Please log in with your Liberal ID.
Your Liberal Extranet credentials can be used.
Have an Extranet Account?Login here!.
One step! Just fill these fields in.
Your password was changed successfully.
Please check your email for a link to finish the account creation process.
You must click that link to be able to comment.
The website was not able to match you to your membership.
If you have just filled in your renewal or membership application form please wait 2-5 business days while your Provincial-Territorial Association processes your application.
Click here to join the Party or renew your membership.
If after waiting 5 business days you are still having troubles or you are a current member, please fill out this form and we will assist you shortly.
Thank you for activating your account. We have automatically logged you in.
Sorry, this activation link does not work. Your account may already be activated. Please try to login or contact web@email.liberal.ca for assistance.>
Please log in with your Liberal ID.
Your Liberal Extranet credentials can be used.
We hope you enjoyed our third 2013 LPC Leadership debate.
Do you want a chance to vote for the new Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada? Click here and sign up as a Supporter.
Get to know the leadership candidates and their platforms and find out when and where will be the next debates on our 2013 LPC Leadership web page.
February 16, 2013
February 16, 2013
February 16, 2013
I watched the debate and find that Justin Trudeau looks and sounds like a young child, he also interrupts a lot, he just comes across WAY to young and inexperienced . This IS NOT leadership material YET.
I am without a doubt backing MARC GARNEAU, he looks, sounds, leadership. This man is able to speak to world leaders and present a confident face. He has no problems with quick thinking, making quick decisions ( his past certainly helps ) . He is leadership material. I will back MARC GARNEAU because of the above and more,
Justin Trudeau offers hope for Canadians. Who says a man with deep commitment, life and family experience, and political and community experience cannot prove a visionary leader for Canada? Mr. Trudeau does not have the years of political experience Mr. Garneau feels necessary to be our Prime Minister, but Canadians like me want a leader who has vision, is willing to listen, and is connected more with the people in our country. Too many career politicians have lost touch with that very important factor, what the people in this country want and need. Trudeau with a strong experienced committed Cabinet and his determination to use his talents and training to do good for Canadians, to serve our country, may be able to lead Canada down a better path. He is a breath of fresh air in a very stale political environment. Early in life he experienced the challenges of political life and is more prepared than Mr. Garneau thinks to take on this challenge.
You realize Garneau and Trudeau became politicians at the same time, in 2008, right?
All candidates are so good. So I feel sorry not to support all of them. Honestly, it is very difficult not to choose Marc Garneau as my first choice.
However, I can see Canada’s better future in Justin Trudeau. He has an exceptional background but worked as a teacher for five years in BC before becoming a politician. He knows how to communicate with the public. I want to tune in to my intuition. Justin Trudeau will operate the growth engine for Canada. He will make Canada greater.
Has anyone compared the achievements of the leadership candidates in key areas like formal education, private sector experience, public sector experience, particularly cabinet experience, which only one candidate really has….and they’ve been very accomplished terms both in the private and public sector providing…read Joyce Murray’s bio if you want to see what an accomplished woman is both in the private sector creating thousands of good-paying jobs for Canadians but also as the Minister of resources in the B.C. Provincial government achieved broadband internet access to 97% of the communities in B.C., also as the Environment Minister she helped develop the most sustainable environment in the country.
What has been achieved so far in Marc Garneau’s career is remarkable, I think he would make a fantastic Industry , Trade and Science Minister but he isn’t as well-grounded as Joyce is. Justin again might be better off taking control of the Youth Ministry. I think it’s dangerous for the Liberal Party to expect such a light weight to get in the ring with Stephen Harper and Tom Mulclair. This isn’t Patrick Brazeau in the ring. The mega news orgs will baby young Trudeau to get him elected as leader and then choose whether to win if the P.C. doesn’t pull some magic out of the bag and continues to divide the vote….only Trudeau seems to be waffling on his policies….why not bring them out in the open if their good and we can maybe be impressed by them…..watching the debate Justin seemed way too orchestrated on saying little bits of feel good statements but committed to no specific policies…..Joyce is a well educated (MBA), seasoned politician and admired business woman and has demonstrated a refreshing openness by clearing stating her policies and the rational behind them! She has demonstrated her ability by her significant achievements in both her private and public life, has a full twenty years of life experience on Justin and can easily handle herself in a scrum as she has adeaptly shown in these debates as well as in the House of Commons. If we’re serious about going forward with a sustainable environment/community/country we have to get rid of the Conservative party and I think only JOyce can do it. Her ideas regarding the cooperation with the Green party and teh NDP will only end up with more liberal seats in the house and probably more NDP, as long as it’s not another PC. Go Joyce Go!
Family experience worries me most of all, we have had to live down a lot of the senior Trudeau, some of his policies caused more harm then good..
Justin is and looks too young, we need MARC GARNEAU who looks a Leader, acts a Leader, thinks as a Leader and his policies are those of a Leader. We as Liberals have a history off being the middle of the road, we have been moving more and more to the left ( I am 70 a member since 16 ) and have watched this movement .
If we elect Justin We may as well join the NDP
We need a Leader who can react in a split second ( Marc has this experience ) can react immediately in the house to the opposition and most of all will be able to LOOK AND ACT a Leader with heads of other countries. We are faced with the fact that ie. China And others want control of our resources MARC GARNEAU will watch this and act immediately. Remember the best way for Foreign Countries to occupy a country is from within.
MARC GARNEAU will keep CANADA. CANADA.
Just wondering what the sentiment is in the riding associations for a voluntary, freedom-of-choice approach to cooperation. According to the Globe & Mail:
“Ron Hartling, president of the Liberal riding association in Kingston, Ont., wrote all candidates earlier this month to suggest they reconsider their rejection of co-operation in light of surprising support for the idea revealed during a recent membership renewal drive in his riding.
He attached an extract of a report from his association’s outreach director, who found one-time members felt it was “arrogant” for most leadership contenders to reject the idea of co-operation out of hand, who blamed the Liberal party for the lack of co-operation to date and used words like “greedy,” “power hungry” and “childish” to describe the party’s stance.
In an interview, Hartling said the responses were gleaned from about 55 people who refused to renew their membership.
“It was totally unprompted and I was actually surprised at the number for whom (rejection of co-operation) was the reason,” said Hartling, who is remaining neutral in the leadership contest.
“I thought that was relevant information for the candidates to consider, as opposed to locking themselves into being entirely negative on the subject.”
The Liberal association in the Ottawa riding of Nepean-Carleton last month surveyed its members and supporters on options for ending vote-splitting. Of the 125 who responded, 72 per cent supported electoral co-operation with the NDP and Greens.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/murrays-dark-horse-liberal-bid-could-get-post-from-pro-co-operation-advocates/article8738674/
Justin Trudeau doesn’t seem to count whether if his comments work for votes or not. He has an ingenuous style of speech. Not refined But inspiring. That is the very quality of a leader. His patriotism over Canada includes global imaginative power as well. He is able to beat NDP and Conservative, and make Canada better and greater.
I attended the Liberal Leadership debate today in Toronto and here are some of my observations. Disclosure: I have not yet chosen to support a particular candidate though I do currently favour Marc Garneau.
David Bertschi – I was really impressed with his performance, especially his calm demeanor and I like his strategy to engage directly with Canadians through a cross country road trip. Prior to the debate, I had only glanced at his website but am now inclined to dig deeper into his policy preferences. Definitely a strong candidate.
Martin Couchon – Certainly a capable candidate but not very inspirational. He has yet to convince me that he has a compelling vision for the Party or Canada more generally.
Deborah Coyne – Not a strong showing at the debate. Did not seem capable of connecting with the audience beyond taking jabs at the Harper gov’t.
Marc Garneau – Perhaps the most consistently strong candidate. Challenged Trudeau without directly insulting him, highlighted a number of his policy positions, and identified aspects of his resume that made him uniquely qualified to lead the Party. In my opinion, he remains the most qualified, professional, likeable, and effective speaker of the candidates.
Martha Hall Findlay – Prior to the debate she was my second choice. After the debate, she wouldn’t make it into my top five. Her attack on Trudeau was callous and personal, she actually appears naiive enough to deny the existence of class divisions existing in Canadian society today leading one to believe she has no interest in addressing these real concerns, and her apparent neoliberal conception of international free trade is so dated that it had largely been disproven by the end of the 19th century. While she surely remains a popular candidate despite todays performance, she is far too right leaning and naiive for my tastes.
Karen McCrimmon – Like Deborah, rather uninspiring and over reliant on buzz words and platitudes as opposed to substance. Does not connect with the audience.
Joyce Murray – While admittedly a strong and well spoken candidate, I find her style and over-reliance on her business credentials frustrating at times. I am glad she supports legalizing cannabis and democratic reform and is open to cooperating with other left leaning parties, but find other aspects of her policy platform would fail to obtain popular Canadian support and fail to have sufficient focus on economic and job growth. Her biggest turnoff for me, however, remains her rather arrogant tone during debates and her over-reliance on her business experience as a demonstration of her ability to govern the LPC.
George Takach – A very likable, well spoken candidate capable of tapping into a number of important voting demographics. During the debates he always connects with the audience, is willing to speak of controversial issues, but does so in a funny, inoffensive manner. He would be a front runner for me were it not for the fact that he remains largely a one-policy politician. If he wants to be the leader of the LPC, he needs to stop claiming to be the ’tech candidate’ and start demonstrating a more comprehensive strategy. If he achieves this transformation, he could surprise everyone.
Justin Trudeau – Though by no means my favourite candidate, he certainly connects with the audience. However, off camera, he does seem rather fidgety and continues to demonstrate a rather childish demeanor at times. I still cannot see Justin as a natural or capable leader strong enough to fight for Canadians at the domestic or international table. As we have seen with Obama, it is easier to promise change than to achieve it. I also fail to see how his lack of policy constitutes a wise strategy. I for one do not believe that Justin will really develop his policy platform through direct consultation with Liberal Members and supporters. That sounds to me like base rhetoric only too easily forgotten after the election is over. That being said, he still remains among my top five candidates due to his ability to connect with his audience and at least his recognition that for the Liberals to win the next federal election, we must provide a vision for reinvigorating the Canadian middle class. That in my opinion is not the politics of division but a strategy to return Canada to its former glory.
Look forward to hearing other peoples observations as well.
Jon Lawrence
I did not get a chance to listen to yesterday’s debate. I will listen as soon as time permits. I do appreciate your thoughtful analysis and somewhat non=partisan views Jonathan W Lawrence. Thank you.
However, having read your take on the debate, as well as the other posts here, I find it rather disturbing that you all are so focused on policies… without discussion on what each candidate believes his/her sole purpose and main task as a politician, as a leader of the LPC or as the PM of Canada ‘will’ be.
It seems to me that until we have such an understanding we really won’t know how the leader and the LPC will develop, implement and measure policies. Isn’t it important for Canadians to know how each candidate views his/her sole purpose and main task as a politician? Just as important, don’t we want to know if those beliefs are in synch with out own? …. Wolf
Wolf,
Fair questions, though after you watch the debate I’m sure you’ll agree that little discussion was made of these issues during the debate. Hopefully, some of these issues will be addressed in the final two debates.
After skipping the opening announcements and birthday wishes I watched the video. You’re right Jon there was no discussion of what each candidate believes his/her sole purpose and main task as a politician, as a leader or the LPC or as the PM of Canada ‘will’ be. Disappointing but not surprised.
I’ve read the additional posts made here and must say I’m disappointed at some of the criteria expressed here about what makes a good leader. I read words like ‘charisma’, ‘looks’, ‘strong’, ‘connects’, fidgity’, etc.. Those descriptors have nothing to do with leadership. Thy have everything to do with reality television shows, like “who can dance”?
I cast my very first vote for Justin’s father in 1968… that was my first ever opportunity to vote. I’ve voted every single time since then. But, I can’[ see me voting for Justin and some of the other candidate this time. Why?
I have followed all of the candidates from the time they declared their intention to run. I have asked each of them the same question… what do believe is your sole purpose as a leader and what principles do you intend to follow as a leader. I have only ever heard from one of the candidates – Joyce Murray. While I respect Ms. Murray I’m not convinced that she ‘really’ believes in purpose and principles. In fact, she invited me to volunteer time for her campaign. I said I would. She said she would have someone from her team contact me. To date, I’ve not heard from her office.
Good leaders make sure that their actions speak louder than their words. I’m still undecided where to cast my vote. I’ve not seen ‘action’… just a lot of words that mean nothing.
I too have written three of the leadership candidates….with no reply. Now Im not naive enough to think that they are going to have time to answer me personally,as I am sure they are inundated with inquiries, ideas, etc, but I did think that the candidate’s minions would be able to respond, or at least give an acknowledgement
This is not something that is related only to the current crop of candidates…Interim Leader Bob Rae(who I respect a great deal) isnt particularly good at responding, and frmr leader Michael Ignatieff?….well lets just say I learned not to waste my time..When I email the Conservative Gov’t, even when I am being very critical, I get a reply about 50% of the time. Sometimes a reply, sometimes simply an acknowledgement.
Whoever becomes leader, I hope he or she will be able to do a better job of acknowledging correspondence before the email hits the round file. If the leadership of the Liberal Party really cares about changing the way it conducts itself….one of the best ways to start is to simply give the courtesy of acknowledging correspondence.
It’s good to hear that I’m not alone Patrick. Like you, I’d be happy just getting an acknowledgement. I’m used to getting a reply from our Conservative MP (not my favorite person)from his staff telling me that she’s printed my email (always a bee in my bonnet) in his “to read” file.
I still maintain that most politicians do not understand that their sole PURPOSE and main task as politicians, is to serve “ALL” Canadians and to fight injustice.
I also maintain that Parties are good at telling us what their PRINCIPLES are but come up short on following them. I’m much less interested in hearing them speak. And pleased when they stick of serving “ALL” Canadians and not just special interest group. …. Wolf
Well said Mr. Braun….I would like to add that I shouldnt tar all Liberals with this brush…..MP Dr.Kirsty Duncan has always been extremely conscientious and gracious with her responses to correspondence….a lesson that all Liberal bigwigs, and party brass should follow….Dr. Duncan doesnt just talk the talk, she walks the walk. I was hopeful that Dr. Duncan wouldve thrown her hat in the leadership ring, because that is the kind of leader we need to encourage supporters and members who will be there for the long term….not just to pick our next leader….
Jonathan, Wow, you described your observation of each candidate very objectively and vividly.
This is for a choice of liberal party leader. So there is no big distinction between candidates in terms of policy because they are all liberals. ( Of course, a bit of difference in some parts.)
Making policy and executing policy is time-consuming and undelayed process. So I think at this point, presenting and checking the detailed policy is not much meaningful. Candidates’ charisma, leadership, clear direction and power of execution should be more checked.
Many young volunteers works for Justin Trudeau at his campaign office as long as I know. — It doesn’t mean Justin Trudeau is not supported by middle aged or elder groups. — I can see the distinguished value of Justin Trudeau. He has a capacity to embrace the past, the present and the future.
I was also in the debate today. Marc Garneau and Martha Findlay seemed to target at Justin Trudeau, even if they are all competitive candidates. I don’t think Justin Trudeau’s age and background can be an issue. Justin Trudeau is old enough to be a leader and wasn’t born to his family by his choice. —We are all unnecessarily too sensitive to the terminology “class.” What Justin Trudeau meant about the middle class didn’t mean the division of Canadians at all. He meant he wanted Canadians make better income. He pointed the polarization of wealth of Canada.
Justin Trudeau has pure energy than polished composure. I’ve already decided Justin Trudeau as my first choice after studying him and other candidates. Sorry for my favoritism and no mentioning about other candidates. —They are all good.
When I earlier wrote that a strength Justin Trudeau brings is family experience, this referred to the fact that he was not only a husband to a strong independent woman but also an involved father of two children. This experience, with or without money, builds character and understanding for families and their issues. Our young people are our FUTURE and it is very important to encourage them to become involved in decision making in Canada. With all due respect to Pierre Trudeau, Justin is very much a middle of the road Liberal, moreso than his father. Being a good teacher, requires dedication, kindness, imagination, hardwork and the ability to lead, five characteristics I see in Justin, a teacher before entering the political arena.
We don’t need a professional politician to lead. We need someone who cares. Policy development should come from the Leader, Cabinet, MPs, and the Liberal Party in cooperation.
The effective leader is not condescending but seeks advice while holding a vision of where he can lead our country. While certain candidates feel they have all the answers (policies) ready to go, I personally do not believe that is a sign of a potentially effective leader. PM Harper leads pyramid style with control at the top particularly when it comes to policies. This is simply not my view of how democracy should work and definitely not the way to serve the majority of Canadians fairly.
I see you agree that Justin is NOT a professional , yes we need the youth but the leading of the party is not in the end the strongest point, the strong point is how he handles himself in the house and, with other world leaders. We can get Justin to bring in the youth but he will have to have the experience to lead the Country, we have our future youth yes, but you are really forgetting the Baby Boomers, a HUGE vote that will turn put. I hope that you don’t think it is the youth voting it isn’t it is the Baby Boomers, don’t cut off your nose to spite your face MARC GARNEAU is able to lead both, he can bring in the youth because he is a hero because of the Space Program, the seniors will follow him because he is a MATURE LEADER he has every thing a leader requires.
I agree we need the youth we will get them, as to Justin, he is a leftists no matter how you try to hide it, he is not middle of the road, yes he is a teachers he also taught drama, does that make him a star? He still comes over as too young. Just a boy, it is not his fault, it is wonderful in later years. The Country DOES NOT want us to look to the rest of the world that all we could get was an immature youth. We MUST have a STRONG LOOKING, STRONG SPEAKING, STRONG KNOWLEDGE. AS A LEADER. This is MARC GARNEAU
If we are going to bring ageism into the conversation (i.e. JT is too young and inexperienced) then I think we have to look a the other side … is Marc Garneau too old? He is about to turn 64. Now I am not saying that is too old but let’s look down the road … he will be 66 when the next election happens. Assuming that the Liberals are not going to win that one, then we may be looking at 3-5 years before the Liberals can realistically take a shot at regaining control of parliament, and then 3-5 years in power. How do we feel about a 75 year-old PM?
Now the flip side of that equation is that Justin is 41. He could theoretically lead the Liberals through 3 or even 4 elections and still have lots left in the tank.
I like Mr Garneau a lot – but honestly I think his best before date is too close.
I am looking for a leader that the party can stick with for a few years and one that can stick with us. We’ve been through too many too fast. We need consistency. Justin may not be “perfect” now but he is learning and seems eager to improve himself. I have to go with the exuberance of youth over the wisdom of age.
Selecting on age should be restricted to consumables that have best-before dates. :-)
Using age when selecting a leader might be useful if the job is physically demanding. But even some 85 year old people are fitter than some in their 30′s.
Leaders should be judged on their principles and their track record of leading. What have they actually done? I’m not terribly interested in how well someone can talk. I am keen on what they have designed and successfully implemented and measured.
What has Mr Garneau “designed and successfully implemented and measured” ?
But basically, I agree Wolf, this should not be about age. However, many on his site and elsewhere have questioned Mr Trudeau’s age as being too young. If we can question someone as being too young, I just feel we may want to look at what is too old. Will Canadians vote for 70 year-old Prime Minister?
The oldest we’ve ever had in Canada was 74 (Tupper) although he never actually sat in Parliament as Prime Minister and was was not leader of the party when it won the house (he was elected in by-election after) so Canadians didn’t “know” he was going to be PM. Then we have Bowell (70) he also wasn’t voted in but was appointed from the Senate when his predecessor died in office. Abbot (70) also appointed and not elected. The oldest PM who was actually elected was St. Laurent (66). In the last half century we have only elected two PMs over the age of 60 (albeit two darn good ones) Diefenbaker and Martin.
Something to think about?
I have not had a chance to discuss this with Mr Garneau and have not heard anyone else bring it up. Does he have plans to retire? How many years is he willing to commit to? I think these are reasonable questions to ask.
Current research has not examined the effects of age and leaders’ ability to be wise on transformational leadership. The perception that age is a factor lies with “followers”.
We should be evaluating leadership on the basis of:
– Beliefs
– Values
– Ethics
– Character
– Trustworthy
– Ability to communicate vision
– Purpose & Principles
Hazel McCallion is one of many leaders who have governed successfully. She was born in 1921, which makes her 82.
There was an octogenarian Mayor in Ottawa whose name escapes me.
You said ‘Assuming that the Liberals are not going to win that one” Wow! What a huge assumption to make! With that kind of perspective your account is perhaps realistic but what a leap! I personally think that if the Liberal party elects someone with age and credibility then the chances to put the conservatives in opposition is very real. Joyce Murray has a realistic plan to do just that and also has the credibility. Another four years of Harper and we’ll just erode any opportunity to bring Canada back to the centre. With any future electoral reform designed to strengthen the PC’s re-elction bid our chances get slimmer and slimmer as we continue to elect leaders without substance and credibility. Groom Trudeau for the next decade and get the proven performers in there now.
I’m not sure it is such a leap … as it is practical planning and realism. But who knows …
Why not groom Trudeau in place? Give him the opportunity to learn on the job? Build his credibility and experience as leader? Makes more sense to me as opposed to going with another “temporary” leader.
As far as our best hope of making headway (maybe even winning?) in the next election – according to the polls, Trudeau IS our best hope:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/02/12/justin-trudeau-poll-liberals_n_2669508.html
18, 2013 at 2:00 pm
I’m not sure it is such a leap … as it is practical planning and realism. But who knows …
You said” Why not groom Trudeau in place? Give him the opportunity to learn on the job? Build his credibility and experience as leader? Makes more sense to me as opposed to going with another “temporary” leader.
As far as our best hope of making headway (maybe even winning?) in the next election – according to the polls, Trudeau IS our best hope:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/02/12/justin-trudeau-poll-liberals_n_2669508.html
Really Martin! Is that the basis we elect a new leader: ‘Why not have him learn on the job?’ or ‘according to the polls’ See my article http://cornwallfreenews.com/2013/02/lte-brian-lessard-of-cornwall-ontario-on-joyce-murray-most-media-missin-the-boat/ for an explanation of why we’re about to elect Justin which will lead us down an all too familiar road. I would like to see Justin as P.M. someday but I’m not about to have him as CEO of the largest organization in the country with such little experience while there is another candidate with the ability to gain the public’s favor based on merit and a solid understanding of the realities the country faces today.