Huawei: The New Business As Usual

Mr. Boisvert said damage from economic espionage is now on par with the threat posed by al-Qaeda. “It has become equal to the threat of terrorism. Why? It has such long-term repercussions. The future prosperity of Canadians.”

 

Interesting, this.  Espionage is being compared to terrorism in terms of a threat to the future prosperity of Canadians.  I would think that Stephen Harper would commend Huawei for their initiative.  After all, aren't we looking for more firms to pick up some economic slack?  Better yet, Huawei (and China behind it) are being competitive.  They are pushing the envelope of what's acceptable, doing what it takes to get ahead of the competition - much like Harper's Conservatives.

 

The Conservatives must look to China with envy.  While they're stuck with small-time shenanigans like the Cotler calls run through penny-anny operators like Campaign Research, Inc. China is playing with massive telecoms firms and landing huge domestic wins from industrial espionage.  They're way ahead of Harper when it comes to building influence in Africa.    While Harper's stuck putting special interest groups he doesn't like on watch lists, China gets to be really tough on their internal foes.

 

China is playing exactly the same game the Harper Conservatives want to play, only they aren't encumbered by periodic elections, Budgetary Watchdogs or pesky reporters.  This gives them the luxury to be more ruthless, plan further ahead and do whatever it takes strategically to win.  China therefore also provides us with a window into what Canada might look like down the road if submitted to perpetual Conservative governments.  

 

If this is the game we truly want to play, it would be wise for everyone - especially our government - to consider the risks that come with it.

CFN - Political Planks on a Burning Platform (Updated)

“That was when we really thought we were going to bring about the change required.  It didn’t happen so successfully and I think Justin and others are of the view that ‘renewal’ became a word that just started not to work anymore.”

 -          Katie Telford

Politics, like any good drama, is built on conflict.  At its best, from an audience perspective, politics delivers high-tension clashes at multiple levels simultaneously with nations facing threats upon their shores while provinces, Parties and partisan operatives battle each other for dominance.  It’s why shows like Game of Thrones are so popular; nothing makes for compelling viewing quite like actors fighting to the death on a burning platform. 

Canadian politics, alas, tends to be low on hyperbole and weak on dramatic content.  That’s why unless you’re a CanCon political junkie or a Conservative researcher, you probably missed the little piece of Liberal drama that played itself out last week.  Like the best dramas, this tale began on a hopeful note, spiraled into conflict and has now moved into intrigue.

It started off innocently enough, with Justin Trudeau giving an impassioned speech heralding his entry into the Liberal leadership race.  Rather boldly, he laid out a vision that reached beyond the scope of the Party and included our entire political system.  Canadians, he suggested, are hungry for a vision of Canada’s future “grounded not in the politics of envy or mistrust.”  Trudeau’s stated goal is to bring values like honesty, integrity, respect and cooperation back into Canadian politics.  “When,” he asks us, “was the last time you had a leader you actually trusted?”

Voters are cynical about politicians, and rightly so.  Our current Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, ran on the promise of ushering in a new era of accountability and transparency.  On the heels of the Sponsorship Scandal, that message appealed to the average Canadian.  Since gaining power, however, Harper has been neither accountable nor transparent.  He has moved to limit public access to committee debates, has stifled information flow to the media – his government has even denied information to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, a position of their own design. 

If we’re wary of politicians, we’re downright suspicious of the people who work behind the scenes for them.  We know that Harper’s hired guns aren’t interested in strengthening democracy; they themselves tell us as much.  Nick Kouvalis happily states that he gets paid to end the careers of liberal politicians, while Tim Powers readily admits that the Conservatives are happy to misrepresent the facts if it allows them to keep the Opposition on the defensive.  At the end of the day, does it really matter what a Leader says, when it’s folk like this pulling the strings?

For this reason, engaged Canadians are increasingly paying attention to the people behind the curtain.  If we’re going to invest in a Party to drive our country forward, we want to know something about what’s under the hood.  Perhaps it was in recognition of this that Team Trudeau agreed to an interview with Michael den Tandt, skirting traditional political wisdom that suggests political staff be neither seen nor heard, and kicking off the next act in our little drama. 

If Trudeau’s speech was the teaser to the campaign, the den Tandt piece was like a making-of featurette.  It introduced us to a likeable production crew that clearly supports the vision laid out by their leader.  In addition to Katie Telford, a bright young mother with tons of both idealism and political experience (full disclosure, she’s a former colleague of mine), we have former Liberal MP for Mississauga-Erindale Omar Alghabra, Ben Chin (a former reporter of South Korean heritage) and the more mysterious of the Trudeau brothers, Sacha.  Named but not interviewed was Gerry Butts, a man who is not only gifted in his ability to craft political strategy but also someone who only dedicates his time to things he believes in.  Former political staff like me still look up to people like him.

Not a bad crew to have supporting you, really – and unlike a Kouvalis or a Powers, these folk have made it clear their goal isn’t to defeat the opposition at all cost.  “It’s about who’s willing to put in the work, no matter their background, no matter what party they’ve been in before, or (whether they’ve) been involved in past battles,” as Telford says.  But why, some might ask, is she the one saying this at all?  There’s a reason why conventional wisdom suggests staff should stay in the backroom; when they draw attention to themselves, support teams draw the focus away from the person who will actually have his name on the ballot.  It’s not smart, politically.

One of the people pointing this out is Warren Kinsella, Bad Boy Liberal Strategist and a man with more hard-won election scars than most political staff ever has skin in the game.  When it comes to all this campaign strategy stuff, Kinsella knows of what he speaks – he wrote the book on it, literally (and if you haven’t read The War Room, I highly recommend it).  Kinsella compares political strategy to the process of making sausages (a bit ironic, given the unfolding tainted meat scandal); the less revealed to the public and your opponents, the better.

It’s a point worth raising.  As Kinsella notes, the folk supporting Paul Martin, Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff all dabbled with media exposure, while the campaign teams for Stephen Harper did not.  As a strategy, this worked out pretty well for Team Harper; despite being implicated in a scheme to bribe a dying man for his vote, being found in contempt of Parliament and the ongoing robocall scandal, among others, the Conservatives have clawed their way to a majority government and are now free to do as they please.  By never going off message, allowing few of his Caucus to speak to the media and holding his operators to an omerta-like code of silence, Harper presents a thin target for his opponents.  As for the other guys, well – go look for them now.

This Harperian method makes for great politics, but is terrible for the long-term health of our Canadian democracy.  “The political system has failed many Canadians in clear and tangible ways,” suggests Alison Loat, Co-Founder and Executive Director of democracy watchdog the Samara Institute.  As Trudeau stated so eloquently in his launch-speech, we no longer trust politics, neither the leaders nor the people who support them.  Harper doesn’t shoulder all the weight for this problem – he’s merely taken an emerging trend and pushed it further, faster than anyone expected.  It’s because of this sort of cynical governance that Canadians, particularly younger ones, are proactively opting not to vote. 

Only 61.4 per cent of eligible Canadian voters cast ballots in the last Federal election, and that was considered an improvement.  Youth turnout was even lower, with only 38.8 choosing to support a candidate or Party.  Feeling like their vote has no meaning and that all Parties are the same, these Canadians are choosing alternative methods of expressing themselves politically by participating in student protests or supporting movements like Occupy.

Kinsella himself has recognized this, time and again – the way politics works in Canada is changing.  As disenfranchised voters tune out, backroom operators are using increasingly aggressive tactics to win votes and eviscerate their opponents.  To avoid the consequences of scrutiny, these folk are extinguishing media and opposition access so that they can do what they have to do away from the spotlight.  What happens when people who don’t feel accountable to the public have growing amounts of influence on the political process?

According to the den Tandt article, Team Trudeau and Justin himself have collectively realized that it’s not just the Liberal Party, but the Canadian political process that is at risk of collapse.  That’s the burning platform; that’s the impetus for renewal.  Instead of engaging in old-school politics of Machiavellian manoeuvers planned and orchestrated by shadowy, unaccountable operators, Team Trudeau is trying to devise a new approach, one that is more transparent and accessible to the public while equally being more respectful to opponents.  In this, they’re following some wise words: “Never attack the individual.  We can be in total disagreement with someone without denigrating them as a consequence.”

Which brings us to the last act of our little drama.  Warren Kinsella, a Liberal veteran who recognizes the need for some kind of renewal in politics offered some constructive criticism of the Team Trudeau approach.  Less discussion of process in the media, he suggests.  Staff should remain behind the curtain.  This is a valid position, one that has born political fruit for successive generations.  It doesn’t mean it’s the right one for today. 

According to Kinsella himself, his advice has been met with the kind of response that is typical of old-school politics; angry messages from Trudeau supporters, some of them delivered anonymously.  This is the sort of kindling from which new rivalries are made; it’s also the sort of personality conflict we’re sadly used to.  Sure, this kind of political theatre makes for great viewing, but it does nothing to address the burning platform and brings into question whether renewal is actually possible.  If politics is invariably a blood sport, you can hardly blame the Tories for being as ruthless as necessary to succeed – nor can you blame Canada’s youth for taking to the streets in protest.

For what it’s worth, I think that Trudeau is right.  I think it’s time for a political leader to embody the values they speak of and inspire the same from their team and the public at large.  I also think that Kinsella is right – political staff shouldn’t be using their position as a way to build their own brand.  Frankly, good leaders value their team personally and always make sure their contributions are properly recognized.  Having said that, we live in the days of Facebook and Twitter and IP addresses.  Whether we like it or not, everyone is in the spotlight.  Instead of trying to deny this, political people should always be thinking about how their comments, both verbal and posted, can reinforce and carry forward the vision they have chosen to support.  You never go wrong by standing up for what you believe in.

I would also suggest that political leaders need to spend less time attacking their opponents and micro-targeting voter blocks and instead start engaging all Canadians.  Democracy is a conversation and, like all conversations, it’s built on a foundation of shared values – including trust.  When we don’t trust others, we make them untrustworthy and become untrustworthy ourselves as a consequence.

Of course, all this suspicion and intrigue makes for great conflict.  Though Canadians do love their drama, I think there’s a growing recognition that if we don’t change something, we’re all going to get burned.  The Leader or Party that consciously sets the right example will find that while we enjoy the spectacle, what we truly respect is values-based leadership.

Will Trudeau be this leader?  Can his team renew Canadian democracy before the platform disintegrates?  I’ve got my feet by the fire and popcorn in hand, waiting to see how the next act unfolds.

UPDATE:  Case in point: My partner Lisa Kirbie goes on Sun News weekly to defend all things Liberal.  On the single occasion she voices concern - before and after Trudeau's "basic dictatorship" gaffe - she is derided by other Liberals.

Another Liberal warned Kirbie that she needed to get "on board" because "(Trudeau's) the leader." And so on.

Some people never learn, eh?

Peter Russell: Be Grateful For Our Diversity

Largely by accident, Canada has become the world's leader in getting along.  Some folk see this as a weakness - to them, only military strength and aggressive capacity have value.  I think they're wrong, and Peter Russell seems to agree:


A Constitutional Thanksgiving

 

It is true that we, in Canada and Ontario, may not have the bounty of the new world and the hospitality of its native people that Americans celebrate on their Thanksgiving weekend.

But we do have some remarkable constitutional roots for which to be deeply thankful. Indeed these founding constitutional circumstance are the source of what makes our country such an exceptional political community.

 

We can begin with the fact that Great Britain, after defeating the French on the Plains of Abraham in 1759, did not to try to complete the conquest by driving the Roman Catholic Canadians into exile, which is exactly what they had done to the Acadiens in Nova Scotia just a few years earlier.

Of course, the British really didn’t have much choice. Les Canadiens outnumbered them by 75,000 to 5,000, and most of the British were soldiers anxious to return home.

 

Even though Britain’s decision was based more on prudence than principle, it planted the seed of diversity and ethnic accommodation that would become a hallmark of Canada.

 

Fifteen years later the incompleteness of the “conquest” was consolidated in the Quebec Act passed by the United Kingdom Parliament in 1774. The Canadians could remain French and Catholic, hold public office in Canada and enjoy their system of civil law. Though this fell short of recognizing Quebec as a nation, it enabled les Canadiens to survive and flourish as a distinct people within Canada.

 

For that we should be thankful.

 

After the fall of New France, Indian nations to the west of Quebec were uneasy about Britain succeeding France as the dominant European power in North America.

 

In 1763, an alliance of western nations led by the Ottawa chief Pontiac, fearing a flood of British settlers into their territories, burnt eight of the forts the British had taken over from the French, put Detroit under siege and attacked English settlements in the Ohio country.

 

In July 1764, representatives of these nations met with British emissary Sir William Johnson at Fort Niagara.

 

At Niagara, Johnson presented George III’s Royal Proclamation to the “Nations with which we are connected.”

 

The Crown promised that there would be no settlement on Indian lands without proper treaties.

On the basis of this commitment, the Indian nations made peace with the Crown. The rights and freedoms of Aboriginal peoples contained in the 1763 Royal Proclamation are now recognized in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

For this too we should be thankful – and not forgetful.

 

A few years later when American rebels arrived in Quebec, we should be thankful that the Canadians were grateful enough for the freedoms they enjoyed under British rule, to not fall for Ben Franklin’s offer to be “conquered into freedom”.

 

And we should be equally thankful, that when the Americans invaded our country again in the War of 1812, that His Majesty’s Indian Allies provided military support that was crucial in repulsing the American attack. Although our gratitude should be tempered with shame for the Crown’s failure to honour its promise to protect the western Indian nations from American invasion of their country.

We should also be thankful for the Loyalists, arriving here with a liberal understanding of parliamentary government.

 

They were indeed “liberty’s exiles.” Their government in Upper Canada was the first in North America to abolish slavery.

 

And we should be thankful that when their theory of parliamentary government as a balance between the Crown, the propertied class and the people, became in practice too hierarchical, William Lyon Mackenzie found support for resistance among the people. Not enough support to overthrow the government by force, but enough to convince the mother country that democratic reform was needed.

Finally, we should be thankful for colonial leaders like Robert Baldwin and Louis-Hippolyte La Fontaine, who convinced Great Britain that in Canada the representative of the Crown, in whom the executive power of government is formally vested, must act on the advice of politicians who command the confidence of the elected house of parliament.

 

This gave us responsible democratic government as early as 1848 - at the very time the flickering flames of democratic reform were being doused in Europe.

 

None of these developments were carefully planned. But when we add them up they are what gave us our legacy of liberal and democratic constitutionalism.

 

We should be thankful for that legacy and ever mindful of the principles it embodies.

Peter Russell is one of Canada's leading constitutional experts, advisor to Governors-General and Professor-Emeritus in Political Science at the University of Toronto

Posted date : October 09, 2012

 

 

Teaser for my next CFN Column:

According to the den Tandt article, Team Trudeau and Justin himself have collectively realized that it’s not just the Liberal Party, but the Canadian political process that is at risk of collapse.  That’s the burning platform; that’s the impetus for renewal.  Instead of engaging in old-school politics of Machiavellian maneuvers planned and orchestrated by shadowy, unaccountable operators, Team Trudeau is trying to devise a new approach, one that is more transparent and accessible to the public while equally being more respectful to opponents.  In this, they’re following some wise words: “Never attack the individual.  We can be in total disagreement with someone without denigrating them as a consequence.”

Trudeau Eulogy

 

"Friends, Romans, countrymen . . . I was about six years old when I went on my first official trip. I was going with my father and my grandpa Sinclair up to the North Pole.

It was a very glamorous destination. But the best thing about it is that I was going to be spending lots of time with my dad because in Ottawa he just worked so hard. One day, we were in Alert, Canada's northernmost point, scientific military installation that seemed to consist entirely of low shed-like buildings and warehouses. Let's be honest. I was six. There were no brothers around to play with and I was getting a little bored because dad still somehow had a lot of work to do. I remember a frozen, windswept Arctic afternoon when I was bundled up into a Jeep and hustled out on a special top-secret mission. I figured I was finally going to be let in on the reason of this high-security Arctic base. I was exactly right. We drove slowly through and past the buildings, all of them very grey and windy. We rounded a corner and came upon a red one. We stopped. I got out of the Jeep and started to crunch across towards the front door. I was told, no, to the window. So I clamboured over the snowbank, was boosted up to the window, rubbed my sleeve against the frosty glass to see inside and as my eyes adjusted to the gloom, I saw a figure, hunched over one of many worktables that seemed very cluttered. He was wearing a red suit with that furry white trim. And that's when I understood just how powerful and wonderful my father was. Pierre Elliott Trudeau. The very words convey so many things to so many people. Statesman, intellectual, professor, adversary, outdoorsman, lawyer, journalist, author, prime minister. But more than anything, to me, he was dad. And what a dad. He loved us with the passion and the devotion that encompassed his life. He taught us to believe in ourselves, to stand up for ourselves, to know ourselves and to accept responsibility for ourselves. We knew we were the luckiest kids in the world. And we had done nothing to actually deserve it. It was instead something that we would have to spend the rest of our lives to work very hard to live up to. He gave us a lot of tools. We were taught to take nothing for granted. He doted on us but didn't indulge. Many people say he didn't suffer fools gladly, but I'll have you know he had infinite patience with us. He encouraged us to push ourselves, to test limits, to challenge anyone and anything. There were certain basic principles that could never be compromised. As I guess it is for most kids, in Grade 3, it was always a real treat to visit my dad at work. As on previous visits this particular occasion included a lunch at the parliamentary restaurant which always seemed to be terribly important and full of serious people that I didn't recognize. But at eight, I was becoming politically aware. And I recognized one whom I knew to be one of my father's chief rivals. Thinking of pleasing my father, I told a joke about him - a generic, silly little grade school thing. My father looked at me sternly with that look I would learn to know so well, and said: 'Justin, Never attack the individual. We can be in total disagreement with someone without denigrating them as a consequence.' Saying that, he stood up and took me by the hand and brought me over to introduce me to this man. He was a nice man who was eating there with his daughter, a nice-looking blonde girl a little younger than I was. He spoke to me in a friendly manner for a bit and it was at that point that I understood that having opinions that are different from those of another does not preclude one being deserving of respect as an individual. This simple tolerance and (recognition of) the real and profound dimensions of each human being, regardless of beliefs, origins, or values - that's what he expected of his children and that's what he expected of our country. He demanded this with love, love of his sons, love of his country, and it's for this that we so love the letters, the flowers, the dignity of the crowds, and we say to him, farewell. All that to thank him for having loved us so much. My father's fundamental belief never came from a textbook. It stemmed from his deep love for and faith in all Canadians and over the past few days, with every card, every rose, every tear, every wave and every pirouette, you returned his love. It means the world to Sacha and me. Thank you. We have gathered from coast to coast to coast, from one ocean to another, united in our grief, to say goodbye. But this is not the end. He left politics in '84. But he came back for Meech. He came back for Charlottetown. He came back to remind us of who we are and we're all capable of. But he won't be coming back anymore. It's all up to us, all of us, now. The woods are lovely, dark and deep. He has kept his promises and earned his sleep.

Trust, Politics and the Communication Culture Gap

 

Rob Ford is a buffoon. He is unfit to clean toilets at city hall, let alone be mayor of Toronto. But he’s a winner. He knows how to reach the hearts and minds of guys like Terry.

 

And, until progressives like me learn how to do likewise, we’re the ones who will be mopping floors and cleaning toilets.

 

 

Have you ever been somewhere your native tongue wasn't the common one and needed to see a doctor?  It's a nerve-wracking thing, having people diagnose and treat you in a language you don't understand.  Once, while sick with e-coli in Ecuador, I was left at the mercy of Spanish-speaking friends and their doctors.  As my innards tried to turn themselves inside-out, people were thrusting herbal teas at me; I kept pushing them away, because I wasn't going to take in anything else that I didn't understand.  The same held true when I eventually saw a doctor; nothing about the visit felt like practiced medicine as I'd experienced it before.  It was a terrifying experience.

 

Fortunately for me, I gave in and drank the mate and followed the doctor's instructions.  If I hadn't, I could very well have died.  The herbal teas I was given before and after had been tried-and-tested over generations; the doctors I saw were all trained professionals, though trained in their own countries and in their own languages.  Why had I hesitated in the first place?

 

Because, quite frankly, I couldn't understand what was happening.  I had never been sick like that in my life, which was disconcerting.  My knowledge of Spanish at the time was minimal and even then, rendered useless by the severity of my illness.  The sorts of medicines and the way they were presented were completely unfamiliar - I didn't trust them.  If the Spanish-speaking doctor had pulled out a bottle labeled "Advil" I probably would have felt better. 

 

Politics is not just a foreign language to many, with acronyms and insider terms that get bandied about like status symbols - it's a foreign culture.  To the average bear, places like Parliament Hill and Queen's Park are living museums, not places of work.  What happens in these work-museums is a strange combination of street theatre and courtroom jargon, all of it very inaccessible to the majority.  It's not that we don't care about the wording of Parliamentary motions, it's that we don't understand them.  To the average Canadian, politicians are like foreign doctors, trying to convince us some unknown tonic is good for us.  We make jokes about politicians for the same reason we stigmatize minority groups - we can't quite grasp what they're up to, but it's somehow threatening.

 

Funny enough, most of our politicians feel the same way - they view politics as a big machine in which they see themselves as outsiders.  This is certainly true of Stephen Harper and Rob Ford.  Both had long, strong ties to politics before gaining elected office, yet both portrayed themselves as men against the machine.  They have both also been successful at communicating with the average voter on their terms, albeit through completely different mechanisms.

 

Stephen Harper is a policy wonk; he would be as out of place at a small-town Timmy's as he would be around the UN table with foreign leaders of impeccable political breeding.  Understanding his personal weakness in connecting directly with voters, Harper has cleverly shunned the limelight.  When he comes out, he says little; the only time he talks about the political process is as a club to beat his opponents with.  Harper masterfully portrayed The Green Shift, the notion of a coalition government and Michael Ignatieff's CV as foreign tonics that were somehow threatening to the average person.

 

Rob Ford, on the other hand, is exactly the kind of guy you expect to find swearing at the TV in a local sports bar.  He doesn't need to strategically pick his words or speaking opportunities - he's as authentic as they come.  Ford is with you when it comes to complex procedure and the operation of Council - he doesn't get it either.  He approaches politics the way he approaches football, by cheering on his own team and looking to break those who stand between him and a touchdown.  He's relatable.  The problem is, because he doesn't understand how actual Council work works, he's accomplishing nothing. 

 

The gap between politics and the average Canadian is a wide one, but it can be bridged.  Whereas Ford sits with the common man and fails at work, Harper hides his cards from Canadians and is proceeding to change our country in ways most of us would disapprove of, if were aware what was going on.  To be successful, progressive politicians need to find a third way - not ignore the complexity of policy or hide their intentions from Canadians, but rather find the right tools for political translation. 

 

This translation, like all communication, but be built on trust.  Harper doesn't trust his team any more than he trusts himself, which is why they are short on communicaiton but rather fond of messaging.  Progressives need to foster an unrivalled level of trust between themselves and voters by engaging them and making the effort to learn their language and to understand the world through their lens, first. 

 

In an age of micro-targeted messaging and carefully-controled events, trust isn't something that voters receive much these days.  Without trust, however, there can be no conversation and it's the conversation that democracy is all about.  Perhaps this is the tough medicine we should all be taking.

 

The Rising Social Impact of Traumatic Stress

 

Nineteen years ago, Marc was beaten nearly to death on the job, and he says he’s been in the grip of PTSD every since.

 

Sadly, so have his wife and children.

 

This is a heart-breaking story of a man who suffered in the line of duty and has been abandoned by a society that doesn't understand his condition.

 

Lots of stories like out there these days.  In the military, we have so many men and women suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder that we're now redeploying them before they get the treatment they need to recover.

 

We can keep deluding ourselves that it's all about "being tough" or whatever in a dog-eat-dog world.  The fact is, though, that dealing with aggression at work bleeds over into the same at home, and vice-versa.  There is just one person leading just one life.  By expecting people to do the impossible, we are forcing fractures into the homes and workplaces of the nation.  Hence, the mental health crisis.

 

This can change, but change must start with perspective.  People with anxiety or depression aren't weaklings who should "tough it out" - the act of being "tough" furthers the condition and results in spill-over behaviour that hurts others.

 

Real strength isn't about aggression and endurance - it's about resilience and the ability to accommodate.  That's both internally, with social-emotional tools, but also externally through dialogue and empathy.

 

This is the great challenge we face at this particular point in history.  Until we recognize that true strength isn't an individual trait, we will continue to fall.