from our party’s past it is not where we landed but how we got there. We were deeply connected to Canadians. We made their values our values, their dreams our dreams, their fights our fights. 

 

The time has come to write a new chapter in the history of the Liberal Party.

This will be a campaign about the future, not the past. I want to lead a movement of Canadians that seeks to build, not rebuild. To create, not recreate.

After all, we live in a very different world, my friends. Twenty years ago, I was part of the first graduating class at my university to get email. I was of the last group of pre-Google high school teachers. 

And now, my kids don’t know there was a world before Blackberries.

But if the way we will build it is new, what we have to build is timeless. 

We know what Canadian families want. Good jobs. A dynamic and growing economy that allows us to educate our kids as they mature, and to care for our parents as they age. 

We want a compassionate society that pulls together to help the vulnerable, and gives the less fortunate a chance at success. 

We know that Canada is the freest society on Earth because we trust each other. So we want a government that looks at Canadians with respect, not suspicion. That celebrates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That believes in your choices, your values and your liberty.

Some say that youth carry our future. I say youth are an essential resource for our present. We need to empower all young Canadians, through world-class education, through rich and relevant work experience, and through opportunity to serve their communities and their world. Their voices, their choices, matter deeply, as do their actions: they are already leaders today. 

And directly, to our First Nations, the Canadian reality has not been - and continues to not be - easy for you. We need to become a country that has the courage to own up to its mistakes and fix them together, people to people. Your place is not on the margins. It is at the very heart of who we are and what we are yet to become.

We want a foreign policy that will give us hope in the future and that will offer solutions to the world. 

We want leadership that fosters and celebrates economic success in all regions of the country. Not leadership that seeds resentment between provinces.

 

We need to match the beauty and productivity of this great land with a new national commitment to steward it well. My generation understands that we cannot choose between a strong and prosperous economy, and a healthy environment.  The conservative approach may work for a few, and for a while. But we know we can’t create long term prosperity without environmental stewardship. 

We need to learn what we have forgotten. That the key to growth, to opportunity, to progress, is a thriving middle class. People with good jobs. Families who are able to cope with modern life’s challenges.

A thriving middle class provides realistic hope and a ladder of opportunity for the less fortunate. A robust market for our businesses. And a sense of common interest for all. 

The great economic success stories of the recent past are really stories of middle class growth. China, India, South Korea and Brazil, to name a few, are growing rapidly because they have added hundreds of millions of people to the global middle class.

The news on that front is not so good at home; I don’t need to tell you that. You, like our fellow Canadians all over the country, live it every day. Canadian families have seen their incomes stagnate, their costs go up, and their debts explode over the past 30 years. 

What’s the response from the NDP? To sow regional resentment and blame the successful. The Conservative answer? Privilege one sector over others and promise that wealth will trickle down, eventually.

Both are tidy ideological answers to complex and difficult questions. The only thing they have in common is that they are both, equally, wrong. 

We need to get it right. We need to open our minds to new solutions, to listen to Canadians, to trust them. 

And as we face these challenges, the only ideology that must guide us is evidence. Hard, scientific facts and data. It may seem revolutionary in today's Ottawa, but instead of inventing the facts to justify the policies, we will create policy based on facts. Solutions can come from the left or the right, all that matters is that they work. That they help us live - and thrive - true to our values.

Because middle class growth is much more than an economic imperative.

The key to Canadian unity is the shared sense of purpose so hard to define but so deeply felt. The sense that we are all in this together. That when Albertans do well, it creates opportunities for Quebecers. That when Quebecers create and innovate, it echoes across the country and around the world.  That whether you’re in St. Boniface or St. John’s, Mississauga or Surrey, we have common struggles and common dreams. 

It is the middle class, not the political class, that unites this country. It is the middle class that makes this country great.

We know some Quebecers want their own country. A country that reflects our values, that protects our language and our culture, that respects our identity. 

My friends, I want to build a country too. A country worthy of my dreams. Of your dreams. But for me, that country reaches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from the Great Lakes to the Grand North. 

Quebecers have always chosen Canada because we know it is the land of our ancestors -  who built this country from east to west. They were here to write the first chapters of the great Canadian history of courage, liberty and hope. We have left our footsteps everywhere. 

Will we put this history aside now because people of other languages came after us with the same dream of building a better country ? Of course not. Our contribution to Canada is far from over. 

I want the Liberal Party to be once again the party that promotes and cherishes the francophone reality of this country. I want my party to support francophone communities across the country. And I want the Liberal Party to be once again the vehicle for Quebecers to contribute to the future of Canada. 

Now my candidacy has been the source of some speculation over the past months. The odd newspaper article has been written. Some have been very odd indeed.

But I said to Liberals after the last election that we need to get past this idea that a simple leadership change could solve our problems. 

I believe that still. My candidacy may shine a few extra lights upon us. It may put some people in the bleachers to watch. But what we do with that opportunity is up to us. 

All of us.

And when Canadians tune in, we need to prove to them that we Liberals have learned from the past, yes. But that we are one-hundred-percent focused on the future. 

And not the future of our party: the future of our country.

I am running because I believe this country wants and needs new leadership.  A vision for Canada’s future grounded not in the politics of envy or mistrust. One that understands, despite all the blessings beneath our feet, that our greatest strength is above ground, in our people. All Canadians, pulling together, determined to build a better life, a better Canada.

To millions and millions of Canadians, their government has become irrelevant, remote from their daily lives, let alone their hopes and dreams. To them, Ottawa is just a place where people play politics as if it were a game open to a small group, and that appeals to an even smaller one. 

They do not see themselves or their values reflected in Ottawa

My friends, we will do better. 

This is not a personal indictment of Mr Harper or Mr Mulcair. On the contrary, I honour their commitment and their service. But I think they are both dead wrong about this country. And, I want to tell you, together, we can prove it. 

 

There will be many highs and lows between now and April. And if we work hard and find success, I know there will be many, many more between then and 2015.

I do not present myself as a man with all the answers. In fact, I think we’ve had quite enough of that kind of politics.

But I do know I have a strong sense of this country. Where we’ve been, where we are, and where we want to go. And I believe I can bring new forces to bear on old problems. I can convince a new generation of Canadians that their country needs them. That it values their energy, ingenuity and vision. Together, we can convince young Canadians  that serving this great country is its own reward.  

I promise you this: if you entrust me with the privilege of leadership, I will work long, hard and tirelessly. I learned first-hand from the people of Villeray, St-Michel and Park Extension that there are no shortcuts, no easy ways to earn trust and support. You have to work at it, day in and day out.   

Because that's what it's going to take, and that's what Canadians deserve. 

Think about it for a moment: when was the last time you had a leader you actually trusted? And not just the nebulous "trust to govern competently", but actually trusted, the way you trust a friend to pick up your kids from school, or a neighbor to keep your extra front door key? Real trust? That's a respect that has to be earned, step by step.

I feel so privileged to have had the relationship I've had, all my life, with this country, with its land, and with its people.  

From my first, determined steps as a toddler to my first, determined steps as a politician: we've travelled many miles together, my friends...

You have always been there for me. You have inspired me, and supported me in good and more difficult times. And you have made me the man and the father I have become.

I chose today to launch this campaign because it is my little brother’s birthday. Michel was killed in an avalanche, doing what he loved, in the country that he loved as much as anyone I have ever known. Michel would be 37 years old today. Every day, I think about him and I remember not to take anything for granted. To live my life fully. And to always be faithful to myself.

 

At Michel's funeral, my father read from the Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians. Paul wrote, “when I was a child, I spoke as a child. But now that I am a man, I put away childish things.”

It is time for us, for this generation of Canadians to put away childish things. More, it is time for all of us to come together and get down to the very serious, very adult business of building a better country. For ourselves, for our fellow Canadians, and for our children.

We Canadians live in a blessed country. We are the most diverse people on Earth, yet we are peaceful. We are tough but we are compassionate. We are confident, but we work hard and we earn it. We have resources that are the envy of the world. 

Let us pledge to one another to match those resources with resourcefulness. Let us rededicate ourselves to the glorious, improbable, work-in-progress that is Canada. And to serve its people through the only party willing to speak to and for all Canadians: the Liberal Party of Canada.

So tonight, Sophie and I draw on our love for our family and offer up all we have in service to Canada, and to each and every one of you.

Join us. 

 

Trudeau launch update: Everywhere but Ottawa

Make that four provinces for Justin Trudeau's first week as a Liberal leadership candidate. Apparently, Justin Trudeau will also be touching down in Alberta this week after he kicks off his campaign tonight, in addition to previously announced stops scheduled in Mississauga and B.C. 

At the moment, we in the media are dealing with the Trudeau campaign much like that old tale about the blind persons and the elephant, each of us knowing bits and pieces of the organization (and the itinerary), but not the full size of it. Just yesterday, I was chatting with one of my French-media counterparts, and we made a casual agreement to pool what little knowledge we were gathering. We didn't catch word of the Alberta event, obviously. 

This may be just the product of an operation not fully in gear yet; it may also be a somewhat deliberate decision to keep distance between the Trudeau campaign and the political media in the capital.  And if it's the latter,  it's an interesting comment on what some Liberals (not just those supporting Trudeau)  believe were the mistakes of campaigns past. 

During the 2011 campaign, I heard repeated mutterings from (as always) anonymous Liberals about how the party was campaigning to please the Ottawa press gallery and not Canadians outside the "bubble." All the Liberals' election talk about the Conservatives' alleged offences against democracy, for instance, were going right over the heads of the Tim Hortons crowd. Similarly, Mr. and Mrs. Average Canadian didn't care how  political leaders were treating the media travelling with them. So Liberals weren't gaining any public-opinion points for conducting press conferences that were less restricted than Stephen Harper's five-question encounters to roped-off reporters. In short, the Liberals conducted the campaign that was most accommodating to the media last campaign, and it netted them a third-place finish.  

Cast forward to 2012, and we may be starting to see the product of this hard lesson learned. The New Democrats have already instituted their own version of the tight-message discipline of the Conservatives and we shouldn't be surprised to see the Liberals starting to also care less about being Ottawa-media-friendly. In at least a couple of  conversations I had with Trudeau-team members the past few days, I got the impression that  they don't mind if their candidate is seen at odds with the usual pundit class in Ottawa. The more harsh words from the press gallery, the better, even. 

And that also probably explains why Ottawa is not on the multiple-city launch for the Trudeau campaign this week. Prime Minister Stephen Harper hasn't held a press conference in the capital since 2009, and that hasn't appeared to hurt him at all in the court of public opinion. Trudeau's dad used to say that MPs were nobodies as soon as they got 50 yards away from Parliament Hill. Now the reverse seems to be true -- you're nobody until you get far away from the Ottawa bubble. 

Not up to the challenge

Last week, the House of Commons rejected a bid to open up a conversation in Canadian politics on when human life begins. Give some credit to the collective wisdom of the chamber -- it knew what it couldn't do. 

Regardless of where you stand on the abortion issue, there's one main reason to applaud this outcome:  Canadian politics, as it currently  stands, has not proven itself worthy or capable of such a discussion. It's beyond the skill set of the participants. Have a look at some of the headlines this morning, particularly the second one.  

Whether seen as a victim or a terrorist, Omar Khadr is a perpetual political wedge issue

 

 

Speaker urged to stem tide of partisan vitriol in House of Commons

 

 

The Khadr case pits extreme against extreme, with no room in the middle

 

If these headlines don't persuade you, have a look at what happens in the Commons every day, particularly the 15 minutes before Question Period (partisan members' statements) and the 15 or so minutes afterward (complaints about how QP unfolded, in points of order, etc.)  

Then ask yourself: Do you think the Canadian political class could have been trusted to have serious, measured debate on such a massive question as when human life begins?  I think we know the answer to that question. 

 

 

 

Justin Trudeau Creativity Challenge

Now that an official announcement is imminent on Justin Trudeau's leadership intentions, the new challenge for the commentariat  is to say something about him that hasn't been discussed to death already. 

Here, as a service to those looking for a new angle, are the top 12  already-shopworn talking points on  Trudeau, the prospective candidate. 

1. Does he have what it takes?  
2. Is he his Dad's son or his Mom's son? 
3. Nice hair. 
4. He won a boxing match once, against a senator. Cue the "lightweight/heavyweight"  headlines. 
5. He was born on Christmas Day. But that doesn't make him a Messiah. 
6.  He's 40. We used to call that "approaching middle age." But in politics, we call that "appealing to youth." 
7. He's running against the mother of his half-sister. Politics as Coronation Street. 
8. Yes, there must be a way to have fun with "Justin" and "Just Society," but no one has figured out how to do that cleverly. Move on. 
9.  Why can't Sacha, the other brother, be the one who entered politics? (Because there are enough members of the Trudeau extended family in this race. See point 7.) 
10. The Liberals don't need another coronation. But they can't stop themselves. 
 11. The Conservatives are dying to run negative ads against Justin.  
 12. Has anyone mentioned his hair? Or the boxing match? Or the lightweight thing? 

Liable for damages

It's standard practice, when renting a car, an apartment or a party venue, to leave a damage deposit.

    I'm starting to think that Canadians should be insisting on the same condition when a new  government takes power: if it breaks the institutions of office, or leaves them  in worse condition than it found them, someone (not us) should pay. 

    Question Period has been on a downward descent for a while, so it's hard to  backtrack  and pinpoint who started trashing the place.  Maybe it was the Liberal "rat pack" of the 1980s, or maybe it was the arrival of television in the 1970s. But Question Period  is now utterly and completely broken. It's the basement rec room of Canadian politics, filled with rollicking feats of ever-more-sophomoric behaviour and language. This week has been a true low. 

     I keep imagining the janitors walking in every night after everyone has gone home and surveying the wreckage: "Oh no, look at this,  all those pants on fire have scorched the chairs, even on the front bench." or "Aww, look at those walls. What on earth were they throwing at each other?" 

    The committee rooms are a disaster too, though they're in marginally better condition than the Question Period venue. This week, the Conservatives moved to shut down an inquiry into the Auditor General's report on $10-billion cost overruns in the price of F-35 fighter jets. Again, the clean-up crew must be sighing: "Hey, somebody smashed all the lights in here. It's totally dark." 

    As for the Senate, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has reportedly given up on his attempts to clean up the place, wedging ever more appointees into the chamber, and considering  calling in a haz-mat team (the Supreme Court) to help turn it into a properly functioning institution. One tiny  thing: Five years ago, the Senate itself recommended that the Supreme Court was necessary for this cleanup duty, and the Conservatives steadfastly refused to consider it. Provinces also argued that their help was needed. Now the rot has  had an extra half-decade to set in, simply because Harper was convinced that fixing the place was a do-it-yourself job.

Imaginary janitor: "Darn it, somebody tried to use a staple gun and duct tape here. Look at the mess." 

    A lot of the parliamentary rule books have been taking a battering too over the past few years; their pages tattered, torn or ripped right out all together.  There was the infamous manual on how to disrupt the work of committees. There was the massive PR effort of late 2008, to convince Canadians that a "coup" was under way, when what was really happening was an old-fashioned, legitimate loss of confidence in  the Prime Minister, by a majority of duly elected MPs in the chamber. There was the subsequent shutdown of Parliament in late 2008, and another one in 2009 -- prorogation used as it had rarely been used before, to help the government escape from tight situtations in Parliament.

Imaginary janitor: "Hey look over here. Someone's busted the latches on these windows and doors." 

At some point, we're going to have to confront all this wreckage and either fix it or have the whole place condemned.

Former cabinet minister Bev Oda was (rightly) forced to pay when she smoked in a hotel room. Who's going to pay for the damage currently being inflicted on our Parliamentary institutions? Not us, the citizens, I hope. 

Carbon tax: The Musical

It's been only two days since Parliament resumed in Ottawa, and the ridiculousness has reached operatic proportions. 

 

Watch this space: Liberal leadership on Twitter

Who says you can't learn anything on Twitter? This afternoon, during Question Period, some Liberal-leadership merriment. 

It started with this cryptic tweet from Canada's first man in space, Marc Garneau, who told me at Montebello he wants to run for leadership, but he's not yet sure he's going to take the plunge. 

What could this mean? Sure enough, another prospective candidate waded in, with his own cryptic tweet. 

The indefatigable Kady O'Malley noticed: 

And yes, I had to wade in with my own smart remark, throwing in that oft-cited caveat on Twitter: 

Not so fast, said Mr. Trudeau. 

What's this? Trudeau endorses Garneau? For what it's worth (for the humourless out there) I believe this was all in fun. And in case you were wondering about the tweet that started it all, Mr. Garneau had an explanation, straight from outer space. 

 

 

 

 

 

Going negative

Once again, the Conservatives have fired up their attack machine to drive down an Opposition leader -- this time, NDP leader Tom Mulcair and his alleged support for a "carbon tax." Though the tactic has been called out as a blatant lie and an insult to Canadians'  intelligence, so too were the attacks against Liberal leaders -- and they worked. 

Note the  interesting difference here, though, between the attacks on Mulcair and the attacks on Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff. While the insults to the Liberals were on personal traits ("not a leader" or "just visiting"), the Conservatives are attacking the NDP leader on a matter of policy. 

What can we learn from this? Anyone have any theories on the difference in tactics?

One possible motive:  the polarized  policy  world works better for Conservatives. Anything they can do to portray the next election as a stark choice between left and right is presumably in their interests. 

Oh and  here's a cheery thought: the next election is 37 months from tomorrow. So we have three years and 31 days to enjoy all these  antics.

 

Farewell, Jean Charest

This afternoon, I took some time away from watching federal Liberals at Montebello, Que., to turn on the TV and watch Jean Charest resign from public life. He's had a heck of a 28-year ride in Canadian public life and, thanks to this crazy job I've had, my paths have crossed with him many many times. So I thought I'd just tap out some random, not necessarily profound  recollections here, to maybe give you some glimpses of the guy I saw  beyond the headlines or the TV pictures. 

* I first met him in 1988, a few months after I'd arrived in Ottawa to report for the Globe and Mail. I had done a huge access-to-information story on how the government was spending/wasting  money on student job grants and he asked me to come and see him in his office. 

I was wandering down the Sparks Street Mall, on my way there, and ran into the journalistic legend, Marjorie Nichols, who was acting as a mentor to many of the young women in their 20s who had arrived to cover politics in Ottawa in that era. I told her where I was heading and she said: "Get to know that man. He's going to be prime minister of Canada some day." Marjorie, sadly, died of cancer in 1991, and Charest -- at least so far -- has not reached her expectations. But Marjorie, as she could be, was pretty adamant. 

* Many of us on the constitutional beat in those years got to know him best when he headed up the committee trying to find a resolution to the Meech Lake accord impasse in the spring of 1990. After a day of committee meetings on the road, it wouldn't be unusual for the journalistic pack to be invited to Charest's room, to sit back and reflect on what we've heard that day and political/constitutional talk in general. He was always funny, and often wise. The project was at the initiative of New Brunswick Premier Frank McKenna, by the way.

Of course, the compromise efforts exploded in May-June 1990, thanks in part  to the explosive departure of Lucien Bouchard from Mulroney's cabinet as well as staunch opposition from Newfoundland Premier Clyde Wells.  Meech died in late June. I always thought there was some uncanny parallelism there -- the work of one moderate Quebec Tory is blown out of the water by one with more uncompromising views, one Atlantic Premier is similarly felled by another Atlantic Premier.  But McKenna and Charest rose above and beyond that failure to make a huge impact in Canadian political life. 

*****

In 1993, we all got to know Charest an awful lot better when he was left as the leader of a two-MP Progressive Conservative caucus. I think it was his sense of humour, as much as his sense of hard work, that helped keep that party afloat in those years.  Since I covered the PCs back in those days, those are where many of my fondest memories lie. 

Some of them: 

* In the "this-really-happened" category:  In Quebec City somewhere around 1994-95, Charest  was due to give a lengthy speech to Conservatives gathered in the basement (I think of the Chateau Frontenac).  We all had text of the dozen-or-so pages of speech, and we followed along as usual, marking where he'd strayed from the official version. (Not very much.) After the speech was over, he wandered over to where his communications assistant was standing with a few reporters. He said, with a smile, "Did you forget something?" Suddenly, her face dropped and she looked down at the folder in her hand. She'd been holding his copy of the speech all along and forgot to put it on the podium. Yes, he delivered that speech from memory. I'd heard about that photographic memory of his, but there I saw it in action and have never seen another politician do anything like that since. 

* Charest was fond of asking total strangers to vote for Conservatives in those dark years for his party. He'd be walking along the street and see someone talking on a cell phone. "Who are you talking to?" he'd ask. The puzzled bystander would answer "my mom" or "my boyfriend" or "my boss" or something, and Charest would grab the phone and say "Hi. It's Jean Charest, leader of the Progressive Conservative party. Please vote for me. Thanks. Goodbye." 

* In that same vein, during the 1997 election, the Conservative campaign bus was overnighting in my hometown of Milton. Rather than stay in a hotel, of course I went to stay with my parents. We were sitting watching the news when suddenly we saw huge headlights through the living room window. Charest thought it might be funny to pull the campaign bus on to my parents' front lawn, knock at the door and introduce himself to my parents. He said he was just there to assure them I was behaving on the bus, not causing my family any embarrassment. They were completely charmed. (They may well have voted for him, for all I know.) 

And here is my most vivid memory from those years, which I've shared with others from time to time. 

Late in 1994, Charest and his wife Michelle were due to come to dinner at my house, along with some other journalistic and political colleagues. (The then-correspondent in Canada for the L.A. Times, as well as Chantal Hebert were among the guests.)

Late in the day, as guests were arriving, we got news that Lucien Bouchard was in hospital, hovering between life and death because of necrotizing fasciitis.  Now, Bouchard and Charest had been the closest of friends, up until that Meech drama (mentioned above), but they hadn't spoken since.  This was four years later, in other words, and that's a lifetime in grudge politics. As the night went on, rumours flying, we abandoned the dinner table and just watched TV. There were a few breaks in the sombre mood. One was when Charest opined that all "experts" on TV have funny hair. One wag couldn't resist: "What are you an expert in?"  

At one point, things looked very bad. Rumours were that Bouchard had died. The phone started to ring with requests to the journalists for obits, etc.

Charest just left the room, and stood  in the dining area, gently banging the back of his head against the wall. I asked him what he was thinking. He said he couldn't put it into words. That was one of the few times I saw him without a ready answer. 

Of course, what we didn't know then was that both men would be fine, and both would go on to become premier of Quebec. And now both are gone from public life, at least for now. Hard for me to believe we've seen the last of Jean Charest after this many years.