Well I've met my first Liberal leadership candidate.
Michael Ignatieff made a brief stop in Owen Sound on Friday. I can see why he's the first to make it here, because there wasn't much of a crowd. I'd say it'd be generous to estimate the crowd at 50.
I was cleaning up the house all afternoon and arrived half an hour after the start time. However, he was 20 minutes late so I didn't miss a second of the speech.
Ignatieff lost much of his voice so he obviously wasn't at his best in terms of sound. My impressions of his speech were that he's still too long winded - especially when not giving much detail. For example, he talked a lot about how the family farm is facing a difficult time and how he wants to ensure it survives. However, all Ignatieff actually said he would do is create a "National Food Policy" which deals with all issues related to food. That includes what we eat, where it's gown, who grows it, how healthy is it, etc. I don't think that's a bad idea, but it's difficult to see how it (as described) would make a significant difference to farmers.
Another time Ignatieff discussed the obvious rural-urban divide in our country. It's something I've become very aware of since moving to Owen Sound. There's a great sense here that governments ignore rural communities in favour of the Torontos and Ottawas. He said we need to make sure more young people stay in small towns, make sure there are more jobs here, make sure rural communities thrive. He took a long time to say that, but he didn't offer any real way to do it.
I mean, I could spend hours telling you what's wrong with the world. It's not very hard to find problems. If it takes him that long to explain our problems, I'm almost affraid to hear him talk about solutions.
I don't want this to sound overly negative though. I also felt Ignatieff came across quite well. He's become a lot more engaging and his charisma is more obvious now than it was a few months ago. He's obviously more comfortable. I do get a sense it's a mighty struggle for him to get through the usual political pleasantries. For instance, when Verona Jackson (Liberal candidate this past year and wife of former MP) was introducing him, Ignatieff's reactions were very forced and didn't feel genuine or natural. He looked awkward shaking hands. My suggestion would be to tone it down and just be yourself. But hey, it's not like Trudeau was much for those kinds of things either.
In his speech Ignatieff outlined the reasons he wants to lead the party and the country. First, to continue the Liberal party's history of pushing progressive social programs. Specifically he mentioned the importance of our health care system delivering equal access for everyone. However, I will note he often discussed the percentage of Ontario's budget health costs eat up, and even said he doesn't believe it's sustainable at that level. Ignatieff also mentioned his willingness to consider some aspects of private delivery as long as they still ensure equal access. I'm not commenting on that opinion so much as I'm passing it along.
He also said it's important the government work on a strategy to make sure Canadians live more healthy lives, because that's a key way to bring down health costs. What he suggested doing in conjunction with the provinces sounded a lot like the kind of things Jim Watson is promoting in Ontario. I happen to think that's very sound thinking, but I want the governments to be even stronger in pushing healthy choices. You have to risk offending people a bit if you're going to get through to them.
Ignatieff also touched on the need for the federal government to make sure that anyone who has earned the right to go to university or college CAN go. He said something along the lines of if you have the grades, you should be able to go. He did not specifically say how he would go about accomplishing this goal. I liked where Paul Martin was going on this topic in the last election, but obviously that didn't have much traction. I suspect he's not about to suggest free university and college in Canada, but that's something I'd like to see personally. At least it's on his radar.
The other key priority for him is promoting a very active foreign policy. Ignatieff said he wants Canada to have a stronge voice at the table internationally. He says with America's credibility hurting the way it is, Canada can have a stronger role and influence. But he notes it's going to mean we have to do a greater part in defending ourselves and contributing to international missions. I agree with everything he said on that.
He also addressed the war - saying chosing sides is the easy part. When faced with deciding between a democratic state and a terrorist faction, it's obvious whose side he is on. However, he says the important part of the discussion is what the conflict could mean in terms of risking a greater outbreak of war with other countries in the region. Basically he's concerned about war involving Syria and Iran as well. He didn't really spend much time talking about civillian deaths in this conflict but concentrated more on broader implications. It's pragmatic, but he has to realize how he comes across on the issue after the "don't lose any sleep" comment.
Finally, the part where Ignatieff excelled the most: questions from the audience. His vast knowledge of ... well everything came out. That was the key, any question asked he could address with background information. He not only sounded informed, but was informed. That impressed me. He had facts and statistics and history on every topic. He also took the time to answer each question thoughtfully - and if he wasn't giving it genuine thought he sure convinced me he was. In saying that, his response to the question of private delivery left me somewhat uneasy. As did his reponse to the question of how to compete with farm subsidies. He sure knew the background of the question, but he didn't seem to have any solution. The best he could come up with from my POV was investing in ethanol plants and encouraging its use to boost the grain industry.
I also asked him a question, not as a reporter (I wasn't assigned to cover this, I just chose to go) but as a Liberal. I suggested there are a number of people concerned his foreign policy is too close to Harper's, and how would he respond to that. He said to him the key when it came to the middle east is that Harper is merely taking the easy road by chosing sides. Again, he said it's easy to say you side with a state over terrorists, but he said Harper is offering nothing constructive and not commenting enough on the potential of escalation. Ignatieff said he agreed to extending the Afghan mission, but stresses Harper has to do more to ensure it's not simply a military mission but also a rebuilding mission. His views on Afghanistan were very detailed and spot on. He mentioned the government they now have is hugely flawed, but we need to defend it so it can grow and not fall back into the hands of Taliban forces (who would again make it a terrorist haven). Basically, it's not to us to decide the direction of the country, but merely to give the people a chance to figure it out themselves without guerillas forcing their way in. At this point, knowing what the Taliban did to encourage terrorism and human rights violations, I side with that view. He then mentioned his major disagreement with the softwood lumber deal Harper put together, and felt he could do a lot more to deal with potential border restrictions the US is bringing forward.
Wrapping this up (as it's all ready a lot more than I intended to write) I was very impressed with his knowledge. That probably shoudln't be a surprise. I found myself convinced that he would be a very strong pressence for Canada in terms of foreign policy. However, I don't know if I trust him as much domestically. He talked a lot, but didn't have as many solutions to problems at home as I would've hoped.
I'm not about to say I endorse Ignatieff, because as it stands I'm firmly in the Kennedy camp, but I was impressed. He's improved as a speaker and would make a fine leader of the Liberals with a little bit of work.
You know, I bet he'd make a great Minister of Foreign Affairs in a Kennedy government! ;)
