By Pepper Parr

May 19, 2014

BURLINGTON, ON.

Thursday evening Burlington celebrated its BEST – 29 people were nominated for the seven categories the city has within which it recognizes and awards citizens who have contributed to the community.

The day before, in a reception at the Performing Arts Centre, city hall staff met to bid former city manager Jeff Fielding adieu.  It was an event tinged with sadness, disappointment and some of that gallows humour that makes its way into events where there is not a lot of joy in the room.

The city was watching a truly dynamic city manager leave after a hectic, topsy turvey 26 month run when literally everything was looked at differently.

City solicitor Nancy Shea Nicol summed it up rather well when she said much of her work with Jeff was first asking if what he had done was legal and then changing documents to make sure it was legal.  Jeff Fielding was the kind of guy who immediately went to the edge of an issue and THEN pushed.

City administration leadership team: city manager Jeff Fielding on the left with general manager community and corporate services, centre and general manager, development and infrastructure Scott Stewart on the right.  The two general managers didn’t always pull with the same level of effort.

General manager Kim Phillips, who had a choppy working relationship with Fielding, said staff wanted to have a caricature  made up to present to Jeff but there wasn’t time to get it done.  “Had we managed to put it together it would have been of Jeff on a bicycle heading towards a golf course with his golf clubs over his shoulders peddling by city owned buildings with for sale signs on them.

Jeff Fielding was close to radical in his approach to many of the tasks he took on.  He understood fully the need for the municipal sector to change its business model; he knew that what we are currently doing is not sustainable.

Taking the job opportunity as city manager in Calgary gives Jeff Fielding the opportunity to work with a mayor who also knows the current municipal business model will not work – it isn’t working now.  Fielding was very comfortable in Burlington; taking the job of city manager for Burlington was to be his last move before retirement.  The fertile soil for change that he thought he saw turned out to be thin with nowhere near the nutrients to bring about real growth.

As one watched his behaviour at Standing Committee meetings and became aware of just how big his changes were – it was breath taking.  On an occasion when a discussion was taking place in Fielding’s office – almost every square inch was covered with pieces of papers with ideas, comments and questions.  There was this itch to write down as much as I could read and to whip out the camera and start clicking away.  There wasn’t an issue that Fielding would not at least look at.

Former city manager Jeff Fielding, on the left, was always on hand with Mayor Rick Goldring. Here Goldring explains to Kilbride area residents what was being done and the time frames the repair crews were working to in their community.

He didn’t see any reason for the city to be in the golf club business – we think he was right on that one.  He had a team of smart people begin a study of the city’s space needs – asked first what do we have and then asked staff to set out what was needed now and into the future – and then began looking for ways to leverage the city hall property.

Fielding was convinced that city owned parking lots had much more value in them than was being realized and he was constantly looking for ways to get at that value and make it work for the city.

He understood fully, more than most of the city’s population, the importance of culture to the city and the need to hype the Performing Arts Centre and work with the Art Centre to get more value – and traffic – to those locations.

City council wasn’t able to find the money to hire a full time Cultural Development manager in the 2014 budget.  During the final delegation from the Arts Collective,  Fielding turned and told the speaker that he would look for a way to find the money to hire that person. “I can’t promise I will find the dollars – but I will try” which is more than any of the current council members said.

Jeff Fielding, on the left, didn’t take prisoners. He let lawyer Glenn Grenier,second from the left, who described himself as an expert on the legislation that governs air parks in Canada, know that Burlington wasn’t buying his story. City solicitor Nancy Shea Nicol and Blake Hurley look on.

After the meeting Fielding had some stiff words for Grenier while city solicitor Nancy Shea Nicol and staff lawyer Blake Hurley looked on.

Fielding was direct, blunt and didn’t have much time for the “slackers”.  On the other hand he recognized real talent which he nurtured and developed.  There are a couple of dozen people on the city payroll who are bigger and better people today than they were the day Fielding arrived.  For them his decision to leave now was extremely disappointing.

He turned the way the city does its budget upside down and took staff into a  Results Based Accountability (RBA) approach where the departmental silos would be merged in a way that would be exceptionally difficult for some staff.

When asked what would happen to the RBA work that had been done Fielding told this reporter that all the basic budget work is completed and he felt staff could complete the shift.  That is a stretch by any definition.

Fielding has made arrangements for people in London where he introduced the RBA approach to work with Burlington’s financial team and that help will certainly be useful.  What Fielding has done is take a team of people in probably the best run department in the city and convince them to go way out on a limb with him and do something significantly different.  This kind of thing does not happen in the municipal world.

The financial people were excited, motivated; pumped if you will, and at a critical time their coach and mentor walks off the field.  As much as we admire Fielding  –that decision is difficult to fathom and disappointing as well .  The city needed another year to get RBA in place and functioning – it was within Fielding’s power to do that.  He chose not to.

Fielding did say that he would have liked to have had one more year in Burlington – the city would certainly have liked to have had him for that additional twelve months.  One wonders if the Mayor told Fielding that he was not prepared to accept the resignation at this time and sent him back to his desk.  Too much to ask for I guess

Rick Goldring told staff at the reception that the day he  advised his fellow council members that Fielding was leaving he saw an event on YouTube where the Mayor of Calgary was introducing Jeff as their new city manager.  “I felt”, said the Mayor, “like the guy who breaks up with a girl one night and the next day sees her in the arms of some other guy”.

It was both a shock and a profound disappointment to everyone.  One wonders why we did not see this coming.

Fielding raised the bar said the Mayor in his remarks and Fielding certainly did that.  The problem was that he didn’t stick around long enough to get his team to the point where they could get over that bar day in and day out.  Budget time in 2015 is going to have more than the usual bumps in the road.

Former city manager Jeff Fielding was strong enough to wear his emotions on his sleeve.  Made a difference while he was here.

Fielding who is an exceptionally emotional man – came close to losing it when he spoke to the team that he led and explained that there are occasions when opportunities come along and you take them.  He added that his decision to move from London to Burlington was a family decision.  His wife works with the regional government and the two boys are attending Burlington schools.  Fielding took out a golf club membership – this was home.

The decision to move to Calgary was not, Fielding explained, a family decision.  He was going to Calgary on his own and would commute to be with his family.

Pat Moyle, interim city manager, probably until NEXT June, brings years of experience in municipal government having served as Regional CAO and with the Association of Municipalities in Ontario. A steady hand during a period of change.

Scott Stewart was the “ying” to Fielding’s “yang”.  Fielding looked at things from the 30,000 foot level and could see beyond the horizon and relied on Stewart to execute on the decisions that were made.  The two were a remarkable team – the only good luck in all this for Burlington is that Fielding didn’t take Scott Stewart with him.

There are always complex reasons for changes made in one’s life.  Fielding was pretty sure that the move to Burlington would be the capstone of his career – but then the phone call from Calgary came and Fielding was unable to say no to an opportunity to return to the city where he once worked in the planning department.  There appears to be some unfinished business in Calgary that has cost Burlington the most dynamic and effective administrative leader we have seen for a long time.

By Pepper Parr

May 16, 2014

BURLINGTON, ON.

There were 46 comments in the newspaper on a web site article we published when we said we were ceasing publication.  Not one negative comment amongst them.

In hindsight we should have said we were suspending publication.

I met with a number of people after the announcement and was asked by several if there was not some way I could continue.  At the city council meeting of April 28^th Councillor Meed Ward announced that we have “for a variety of reasons” stopped publishing, she didn’t elaborate.  You are entitled to know what those reasons were.

On May 30^th, I will have hip replacement done at St. Joseph Hospital in Hamilton.  I have a great surgeon at a hospital where the service and attitude is superb.

From the point at which it became evident a hip replacement was necessary to the date the surgery is to be done was less than 90 days – which I felt was satisfactory.  That doesn’t mean there is no pain.  Hurts likes Hades and I’ve still not gotten the hang of the cane my wife got for me.

Having a disabled card for my car is a god-send.  I can park right outside city hall and most buildings that I have to get to – and I don’t have to pay for the parking.  Sweet!

I felt I was unable to do the job I had set out to do.  Add to that the libel notices that were served on us by the Air Park Inc., and I wondered if I could keep the newspaper on a web site going and  fight the Air Park Inc. action.

Somehow the owner of the Burlington Executive Airpark convinced everyone that his plans to develop his property came under federal jurisdiction and that the city had no say in what they chose to do. This location was to be the site of a helicopter operation. The owner of the adjacent property is standing on her property line.   Many wonder why a corporation can do this to a neighbouring property.

My wife found the stress of the legal action difficult to handle.  She is the reason I came to this city and I reluctantly decided to cease publishing, at least until the hip surgery was complete and I was able to get around.  Everyone tells me I will be back on my fee in no time once the surgery is done – and I certainly hope they are right.

With the announcement of the decision to cease publishing was posted something astonishing happened.  There were phone calls.  A member of council called to ensure that it was not a delayed April fool’s joke.

There were emails – more than 65 to me personally.

There were comments from readers; more than 46.  Not one negative amongst them. 

The announcement was made on the Sunday and traffic for the Monday was the largest in our three year history.

A number of people wanted to meet with me.  All wanted to know how they could help.  The clincher was the delegation that called at the house.  Three people, all from the same downtown part of the city, rang the doorbell and asked what it would take for me to resume publishing.  I said I would re-think my position.

The Gazette has resumed publishing.  I am not going to be able to cover as much as I did in the past until the surgery is done and the recovery is complete.

As for the Air Park Inc., we became aware that a reader who had made a comment on the web site had been served with a libel notice and we were served with a second notice.  Then third.

We were fortunate enough to be able to get legal opinions from two exceptionally prominent lawyers who said three things. (1) Peter Wells, the lawyer acting for the Air Park Inc., is not a libel lawyer; he doesn’t know that field of law.  (2) You did not libel the Air Park Inc., and you should fight this battle.  (3) The owner of the Air Park is a bully.

We have not been sued as yet and have not hired the lawyer that will defend us should we be sued.  The lawyer we intend to use is one of the best there is in the field.  He will not be cheap – the vacation this summer will be very short and inexpensive.

We have a serious problem when a citizen, running for public office, responds to an article with an opinion and is then chased because someone thinks they have been libeled.   That is called libel chill – and it can be effective. 

The Air Park Inc., situation cuts to the very core of citizen administration.  Does the city have the right to enact bylaws and does the Air Park have the right to flaunt those bylaws claiming they do not apply to them?  They certainly thought so.  But Justice Murray declared they are wrong and that they must adhere to the bylaw – and pay a large portion of the city’s legal costs as well.

The Air Park, as is their right, chose to appeal Justice Murray’s decision. That appeal is going to be heard before a three member panel of the Ontario Court of Appeals at Osgoode Hall June 11th.  The city should have an answer a few weeks after the appeal hearing. 

Legal counsel for the Air Park has provided us with the working of the apology they required us to publish.  We have set that apology out for readers in a separate article.

The Burlington Gazette will not be publishing an apology.  The Air Park can sue if they wish and we will defend our actions in a court of law.  It is our belief that the Air Park Inc. wants to expunge any record of what they have done and they have served us with a notice that if we do not remove the material we published they will sue.

We will work with Vanessa Warren, a candidate for ward 6, who also does not believe that she libelled anyone.  We agree with her.  We will work with the members of the Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition (RBGC) who were also served with libel notices.  We will not be removing any of the material we published unless ordered to do so by a Court and we will continue to cover one of the most significant events that has taken place that impact on the long term development of the city.

We have asked for an opportunity to interview Vince Rossi, president of Air Park Inc. on two occasions.  Mr. Rossi has not been available.  He appears to prefer to put his story on the Air Park web site where he can control the content.

The air park is not the only issue of concern.  The changes taking place with the Economic Development Corporation, the provincial election, the development potential for the Brant Street Plaza (No-frills and Tim Horton`s are currently located there).

The loss of a city manager that brought about significant changes with the way city hall will run the city – what we all thought was going to be a 60 month run came to a halt after 26 months and many are still figuring out what we do now?

Is there a new city hall in Burlington’s future?

Pressing the city to make their community engagement charter real for the citizens of Burlington.

Following the municipal election and reporting to the voters what we have observed of this council during the past three years and interviewing those people who have put their names forward for public office.

It is nice to be back.

By Ray Rivers

April 8, 2014

BURLINGTON, ON.

While we held our breath Monday night, Quebecers chose to postpone their discussion on sovereignty and move on with their lives, largely shunning the two competing separatist parties for the federalist Liberals. 

 There are those who rationalize that the push for an independent Quebec may have been just a generational thing.  As the generation of Lévesque, Bouchard, Parizeau and Marois pass, the progressive leaders of Quebec’s ‘Quiet Revolution’, so will the sovereignty debate they say.

 Outgoing Premier Pauline Marois mused that she had erred in raising the sovereignty issue during the campaign.  However, for a separatist party, committed to independence, to not have talked about their end goal would have been deceptive and dishonest.  And there were other factors for her failure, including a fractious campaign in which she played the desperate political leader, thrashing about, trying to blame somebody else for her inescapable tumble.

That fist in the air was the one thing the Parti Quebecois didn’t need – now they may have to live with Pierre Karl Peladeau as Leader of the Opposition.

It would be only fair to say that voters, concerned about a poorly performing economy and a soaring provincial debt, were looking for something more positive, and from a new government.  Many had tired of that divisive, some would say racist, ‘Values Charter’debate which was offensive to the very way in which Quebecers see themselves, and typically are – respectful and fair minded.

The new Liberal leader, Couillard, was refreshingly open and unafraid to speak the truth about issues,  like the need for English in the workplace and Quebec society.  He spoke about bringing Quebec into Canada’s constitution, closing the generational rift over the place of that province in Canada.  Of course, that will not be easy and he will face homegrown opposition, even if he can come to terms with the federal government and the other provinces.

 Make no mistake – separatism is not dead yet, and whether it comes back to life will depend on what we all do over the next four years.  The constitution is a good starting place, particularly as the governing Conservatives would like to amend the parts that pertain to the Senate anyway. 

It was a bitter evening when Rene Levesque lost the first referendum. The separatists were to lose a second attempt to leave Canada years later.

 Quebec’s economy is in critical need of rebooting with a national industrial strategy that would also benefit Ontario – a strategy which this government is reluctant to broach, preferring instead  to devote itself almost solely to promoting the export of petroleum.  

 A successful industrial strategy would necessitate reconsideration of our almost manic pre-occupation with international free trade deals, and renegotiation of some we’ve already signed, particularly those with nations that don’t play by the same rules.

 Ontario could be purchasing more of Quebec’s low-emission hydro power, rather than investing in more expensive and environmentally harmful gas plants.   And, speaking of inter-provincial cooperation and power, Quebec would benefit from addressing the unfairness in that dated Churchill Falls power deal, particularly if it would like access to more Newfoundland energy for its markets. 

 No doubt Quebec would feel more at home in Canada were we to get to know each other better.  Opportunities for this abound, including enhanced tourism, sporting events, and student and other exchanges which we often overlook, perhaps daunted by the prospect of dealing with the potential linguistic challenges.  And some of the answer there lies in language education within the school systems.

Several major political blunders cos the Parti Quebecois power in Quebec. It may take several decades – if ever – for a serious separatist movement to surface again in Quebec.

 Finally, Ontario, Alberta and Manitoba have sizeable francophone communities, yet in this bi-lingual nation they remain officially unilingual English.  If a less well-endowed New Brunswick can afford official bilingualism, why can’t these other provinces – at least in the longer term?  Language is a potentially fractious issue in nation-building.  One has only to observe the divisiveness that issue is causing in today’s Ukraine.

Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking.  Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington where he ran against Cam Jackson in 1995, the year Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution swept the province. He developed the current policy process for the Ontario Liberal Party.

By Ray Rivers

March 26, 2014

BURLINGTON, ON.

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.  Canada is held up as a model for how to run elections – we are recognized as having the best electoral system anywhere – and 85% of Canadians also thought our last federal election was perfectly fair.  So why has the government introduced their so-called ‘Fair Elections Act’?  And why is this Bill getting panned/dumped on by just about everybody, including a national newspaper and some 150 political scientists around the world?

Raid on Conservative Party offices” Elections Canada wanted data.

For one thing the process is flawed. Everyone knows that the PM has been engaging in a war with Elections Canada – ever since they nailed him on his party’s in-and-out funding scandal.  Why would anyone expect him to be impartial?  Shouldn’t something as important as changing our electoral process be managed by an independent body, rather than at the whim of one of the political parties?  Why were there no consultations prior to introducing the Bill – not with the other political parties, not with the public and not even with Elections Canada, who might know a thing or two about elections?

Elections Canada’s mandate currently includes encouraging more people to vote.  We understand that democracy works best when more citizens are involved.  But this Bill would diminish that objective and further suppress voting by removing ‘vouching’, which was used without issue by thousands of voters in the last election.  The government claims ‘vouching’is problematic, and there may be better ways to assist those without adequate ID to secure their right to the ballot box.  But just excluding voters without adequate identification is throwing out the baby with the bath water.  And, critics say the minister proposing this change is wrong – hasn’t done his homework. 

Not terrible numbers – but they should be higher – 70% across the country.

Some nations, like Australia, legally require their citizens to vote; why would we want to do anything to suppress voting, to discourage people from exercising their franchise?  If one wants to vote in Australia and isn’t carrying the right identification they can just swear an oath and declare their right to get a ballot.  Further, shouldn’t we be finding more inclusive ways of voting, like internet voting to facilitate and enable more of our youth to participate in the democratic process?  We do internet banking don’t we?  Surely, we can manage the process of issuing secure ‘pin’numbers.

For a number of years Canada’s official political parties received direct public funding, the amount dependent on how well they had performed in the previous election.  This reduced the influence of money, and the power of wealthy contributors, in shaping government policy.  Germany, Sweden, Israel, Australia, Austria and Spain are among the growing number of countries with public funding, now representing over half of those with elected democracies.  US presidential candidates may elect for public finding.  And just to be clear, note that we subsidize political parties with the public purse anyway – through tax-deductible donations.

Mr. Harper, when leading his minority government, eliminated corporate and union funding and reduced the individual contribution limits to $1000, keeping his earlier election promise.  And it was relatively easy for him since the Conservatives are more effective at attracting individual donations than the other parties. Then, after gaining his majority, he cancelled the public funding program to solidify his private funding advantage.  And the new Bill would raise that individual donation limit by a whacking 50%.  The Bill, for some bizarre reason the government has difficulty explaining, also exempts political parties from spending limits for fund-raising activities.

The report had to be one of the most embarrassing for a democracy

For something labelled Fair Elections Act, the Bill fails to improve fairness in any meaningful way, such as giving Elections Canada the power to investigate political parties and compel testimony of those suspected of committing transgressions.  This limitation came to light with the Robocalls scandal, in which the Tories were also implicated.  To make it even more difficult for irregularities to be uncovered and those guilty penalized, the Bill shifts that responsibility to a partisan minister (attorney general), and muzzles the politically impartial Elections Canada which reports to Parliament as a whole.

And wouldn’t something called Fair Elections deal with the unfairness of the first-past-the-post (FPP) system in our problematic multi-party environment – one that enables a PM winning less than 40% of the popular vote to rule the country at his/her pleasure for a full unfettered four years.  New Zealand, Germany and a host of other nations use a proportional electoral system, where some of the MPs are chosen FPP and the others appointed by the relevant political parties based on their share of the popular vote.  The results for these nations have been generally positive with less violent swings in public policy.

The Green Party and NDP are big supporters of proportional representation.  The Liberals are promoting a preferential system that would ensure future governments are elected by at least half the voters.  Toronto city voters may use a similar system in this year’s mayoral election.  Voters would rank candidates, and the second and third choices of the lowest scoring candidates would get added to the highest scoring candidates’tallies – until one has emerged with over 50% support.

It is about one person, one vote by an informed voter.

In the end, democracy is about representing the public will.  It is unfair to be subjected to the ideological whims of a political party, be it right or left-wing, which came to power with the support of less than half of the electors, let alone 38%.   Fixing that irregularly would be a worthwhile endeavour.  Otherwise, calling this Bill the ‘Fair Elections Act’is a huge misnomer.  It is nothing more than a crude attempt to break and handicap what seems to be working just fine.

Background links:

Fair Elections Act      Elections Canada       Implications      More Implications      Ranked Voting       Conservatives Muzzling

Elections Act      Critics      NDP Tour on Elections Act       Kill This Bill      Government Strikes Back     Voter Fraud    Real Problems

By Ray Rivers

March 6, 2014

BURLINGTON, ON.

There is a whiff of change in the air as the polls place the Trudeau Liberals at the head of the pack racing to the 2015 federal election.  It is still early days, but I keep getting asked what I think of Justin Trudeau – is he ready for the job of PM.  I met him last year, had a brief chat and gave him a copy of my book (for which he never thanked me).  The book has a lot of ink devoted to his father, but he is not mentioned; so perhaps that is why.

Some people said that he is more like his mother than his father, Pierre the intellectual.

Some people said that he is more like his mother than his father, Pierre the intellectual.  If true, I’m not sure if that makes him more or less appealing.  His youth is a huge asset, and he has used that to advantage, attracting young voters into the world of politics.  A few actually find their ‘salvation’here and become active party supporters, but just getting our youth to the polling booth is a huge public service. 

The more traditional wing of the party is comfortable with Trudeau, because of his roots and because they really need a winner after almost a decade in the dugout, and third place at that.  And Trudeau understands that, so has taken a moderate, small ‘c’conservative approach in articulating his policies: retaining the Senate, building the middle class, promoting the Keystone XL pipeline, better developing the oil sands, and even more free trade.

Colourfull – yes.  Depth – we don’t know that yet but the signs are good.  The Senate decision was a good one.

Justin is among the most articulate and communicative of recent Liberal leaders, benefitting in large part from his theatrical training,   He claims his campaign is about fairness –  and it is a vision which he links to his father’s ‘Just Society’.  His opponent on the right has been publicly attacking him over his promise to legalize cannabis.  But on this issue, anyway, he sees himself getting on top of the wave sweeping this hemisphere, right behind Mexico and Uruguay and the US states of Colorado and Washington.

Trudeau has also said and done things that have got him into trouble.  His joke about Putin and the Ukrainian crisis has handicapped him on that important file.  There was his comment about admiring China, about the need for more Quebecers in Parliament, and that whole messy speaking-tour business – which he should have done for free as an elected member.  

So is Trudeau ‘ready for the job’?  Some said that Joe Clark, Canada’s youngest PM at 40 years, wasn’t ready when he was sworn to the job back in 1979, yet he ably stick-handled the Iran hostage crisis and won the acclaim of the much of the world.   Mike Harris used to attack Dalton McGuinty as ‘not up to the job’though McGuinty gave us some of the best government in the province’s history, reconstructing our eroded health care and education systems and balancing three of his budgets before the recession hit – and before he pulled that stunt with the gas plants.

Pierre shocked many, especially the Monarchists with this stunt in London.

Pierre, Justin’s father, was also attacked as immature for some of the antics he pulled, pirouetting behind the Queen’s back, uttering ‘fuddle-duddle in Parliament and giving the finger to the media.  But when Canada was facing its greatest national crisis in October 1970, he knew what to do and did it.  Experience and training are essential for most careers but there is no apprenticeship for being PM – you either have it or you don’t.  So the real question for the pretenders to the throne is what do they stand for, what is their vision and where are they getting their advice.

Mr. Harper threw his closest advisor under the bus after Senate-gate broke, so at least he knows what to do when he gets bad advice.  But his vision for Canada is retrograde.  Whether it be criminal law, environmental policy, political science, trade and industrial development, or taxation and fiscal policy he represents the past.  That isn’t always bad and I do agree with a few of the measures he has introduced since 2006.  But if your fantasy is turning the clock back he is your man.

Mr. Mulcair has been very impressive in the House of Commons as a debater representing the official opposition.  Probably most people respect his perspectives on social justice and equity and are comfortable with how he has distanced his party from external lobby forces, such as the labour unions.  He was a good environment minister in Jean Charest’s Liberal government in Quebec and has a huge electoral base in Canada’s minority language province Quebec.

However, Mulcair has endorsed his party’s policy on Quebec separation, the Sherbrooke Declaration, which would entitle Quebecers voting 51% for sovereignty to begin the process of separation.  This was Jack Layton’s legacy, one which had lifted his party to official opposition by playing to the separatists.  The Supreme Court has ruled that there needs to be a reasonable majority and nobody except Mulcair and the separatists believes that is 51%.  My vision for Canada includes Quebec.

That is big hair.

Mr. Trudeau has been Liberal leader for less than a year, so it’s still early to pass judgement on him.  And he has been spouting generalities which most people could only agree with: no tax increases for middle class Canadians, politically independent Senators, and legal weed.  I know at least one of the good people advising him, and my expectations for a detailed progressive platform in time for the election are pretty high.  So maybe the question, come election day, is  are we ready for Trudeau, and what he promises – rather than the other way around.

Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking.  Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington where he ran against Cam Jackson in 1995, the year Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution swept the province. He developed the current policy process for the Ontario Liberal Party.

Background links:

Sherbrooke Declaration