How Justin Trudeau could have changed electoral history

By Mitchel Raphael - Friday, May 6, 2011 at 1:10 PM - 5 Comments

Mark Blinch/Reuters; Photograph by Mitchel Raphael

Victory moustaches!

At the Toronto NDP victory celebration, which was filled with people sporting fake Jack Layton moustaches, the partiers kept the music playing over Michael Ignatieff’s concession speech as it was broadcast on giant screens. They turned the music down for all of Gilles Duceppe’s, and for half of Green Leader Elizabeth May’s. When Layton acknowledged the campaigns of the other leaders, May got the most applause. Layton was happy about the re-election of his wife, Olivia Chow. There had been a huge battle to keep her riding safe. The week before the vote, Liberals Bob Rae (who won) and Gerard Kennedy (who lost) went to Chow’s riding to support the Liberal candidate there. The NDP claimed it was an attempt to get at Layton by doing everything they could to take down his wife. Chow had her stepson, Toronto city councillor Mike Layton, helping her with door knocking, since the area he represents overlaps with hers. For his efforts, he ended up with a pile of complaints from constituents about local problems, mostly broken sidewalks and potholes.

Mulcair’s strategy

Each day during the election campaign, Thomas Mulcair would have a conference call with all the other Quebec NDP candidates. There were ridings they knew they could win, ridings in which they thought they had a chance, and ridings where the odds were against them. When candidates would report suspicious things like a large number of their signs being removed, Mulcair said that was their way of knowing the competition must be worried and they took it as a signal they should up their game in those areas.

Continue…

In conversation: Gail Asper

By Jonathon Gatehouse - Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 1:57 PM - 26 Comments

Photographs by Marianne Helm

Canada’s Newest national institution, the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg, isn’t scheduled to open until 2013, but it’s already a subject of controversy. Over the last decade, Gail Asper has shepherded the project from a far-fetched dream to an almost reality.

Q: Your late father Izzy Asper was the driving force behind the Human Rights Museum. What was his initial vision?

A: His vision stemmed from his own background, as the child of immigrants who came to this country seeking freedom. From the idea that this is a great country, but one, he was concerned, that is pretty complacent. Canadians are indifferent to how their rights have evolved. People like me, who didn’t understand that women weren’t always persons, or that Aboriginals couldn’t vote until the 1960s. He wanted people to understand how this country came to be the tolerant country that it is now, and more importantly, to understand that if you are not vigilant with human rights, they can be lost.

Q: Since you took over the project after his passing in 2003, has that vision changed?

A: No, not at all. The vision that was first presented to the world back in 2000 is the same vision that was adopted by three different prime ministers, two premiers, two mayors and 6,000 donors. The whole goal was, and is, to inspire visitors to take personal responsibility for the advancement of human rights here in Canada and around the world.

Q: There has been controversy about some of the plans for the museum. Ukrainian and German-Canadian groups have complained that the sufferings of indigenous peoples and Jews during the Second World War are getting a “disproportionate share” of exhibit space. Has the backlash surprised you?

A: Nothing that is being said now is any different from the concerns and hopes that were being expressed even before the museum existed. We have worked with all sorts of groups. The idea wasn’t that we were going to impose a human rights museum on Canada. The idea was that we were going to listen to what Canadians wanted and work with them to deliver something that everyone could embrace. The inclusion of an exhibit on the Holodomor [the Stalin-induced famine that killed millions of Ukrainians in the 1930s] was always part of the plan. That is still the plan. But there is a tiny minority that have taken a more acrimonious position on this. And that’s been disappointing.

Q: The Ukrainian-Canadian Civil Liberties Association has charged that one horror—the Holocaust—is being “elevated” above all others at the museum. What’s your response?

A: This is not a museum of genocide. The purpose is to explain what human rights are and how they can be lost. There is no better example of this than the Holocaust. A country like Germany, that was so cultured and educated, and had a democratic government—don’t forget, Hitler was elected—was still able to descend into genocide because people were not vigilant. All the experts agree that no human rights museum could ever be established without a full examination of the Holocaust. It was fundamental to our notion of human rights today, the catalyst for the world coming together to say “never again,” precipitating the anti-genocide conventions and the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Holocaust really shows how good people can be convinced to do bad things.

Q: Do you think that anti-Semitism is playing a part in this?

A: I haven’t come face to face with the group that is saying this, and I wouldn’t want to accuse anyone of anti-Semitism.

Q: Now politicians are getting involved, with several Liberals, and Joy Smith, the Winnipeg MP who was your champion in the Tory caucus, calling on the museum to rethink its plans. Doesn’t this open the door to all sorts of complaints? Is there a danger of this becoming a museum of human wrongs?

A: No. This has really been the only group out of the dozens and dozens who were approached for their support who have had any problems. The museum has been incredibly consultative and respectful of people’s desires. If you’re going to make people mad, why bother doing this?

Q: It’s not a traditional museum—it’s meant to provoke and inspire and even upset people. Is there content in this museum that you are going to find personally challenging?

A: I have no doubt that there will be certain slants and presentations that I won’t agree with. That’s exactly what we want this museum to be. But the expectation is that whatever is in this museum has to be truly well-researched and balanced. The architect, Antoine Predock, has built in an outdoor amphitheatre, and the expectation is that’s where people will be protesting from the moment the doors are opened. I’m open to that. We’ve got free speech here.

Q: Your job now as the campaign chair is to enlist private sector support for the project. How has that been going?

A: The museum is a Crown corporation, but because of our genesis, and the fact that this will be the first national museum outside of Ottawa, our funding structure is very different. The federal government is providing less than a third of the capital cost. The majority of the costs, $150 million, will come from the private sector. We’re closing in on $130 million, and we’ve got 6,000 donors, from grassroots fundraising to multi-million-dollar donors. We’ve been through a tough recession and it could have been an opportunity for people to renege on their gifts, but thank heavens, we’ve had virtually no loss.

Q: There are some concerns about the museum’s ability to pay millions in property tax to Winnipeg each year. Ottawa is providing $21.7 million annually in operating expenses, but said it won’t pay more. Who’ll cover the gap?

A: Prime Minister Harper broke with decades of precedent to develop a national museum in Winnipeg and took on the operating costs—without which this museum would not exist. Museum management is in positive discussions with the city and the province for additional funding. They know they are getting a windfall here—a great project that’s going to provide a lot of tourism and employment and taxes for a small investment.

Q: You mentioned tourism. Do you think it will draw people to Winnipeg for a weekend?

A: I totally do. The conservative estimate is that this will draw close to 250,000 people a year from outside Winnipeg. We hired the finest museum planners to do a very thorough feasibility study. They came back and said this can be a very popular and important attraction for people around the world. There’s the cultural tourists—a growing demographic—who are thirsty for knowledge and want something that is spiritually challenging. The other component is architecture. We were told unequivocally that an architecturally significant building will attract people. People wonder why there’s a “Tower of Hope.” We were told that it would drive visitors. I’ll never forget the report saying “people may not give a hoot about human rights, but they love to go up towers.” With the right marketing, I believe we have an unassailable tourism opportunity here.

Q: The Aspers, through your family foundation, have given $20 million, making you the largest single donors. But your family has gone through a reversal of fortune with the failure of Canwest Communications. Has that had any effect on the foundation’s commitments?

A: Not at all. My dad was very smart when it came to running his business and managing his assets. As Canwest’s fortunes rose, he put money into this foundation. Our $20 million is virtually paid.

Q: You’re still in fundraising mode. What’s your best succinct pitch?

A: I think that Canadians should be grateful for all this country has given them, and for all those who have come before them and put their passion and, sometimes, lives on the line to fight for the rights we all enjoy. This is a celebration of who we are. My dad was always afraid that Canadians reach for the middle, that we aim for mediocrity. He said that this museum has to reach for the stars or it’s not worth doing. In order to do that we need the funds to achieve the depth and the excitement of the planned exhibits. We can’t do that without the support of people from coast to coast. This is Canada’s museum.

Family ties

By Jonathon Gatehouse - Saturday, March 21, 2009 at 1:28 AM - 17 Comments

A potential federal bailout for private television broadcasters is about to come under scrutiny before a parliamentary committee. Starting March 25, the House of Commons standing committee on Canadian heritage will launch a series of hearings into the television industry’s current economic crisis. But the opposition is serving notice that it intends to find out why the Harper government seems intent on helping private companies like CTV and Canwest Global, while leaving the publicly-owned CBC to fend for itself.

“We want to make sure that (Heritage Minister) James Moore isn’t making a sweetheart deal with a bunch of lobbyists who are close to the Prime Minister,” says Charlie Angus, the NDP’s heritage critic. Earlier this week, the Canadian Press reported that Stephen Harper has recently met with both Canwest CEO Leonard Asper, and Pierre-Karl Peladeau, head of Quebecor, owners of the French language TVA network, to discuss the broadcasters’ concerns. Moore has indicated that the government is looking at regulatory changes and tax breaks to aid the networks—most specifically Canwest which is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy—but says no specific commitments have been made.

Witness lists for the hearings are still being drawn up, but the first to be heard from will be Konrad von Finckenstein, chair of the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC.) Private broadcasters have long been after the CRTC to treat their conventional channels more like specialty networks, which receive a share of cable subscribers’ monthly bills known as carriage fees. Cable providers like Rogers, which owns Maclean’s, are opposed to the idea, claiming the system could inflate customers’ bills by as much as $10 a month.

One opposition concern is the close relationship between Canwest’s owners, the Asper family, and the ruling Conservative Party. The media company’s newspapers have endorsed Harper in the past two federal elections, reflecting a shift in the family’s political allegiances. Izzy Asper, the company’s late founder was a former leader of the Manitoba Liberal Party and a lifelong Grit partisan. In 2003, the year he died, the company donated almost $54,000 to the Liberals, more than double the $25,000 it gave the then Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance. But Asper’s children—Len, David, and Gail—have broken with the faith. Especially since dithering by former Liberal Finance minister Ralph Goodale on tax changes for income trusts shaved an estimated $150 million off the value of a 2005 Canwest newspaper trust offering. In 2007, for example, Len, David, and Ruth, their mother, all donated $1,000 each to the Tories, close to the new maximum. So did Gail, although she also gave $500 to the Green Party and $1,100 to the Liberals.

And since Stephen Harper took power in Jan 2006, his government has been supportive of some of the Aspers other endeavours. The Tories not only carried through with Liberal pledges to fund Izzy’s dream of a Canadian Museum of Human Rights in Winnipeg, but substantially upped the ante. In addition to $100 million towards construction costs, Ottawa has designated the project a “national museum”—the first-ever outside the National Capital Region—and pledged a further $21.7 million a year in operating funds, in perpetuity. (The Asper Family Foundation have pledged $20 million to the project—the third $4 million installment is due later this month—and Gail has been instrumental in raising a further $85 million for public and corporate donors.)

This past December, Treasury Board Minister Vic Toews, indicated that Ottawa is ready to give a further $15 million to another family obsession—a new stadium for the Winnipeg Blue Bombers. Under the proposed plan, the private sector will pony up $100 million of the $150 million estimated cost of the new 30,000 seat facility at the University of Manitoba. And David will take control of the now civically-owned franchise.

Another hot topic at the hearings will be the lack of government interest in bailing out the CBC. The sudden drop off in advertising has left the public broadcaster with a $100 million hole in its budget. But its pleas for an advance on next year’s funding, or other financial assistance, have been greeted with a collective Tory shrug. The NDP’s Angus questions why James Moore seems so willing to help one part of the industry, and so disinterested in the plight of another. “He’s basically hanging the CBC out to dry, going as far as to ridicule its request for bridge financing,” he charges.

But the bottom line for opposition parties will be getting the government and networks to live up to existing commitments regarding local broadcasting and Canadian content. And there they might find at least some common ground. Indeed the sudden Conservative interest in a bailout has followed on the heels of CTV’s announcement that it will close three underperforming stations—two in Ontario and one in Manitoba. And similar noises from Canwest that the same fate awaits its 5 E! channels unless a buyer can quickly be found. Coupled with the networks cuts to local newscasts, the trend bodes ill for the Tories’ favoured strategy of going “over the head” of the press gallery in Ottawa, and flogging its policies through interviews with local media.

“It wasn’t local broadcasting or Canadian content that brought us into this mess,” says Angus. “And things shouldn’t be balanced on its back.”

—with Philippe Gohier