Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s speech to the Vancouver Board of Trade demonstrated a staggering ignorance on the ‘clean energy’ file. His speech today demonstrated a total lack of understanding of this division of power. What’s more, he incorrectly accused Canada of not being a green energy leader. We are. Hydroelectricity represents 88% of the world’s installed renewable energy source. Canada is second only to China in the production of hydroelectric power, and is forth in the world for use of hydroelectricity as a percentage of supply.

The majority of Canada’s power production (just under 60%) comes from hydroelectricity. We’re three times greener than Denmark – but more importantly because of energy use, considerably more than that megawatt to megawatt.

Four provinces, and one territory have 75% or more of their power supplied by hydroelectricity. They are Newfoundland (not including Labrador) (73%) and Labrador(100%), Yukon (89%), British Columbia (90%), Manitoba (96%), Quebec (96%). – This is all clean energy.

Ontario’s Nuclear and Hydro combined represent 75% of power production – all of which is non carbon emitting and therefore would meet the definition of ‘clean energy’ in the context of Ignatieff’s speech, where clean energy was energy that did not contribute to global warming through CO2 emissions.

Michael Ignatieff is right that just 1% of installed power supply in Canada is wind or solar. That doesn’t change the fact that Canada is a clean energy leader through serious investment in reliable, predictable, and affordable renewable technology. A lack of wind and solar in the grid simply means the Provinces aren’t jumping on unreliable, expensive technology that doesn’t work. That’s a good thing.

Denmark and Germany are false idols of clean power. The majority of Denmark’s power comes from coal fired plants, and due to the unreliability of wind power, much of their production is exported to neighbouring countries that rely heavily on hydroelectric, but dial back it’s production to use the unreliable wind power when available. What it means is that Denmark isn’t nearly the clean energy leader that Canada is and that even with 19% of their grid being wind, they aren’t even displacing carbon emissions because they success in using this unreliable power is based on trading a stable source of renewable energy for an unreliable one. Germany is building 26 new coal fired plants to make up for the unreliability of wind power, and isn’t nearly as far along as Canada in carbon free energy either.

If you want to dabble in unreliable power production like wind – you need a smart grid, so you can shut the reliable stuff off when the wind decides to blow (this is seriously how the science behind this works). Smart grids cost billions and the only people who think the provinces should be developing smart grids are wind farm developers. It’s like if Ford or GM thought building more highways were a good idea. With hydroelectricity or any other proven source of power – where there is capacity within the grid you can build more supply into it, no need for the kinds of sophisticated, and otherwise unnecessary enhancements wind barons would have taxpayers paying for so we can buy their electricity at three to five times the cost any other form of power sold into the grid goes for.

As for Michael Ignatieff attacking the federal government because Barack Obama is spending six times more than the Canadian government on renewable energy this year, the United States is ten times the size of Canada, so a six to one ratio wouldn’t actually be that bad, but when you consider that over 85% of US power is produced by carbon emitting sources – the real story is how little the United States is doing. If he is worried about carbon emitting sources of electricty production he should be condemning the United States. Considering this is really a provincial issue in Canada, I don’t see why it would be that out of line for him to propose policy for another country too. After all neither is his jurisdiction. Many provinces did this work in Canada decades ago, and they did it right. It isn’t a fair comparison, and is irresponsible commentary from and political and policy perspective. The others (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and PEI) each have the responsibility to set their own production mixes, but this certainly is not the role for the federal government and never has been.

This is a really bad issue for Michael Ignatieff to seize on. He is misleading the public about the powers and responsibilities of the Federal government, the experiences in other countries, and trying to ignore what is a really great Canadian success story – hydroelectricity – so he can score some shots, irresponsibility trying to look green for supporting an unreliable technology that not only doesn’t work but isn’t part of the area of responsibility he is seeking from the public. It also costs a bizarre and indefensible amount of money and is probably the hottest political issue in Ontario with an organized grassroots opposition movement opposing it.

I will be writing Mr. Ignatieff, in my capacity as President of Wind Concerns Ontario to discuss the success story of clean energy in Canada as it relates to hydroelectricity, to share my perception of electricity as a provincial jurisdiction and to strongly advise against trying to use wind and solar as a political wedge, because it is one which such a strong force of opposition working against it, and such a limited merit that it neither makes political sense or public policy sense.

I also intend to engage the Conservatives, NDP, Bloc and Green Party in defending the good work if many provinces in seeking carbon free electricity and educating Canadians on these successes and not allowing any party leader to mislead the public on the facts, should the Opposition Leader seek to continue this current line on Canada’s reputation as a renewable energy leader.

Well, the Brampton Guardian reported today in their article “Leadership run not in the cards for local MP”

“Ignatieff has endorsed Dhalla’s Web site initiative, yourvoices.ca, developed during her contemplation of a run at the leadership. The site is a forum for grassroots Liberals to express concerns or ideas about issues and the party’s direction. It is also a vehicle for soliciting political donations. Dhalla had hoped to raise the $90,000 needed to enter a Liberal leadership campaign.

“It (the money) would go in to the Liberal Party and we’re hoping to create a fund for the next generation,” she said.”

If it had not be so transparent I’d feel good about having been able to call it, but short of renting bill boards, it was painfully obvious what she was up to. What she possibly thought her qualifications are, are beyond me, but that will be a debate we won’t have to hear until next time.

Consider this, the cut off to enter the race is not until some time in February or March 2009, it takes $90 000 and a prayer on paper to do it at this point. If one was able to seriously find 90 000 people who would each donate a buck, presumably many would donate 10 or 20, which would be damn close to the cost of a run. Further, if these 90 000 people who each donated a buck so their voices could be heard (this I will address later) also joined the Liberal Party before February 6th, they would join an existing membership of just under 70 000 and therefore be a majority, but also a majority who are interested in engaging the grassroots and therefore probably not thrilled by the events of last week.

I’m not saying this is a good idea, and if anyone were to organize under this kind of pretext, while I would recognize ingenuity, I’d have trouble supporting them because the self interest index would be off the chart. That being said, as a strategy, it isn’t such a bad plan. I mean if you can convince a grassroots movement to form, in effect take over the party, and have found a ton of donors to make it all possible in the process, you could spring out of the gate after all these members have joined and seek the Leadership with at least have some hope of making it happen.

Whomever owns www.yourvoices.ca registered it on November 23rd 2008, – four days before even the economic update happened and therefore the coalition idea had not even been born. They also put the privacy feature on when registering so it is unclear whose it is, but it is safe to say that this is not a formal Liberal Party thing as it does not carry the “authorized by” message, and Ignatieff’s folks wouldn’t make mistakes like that. Also – when asked on November 18th by the Brampton Guardian – she didn’t say no, she said “I am currently consulting with supporters and senior Liberals from coast to coast as to what the future holds. I will be making my decision public in the near future.”

The long and short of it is I’d like to go on record early suggesting that I see this as a pretext to either sneak up this time if yourvoices.ca is successful in finding 90 000 new liberals who will each donate and join the party before the cut off, and if it is not successful in the short term than I’m sure it is part of a “next time” campaign. The latter has more danger as so many Liberals are sick of the people who campaign for leader when we have one who has not announced any intentions to stand down. That being said, those who use that strategy (Turner, Chretien, Martin, Ignatieff) have won four of the last five leaderships. If this is the case, Ignatieff will need to stamp it out by allowing the concept, but making it a party thing, because we cannot afford another one of those.

The general idea of a www.yourvoices.ca concept makes sense, but the “pay to play” aspect is problematic. I am a grassroots Liberal with a lot of ideas, but some how pulling out my credit card (which I am sitting on and could quite easily) to make a donation to what could end up being a leadership campaign, and is not an official party process on engagement (therefore easier to ignore) just doesn’t seem like a big motivator for me.

I think the Liberal Party of Canada desperately needs to do some serious thinking about outreach, but it needs to be the National Executive, and the Leader heading up the process with some built in accountability. A Red Ribbon 2.0 may be in order, because the last one appears not to have worked, at least in the short term.

For those who think I might be a little nuts for my suggestion that this is a pretext to Dhalla throwing in, keep in mind the February or March deadline to file. The party has not suspended the convention, there will still be a convention and it will pick the leader. The membership cut off is on February 6th and the delegate election weekend is March 6-10th. The single largest challenge to beating a front runner is membership sales.

Read Ruby Dhalla’s letter posted on the main page after considering the facts above:

“Dear Friends,

Dr. Ruby Dhalla
Member of Parliament
Brampton-Springdale”

As it became clear to me that the Liberal Party would have real problems delivering a victory to Dion (I did purposely phrase it this way), I waited for the knives to come out, and stayed loyal to the end.

Stephane Dion is both a principled and brilliant man. The hatred for him in Quebec has nothing to do with his personality, weak English skills or appearance; it is based on his ability to go toe to toe with supporters of Quebec independence and stand firm on behalf of Canada.

He is a man who ran on issues and ideas that mattered. He is a man who broadened the tent of the Liberal Party by accepting the Leader and President of the Progressive Canadians (the approximately 10% of anti merger Progressive Conservatives), making room for us to work cooperatively with the Green Party and his final act, laying the ground work for a united or at least more coherent left.

He took the helm of the Liberal Party when it was on it’s knees, unable to fund raise, struggling to learn the ropes of being the opposition and getting over the shell shock of defeat. I was in Montreal when we selected Dion. I supported Kennedy on the first two ballots and like many younger, more progressive members of our party, when given the choice between Rae, Ignatieff or Dion, I rewarded good behaviour and voted for Dion over two candidates who many felt were irresponsible for being so divisive with each other.

Stephane Dion had not been my first choice, or even my second, but after casting my first two ballots for Kennedy, I cast my last two for him, all the while thinking about the importance of party unity, experience and a hope that he could shake things up. There was a lot of hope that he would shift politics in Canada for the better. The post convention bounce in the polls is what led the Conservatives to trash him and frankly commit the worst character assassination committed on any politician in our nation’s history.

I hope History will look back at Dion and see a man of integrity, a man of courage and principle who was up against an unprecedented bully. I hope he is not thought of as a failure, but a victim. Someone who got the most unfair, unexpected treatment any political leader in Canada has seen and ultimately succumbed to those wounds, resigning the leadership for the sake of the Party.

I have immense respect for Dion, and believe the treatment he received at the hands of his opponents is one of the most visual examples of why good people stay far away from politics. Think about it. The salary is good, but a fraction of what someone running a midsized business or bay street lawyer makes. The hours are long and you’re frequently away from your family. The environment is stressful and you’re constantly under personal attack and your words misrepresented as your opponent tries to tear you down. Those who are prepared to withstand the abuse for the higher purpose of public service should be revered not reviled.

Pundits and politicos will recall that Stephane Dion led us to our second worse showing since Confederation in both seat count and popular vote. They are not technically wrong, but I am not sold he carries the blame for a number of reasons that have more to do with the Liberal Party’s inability to be as effective in the current environment as previous ones. But without making excuses consider this. The last election where the Liberal Party gained seats was in 2000 when Chretien was up against a guy who believed that man walked hand in hand with dinosaurs, who showed up for press conferences in skin tight wet suits, who could not determine for certain (while standing on it’s bank) which way the Niagara River flowed (whether it was toward or from the United States) and had the issue of vote splitting on the right.

In 2000 the Liberal Party won 172 seats. A gain of 17 from a 155 seats in the 1997 election.

In 2004 the Liberal Party won 135 seats. A loss of 37 from 172 seats in the 2000 election.

In 2006 the Liberal Party won 103 seats. A loss of 32 seats from 135 seats in the 2004 election.

In 2008 the Liberal Party won 77 seats. A loss of 26 seats from 103 seats in the 2006 election.

As ass backwards as this argument is, Dion’s last election was a disaster, but no more a disaster than the two the Liberal Party faced under Paul Martin, another leader of the Liberal Party I supported until the end of his tenure. I would submit that problems of the Liberal Party go deeper than leadership and we’d better make damn sure before going into the next election that we’ve solved the systemic and organizational problems that are holding us back and stunting our ability to win.

I happen to be a riding president, but I still don’t think this is acceptable. Better, but not good enough.

Here are some problems as I see them:

1) Candidates for the Liberal Party Leadership should not be candidates for the Interim Leadership – Michael Ignatieff was wrong to attempt a power grab and force this latest brawl.

2) The Party annouced in a press release that this process has been created and will include consulting the ‘Council of Presidents’ – the problem? I am a member of that Council – we meet tonight at 8pm and I have yet to receive any communication to this effect. Are we expected to decide tonight or some other time before December 17th?

3) There has been no debate! – Bob Rae called for one public debate a week back in November and a single debate has yet to be had. The closest thing to a debate was that botched attempt in Mississauga where Ignatieff would not allow the media in. It’s important to remember at that point riding presidents were still considered part o the ‘family’ to Michael. That was before you needed to be a Senator or MP to be considered ‘family’ by him. This leaves us in a position where we’re calling the leadership based on media speculation and whatever backbiting and inside baseball we’re privy too… Does anyone else see a problem with this?

The selection of the interim leader will have a significant impact on who becomes the real leader. No matter what we need to have a convention to allow the party to at least ‘make believe’ the decision, so why not just have the race and allow a non candidate to lead the party in the interim. Afterall, that is kind of the idea.

Finally – a note to Liberal members. Please contact your riding president and defeated candidate. Tell them that you believe in democracy and do not support this strange interim = coronation process. Ask them to support the candidate that respects your constitutional right to elect delegates to select the leader.

If you need help finding the contact information of your MP, defeated candidate or riding president; please email me your riding name and I will do my best to help. My email is john.laforet@laforet.ca

“To those in the Federal Liberal Party who propose to select a new leader from among the national caucus, the smallest and least regionally reflective group in 20 years, I offer three cautions.

Please do not deprive our party of the membership input that only a leadership race can produce. Many, perhaps most, of our constituency organizations, including those of some caucus members, are running on fumes. Revitalization of the party is critical.

Please do not deprive our party of the role a leadership race plays in kicking the tires of prospective candidates. It’s crucial that candidates get the kind of scrutiny the position warrants.

Please do not misunderstand the wisdom that this decision requires. This is not simply a matter of rushing to fill our top and most important national position in late January. It is about the steps the Liberal Party of Canada is taking to ensure it is relevant in every nook and cranny in the country.

As an active Liberal member since 1980, I urge extreme caution in depriving the grassroots participation that is the much needed lifeblood of our party.

George Smitherman, Toronto”

Minister Smitherman is a deeply respected member of the Liberal Party and his point is well taken. I hope that his caution and defense of grassroots Liberals will carry some weight with Liberal Members of Parliament and the National Executive of the Liberal Party of Canada. 

Beyond Minister Smitherman’s letter, the Council of Presidents has a conference call scheduled for tomorrow night and from all accounts it is going to be a spirited one. Just from the communications I’ve been privy to I expect the National Executive and Caucus will be in for a bruising the day before they try to take away the voices of grassroots Liberals. Riding Presidents are standing up for the members of their riding associations that have duly elected them to do so. I expect the vast majority of Riding Presidents will do the right thing and defend our membership against this bizarre move. 

What Michael Ignatieff is proposing to do is yet another example of horrible political judgement on his part. It is unprecedented for a candidate for the leadership to seek the interim leadership. It has never been done in the Liberal Party, particularly because it creates such an unfair advantage. The party has called a convention and I believe he needs to respect that. The Deputy Premier of Ontario and thousands upon thousands of grassroots Liberals agree. 

I hope tomorrow night, members of the Presidents Council will make it loud and clear to the National Executive that this is unacceptable. This cannot be allowed to happen. If Ignatieff truly believes in the principles of free and fair elections, he will not put the party through this unnecessary fight. He will not turn the grassroots on the caucus. He will do this, by doing the right thing and run the duration of the campaign with the ethical standard Canadians expect in their leaders. 

I know from the scathing emails I’ve received and the venom flowing from Liberals in Mr. Ignatieff’s direction that grassroots Liberals will not accept a ‘smash and grab’ approach to the Party’s leadership. His actions are dividing the party, and the real grassroots, who always have to contend with ‘instant liberals’ during Leadership races will leave over this. I’m hearing that in the emails I’m being sent as a Riding President. While I appreciate receiving these notes, the Council of Presidents who is meeting tomorrow night will not even get a voice in this completely undemocratic charade. 

Michael Ignatieff should not be running to be the interim Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. His people should have supported the last leader delegates elected when they rejected him, perhaps if they had, this last election would not have gone so badly. Whomever becomes our party’s next leader will have real issues to contend with. The Liberal Party is broke, the grassroots have been stomped on, and there will be internal division in whatever is left once this process is over. We need someone who can unite the party, raise money and give us a hope in hell of winning back some of the ridings we’ve bled over the last four elections. 

The process needs to be fair and democratic. We need to have an opportunity to allow for all Liberals to have a say in who our next leader is. We cannot afford a divisive power grab. We cannot afford for caucus to screw over the individual members that make up this party. They will do so at their own peril. Who will hammer in your signs, raise your money or pull your vote if you disenfranchise the grassroots? 

I backed Dominic LeBlanc because I thought he would be the best person to lead the Liberal Party moving forward. I was upset today when he withdrew from the race, and equally upset that Dion is going to step out of the Leadership and allow this process to happen. Bob Rae will now need to hold firm, and give members of the party the right to voice their opinions. If the Ignatieff camp push him out of the race too, I fear this may be it for the Liberal Party of Canada as we know it. It is simply too weak for anyone to drive away supporters of other leadership campaigns. From all my conversations with Ignatieff people, that is the game. It is ok for them to not support our current leader, but any difference of opinion over the future of the party is enough to see you shut out. – I won’t expand on this point just yet, but do want to register my displeasure with what the Liberal Caucus in Ottawa is undertaking this week. 

Should Ignatieff take the Leadership this Wednesday, the coalition is dead on arrival. He has made it clear through his waffling (my single largest issue past and present with supporting his candidacy) that he will not support working with the NDP to form a progressive government. The Liberal Party will be back to sitting on their hands, red faced and embarrassed or into an election we can’t win because we won’t have had the time to rebuild. 

Caucus is a pretty unrepresentative body. Take a look at it. Geographically it does not represent Canada, demographically it’s even worse. While  I respect our 77 member team, they are not constitutionally empowered to make this decision and would be completely out of their minds to think the grassroots will not go nuts if their rights are taken away because the party wants a quick fix. Caucus support did not decide who won the last leadership race, and it will not this time. They cannot and must not try to force their decision on the rest of us. 

Below is an email I just received that was sent to a number of other Riding Presidents, Stephane Dion and some other senior party officials. It is an open email based on it’s distribution and therefore, I think sharing it is appropriate. An original is available.

It reads:

“Subject: Liberals should not act like Conservatives and Mr. Iggnatieff should not act like Harper

Mr. Dion,

“Liberal MPs should very carefully before they proceed with Iggnatieff’s CORONATION.  By having a vote in Caucus only and affirming him later will be seen as Hi-Jacking Democracy.  Taking away the right to elect by the grassgroots the leader is morally and ethically wrong.  It sends the wrong message to the Liberal Party faithfuls and Canadians.  It will signal that the Liberal Party under Michael Iggnatieff are willing to abandon Democratic Principals and seize power at any cost as Stephen Harper did.  This must not be allowed to happen!!!

If this action is taken Canadians will not be able to differentiate the Liberals from the Conservatives.

This action will also deny members of the Liberal Party participation in a very important exercise of choosing their Leader.

Mr. Iggnatieff’s CORONATION MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN.  Bob Rae and Michael  Iggnatieff must fight a fair and open election.

In the case of the Angus Reid polls, it is easy. Online samples are not representative of the population because they are self selecting and not random. It is unclear exactly what the profile of an internet vs. non interest user is. Therefore an online poll with a sample of 1200 people – is really just the opinion of those people and is not in any way representative of the Canadian population as a whole.

Now this poll that came out comparing Liberal support in a general election with Dion, Ignatieff, Rae and LeBlanc as leaders – it might as well have asked name recognition. It is far far too early to tell the impact any of these guys would have as leader because none of them have a national profile to even rival Dion’s yet.

Anyone who honestly believe Canadian’s want another go with Dion over any of the other guys should really think back to October 14th when Canadians sided with the bully.

I have no idea what impact any of the candidates would have as leader of our party, except that two may need an extra bus for their baggage – and one needs to become better known before we can win. That being said, if name recognition is your only problem, with the kind of issues LeBlanc is focusing on I suspect we could find ourselves looking at a majority government once that is solved.

I resent bad polling – and especially when it relates to voting intention because these decisions are too important to be toyed with by a bad poll.

The polarization is gone – Ignatieff is the favourite – Jeffrey Simpson – November 14th 2008 – Globe and Mail 

Simpson’s Text:

“He became the most polarizing figure in the 2005 contest, and that polarization did him in. You could see it unfold as the ballots progressed. You could see it in the hall when he delivered his final pitch, because half the room either applauded tepidly or not at all to his punch lines.”

My Response:

Michael Ignatieff was the most polarizing figure – I agree with this statement, but there was no 2005 contest. Michael Ignatieff was in year twenty seven of his life abroad from Canada during the first 10 months of 2005. The convention was in fact in December 2006. 

Simpson Text: 

“By May, he will have been in politics for about five years.” 

My Response:

By May 2009 Michael Ignatieff will not even have been back in Canada for five years after his twenty seven year jaunt abroad. If by politics he means his involvement in providing punditry regarding the 2004 US Presidential election where he regularly used the phrase “we” to describe Americans as then maybe you could make this claim.

The Lesser Evil – Essay in the New York Times – May 2 2004 By Michael Ignatieff

“That is what defeat in a war on terror looks like. We would survive, but we would no longer recognize ourselves. We would endure, but we would lose our identity as free peoples.” – Michael Ignatieff on the American Identity

Cauchon to announce he will not seek Liberal leadership – Campbell Clark – Globe and Mail 

Clark’s Text:

“Mr. LeBlanc, a 47-year-old New Brunswick MP, is positioning himself as a youthful alternative to the two older men, both of whom are over 60.”

My Response: 

Dominic LeBlanc is was born December 14 1967 and is therefore 40. – Both www.parl.gc.ca and www.wikipedia.org agree. 

The Michael Ignatieff/Bob Rae Side Show

The Ignatieff/Rae sideshow has attracted four days of news. It is nothing short of ridiculous. The picture of them on the front of the National Post was about as unflattering as one could imagine a picture of them could be. I am sick of the party division, I’ve said so publicly and resent that these guys have done this to the Liberal Party of Canada – a party neither of them has been a member of until they decided they should lead it. 

I’ve said before it bothers me that the media is putting a bizarre level of punditry with next to nothing but gut feelings to go on. How many public endorsements are out? Who has raised what? and How many delegates have been elected? – I am concerned at the level of irresponsibility being showed in trying to call it over for Liberals. 

Here is my prediction- Michael Ignatieff will not go in with the support to win on the first ballot regardless (or because?) of all the media attention.