Skip to main content
opinion

Michael Ignatieff, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, visited The Globe and Mail editorial board on Sunday, April 24. Selections of that meeting are below. For the complete transcript, click here.

I go into the final week with a sense of ... serene optimism. Serenity in the sense that what I've seen on the ground has been an energized, full rooms - people understanding how important the election is to them. I think the issue that we started with had to do with democracy; a sense of deep skepticism about this Prime Minister's respect for our institutions.

I mean, we had this election because this Prime Minister was found in contempt of Parliament, and that is never done. Were you to endorse this man again for Prime Ministership. you are endorsing a man found for the first time in contempt of our basic institutions.

And when I go across the country, I'm very struck about how angry Canadians are about that issue. So one of the fundamental issues is simply restoring a common faith and trust in our institutions. You don't have Prime Ministers who prorogue Parliament twice, who withhold crucial data from Parliament.

So that democracy issue, which has been floating around there, seems to be a very important one.

But the other thing that has made me optimistic is the sense that after a lot of work, two and a half years on the road, we have a platform that actually speaks to Canadians in a very direct way.

It's a massive statement about what a government should be doing to create the conditions for economic success in the future. In our view, what we've been saying from the beginning in the platform is: What has made this country go has been equality of opportunity.

John Stackhouse, Editor-in-Chief: Thank you for taking the time to see us. We've got a lot of questions, including some from readers, but let me kick off by talking about the NDP, and the apparent movement of support from, perhaps many parties, to the NDP. What's your sense of why so many Canadians are drifting or shifting to that party?

Mr. Ignatieff: I think what's happening is that Canadians want a change; they want to replace the government. 60 per cent of the population doesn't want to go on with the Harper government. They're figuring out, "Who can get us there?" - that's what's happening. What we're saying is, we've been there. We've governed the country. We have a team. I've got a finance minister. I've got a brace of provincial premiers. I've got people who know how to get a deficit under control. Who know how to say "No" as well as "Yes." Who know how to make promises they can keep, who don't make promises they can't keep.

And I think as we get down to the final week, people are going to say "We want to get rid of Harper, because we know we don't trust him on democracy, on health care. What's the better option? What's a government here?" A government has to be able to say "No," to say "Yes," to get a deficit under control.

And positively, people are going to say, "I want child care spaces. I want my kids to get a college and university education." I can't get people coming to the Liberal Party unless I've got something positive, and that's why I think the Family Pack is positive.

John Ibbitson, Ottawa Bureau Chief: As Prime Minister, would you be prepared to consider the idea of revisiting the question of apportioning seats and to consider proportional representation as an alternative?

Mr. Ignatieff: I get asked this question a lot, and my answer is always the same. I know what first past the post is. It has all defects that everyone's coming to recognize; I don't know what the hell we're talking about the minute we're not talking about first past the post.

Therefore, the only responsible way for a Prime Minister is to initiate a national conversation in which we begin to narrow down what is the actual, workable alternative for Canada, as an alternative to first past the post. Let's have a conversation, let's get all the experts in, the editorialists, the people, and figure [this]out.

Unless you have a clear alternative, you risk damaging the legitimacy of the political system.

I think I'm the only political leader who's done, you know, 50 open-mike town halls in the last two years. You get a question like that about every two weeks.

Mr. Ibbitson: Just before my colleagues [attack]me, would it require - the other provinces all have referendums. Do you think it would require a national referendum before we could move to an alternative form of voting, whatever that may be?

Mr. Ignatieff: Referendum is a word that makes me a little - referendums are funny beasts. I think that's one possible outcome. There are other outcomes that would end in simple legislation through parliament. In this parliamentary democracy, we tend not to do referendums. We tend to do it through legislation, but I'm being drawn further than I feel comfortable going here.

What I feel is just next to it is, why aren't we experimenting with Internet voting? Why aren't we taking our voting system into the 21st century? We have a proposal, a modest proposal really, but it's been very popular, for citizens' question period every week. There are all sorts of things we can do to enhance the credibility of our democracy to citizens, and those excite me in some way, just as much, if not more.

Mr. Stackhouse: You went into the campaign with a fairly strong agenda, strong team. Hasn't won an overwhelming majority of support out there. What is not clicking?

Mr. Ignatieff: Well I live in a world in which every room I go into is full of passionate, committed, loud, noisy and enthusiastic citizens, not all of whom are Liberals. What I know is the people who voted for the Liberal Party in the past want to vote for us on the second of May. What I know is, the money's coming in. What I know is the volunteers are there. What I know is the candidates are telling me, in our target ridings, we're doing extremely well.

That's what I know. So serene optimism is not, in my view, delusional. Serene optimism is based on the facts that I get on the ground. And if you believe in something from day one, as I've believed in this platform, and I believe in this message of hope, you stick with what you believe.

John Geiger, Editorial Board Editor: I'm actually interested in your observation about Parliament, and the way parliament has been abused by this government, and the plain evidence of that. What would you do beyond - I mean, are there structural changes that can be made that could lessen the control of the PMO and could strengthen ordinary MPs and have them more accountable to parliament?

Mr. Ignatieff: I think there's plenty. They all sound kind of modest and process-oriented, but it's a matter of changing tone. Party leaders should meet at least once a month. You know, it sounds ridiculous - we should be meeting all the time.

Minority parliaments or majority parliaments are water and wine time. You know, my bottom line is that I can't take water that damages the fiscal framework of the country, or puts our national unity in jeopardy. You know, those are my red lines, but within that, I don't think we have a monopoly on wisdom, never have.

So you've changed the tone here - we've got a "My Way or the Highway" Prime Minister. It affects everything, from the top. So you meet regularly, you empower committees. I've only been in Parliament five years and I'm shocked we don't do a better job as legislators. Let's get back to what we're there for, and that is to legislate, and make sure we look every single darn clause the right way. Give committees the time, give committees the resources to do the job.

And I think I'd like to get in there and, May 2, get a budget, get the entirety of the Family Pack out there. Working. In 2011. Get a health-care meeting of the provincial premiers immediately.

Marina Jimenez, Editorial Writer: The Prime Minister seems to have successfully set himself out as the only one [who]can successfully steer the economy. But when you think about it, the Liberals slashed the deficit in the 1990s, and the opposition parties were crucial in persuading the government to go ahead with stimulus spending. So why then is it so hard - how do you get your message out about what your party can do in terms of being a successful steward of the economy?

Mr. Ignatieff: Well, you point out that we left these guys with $13-billion worth of surplus and the best fiscal fundamentals in the G8 and the best banking system. Canadians do have a political memory. They know what our record was, and they know it was a good record.

You then say, listen, we've got to make some choices here: Corporate tax cuts, when you've already got a competitive corporate tax rate at 18 [per cent]

Or do you invest in learning and education, and equality of opportunity. We've got jobs without workers, workers without jobs. We've got high unemployment and persistent skill shortages in an economy where every smart country is betting the store on education.

Every smart country in the world looks at the fact that all the labour market growth west of Lake Superior will come from the aboriginal population, and that half of them don't finish high school. You look at that and you think "Look out Canada! Look out!"

Sean Fine, Editorial Writer: You talked about crime bills being the centrepiece of the Tory agenda. I'm not entirely clear as to what you would do on some of the bills that have passed, such as ending the 2-for-1 discount.

Mr. Ignatieff: Well, we think, as you look for 2-for-1, that it's having unanticipated, uncosted impacts on prison construction. We've drawn the line now and said we just can't go on like this. We're throwing people into jail with billions of dollars of uncosted expenditure. We went out and got the [Parliamentary Budget Office]to tell us how bad it is, and it's bad. I think, we get in, we're going to have to look at all of this very, very seriously.

Adam Radwanski, Columnist: I wanted to ask you about health care. Your ad campaign and your comments accuse Conservatives of wanting to cut - they're countering that they're going to keep putting 6 per cent annually into it. Taking them at their word for a second, let's assume that you all want to put more money into health care on an annual basis. How does your vision for it differ, other than that?

Mr. Ignatieff: Well, first of all, it differs because within 60 days, we want to get the premiers and the territorial leaders around the table. We haven't had a federal-provincial meeting on health in five years, number one. Number two, the Martin Accord of 2004 envisaged us working together on a pharmaceutical strategy. Harper jettisoned that.

One of the biggest issues out there is that, the minute you step out of a hospital, if you have a chronic condition, or a post-operative condition requiring drugs, you're in big trouble. And I see it in every one of my public meetings. We have got to fix it. It doesn't mean a large, big, new federal pharmacare program because we've got provinces that have differing levels of coverage. But I've just come off from P.E.I. - they don't have catastrophic drug coverage in P.E.I. and New Brunswick. So, big holes there.

We can fix that. So the first thing you do is sit down and figure out how can you get roughly comparable delivery of out-of-hospital drug coverage for essential conditions for all Canadians, and do this within a six per cent ceiling. It's a tough job. How do we improve home care because all of these health care systems are struggling to contain costs by taking people out of hospital and sending them home early.

I just had breakfast with a family that's just come out of Sick Kids. She has to go home, take her kid back to Winnipeg after an operation. She wants to work: getting home care services for that child is a matter of life and death for that family. And we're not doing a good enough job there. Those are our two priorities.

We also think that we've got to take some demand out of the health care system. The goal here is health, not health care. So we've got a national prevention strategy. Your editorial group has done a very good job of saying let's get the salt, fat and sugar out of our diets. Let's get after obesity. Let's get after diabetes. All of that does, I think, require a national, coordinated strategy. But it starts with federal leadership. And I've seen no federal leadership on health from Stephen Harper in five years.

Sinclair Stewart, National Editor: This is your first campaign obviously; I'm assuming you've learned a lot. What's one thing you would have done differently with the luxury of hindsight?

Mr. Ignatieff: I find myself sounding like Edith Piaf. "Moi, je ne regrette rien."

I honestly feel that we've fought an extremely positive, professional, hard-hitting campaign from Day One. I've taken every public meeting as if it was my last, and I gotta do it. Show or tell time.

I've ripped up the notes, I've ripped up the teleprompter. I just get up there and go for it. And, you know, if you've done hundreds of thousands of kilometres in Canada, there comes a point where you come back to a place like Summerside, P.E.I. on a Saturday afternoon and you know the place. There's comes a moment when you're in Sudbury on a Thursday night and you know the place.

Margaret Wente, Columnist: Can I ask you a corny question? Half my friends want me to ask you this question. So I'm speaking on behalf of them. You've got a positive platform as you've said, a professional team, a good message. But why you? Why do you want to do it? Why do you want to be Prime Minister?

Mr. Ignatieff: I've discovered that that's a question about who do you want to do it for. Who do you want to do this job for? Because it isn't about me. It ends up being about the guy in the cowboy hat out in Sudbury on a Thursday night who says, "I've been a trucker for 40 years and I've come to this meeting because my wife got sick two years ago and I had to come off the road. And there's no home care that can deliver for me."

It ends up being about that person. It ends up being about, you know, I could go on all night about these kinds of stories. A woman who says to me in Montreal, "I waited six hours with my mother in a hospital corridor, waiting to see a doctor." How did that happen?

So it all comes down to the people you meet and your sense that you're there for them. I've done [the journalists']job. I've been on the other side of this table. I was never accountable to people the way I am accountable now. That's what it's all about.

Nicole MacAdam, Presentation Editor: I have a question that was submitted by e-mail from Jo-Lee Bertrand. It's on education. She wants to know why, if we're facing a mounting national debt, it's a good idea to give all students $1,000 a year for post-secondary education and not just those who have actual need. Why not give the students who need it, more, and the students who don't, nothing?

Mr. Ignatieff: I think it's very important that the Learning Passport is for all families. All families pay taxes, so some of it may be clawed back. But all families should have this chance.

I can't emphasize how wide the concern is about affording post-secondary education, and how wide the concern about student debt is. And we think putting thousand dollars a year, up to $4,000, and then $6,000 for low-income families. And all of it new money - $1-billion - is the best single investment we can make in the future of the Canadian economy. And then on top of that, there are all the student grants and loans that will target families with particular needs, but a universal program that makes this kind of statement is, I think, crucial.

It also has one unintended, or fully intended, effect that you need to notice. It creates a powerful incentive that you need to finish high school.

You look to Pathways [to Education] and great programs like that - they've understood that. You create a powerful incentive to compete high school if you know that there's $4,000 waiting in your account, which you can only access, by the way, if you get into a full- or part-time accredited institution, a college or university. And so I think there's a strong case for that. For a university.

Ms. MacAdam: Roma Mehta wants to know why were you absent so often from Parliament last year. What could be more important than helping run the country you hope to lead?

Mr. Ignatieff: I basically took democracy on the road. Democracy isn't Parliament and it's also on the road. I did more open-mike town halls, standing up on a rainy Thursday night, across the country than any other leader by a factor of two, plus a bus tour of more than 70,000 kilometres.

I thought it was crucial to get out of Parliament and out on the road. And this is the result. That is, a platform that is the result of listening to Canadians, and I think that's the balance that every political leader has to strike between doing their job in Parliament - and I believe I've done my job in Parliament, led my party and kept it united and kept it focused and showed discipline there - and also been out on the road.

Mr. Stackhouse: Did you have the balance not right?

Mr. Ignatieff: I feel I did get the balance right.

Karim Bardeesy, Editorial Writer: Just wanted to get back to [Margaret Wente's]question. I hear you when you say, it's about who I want to be Prime Minister for, but that doesn't answer the question a lot of Canadians have: why did you come back in the first place? And, you've been around a long time, but it's your first election where Canadians are really putting the spotlight on you. So I was wondering whether you could address that question.

Mr. Ignatieff: It's my country. It's my country. It's my home.

I've been an expatriate in other countries. I've understood what it means to not be a citizen. To not belong in someone else's country. To not be able to take part in their political debate. To be a spectator.

I wanted to come home because this is my country. Everything that ever happened to me happened because I had the privilege of being born in this country. I have a father who did 30 years of public service to the government of Canada. Public service is not an abstraction to me; it's not some fancy word. I saw him do it for 30 years. It's my home; it's my country. And I've had two and a half years of people questioning that. And you can imagine how deeply I feel about this question.

Gerald Owen, Editorial Writer: You spoke twice at the beginning about the Liberals' ability to say "No." Do you have examples of what you would say "no" to? I don't mean obvious social ills that everybody would disapprove of, but what would you propose to say "no" to?

Mr. Ignatieff: F-35s at $30-billion a pop. It's a disgrace. You need a competitive bid. The right plane, the right time, at the right price. We need to replace the CF-18s, but the way they've done it is grotesque.

And so we would say no to that, start a competitive bid, get our defence procurement right here. That's the obvious one that comes to mind. Corporate tax rates down to 15, no, not now in a deficit of, you know, north of 30. Not the right choice. Peg it at 18. That's a clear no. And yes - emphatic yes - to learning. And we've said no to some other things.

Mr. Stackhouse: To the water and wine metaphor - what in the NDP's water would you not accept in your wine?

Mr. Ignatieff: Where do I start? You look at the platform, there's projected revenue of billions from a cap and trade program this year.

Mr. Stackhouse: So, cap and trade is out?

Mr. Ignatieff: No, I'm saying two things about that. You can't book revenue from a plan that doesn't exist, number one. Number two, if you're going to have cap and trade, and we've mentioned cap and trade in our platform as a possible way to get our CO2s down, you can't use it as a vehicle to recycle revenues out of energy-producing provinces back to Ottawa.

The one thing we're very clear about is if you're going to use these revenue generators - that is, a cap - then all of the revenue has to recycle into Saskatchewan, into Alberta, into Newfoundland and Labrador. And all of that revenue then has to be used for clean energy, and clean energy innovation.

That's not the way the NDP thinks. It's the big sucking sound of using basically an energy tax to fund your social programs. We've explicitly rejected that. We think the right way to do cap and trade is to do it for environmental purposes, but absolutely make damned sure that you're not funnelling revenue out of Alberta, out of Saskatchewan, out of Newfoundland and Labrador - it's the wrong way to go.

Mr. Stackhouse: Perhaps one last question; we've talked about a great range of topics today. What do you hope Canadians will think about first and foremost on May 2nd when they go to choose? What's the ballot question?

Mr. Ignatieff: It's kind of hope over fear. And it's also, "What government do you want here?"

A government that reflects your values. A government that's focused on your priorities. A government that puts you first.

We've got a government that's saying, "Take a ticket and step to the back of the line." And I'm saying, "Come to the front of the line."

Because I absolutely passionately believe that the success of this economy depends on putting the ordinary Canadian family first, and that means putting equality of opportunity first, for every single Canadian.

That's the guiding value of the Liberal Party, but it's the guiding value of a Liberal government.

So, choose hope over fear, and choose a government that puts equality of opportunity first.

Mr. Ibbitson: Is it also about passion over dry reason? I've heard you now use the word "passion" passionately, I can't say how many times over the last 45 minutes. I'll bet that over the last seven years, Stephen Harper has never used the word passion once. Is it asking voters to take a flier on a belief in a country that you could be, that you dream of? Or making calculated decisions about the best way to have their tax revenues apportioned?

Mr. Ignatieff: Passion over reason, I don't know. The one thing I pick is "the country you dream of." Damn it! This is the country I grew up in. This is the country I grew up in. I grew up in a country that understood the issue of equality of opportunity.

Between north and south, between east and west, between rural and urban. Between individuals. Between ethnic groups. Between races. Between classes.

You look at the period between 1945 and the mid-to-late 1970s / early 1980s, one of the things that made us so phenomenally successful was we cared about equality of opportunity. We made damn sure kids got to college and university. We made damn sure that we didn't have growing imbalances between the very very rich and the rest of the country.

What is now crucial to the future is re-dedicating ourselves to that. I look at successful societies, and I'm just convinced, they're societies that say "If we've got aboriginal kids not finishing high school, look out! If we've got immigrants who can't get up the ladder, look out! If we've got middle-class families saying I can't carry the weight of a post-secondary education because the debt load is too high, look out!"

Those are warning signals for any successful society. It's the key to our economic future.

So passion, reason, I don't know; I just know this is the Canada I grew up in. I grew up in a middle-class home, my dad was a federal servant. I know this world. Talk about where the passion comes from? It comes from that. This is what worked. This is what made us so successful. This is what we have to re-discover and re-dedicate ourselves to.

You'll hear reason from Harper. That's not the issue. What you will not hear is a vision of the country. You will not hear that from him. He doesn't have it. It's not there.

It's process, process, process. Wedge, wedge, wedge. Split, split, split.

It's all about the Conservative Party of Canada. For that, he has vision. For the country, nuh unh.

Interact with The Globe