This is a six (well, seven) part blog entry based on a 30 minute interview that I had with Ujjal Dosanjh, MP for Vancouver South, on June 24th, 2009. You can find the various parts here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Full Interview (Part 7).

As I listened to Mr. Dosanjh talk about the role of a leader in a political party, specifically the Liberal party, I couldn't help but think about the idea of leadership as going first. Mr. Dosanjh was surprisingly, and refreshingly, candid about both the positive motivational effect of a leader, and also about the negative effect a leader can have on moral.

BGR: You've served as a federal MP under three different leaders...

UD: Yes...

BGR: ...Mr. Martin, Mr. Dion and now Mr. Ignatieff...

UD: ...Four actually.

BGR: Four?

UD: There was the interim leader, Bill Graham.

BGR: That's true! And, of course, you were leader of a provincial party yourself. How does a new leader -- his personality -- change the tenor of caucus?

UD: I think people -- MPs and other political activists -- respond and react to what the leader embodies, what the leader does, how he does it, how he speaks and what his leanings are: left, right or center. All of us are unique individuals; no two leaders would ever be alike. I think that you bring, like all human beings, a unique set of experiences to the table when you become the leader. I think those experiences are the wellspring of how and why and what you do.

For instance, with Michael Ignatieff, he's much more at home talking about the world, where as Paul Martin, obviously, was much at home talking about finances, but also had a vision for the world. He was the one who talked about the G20, though, in a sense, the G20 was also finance driven because the other countries were emerging and the G8 just wouldn't do .

Whatever your experiences are, you bring those to the table and they have an impact on all the issues and your approach to the issues. With Michael, he is very conscious of not supporting ethnic or religious nationalism, because he has worked on the question of human rights all his life. Whatever he does, whether internationally with foreign policy or how he deals with issues within Caucus: [his] experiences will have a bearing.

BGR: Does the way in which you personally do business, and the way your staff approach their job, does that change leader to leader or is that fairly constant?

UD: I think that is fairly constant. How we deal with the public -- for instance how I deal with constituents coming into my office -- I don't think the leader has a bearing on it. The leader can inspire you to do more constituency work, more provincial work and more national work, or a leader can, by actions or omission, also lead you to be lazy sometimes. It depends how you respond to or react to what the leader is doing or saying.

BGR: What is the biggest change Mr. Ignatieff has brought to the party and to Ottawa from the Liberal perspective?

UD: [From the perspective of] the opposition era, I think he has reenergised the base of the party after the low point of the last election. We now have a lot more members, a lot more money and the base is much more inspired, much more enthused. Therefore we are readier for an election than we ever were over the last two-and-a-half, three years. I think for the first time since we've gone into opposition, there is a view that if we work hard enough -- and if Michael continues to inspire Canadians -- there is a very good possibility that we may win the next election. I think there has been that change -- you can see a change in terms of the mood.

BGR: So it's almost, hope?

UD: Yes -- absolutely -- he's the instiller of hope, absolutely.

Part 4 of my Interview with Ujjal Dosanjh will focus on Question Period.

Bookmark this on Delicious

This is a six (well, seven) part blog entry based on a 30 minute interview that I had with Ujjal Dosanjh, MP for Vancouver South, on June 24th, 2009. You can find the various parts here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Full Interview (Part 7).

In 2004 Mr. Dosanjh won the Federal of Riding of Vancouver South, and headed to Ottawa. I wanted to know how political perspective changed:

UD: I don't think anyone who is not involved in federal politics as an elected member -- if you've never been in the Federal Cabinet -- whether you're from Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, or the Maritimes it doesn't really matter. I don't believe you get a picture or a sense of how fragile our Federation is. The division of powers, the Quebec issue, or the issue around health care for instance -- I was the Minister of Health -- and you're walking on egg shells because you don't have the original jurisdiction, it resides with the provinces. With the current Quebec situation, you can't even enforce the Canada Health Act evenly across the country.

So, I think that we have a great country and we have a great federation, but it is a fragile one. I think that's why Michael Ignatieff said the most important job of the Prime Minister, among others, the most important is the unity of the country. And I think he was right on. Because not that others aren't important, the economic well being [of the country], health [care], education, foreign affairs and defence; all of those are important issues. But, if you don't have the federation and you don't have country, then they all become secondary.

BGR: So how did that impact you? Moving from provincial politics, and being premier, how did that realisation impact you?

UJ: It made me a lot more sensitive to the diversity of Canada. And I'm not talking about the ethnic diversity of Canada. I'm talking about the different regional tensions, the regional pulls and pushes, the language question always hanging over your head, and how much sensitivity you need to have in dealing with Quebec. For instance, whether you can talk about national standards in health: you can't, you have to talk about pan-Canadian, because Quebec considers itself a nation. So when you talk about national standards, you confuse [people].

I think it has made me wiser, its made me smarter about Canada. I got a bit of a sense of this issue -- or that sensitivity -- when I was the Premier. We had a Westerns Premier's Conference, we had a Premier's Conference, and then we had the First Minister's Conference. During those 18 months and I had experience with all three [conferences], and the negotiations on health were the most difficult. I remember the fragility of the country coming to the fore. Not that the country was going to break up, but you realise what Quebec politicians have to live with, particularly the federalist politicians.

BGR: Do you think most Canadians understand or [rather] can relate to that understanding of the country?

UD: I think if they thought about it, if they sat back and dispassionately thought about it, I think we would all understand. I think, as Canadians, we would all understand that we have a country which takes some work to keep together. But if they understand all the subtleties and complexities? I didn't <laughs>. Others may, but I think it is too much to expect of people like me, who used to work in the lumber mill, to understand how sensitive the issue of Quebec, the regional differences and disparities, or the sense of alienation that we in British Columbia feel.

Not the West. British Columbia. Because we are on the other side of the Rockies, we feel more of a sense of isolation than even Alberta and Saskatchewan. I think Alberta and Saskatchewan, perhaps, address [their sense of isolation] differently. British Columbia has had a progressive politics, a populist politics, for a long, long time. I think that kind of populist politics of the progressive kind generally stands and speaks in favour of the country remaining together. Whereas the Alberta kind of populism, the reform populism, could care less whether the country stays together or breaks up. I think that's how we deal with it differently.

Part 3 of my Interview with Ujjal Dosanjh will focus on how different Party Leaders affect the political world of an MP.    

Bookmark this on Delicious

This is a six (well, seven) part blog entry based on a 30 minute interview that I had with Ujjal Dosanjh, MP for Vancouver South, on June 24th, 2009. You can find the various parts here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Full Interview (Part 7).

It was a partly sunny afternoon in Horseshoe Bay, north of Vancouver. My wife, daughter and I had driven the two hours to this quaint little town to see Michael Ignatieff as he did a whistle stop on his way from the Annual Meeting of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, where he had given quite a good speech.

While my wife was off getting pictures taken of my daughter with Michael Ignatieff, I saw Ujjal Dosanjh standing slightly away from the crowd. Now, Ujjal Dosanjh is consistently the top Liberal MP twitterer (@UjjalDosanjh), and I have been following him since I joined Twitter. I had shaken his hand at the convention, but I had never gotten a chance to speak with him. And I wanted to speak with him.

But how was I going to avoid looking like a rabid fan boy?

Well, I thought, I have a blog! I'll ask him if he would be interested in being interviewed for my blog. That'll give me an excuse to talk with him, and there is always the possibility he'll say yes. Who knows, this might lead to a series of interviews with MPs. That'd be a great thing for the blog!

So, totally spur of the moment, he says yes. I have an interview with Ujjal Dosanjh for my blog.

The interview lasted for a little more than 30 minutes, and I think it went very well, especially for my first time ever interviewing someone (a fact I neglected to mention to Mr. Dosanjh till after the interview). I got enough material for six blog entries, and I will post the full interview in a seventh post after the last entry is posted.

Before we get into the first part of the interview, let's review the Honourable Ujjal Dosanjh's biography:

Ujjal Dev Singh Dosanjh, PC, QC, MP, B.A., LL.B. was born in Dosanjh Kalan, Punjab, India in 1947. In 1964, Mr. Dosanjh moved to the UK, and emigrated to Canada in 1968. Mr. Dosanjh graduated with honours from Simon Fraser University with a major in Political Science. He earned a law degree from the University of British Columbia in 1976.

Mr. Dosanjh was elected in 1991 to the BC Legislature in the Vancouver-Kensington riding as a BC New Democrat, after two failed campaigns in 1979 and 1983 in the riding of Vancouver South. Mr. Dosanjh was appointed to cabinet in 1995. After a number of cabinet shuffles, Mr. Dosanjh eventually was appointed Attorney General of BC, as well as being Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism, Human Rights and Immigration.

In 1999, as Attorney General, Mr. Dosanjh was forced to ask for then Premier Glen Clark's resignation as the result of a RCMP investigation into the Premier's dealings.

In February of 2000, Mr. Dosanjh won the leadership of the BC New Democratic Party, and became Canada's first Indo-Canadian Premier. Despite having improved the BC NDP's poll position from 15% under Glen Clarke to 21% a year latter, and having a higher personal approval rating than BC Liberal leader Gordon Campbell, Mr. Dosanjh and the BC NDP suffered the second-worst defeat of a sitting provincial government in Canada.

In June of 2004, after being asked to run in Vancouver South by Prime Minister Paul Martin, Ujjal Dosanjh became a Federal Liberal MP, and was appointed to Cabinet as Minister of Health. After again winning his seat in 2006, with his party in Opposition, Mr. Dosanjh has been the National Defence Critic, Foreign Affairs Critic, and the Public Safety Critic. He is now a special advisor to Michael Ignatieff.

When I sat down with Mr. Dosanjh, I had no idea what to expect. Here is a man who has been an elected official in one form or another for the better part of eighteen years, who has quite literally seen it all politically. I must admit, I was very nervous.

I had no need for nerves. As we started talking about his political career, I found a man who had an easy charm about him. He was soft spoken, and willing to laugh at himself. His quiet affability instantly put me at ease, and made the entire interview process for smoothly. I must say, it was an excellent way for me to lose my interview virginity.

Brian G. Rice: Thanks for meeting with me today.

You've done an awful lot in politics...

Ujjal Dosanjh: <Laughter>

BGR: ...You've been a provincial MLA, you've been a Federal MP, you've been Premier of the Province [of BC], you've been a [Federal] Minister. You've done an awful lot of things politically, and I guess since I am interested in the political process, I am wondering what your favourite moment or moments have been in your political career to date?

UD: You know, I have had lots of favourite moments, but my most favourite moment was when...

I never thought I could ever get elected, a dog catcher <laughter> -- I was elected to the provincial legislature, ah, back in 1991 -- because I didn't think I could ever be elected, let alone be in cabinet, let alone be the AG or the premier or the federal minister of health. So it's kind of, from there it was all exciting, but it was always not planned either.

If you go into politics saying you want to be this, you can't plan that. Life is not that planned. So you have to kind of go into elected politics thinking you want to do x-y-z. When I got involved provincially I had come from England. I'd lived in England for three and half years, I had certain experience with the labour party, I was never a member, but I worked with them. And I came here and looked at the problems facing the ethnic community of which I became a part. And I thought -- I had become a lawyer by 78 -- and I thought maybe I should run because I bring somewhat of a different perspective, and I lost two elections, 79 and 83, and then I won in 91.

So in a sense, that was the most exciting part of the journey for me. All the other steps were exciting as well, but in a sense then you were in the elected arena, then anything is possible, or not possible depending on how you conduct yourself and what your opportunities are. But to be elected for the first time, when people posit their faith in you, that is quite humbling.

BGR: What's been the toughest decision you've ever had to make?

UD: The toughest, the most difficult, decision of my life was to ask Premier Clark to step down. That has never happened in the history of our Province, and I don't think its happened anywhere else in our country where the Attorney General has to go to the premier and say "It's time that you step down now, not because you are guilty of anything, but because I understand there might be charges and you're under criminal investigation. I'm now free by the special prosecutors permission" -- because he didn't want me to talk to the premier or anyone else until about the issue until he was satisfied that me talking to the premier would no longer jeopardize the investigation.

And at that point it was a very very difficult decision. I was dreading it. I had no intention of ever running for the Premier's job, but hindsight would tell me that if I didn't have to force him to resign, I could have actually walked into the Premier's office without a fight. <laughter>

But that never entered my calculations because ultimately as an Attorney General you have a job to do -- and I actually considered resigning before asking him to resign because it was such a drastic step. But then I talked to some very close friends, legal experts, who said well, if you resign the other AG comes in , the next AG will have to face the same decision. So you don't really have a choice, don't be a coward. <laughter>

And that was the most difficult decision, because it was a no win situation. People in your own party think that you are not doing the right thing when you as the Attorney General -- the Attorney General's role is very non-political role. And when I had the AG's job it was like the solicitor general, the AG, the liquor control board, the immigration and multiculturalism all bundled into one, and human rights, it was a huge ministry.

So that was the most difficult decision in my life. I don't regret it, I did the right thing, and I think it enhanced the integrity of that office as well.

Part 2 of my Interview with Ujjal Dosanjh will focus on his transition from Provincial to Federal Politics.

Bookmark this on Delicious

It occurred to me that I never actually posted these pictures on my blog, I let my wife do all the heavy lifting. These are from a whistle stop event in Horseshoe Bay on June 7th, 2009.

Bookmark this on Delicious

I have been engaged in a number of discussions lately with right-wingers. My wife's family is primarily conservative, both in Canada and the US. They are aware that I am becoming more politically active, so the new family-gathering pass time is "Bait The Liberal." In addition, I've started following at least one Conservative on Twitter, and I can't seem to leave well enough alone.

What I am finding most interesting is that there seems to be some sort of Conservative playbook that all these arguments are based on. I am encountering the same argument techniques from a wide variety of people. I thought I might highlight the top three here.

1. The Nonsense Extreme.

I got into a discussion on Twitter about legalizing drugs. Now Twitter is not the best forum for an argument, because it is just plain hard to make complex arguments in 140 characters. But you work with the tool you have. The argument went something like this:

Me: You know, something like 60% of Canadians support at least decriminalization of pot.

Them: Well, as a mother, I am in the 40% who doesn't support it.

Them: Do you have kids?

Me: Yes

Them: And you support legalization?

Me: Yes.

Them: So you'd be okay if your 13 year old came and told you they were smoking pot?

Huh? I mean, WTF?

How do you make the leap from someone supporting legalization to supporting drug use by minors? I am sure there are some dyed-in-the-wool marijuana advocates out there who support no restrictions on a legalized pot, but seriously? I support age limits on alcohol and tobacco use, and it seems perfectly reasonable to me that those same age limits should apply to any drug that is legalized.

But this is the Conservative argument at work. They need to make you fear the end result of a reasoned policy position by taking their argument to its illogical yet terrifying conclusion.

"You can't legalize drugs, don't you love your children?"

"You can't put condoms in schools, kids will be screwing in the halls! "

"You can't let judges decide on sentencing, what if they let every criminal go free?"

2. The "Everyone Does That" Defence

Have you ever noticed that when a Conservative knows that they have an indefensible position, they start saying that Liberals are no different? I noticed this while spending time with my family this weekend, on a couple of points.

The first was when we were watching Bill O'Reilly, against my objections. He was laying into some Democratic Senator, being quite rude, as usual, and I made some comment about how much bullshit Mr. O'Reilly was spreading. The response from my Conservative-in-law? "Well, the left wing media does the same thing!"

Now, I like to think I am a reasonably unbiased observer when it comes to things like media and debate. I have my political bias, sure, but the when observing the process, I like to think I can leave my political leanings aside. So I have watched the "left-wing" media in the States, and I have to say, I just don't see anyone who attacks the right with as little respect or facts as O'Reilly or Beck does the left.

Even if there was, I wouldn't watch it, and I certainly wouldn't defend it. I don't understand why Conservatives are so willing to stand by people and actions that they themselves do not actually support.

The second was the most recent sex scandal in the US. This one is involving a Governor and an unscheduled and unannounced trip to Argentina to have a few days of wild sex with his Argentinean mistress. The fact that he didn't transfer executive power before leaving the country is probably the biggest issue here, but it seems the sex part is what is getting the biggest response.

It was literally thirty seconds after watching the news segment that my conservative-in-law invoked the name of Bill Clinton, and then on TV, Bill O'Reilly invoked John Edwards.

3. The "But What Did The Liberals Do To..." Defence

Perhaps the most insidious argument technique that I am seeing play out with the Conservatives is this concept of attacking the Liberals for not fixing a problem when we were in office. Lisa Raitt and John Baird love these kind of attacks. "What are you doing about Chalk River, Minister Raitt?" meets with a response of "If you care so much about Chalk River, why didn't you fix it when you were in government?".

What is perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this type of argument is that the press has seem to fallen for it. I mentioned in a previous blog entry that it seems that every scandal that the Conservatives find themselves in, equal blame is laid at the feat of the Liberals. The deficit? Well, Prime Minister Martin started the trend of irresponsible spending. Isotopes? The Liberal Government didn't fix Chalk River either. Stimulus? We only created that budget because the Liberals forced us to.

My conservative-in-law said something about Obama that I thought was telling. He said that despite all the talk, and evidence to the contrary, that he just didn't trust Obama. He felt that it was all an act, and at some point, the real Obama would emerge, and the country would pay.

This seems to be the attitude that many Canadian Conservatives have towards Ignatieff, and certainly the attitude the media has taken. I watched the events of the "election crisis", and saw a man who was being sincere and open to solutions. The Conservatives and the media seem to be taking the approach that Iggy isn't sincere. That is was a mishandled play. There is a cynicism about Ignatieff, and the Liberals.

How do we counter this attitude?

Well, I think the first thing we need to do is stop accepting the arguments on their terms. When someone uses these argument techniques, we need to either a) stop the argument and walk away, or b) call them on their bullshit.

The second thing we have to do, and this is important, is not stoop to this level of discourse. It is tempting to fight fire with fire. Resist this temptation. When people bring up the attack ad points, refute their arguments about Iggy with facts, not by pointing at Harper. We do not need to argue using these techniques, because we do hold the higher ground. We can afford our principles, because we are principled.

Bookmark this on Delicious