Next Liberal Debate: Chasing Justin Trudeau

Prodded by the media and his pride as Canada’s first astronaut, Liberal leadership candidate Marc Garneau has let out the word: it’s no longer hands-off Justin Trudeau, the front-runner. In tomorrow’s 9-candidate debate, he’ll insist that Trudeau “take a stand.”

Instead of taking on what Trudeau has been saying, Garneau will complain that he’s failing to spell out a concrete vision. The front-runner will demur; he’ll suggest there’s still plenty of time and wonderful ideas out there to consider before the 2015 national election.

Opinion polls reported this week that Trudeau is the most popular politician in Canada, the one Liberal that could beat both Thomas Mulcair and Stephen Harper. Also, we’re told that he’s made a good living in Canada as an "inspirational speaker." Is this the week to suggest that his campaign messages are too thin and won’t impress voters?

Unless the polls collapse, Liberals will go with Trudeau—win or lose, it’s their nature.

Nevertheless, Garneau could make his Party and their next leadership debate more productive if he forced Trudeau to explain in more detail what he’s already been saying in outbursts.

On foreign investment, oil pipeline approvals, and Senate and electoral reform, he’s taken positions well to the right as well as to the left of Stephen Harper. As important, he has not been saying what you’d expect to hear from a visionary young liberal.  

They’re not timid statements, just questionable.

For instance, on oil pipelines, he’s exclaimed, “Come to me with the best pipeline plan and we’ll talk.”

Is he saying boss Harper isn’t going far enough? Is he saying that the next Trudeau Cabinet should have more flexibility than simply accepting or rejecting a public recommendation from the National Energy Board? Does he think Western Canada wants that kind of leadership from Ottawa? Was his statement really intended to be taken seriously?

Not to sound like an old-fashioned liberal anywhere in the known liberal world, Trudeau has come out against an elected Senate, in principle, and scoffs at Harper’s qualms about further foreign investment by state-owned enterprises.

Garneau could make interesting a discussion of contemporary liberal ideas if he’d apply his mind—and known liberal traditions—to what Justin Trudeau has already been saying forthrightly.

Two attacks on Canadian liberal values

Classic liberalism in Canada is taking a beating in its old home—the Liberal Party—and in its new home—the Conservative Government. One is thinking about further abridging freedom of expression and the other is ignoring the proposition that each vote must weigh the same in a popular democracy.

First, it is reported that the federal government is considering additions to the Anti-Terrorism Act that would outlaw “glorifying” terrorism.

Andy Ellis of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service clearly worries that “radicalized individuals” are more willing to commit crimes.

“Frankly speaking, security agencies do not yet fully understand why and how a seemingly ordinary young man or woman can grow up in Canada yet come to reject the Western, liberal and democratic values that underpin Canadian identity — instead replacing them with the violent, anti-Western ideology of al-Qaeda,” said Mr. Ellis, the CSIS assistant director of policy and strategic partnerships.

“What we do know is that terrorist ideologues who are the vectors of radicalization seek to promote an ‘us versus them’ storyline.

“Speaking at the Canadian Association of Security and Intelligence Studies conference in Ottawa, he said to tackle radicalization CSIS would have to work with other government agencies, police and at-risk communities. “We need to expand our efforts into longer-term, preventive programming that will foster individual and community resilience to extremist discourses.”

Click on: http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/15/tories-considering-expanding-anti-terrorism-act-to-fill-gaps-in-law/

What would they like to do: criminalize Chairman Mao T-shirts, Che Guevara’s posters, and Bin Laden beards? Turn intelligence agents into liberal proselytizers?

Security professionals everywhere loath radicals—it’s their nature. They would love to shield us from the “vectors of radicalization.” The Royal Canadian Mounted Police kept silly thick files on Canadian socialists simply because they used radical, anti-capitalist language in public.

However, a liberal democracy shouldn’t ever give such professionals all the powers they want. They should only be free to act against concrete efforts to incite specific individuals to undertake criminal acts of violence. It’s no excuse that the British Government has tried to criminalize the “glorification of terrorism.” It’s still a dangerous idea.  

At the same time, Quebec MP Marc Garneau formally advised Parliament that the Liberal caucus will vote against expanding the House of Commons by 30 seats in order to accommodate major shifts in Canada’s population. (He did not endorse the only equitable alternative: almost 30 seats are taken away from low or no-growth regions and given to growing regions. Those living in growth areas would eventually enjoy equivalent political representation. However, a constitutional amendment, with the consent of all the provinces, would first be required.)

By hitching their support for the status quo to the need for “fiscal restraint,” Susan Delacourt of The Toronto Star argues that the Liberals are “staking out a position that taps into long-standing populist discontent with politicians and Parliament.”

Click on: www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1087356--no-more-mps-please-liberals-say

Sorry. Populists can go overboard but they don’t fudge basic principles.

New Canadians in Mississauga and Calgary want the same political respect as founding families in Montreal and Halifax. Angry populists certainly want their votes to weigh the same as those of old elites.