23
Globe and Mail editorial board member and blogger Adam Radwanski recently waded into the debate over Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier's past relationship with a woman who allegedly has previous ties to bikers.
As he wrote on his award-winning Globe blog, "I can't for the life of me figure out how any of this is important enough to be raised in Question Period — much less how Gilles Duceppe could suggest with a straight face that every time a cabinet minister goes on a date, the lucky companion should be subjected to RCMP security clearance. The Prime Minister does not always have his finger on the pulse of public sentiment. But I suspect his response today — 'Mr. Dion and Mr. Duceppe are quite a group of gossipy old busy-bodies,' in particular — had more than a few Canadians nodding in agreement."
Yet questions about Mr. Bernier's love life and diplomatic blunders continue to be raised in Question Period. As do questions about the faltering economy, changes to Canada's immigration laws, the promised Mulroney-Schreiber inquiry and the fate of Omar Khadr.
Does anyone remember the Chuck Cadman affair? The in-and-out scandal?
What do you want to know about federal politics and the goings-on on Parliament Hill?
Mr. Radwanski joined us Wednesday at 1 p.m. ET for our weekly Ottawa political discussion, The Hill_Live.
Your questions and his answers will appear at the bottom of this page.
Adam Radwanski is a member of the Globe and Mail's editorial board. He was previously the managing editor of Macleans.ca, and from 2002-06 was an editorial writer and columnist at the National Post.
Formerly a columnist for the Ottawa Citizen and The Hill Times and the founder of Canada'a first online political magazine, Adam has also written extensively on arts — doubling as the Post's music critic from 2004-06. He is a 2008 EPPY award nominee for Best News/Politics Blog.
Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.
John McGrath:Good afternoon everyone, and welcome to our discussion of Canadian politics with Adam Radwanski. We're taking questions today on the recent controversy surrounding Maxime Bernier, and all other matters political.
Shirley Anne from Toronto writes: Do you not think that if the Conservatives answered questions that are asked in a reasonable manner instead of being adversarial, that these issues would settle down? I personally think that the Bernier question had merit and if assurances were given that there was no security concern it would end the matter.
Adam Radwanski: I think you've touched on a problem with the Conservatives' issue management that goes well beyond the issues surrounding Maxime Bernier's personal life.
I actually didn't have a big problem with Harper's "busybodies" response, which came outside the House of Commons rather than in response to an opposition question. The Tories went overboard in Question Period - particularly Peter Van Loan, with his ridiculous attempt to suggest that the Liberals shouldn't ask national security questions because they've been attempting to stand up for the rights of Omar Khadr and Abousfian Abdelrazik. But I don't think a generally dismissive tone was out of keeping with the way most Canadians (many of this site's commenters notwithstanding) felt about this issue.
More broadly, though, the Tories have displayed a remarkable ability to make their own lives more difficult. Their first and seemingly only impulse when they're put on the defensive is to attack, attack, attack. And almost without fail, it blows up in their faces. The fallout on everything from the handling of detainees to the shutdown of a nuclear reactor to the Elections Canada investigation into their campaign spending could have been minimized if they'd struck a more conciliatory tone. Instead, they've themselves turned every one into a bigger controversy than it needs to be.
If you're wondering why they're virtually tied in the polls with the weakest Official Opposition in memory, I'd suggest that goes a long way toward explaining it.
Kyle Olsen from Calgary writes: I am wondering if Dion's proposed carbon tax would be a good wedge issue, since it has polarized the parties. Or is it more to get the pundits talking about policy and not leadership?
Adam Radwanski: It's certainly a wedge issue, which isn't a bad thing (from a pundit's perspective) since rhetoric notwithstanding there hasn't been a whole lot to differentiate the Liberals and Tories when it comes to substance. But I don't think it's so much an issue of trying to change the topic from leadership as trying to prove it.
Dion needs to shed his image as a pushover, and considering current economic circumstances this is about as bold a policy as he could put forward. They may be trying to get him talking about policy, since he's much better at that than he is at attacking the government, but it's all part of trying to brand him - something the Liberals very unwisely let the Tories do before they had a chance to.
That being said, whatever its merits, I've not heard anything to suggest that Dion doesn't come by this policy honestly. As everything in politics, strategic factors certainly come into play. But I don't want to be so cynical as to suggest those are the only considerations, because the guy really does seem to believe this is the right thing to do.
Quinn Barreth from Canada writes: I recall past governments and prime ministers acting in fairly unpleasant ways, but the public was not being subjected to as much gossip, innuendo and pointless blather as we seem to get every day. I am a fairly avid political junkie, but I am losing my appetite under the barrage of junk that comes from Ottawa lately (from ALL the parties). Are we simply in one of the best times economically and socially for Canada, as an overall country, that so much of the discussion in the House of Commons is spent on worthless discussions?
Adam Radwanski: To some extent, I think the answer is yes. Not that it's exactly smooth sailing for our economy right now, nor that we don't still have a wealth of social challenges to grapple with. But particularly since the sovereignty movement went into decline in the late '90s, Canada has been free of the kind of internal conflicts and tensions that most other countries grapple with on a daily basis. That's made for an extremely complacent electorate, which helps explain declining voter turnout and general disinterest in what goes on in Ottawa. And with so many voters tuning out, and a lack of obvious defining issues to grapple with, parliamentary debate becomes a lot more mundane.
But then, the decline arguably started a lot earlier. When I interviewed Preston Manning last year, he pinpointed it at around 1993 - the time the traditional three-party system broke down, and both his Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois turned up in large numbers. The Liberals, he suggested, had no interest in sharing with those parties - particularly the separatists - the sort of semi-respectful relationship past governments had had with opposition parties. The example he used was foreign policy, where the tradition of keeping the opposition well in the loop effectively came to an end. I think if you were to look back, you'd see that the level of hostility in Question Period and other forums of debate was ratcheted up around that point as well.
None of this excuses the level of nastiness we've seen in the past couple of years, though. You can blame that on the frustrations of a minority parliament, in part, but also on some of the personalities involved. When Peter Van Loan is setting the tone many days, it's not hard to understand how things get childish in a hurry.
M Samra from Toronto writes: How is the the Liberals criticism of Maxime Bernier's personal life any different than what Stephen Harper did to Navdeep Bains last year when he started to make comments about his family in Parliament? The PM refused to apologize then for doing so. Isn't this hypocrisy on his part? And shouldn't he be forced to apologize to Mr. Bains now?
Adam Radwanski: He should have apologized to Bains a long time ago. That was far more offensive than anything the opposition parties have said about Bernier, since it wasn't even an attack on his personal decisions so much as on his family. And while Bernier did somewhat put himself in the line of fire, anyone remotely familiar with Bains - a very progressive guy who's infuriated members of his community by taking a liberal position on social issues - knows it was ludicrous to imply he was in any way an extremist, or sympathetic to those who are.
I could go on about this, but suffice it to say I agree wholeheartedly with you. And to follow up on my response to the previous question, if you're looking to figure out when relations between the parties took a turn for the (even) worse, that's not a bad place to start.
Wall Flower from Canada writes: If there is to be another Cabinet shuffle and Bernier is moved out of the Foreign Affairs folder, who would you propose as a replacement?
Adam Radwanski: That's a tough one, because this government is not exactly known for its bench strength. It's generally acknowledged to have one standout minister, but that's Jim Prentice and he was already moved (prematurely, in my opinion) from Indian Affairs to Industry. I can't really see moving him again.
Other than Prentice, David Emerson has generally gotten good reviews. His business background wouldn't be as useful as it is in International Trade if he made the leap, but he'd certainly be no less qualified than the first two foreign affairs ministers the Tories have gone with. But Emerson may not even be running again, so that makes him an unlikely candidate for a huge promotion.
If they want to get him out of Finance - and out of the country more often, since it might not be long before he becomes a thorn in Harper's side - they could always throw Jim Flaherty over there. But to be honest, I have my doubts Bernier will be moved anytime soon.
R. Carriere from Maritimes writes: Afternoon Adam: Regarding the NDP, is it just me or are they moving somewhat away from their staunch leftwing strategy on every and all issues? Is Tom Mulcair having any influence on Layton?
Adam Radwanski: It's not just you. But I'm not sure how much Mulcair has to do with it, at least directly.
Layton achieved some remarkable things in his first two elections as leader, doubling the party's share of the popular vote and its seat count. But he seems to have hit a wall in the past couple of years, with the party stuck in the mid/high-teens in the polls. His aggressive form of leadership reinvigorated the NDP's base, and won back some past supporters who'd drifted to the Liberals during the uninspired McLaughlin/McDonough years. But with the party stalling, his critics - of whom there have always been quite a few, since he came from the outside to take the leadership - might be getting restless. Mulcair or others could start to look like appealing options after the next election if the NDP loses seats or merely holds its ground.
That's leading, I think, to some subtle changes in strategy. Seeing the Liberals unusually weak, the NDP is aiming for the more pragmatic left-of-centre voters who've traditionally stuck with that party but are losing faith. Meanwhile, it's also trying to reconnect with the blue-collar voters who long ago abandoned it - most of whom aren't sold on the crunchy granola urban activism that the party was increasingly selling even before Layton took over. That means, for instance, rejecting a carbon tax in favour of playing to lower-income rural and suburban voters struggling to pay for gas. I suspect we'll see more of that sort of populism - which comes fairly naturally to Layton, despite his solid left-wing credentials - in the months ahead.
Bill Hopkins from London writes: I honestly can't see why this [Bernier] matter has any relevance to the affairs of the nation. We have serious problems with the state of the military, with immigration, and a host of other matters -- not to mention that the economy is going south like a duck in winter. Yet the Bloc and the Liberals continue to embarrass the nation by behaving like preschoolers in the sand box.
John McGrath:Adam - Would you like to tackle any of those other serious problems? What's the biggest challenge this government faces?
Adam Radwanski: The biggest challenge, in terms of its political fortunes, will likely be the economy - particularly in Ontario and to a lesser extent Quebec, where the Tories need to make inroads if they're to have any hope of winning a majority. But truth be told, it's largely outside its control - particularly since Flaherty tied his hands with a GST cut that's left him little room to manoeuvre.
If you're talking about areas where they should be focusing, though - that's a whole other matter. This government, like most others, ran on fixing health care; it's been virtually silent on the matter. It ran on restoring Canada's place in the world, and while it's gone some way toward rebuilding the military our diplomatic role is arguably weaker than it was a decade ago. Those are a couple of obvious ones.
If you're looking for a personal bugaboo, I think it's absolutely shameful the degree to which all parties shy away from serious debate over the appalling third-world conditions much of this country's aboriginal population lives in. This is the one area in which the feds have direct responsibility for social policy, but politicians of all stripes prefer not to talk about it because there's no political upside.
(For the record, I think journalists - present company included - bear some blame for that one too. There's nothing especially sexy about reserves or what happens on them, so we tend to focus on the simpler stuff.)
Chris Eaton from Fredericton writes: I don't know a single person taking this thing seriously. Most of them want a refund on the taxes used to pay these politicians salaries, but that's about it. Seriously, what is in the water in Ottawa that drives politicians to constantly stoop to new lows like this? Don't they realize that this nonsense is exactly why people hold their entire profession in such contempt?
Adam Radwanski: I've gotten a bunch of questions like this, which is to be expected if you've had the misfortune to tune into Question Period lately. So it seems fitting to end with one.
In spite of the way they come across en masse, there are politicians who understand how bad the situation is and are trying to do something about it. Just the other day, Ketih Martin - one of the real free-thinkers on the Hill - penned an op-ed that laid out the problem and proposed a few solutions. The problem is that those voices get buried, and will continue to get buried until they wind up in positions of leadership.
Unfortunately, the high road is by far the most difficult one for leaders to take, since they're roundly mocked if they don't lead with their fists. That happened to John Tory in his early days in the Ontario Legislature, and it's why Stephane Dion keeps trying to prove he's capable of attack politics, even though he's absolutely godawful at it.
The optimist in me, though, wonders if the right politician with the right message might not be able to capture the public's imagination with something a little different. South of the border, both Barack Obama and John McCain have succeeded by pitching a sort of post-partisan politics - Obama by striking a more conciliatory tone toward conservatives and trying to stay out of the gutter, McCain by playing up his record of cross-partisan legislative initiatives. In so doing, they've tapped into a desire to unite a horribly polarized country in some sort of common purpose.
Canada, for all its ugly politics of the past couple of years, isn't quite so divided along partisan lines. And we certainly don't have any current politicians with the charisma of an Obama or the stature of a McCain. But sooner or later, someone willing and able to rise above the fray might find himself or herself with a very receptive audience. So many American trends get picked up on a time-delay in this country; hopefully this will be one of them.
John McGrath: Unfortunately, that's all the time we have for questions now. You can continue the conversation here. Thank you very much to Adam and all of our commenters.
