Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Searching for the Liberal Party. Day 1.

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:41am - 100 Comments

Canada 150Greetings from Montreal, where, for the next three days, we’ll be hanging around the Liberal party’s Canada 150 conference. Herein a running diary of the proceedings.

9:36am. First things first, a requisite description of the surroundings. The conference centre at the Hyatt Regency doesn’t look anything like a conference centre. It looks like a terribly hip Swedish bar. The light fixtures are these silver blobby things hanging from the ceiling and the walls at either end of the room are emitting red light. The foyer is all white light and includes an actual bar. I believe the Cardigans are playing a set here tomorrow afternoon.

9:57am. Paul Martin has arrived. Let the party renewal commence.

10:00am. Jean Chretien arrives and proceeds with a prodigious display of hand-shaking.

10:05am. And we’re off. Which is to say we’ve started, with some opening remarks from Dominique Anglade, who is apparently fluent in five languages and has degrees in industrial engineering and business.

10:19am. Michael Ignatieff went without a tie this morning. Obviously really ready to let loose. All bets are now off on what might happen this weekend. He may remove his jacket. He may even roll up his sleeves. Buckle. Up.

10:26am. He opens with the idea of turning thought into action—arguably the central, if self-imposed, theme of his political career to date. He’s gone without a teleprompter and seems to be paying only passing attention to his notes and is, not surprisingly, sounding much happier. The teleprompter is the enemy of eloquence. When I convene my own thinkers conference next weekend, that will be topic number one.

10:34am. We’ve heard this before, but here is Michael Ignatieff’s Canada: educated, curious, innovative and international. Now to fill the sizeable blanks in between those adjectives.

10:36am. Quoting Lester B. Pearson at Kingston in 1960: “This is no dialogue of the decided.” Quoting Jean Chretien at Aylmer in 1991: “If we just give it another couple years, the Conservatives will be in tatters and we’ll waltz to victory.”

10:53am. The prepared text for Mr. Ignatieff’s opening remarks is here. (Though his speechwriter says much of what he said wasn’t on the page). You can also apparently follow along with the all of the proceedings here.

11:08am. General opening remarks now on foreign, social and economic policy. Odd experience listening to people speak at length about complicated matters without fear of interruption or scorn.

11:44am. The light in the room switches to purple and Rick Miner of Seneca College arrives to tell us about the future of the Canadian labour force. His central message seems to be that we’re doomed. And he has scary-looking bar and line graphs to demonstrate as much. Graphs are exceedingly difficult to argue with.

11:53am. In the future we’ll not be able to take summers off. And we’ll all have to have something more than a high school degree. This is getting dystopian.

11:58am. To avoid an absolutely dire state of affairs—”millions of people without jobs, millions of jobs without people”—we need a national strategy involving all levels of government. That’s apparently the good news. And, on that note, lunch is served. Let us repress our panic and fear with sandwiches.

1:07pm. Lunch was rudely interrupted by a press conference. A scribe apparently mindful of space in tomorrow morning’s paper asked Mr. Ignatieff to explain, in a sentence, what is at stake here. His sentence: “What’s at stake is whether the political system of our country can actually address the real problems the country faces.”

1:16pm. Keynote address from journalist and banker Sheryl WuDunn, wife of New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. The cause of our time, she says, is worldwide gender equality.

1:30pm. In addition to Ignatieff, Martin and Chretien, Stephane Dion, Bill Graham and John Turner are in the room. We are one Herb Gray short of a complete set.

1:54pm. And now a celebration of the Internet and the Twitter and all the ways in which people across the country are following and participating in these proceedings. Yes, yes, modern communication is fascinating. We will have truly progressed as a society when we stop being impressed by our ability to speak to one another without necessarily being in the same room. The first phone call was completed more than 130 years ago. Let’s try to maybe get over it.

2:09pm. A discussion now of learning and education. The high school dropout rate among the wealthiest is apparently between six and 11%. Among the poorest it’s between 50 and 60%. That seems staggering.

2:12pm. Stephane Dion is sitting in the row in front of the media table. Two photographers have set up at the end of the row, perhaps four feet from him, and are snapping away shots of him as he watches and listens to the discussion on stage and pretends not to notice. Politics is a bizarre existence.

2:16pm. Former Liberal cabinet minister Lloyd Axworthy, now in charge of the University of Winnipeg, with the best—well, only—joke I’ve ever heard about university presidents. “We’re like caretakers at a cemetery. There are lots of people under us, but they don’t listen.”

2:37pm. Stepped out for a moment and return to a question about provincial jurisdiction, educational reform and the constitution. It is somewhat remarkable that anyone would want to govern this country.

3:01pm. The answer to what is needed to put together a national education policy is apparently this: political will. That’s probably the answer to a lot of questions here. Actually, maybe all of them.

3:09pm. Silly questions. What was the last major domestic policy initiative or innovation involving a Canadian prime minister? More specifically, what was the last major policy initiative that was actually implemented (ie. the Kelowna Accord and the Liberal child care plan don’t count)?

3:20pm. To put this weekend in perspective it is probably a prerequisite that you read Andrew Potter’s essay for the Literary Review of Canada. A short break now and then an hour and a half on innovation. And then a cocktail reception with the Liberal leader.

3:40pm. I’ve just become embroiled in a discussion about adult literacy, post-secondary education, business ethics and railroad protocol. It is going to be that sort of weekend.

4:12pm. I realize again precisely how weirdly politicians speak and how relatively nice it is to listen to people who aren’t politicians. Non-politicians just talk because they have something they want to say. Politicians can’t just talk because they’ve been taught to think about what they’re supposed to say. I realize this is not at all insightful. But when you listen to politicians talk all day and spend a good deal of time trying to get politicians to talk, you sometimes forget what humans sound like.

4:31pm. This discussion now seems to hinge on an argument Roger Martin, dean of the Rotman School at the University of Toronto, made that we lack a national innovation policy. It is a compelling suggestion, not least because, by his estimate, it wouldn’t involve money that isn’t already being spent.

5:00pm. An attendee proposes the creation of a Parliamentary committee on the future. Apparently Finland has one. Here is video from a recent meeting of the committee.

5:15pm. And after a few wise words for Mr. Ignatieff—measure output, not input; simplify—it is time to drink and mingle and speak in jargon about complicated matters.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

    Yes – please keep us updated with details. Looking forward to reading….

  • AT1

    Neato!
    What did the former Successful Lib PM have to say to the former Next Successful Lib PM? Are MI's sleeves rolled up under his Jacket?
    Tell us more.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

    "He opens with the idea of turning thought into action—arguably the central, if self-imposed, theme of his political career to date."

    Nothing so far on turning thought into communication? Or…even dialogue?

    After all, Ignatieff turned a recent bit of thought into action on his motion to include a full range of family planning options into the G8 agreements on maternal health. Without proper caucus communication, look how that one turned out.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Iccyh Iccyh

    "11:08am. General remarks now on foreign, social and economic policy. Odd experience listening to people speak at length about complicated matters without fear of interruption or scorn."

    Nice.

  • kcm

    Any sign of Pollievre lurking behind a pillar tape recorder in hand? [ keep an eye out for dubious looking bairds...er beards]

    why don't they just cut to the chase and go with Chretien again. Still the best man they have; he's got one more election in him surely.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

      Sure, you can be the one to tell Aline!

      • kcm

        There is indeed a higher power than mere political ambition.

    • common man

      Don`t laugh; from what we know about the Liberal Party and their only true philosophy ( do everything and anything it takes to get back in power ) It would not be surprising to see an attempt to prop up the Chret. for one more run.

      And I can almost guarantee you we will see a photo of Chretien and Justin embracing in a man-hug with Iggy in the background with that WTF look on his face.

    • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/tigerinexile Ben (The Tiger)

      The further away we get, the better he looks.

      Even Steyn misses him…

      • kcm

        Don't they all?

        lol Steyn has other whipping boys these days

        .

        • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/tigerinexile Ben (The Tiger)

          Oh, sure. And the thing about Chretien is he knew when to make an exit. Did so in 1986, and again in 2003.

          But I did enjoy this little passage:
          http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=200710…

          What would Chrétien have done? He'd have said, "Waal, da scam is da scam and, when you got da good scam, dat da scam. Me, I like da scam-and-eggs wid da home fries at da Auberge Grand-Mère every Sunday morning. And Aline, she always spray da pepper on it. Like Popeye say, I scam what I scam. Don' make me give you da ol' Shawiniscam handshake …" Etc., etc., until it all dribbled away into a fog of artfully constructed incoherence, and the heads of the last two journalists following the story exploded, and he won his fourth term.

          I think he'd have managed it.

  • http://www.skolnicksreport.com Spanner McNeil

    If the political class is concerned about the cleavage between it and citizens they might both consider the four million adult Canadians that are considered indictable criminals for smoking pot behind the privacy of their own closed doors.

  • Fred – Brandon MB

    We've got here the "out of touch" supported by "the irrelevant" preaching to "the desperate".

    Pretty pathetic really.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

      Curious – what would you classify yourself as? "The Sniper"?

    • Ted

      "We've got here the "out of touch" supported by "the irrelevant" preaching to "the desperate".

      Pretty pathetic really. "

      This is about the Liberal conference Fred. The Ann Coulter discussion is on another thread.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

      Anything with regard to the content of what they're saying, or are you just here to label people?

      I for one think labour issues – particularly in the context of the heightened unemployment we've got in this country – deserve a little spot time.

  • MacLean's Regular

    educated, curious, innovative and international. Now to fill the sizeable blanks in between those adjectives.

    Action no. 1: Walk away from or seriously renegotiate NAFTA. As the US sinks more deeply into ignorance, incuriousness, obsolescence and isolation (of its own particular brand), that deal with will be nothing but a millstone around Canada's neck.

    Since this is the Liberal Party, though, I don't think those blanks have much chance of being filled.

    • Chris Edey

      How would creating tariff barriers to American goods and services (i.e. raising the prices that Canadians pay) and disrupting the supply chains of an integrated continental economy be to Canada's benefit?

      Presuming that the United States would retaliate and raise barriers to Canadian goods and services, how would that be to our benefit?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Iccyh Iccyh

      Keep in mind that healthcare just passed. The ignorant and incurious were the ones who lost that battle, and I fully expect they'll continue to lose in the future.

      • hollinm

        Tell that to the AT&T workers when they start feeling the effects of the Obamacare plan on their jobs and benefits. AT&T just announced that Obamacare would cost them $1 billion in the first year. Catepillar has already said it will hurt them. Large companies i.e. over 50 employees are going to feel the pinch big time and they will need to take action to restore/prevent their bottom lines from deteriorating. Do you think this will create jobs in the economy in the U.S?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

    Ah! Liberals going with the fear theme again? Surprise surprise!

    • Blues Clair

      LOL! I know, just down the street, the corner store has up a help wanted sign… LIEbrals. Dr Rick Miner. Fail.

      I don't know if the good Doctor is correct… in fact I don't know much.

    • J.M.

      Your comment conveniently ignores less than a year ago GM almost went out of business completely. Despite today's good news for GM, there are still fundamental issues with the manufacturing sector to deal with.

      That kind of short-sighted, reactionary thinking is exactly what true policy making is not about.

  • kcm

    Don`t laugh; from what we know about the conservative Party and their only true philosophy ( do everything and anything it takes to not lose power )

    …i'm trying not to laugh. To assert a superior moral political philosophy it may help to actually have one. We're not liberals doesn't really cut it.

    • common man

      But it`s a Liberal conference kcm and you should not even think about the CPC. Don`t worry about Pollievre or Baird. I want to hear about your hopes and dreams about the policies that will form a New liberal Party.

      • kcm

        Fine. But perhaps you should keep an open mind yourself. Rather than resorting to knee jerk we all know libs have no principles rhetoric. My remarks about Pollievere and Baird and Chretien were merely attempts at humour, yours, i think not. You were saying about taking this seriously CM.

        • common man

          Ahh, well I was serious about Chretien.

    • hollinm

      This is a Liberal conference and has nothing to do with Harper and the PC's. Stick to the topic. Profess your undying love for Iffy and all hail the intellectuals speaking of doom and gloom at the conference. Iffy will have to take to his bed after this conference. He will be so confused and have to continue quoting Shakespeare in order to make sense of it all.

      • kcm

        ah yes a man who knows how to stick to the topic alright. Sadly it's only one topic. Iffy the "other"; Iffy the effette intellectual snob whom all must despise ; Iffy just visiting; Iffy in it for himself. Do you actually have any original criticim to offer?

        • hollinm

          Nope…those will do just fine thank you very mich.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

        Light, seeking light, doth light of light beguile.

  • common man

    I don`t know whether Mr. Wherry thinks this is a serious exercise or not but I do notice that almost every entry has just a little slice of sarcasm. It`s very readable but maybe not what the organizers hoped would be the reaction.

    I do know this. Something has to be done about the public perception of the Liberal Party. If the Easters and Jennings and Dosanjhs and Bennetts continue to be the face of the hysterical opposition screaming about the flu and doorknobs, then this thinkfest will be remembered as a stinkfest.

  • Robert

    Here's a winner policy for you, Iggy. Find a way to encourage families – that is, stable, functioning two-parent families, to have more children. We aren't producing enough of ourselves to sustain our labour market, or social programs; and what better for stimulating an economy than a baby boom. We do NOT need more incentives for 17 year old, uneducated, never employed, unmarried girls on welfare to reproduce more dysfunctional children. We already have enough incentives for them – and our schools, criminal courts and social programs are already overburdened treating the outcomes of this. Find a "program" for that Iggy, and you'll be elected with a majority.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

    Yup. Brison showed yesterday that he should be Liberal #1, as he seems to be the only grown-up on that side of the house. I'm actually shocked that the Dippers haven't been making big gains for the last year. You'd think that Canadians would be looking at an alternative to the "Big 2", and they haven't been playing the games the Cons and Libs have been.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

    Should I be despondent that GM is turning itself around slowly? It's great news for them, and the manufacturing sector, and the communities they operate in. Yes, there are still many problems in the industry, but this is a clear sign that some of those problems have been mitigated. Anybody who thinks that every one of those manufacturing jobs is going to come back is delusional.

    And there is nothing short-sighted about making sure that a sinking ship doesn't go completely underwater. Ensuring it's survival is the 1st step, patching things up and making it right is step #2.

    • J.M.

      "Making it right" is indeed step #2. And the academic and policy making communities are attempting to provide insight as to how things can be made right in the long term. Many developing economies continue to provide cheaper and increasingly skilled labour which will continue to entice GM and other manufacturers if we cannot find ways to differentiate ourselves from them.

      As such, I don't think it's fair to simply dismiss his comment as poorly timed just because one plant announced a recall today.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

    Amen. Look at the long game, and don't be dazzled by shiny objects….

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    Here's hoping they revive the Party of Laurier, not the Party of Trudeau or Chretien.

    I'm not optimistic.

    • Mike R

      How did Laurier differ in any respect from Trudeau or Chretien? He certainly had different issues to deal with, but he invented the Liberal policy of saying one thing and doing another and then perfected it. I think both Trudeau and, especially Chretien were worthy successors.

      • kcm

        We see the world as we are, not as it is – Anais nin

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

        Sounds like I have a higher opinion of Laurier than you do. I may even have a higher opinion of Trudeau than you do! (and you'd be the first person to whom I've ever said that)

        I think we both have the same opinion of Chretien though.

  • SpencBC

    The background reminds me of a certain political rally back in the 1930's at Nuremberg! How fitting for left wing fascist!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/NoNameCS NoNameCS

      Niiice. That would be the one picture you remember from the only book you ever opened, right? Not that you bothered with the words, of course, because then you would have understood how disgusting your comment is.

      • SpencBC

        Typical Liberal come back. Attack the person's level of intelligence. Every body in the wold is an uneducated idiot if they don't tow your line of thinking. Your kind are dying and we'll be rid of you soon enough.

    • Mike

      I declare this discussion topic over, and you have lost the arguement…
      (RE: Godwin's law)

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

      What was it like to hear the great orator speak back in the day? Did your arm get tired? ;)

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Mike514 Mike514

    That is some of the funniest commentary you've ever done. Mr Wherry, I look forward to reading much more!

    Let us repress our panic and fear with sandwiches. That was gold.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

      I agree. I don't recall ever reading him this sharp. Encore!!!!

  • SpencBC

    Read back through it again. Simply dripping with sarcastic comments. Love it after all!

  • John

    Wow you completely glossed over Ms WuDun's powerful speech, instead preferring to write some lame sarcasm.

    The medias treatment of this excercise thusfar has revealed the real problem with our politics in this country.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

      Or, more likely, it's revealed the real problem with the Liberal Party of Toronto and Michael Ignatieff's "leadership" style.

    • hollinm

      Because people would have stopped reading the blog and moved on to something that is more relevant in their lives. Come on a bunch of eggheads jammed into the room tallking about theory. Give me a break. It isn't that complicated. Lower taxes, less government inference in the economy and more importantly stop with the wasteful spending that does not help Canadians with a better life. As Iffy says its all about political will. However, they can't help themselves. They think they know best and of course Iffy thinks he's the smartest guy in the room.

      • riley

        How is leaving undereducated people with no skills to fend for themselves in a rapidly changing economy going to help people have a better life. You're do nothing approach would only work if everyone in Canada was sent a winning lottery ticket. You're just going to take your chances against people, companies and forces with all the power, who don't give a rat's arse about you? Now THAT is dumb. Why don't you think people working together is a good thing. You really believe we're better of working by ourselves and fighting over the scraps? I remember when I lived in Toronto during the Harris years. Flahety sent out a taxpayer funded pamphlet bragging that harris tax cuts saved families $1200 a year — enough for a new washer and dryer (that's literally what the pamphlet said). meanwhile kids were sharing textbooks in school and community centers were doubling access fees and subway expansion was cancelled. The cons left Ontario with a $6 billion deficit — and that was in a good economy. Idiots.

        • hollinm

          I take your point. Harris/Eves got thrown out by the electorate but how has McGuinty improved the education system. Oh, the teachers got more money for probably delivering less. Who's fault is it that the kids are undereducated. Moms and dads are paying their taxes trusting that the education system is doing its job. Well it isn't. I agree we are unleashing a lot of illerate kids into society but if we know that how do we improve the system. Money isn't always the answer.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/bergkamp bergkamp

    I am looking forward to this running diary of yours, Wherry. Should be interesting. Please give us gossip as well as the serious stuff.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

      What happened to your old account?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/bergkamp bergkamp

        I reached 100 p and decided to start again. Wanted new name/avatar, tired of the old ones.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

          You deleted it? I thought only Macleans could do that.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/bergkamp bergkamp

            Don't remember exactly what I did but there was delete account option in Intense Debate somewhere. So I deleted jolyon and now am bergkamp (Dennis).

  • Stop – My sides hurt

    On a few other Macleans threads the comment has been made more than once that Wherry is "snarky", "sarcastic", "lame", and "snide". I hadn't paid attention before, but they're right. He's a painful read. Predictably sneering at everything without any proposed ideas or analysis of his own (a la Potter, Wells, Coyne, or Geddes). This is pretty lousy blog.

    (And I'm a Tory!)

    • kcm

      Which raises the question of why you come here. It couldn't be the dearth of tory sites that don't sneer or offer analysis or ideas of their own, could it. Anyway this presupposes Maclean's is merely a liberal site – not true.

      • Stop – My sides hurt

        I don't think Macleans is Liberal or Tory. Clearly some of the writers drift in one direction (Hello Mr. Steyn) or another. I come for the smart writing and the generally smart bloggers. My point was Geddes, Potter et al typically bring something to the table beyond clip and paste cheap shots. I hadd not paid much attention to Wherry until now, but after reading his blog for a week or two I think it is well below the standard of the other contributors. This running sneer at the Liberal conference is a case in point.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

          Some people have a sense of humour – others do not. I don't mind the sneer.
          We can learn so much about the world and ourselves through comedy.
          Would a pie to your face cheer you up? ;)

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/John_Edgar John_Edgar

          Fine, you don't like his blog. I suspect I'm painfully old fashioned but it seems pointlessly rude to write a comment to someone's blog that just says you don't like his writing.

          Also, aren't you just being critical without really adding any substantive debate? And didn't you just criticize Wherry for being critical without really adding any substantive debate?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

      Give Wherry a break. He has to sit through question period on a daily basis.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/bergkamp bergkamp

    “What’s at stake is whether the political system of our country can actually address the real problems the country faces.”

    If they want to address the real problems Canadians face, pols would reduce the size of government and tax rates and let us get on with our lives. And that's all they need to do – everything is pointless. Does anyone believe the Fed government is going to solve the real problems we face? Whatever their solutions, they always seem to involve more money from taxpayers and little accountability of themselves or their programs.

    "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem." Ronald Reagan – truer words never spoken.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

      Michael Ignatieff has made it very clear on several occasions that he does not believe in smaller government. Don't expect that to be a Liberal issue anytime in the near future. Government daycare, more intervention in the energy industry, and higher taxes are Liberal ideas.

    • hollinm

      You hit the nail on the head. Very few initiatives fall within federal jurisidiction. Most of it is the pervue of the provinces. Iffy talks about education but the provinces will not agree to federal intrusion. Oh yes they will take the money but in the end will do as they please. Same holds true for the other sacred cow…healthcare.
      Iffy and the Libs believe in big spending on programs that don't work but give them credit their propaganda machine has been finely tuned over the years and with their friends in the media Canadians have been duped many times in the past i.e. gun registry.

    • riley

      Except Reagan produced the biggest deficit in U.S. history until that time, only surpased by the George Bush 2. Getting the government "out of the way" is exactly what rich powerful people want. YOU on the other hand will be left to fend for yourself and you'll pay more for services. You're extremely naive. That's the problem with libertarians. Their naive and they don't want any responsibilities. They're like bratty children. Mine, mine, mine. They forget that we live in a society. That other people produced everything in the world that they grew into and we are all victims of externalities. We have to work together to take the edge off. Otherwise you're only as strong as the size of your gun — the the rich guys always have a bigger gun.

      • anon

        really? you might want to check out Obama's current and projected deficits. he makes everyone else look like spendthrifts by comparison. as for Reagan, only far left socialists discount his greatness both abroad in defeating communism and domestically in producing the greatest economic boom since post WWII. as for government, I assume you've never seen the inner workings of waste, entitlement and corruption that is naturally bred absent natural accountability that only exists in the private sector.

  • kcm

    The one progressive national project the libs could sell to Canadians if they did it smartly [ ie not just a huge statist endeavour] is the one of Aboriginal economic and educational grow. It is high time the third pillar of our founding peoples be allowed to fully participate in the national dream. We can argue about how, but it's long overdue. It is an investment Canadians would broadly support, if they felt the payoff was there for us, and of course for FN's people. Of course to do this will require courage to face the barrage of reduce the size of our gov't and all will be well.

    • kcm

      Ah…might this have traction? Why else would cons vote it down? Depressing really, this really is an issue of pressing concern for the country, whether you are a proponent of national projects or simply wish for smaller gov't. Guess people would rather stay in their idealogical trenches then offer debate or alternatives. That way we all lose.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

    Policy conference live blog! Finally it returns to Macleans.

From Macleans