I came upon this by accident and thought this was a good place to archive.
Stockwell Day
From The Magazine
June 27, 2000
http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/ua/day.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stockwell Day is a man on the verge. On the verge of becoming a player in federal politics. As the strong frontrunner, he is poised to become leader of the Canadian Alliance, the official opposition, and he's already got his eyes on the Prime Minister's office. And that raises the question, what would Stockwell Day's Canada look like? Well to answer that, Stockwell Day joins me now in our studio.
STOCKWELL DAY (Canadian Alliance Leadership Candidate): Hi Wendy. Good to be here.
MESLEY: You have been spending the last couple of days, really since the vote in Ontario, wooing, I guess supporters and money. How is it going?
DAY: It's going very well. Actually the number of times we were in Ontario while the campaign, the first phase of the campaign was on we felt the support was very strong. We were very gratified by how we were received here in cities and in rural areas. And since we've been here the last couple of days the support has been very, very gratifying.
MESLEY: Are you picking up Tom Long's support?
DAY: Very definitely. We had a meeting in Brampton last night. I was just meeting with our organizers and workers and volunteers, about 75 of them. We thought there'd be about 75, there's about 125 people by the time we got there, the others being Tom Long workers who were coming over to also offer to work on this next phase of the campaign so that's been very encouraging.
MESLEY: What about the man himself?
DAY: Well I've been talking a couple of times with Tom since we were on the stage Saturday night and certainly he's in a time where he's thinking things over. Tom did a great job in terms of...
MESLEY: He's not saying go away?
DAY: No. Tom is a very welcoming Ontarion and a Canadian and full of hospitality and he would never tell anyone to go away.
MESLEY: So do you think he'll be on side before the vote?
DAY: Oh I can't speak for Tom on that. Certainly he has committed to being continuing on with the Canadian Alliance and the Canadian Alliance certainly needs him. Canada needs him. I think Tom has a lot to offer. A lot of value to bring to the table. And certainly I hope that, I look forward to him staying on in a very significant way but that, how that would be is up to him.
MESLEY: The Alliance has obviously got a lot more members in Ontario than Reform ever did. This is Preston Manning's dream come true, only not quite as he planned.
DAY: Well it's part of the dream. The big part of the dream is that the breakthrough has been made. So appreciative of the work that our campaign workers did and our volunteers here in Ontario, we actually won Ontario which is very exciting which shows to me that the message is clearly a Canada message. This is not just a case of certain regions wanting certain things. The things that we're talking about in the Canadian Alliance are really on the hearts of Canadians and is being embraced not just in Ontario but right across the country.
MESLEY: Since the vote, the last couple of days Preston Manning has said a number of things that he wouldn't have said before placing second behind you. He's suggested that you're a political lightweight. He's suggested that you could polarize the party. Should he stop saying those things?
DAY: I see Preston as a real man of integrity and things that he's been quoted as saying I'm not taking those things to heart. I think as much as I know Preston he wants the best for the Canadian Alliance as do I and as do...
MESLEY: Is that the best though to be saying things like that?
DAY: Well each person has to, you know, be accountable for their own statements. I'm just, I appreciate the fact that has taken things, brought things along as far as they have come and worked with some good people do do that. And my campaign has been a campaign saying that we need to go to the next step.
MESLEY: But it has been getting nasty though, some of the suggestions, not just by him but by his advisors that, the harm that you could do to the party and that you couldn't win an election and so on. I just wonder, does that help or hurt your party? Or do you, would it be better for your party for him to bow out and stop saying those things?
DAY: Well in terms of what people are saying, I mean it would be better if it was one giant love in and everybody was hugging and holding hands. The reality is in a political race sometimes supporters on various sides get caught up in the enthusiasm and also the agony of the various moments. And actually this race I think, I've seen a number of political races. The level of animosity in this race is actually very low. As you know, even during the TV debates people were asking for a lot more action. They wanted to see the candidates mixing it up and maybe getting more personal with each other. I think it bodes well that we've kept the animosity down and the personal attacks...
MESLEY: Well the last two days, the last two days sure haven't been a love in. There's been a fair amount of animosity.
DAY: I guess the last two days, for me, have felt so good because so many supporters are coming over, let's say from Tom Long's camp...
MESLEY: Sticks and stones.
DAY: Yeah. Exactly. There's just so many, right across the country that are saying okay we still love our guy but we support you, we appreciate you so other comments that are flying around I'm not taking them to heart. We're just staying positive and the support that we have, the coalitions that I've been able to build across the country have been very significant and we're just going to keep working very hard until July 8th. We can't take anything for granted even though we do have a lead which I feel good about. We still need to make sure people go to vote instead of go to the beach on Saturday, July the 8th.
MESLEY: I know, just to get into some issues now, I know you've been very careful to stress more the fiscal issues and you like to talk about taxes and the debt load and what needs to be done about that. But I guess the most controversial issues or your stands have been more the social ones. And I notice whenever you're asked about them you try and change the subject so wish me well, you know, I'm going to try and get you to be specific about what a Stockwell Day government would do on the issue of abortion. You've said that you're not comfortable with abortion, it shouldn't be funded by government. Would you try and, would you try and stop funding, government funding for abortion?
DAY: Well we've been very clear, and I've been very clear Wendy, I've never sidestepped the issue, I don't sidestep any issue, and some people say because I am transparent on these things that maybe raises interesting thoughts in people's minds. But I have said the same thing consistently from the start of this campaign. The Canadian Alliance policy is what I embrace and the thoughts that are on the hearts of Canadians are what I embrace.
MESLEY: So what would you do on that issue?
DAY: I would see what Canadians wanted to do. It's called a citizens initiative. We have a very clear policy that says the government will not always be dictating to the people, and that's the way the federal Liberals govern.
MESLEY: So how would you know? Would you hold a referendum on abortion?
DAY: Well I, that's not something that I'm entertaining. The, ah, when we talk about a citizen's initiative, and actually their MPs have drawn up legislation on what a citizen's initiative would look like. It requires a certain percentage of the population to bring an issue forward. This is fairly common practice in areas like Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand and about half of the states in the United States. What we have in Canada is a top down Prime Minister elite driven process that forces MPs not to speak freely or vote freely.
MESLEY: So you'd like to see change. You'd like to see change but you wouldn't force that issue?
DAY: Right. It's up to the citizens to bring forward the issues. And what I'm hearing Wendy, and this is very consistent. It's been consistent with me since the start of my campaign and we hear it coast to coast. Citizens want to see MPs being able to speak freely and vote freely in the House of Commons. They can't do that right now.
MESLEY: So what, what, do you think we would see a free vote on abortion during your first term?
s DAY: I have no idea where that could go. There are so many issues around...
MESLEY: Don't you think your supporters expect one?
DAY: My supporters expect the right to have a say on whatever the issue is. Whether we're talking about people who want tax cuts in a certain way, people have brought innovative plans in terms of debt reduction. There's people who are concerned on social issues so the point that's really important here Wendy is in government and in politics I tell people listen, nobody can own an MP. Nobody will own Stockwell Day. But I am here to serve.
MESLEY: What about capital punishment? You've said that your views match the majority's in the sense that there should be, it should be allowed in some cases. So if you know that already would you move on that?
DAY: No. I don't have a plan or an initiative to do that. But again, if citizens want to have an initiative, I think this is what is so bothering to, again, to the Liberals and to some people in the sort of, in the academic levels. The fact that citizens themselves could actually have a say in something, whatever it is, is a bit startling to people who are used to a very paternalistic kind of government that wants to force things from the top down.
MESLEY: Well they get to vote. I mean this is a theme that I read about often from you about how Conservatives have been marginalized. But they get to vote. If they're so conservative on these issues...
DAY: Well there's certainly...
MESLEY: ...why don't they vote for, why haven't they voted in a Reform government?
DAY: Well you don't have a government right now that allows even their Members of Parliament, Wendy, to vote freely. The last person who...
MESLEY: Yeah, but there'll be another vote in six months or a year. There was a vote four years ago.
DAY: But look at, just look at the issue of taxes. Canadians desperately want tax reduction. The last time a government MP spoke out for tax reductions, John Nunziata, and he got booted out of the government. That is so astonishing.
MESLEY: Well I understand your views on how Canadians should get to speak out and MPs should get to speak out. But I'm trying to get a sense of what your government would do in terms of law. What sort of changes would there be immediately on the moral or the social front?
DAY: I don't have those changes. What I have very clearly said on about day two, here's the process that would start. The process that would bring in significant tax reductions so that hard working families are not spinning their tires at the end of every month. They've got the dollars to put aside for their kids education or for their holidays or whatever it might be. You'd see a significant program launched to pay off the horrendous federal debt that's hanging over our heads that's discouraging investment right now. You'd see a very clear signal to Members of Parliament that there's no more party iron fisted rule, MPs voting freely. You'd see college students being able to make a decision to pursue their hopes and dreams here in Canada rather than being lured away to other countries just on the tax side. You'd see senior citizens and you'd see kids having a sense that the streets are safer because we're dealing with criminal justice issues in a way that puts the focus on the rights of law abiding citizens and victims and takes it away so much on the rights of criminals. Those are the types of things that Canadians want to see.
MESLEY: You've been talking about a flat tax and then federal officials have figured out if that were applied that it would mean $20 billion less in federal coffers. There would be less, so there'd be less tax. You would want to spend more money, you said, on health and on beefing up the armed services.
DAY: Right.
MESLEY: Cracking down on crime. So what gets sliced?
DAY: Well the beautiful thing is everything we are talking about doing can be done within the fiscal capacity that has been identified by the federal Liberal government. They just want to spend on a whole lot of other things.
MESLEY: Now where, there's an extra $20 billion if you accept their figures. Where would that come from?
DAY: Yes. Everything that we're talking about in terms of the tax reduction on the personal side, also a $3000 per child tax deduction for every family and then they can take care of childcare the way they want to see it happen, significant debt reduction. We begin the reduction of business taxes and also capital gains tax. Everything within that, within those parameters is $15.2 billion dollars in the first year. That's within the capacity that we have right now. So when Paul Martin or Jean Chretien says a flat tax won't work. A single rated tax won't work. I've already put it in place in Alberta. Alberta is drawing citizens from all over Canada because of the tax advantage. The Liberals said a debt paydown plan, legislating won't work. I've done it in Alberta for three years. Alberta is now the only province with a net debt of zero. When you start to pay down your debt you start to have investment, you start to have jobs and opportunities. So everything the Liberals say won't work, it does work, I've already done it. The thing is in their dream world, which actually turns into a bit of a nightmare world for taxpayers, they don't want to bring it into place. And I, didn't you think it was interesting here, I think it was Paul Martin saying listen if we lower taxes we're not going to have the resources to take our social programs, our penitentiaries will have to empty out and let all the criminals out in the street. And I've been saying, somewhat cynically, well that's what they're doing now with serious repeat offenders. They're letting them out in the street now.
MESLEY: We've only got a couple of minutes left and I just wanted to...
DAY: I just wanted to say this Wendy.
MESLEY: Okay.
DAY: When you do lower taxes, this is very clear because Mike Harris has done it in Ontario, we've done it in Alberta. Any time you lower taxes you always invigorate the economy. You then actually, the government then has more revenues to address the areas that need to be dealt with like healthcare and education, putting more money to the armed forces, helping our police systems across the country. You actually have more money but people paying less tax because more people are working, more jobs being created.
MESLEY: Just one more question, or one more issue on the social front. You've said that homosexuality is not condoned by God and that being gay is a choice. You've opposed protecting gays in the Alberta Human Rights Act. What would you like to see done on the federal front?
DAY: First of all let me make it really clear. I don't know where you got those particular statements. We have seen the, some pretty interesting stuff that's attributed...
MESLEY: So those aren't true?
DAY: ...that's been attributed to me. We live in a very free society and individuals have the liberty to make the choice of relationships that they need to make and that they want to make that should be very clear.
MESLEY: So do you think God does condone homosexuals?
DAY: As a public policy person, I don't get into those discussions. As soon as you...
MESLEY: But what, but you've been quoted as saying that. Are you denying that that's where you stand?
DAY: No. I have never said, that is not a public policy statement at all.
MESLEY: No, but have you said that?
DAY: I can't recall ever saying that in any kind of public policy...
MESLEY: Or that being gay is a choice?
DAY: We have a choice in terms of relationships and the government should not get into, as Pierre Trudeau said, should not get into the bedrooms of the nation. I believe that very clearly. And I also believe the Liberal, and support the Liberal position which is that families should be defined heterosexually. I find it interesting Wendy, have you ever had Jean Chretien in here or a Liberal and said to him why do you have this definition in your law that says families should be defined heterosexually? Have you ever asked a Liberal that?
MESLEY: Yeah, but there is a big difference. That's a similarity. There is a big difference though because Liberals, or at least this Liberal government does try to protect the human rights of homosexuals and you had a problem with the way that it was drafted in the Alberta legislature.
DAY: No, no. There was a ruling made that was going to affect a religious institution, saying that religious institution would not be able to have their instructors follow a certain way of life. That particular religious institution said sex within marriage is what we teach within the institution.
MESLEY: Well do you believe that the rights of homosexual couples should be protected and they should have the same rights as other couples?
DAY: Oh, and they do.
MESLEY: And you believe that they should?
DAY: Absolutely. People have the freedom of choice to form relationships as they wish.
MESLEY: The signal, whether you think this is fair or not, the signal has been sent out to gay people that you are not tolerant of their lifestyles. Now just what do you say to gay people or to people who have...
DAY: To my many, to my, to gay friends and gay people that I have worked with down through the years, they know that I am a person of equality. A person who treats all people equally. And I think, frankly, the media should stop sending the signal out that has no basis in fact. And the people that I have worked with for years understand that. But when I say, I'll go back to this Wendy, when I say that I agree withe Liberal position that families should be defined in law heterosexually, why do you never quiz a Liberal on that? And that's their position. I say, yeah, I agree with that. And in the full range of human rights to all people, I absolutely support that. And I'm on record supporting that. But when a religious institution is told they have to accept anybody on their teaching staff, even if that person doesn't follow their way of, their way of instruction, that would be like, this has bearings, possible bearings on the Catholic church which happens to say if you want to be a Priest you can't be in a marital relationship. So I'm disqualified from being a Catholic Priest. And I think a Catholic Church should have the right to say if you're going to be a Priest you can't be married. I think they should have that right. And that was, this is a very clear point Wendy. That was the issue in Alberta, not an issue of denying human rights to people because of who they choose for partners. I have never gone there and never will.
MESLEY: A familiar scene with you is about how elites, or the chattering classes, maybe we're part of that, are always misrepresenting Canadians. Why, why do you choose, why have you chosen that as a tool or as a message.
DAY: I don't think there is always misrepresentation. I think if you look at the book that somebody just wrote about me - Stockwell Day I think it's called. Stockwell Day: His life and politics. I don't get any money for the books, I have nothing to do with it. But there is some very good insights into the mind of the media. And I think generally, over this 90 days, the media has been fairly straight forward. I think they get hung up, for reasons I don't understand on, they get obsessed with sexual issues. It's particularly tantalizing for them, I don't know why.
MESLEY: Well so does your own party. Tom Long and the head of Preston Manning's campaign. They are the ones who have sort of fed us the controversy on this.
DAY: Well, do you have to gobble up everything you get fed? Is on of the questions you might want to ask yourself.
MESLEY: They are pretty important people within your own party. And they're critical of where you stand and speak of the divisions that you could create. I guess, you know, that's why the media leaps on to those issues.
DAY: I think what's important is the people are not critical of it. The support that we have across the board from individuals of all walks of life.
MESLEY: Well you must think that they are critical, though.
DAY: And all different choices.
MESLEY: Because otherwise you would be more forthcoming, or you wouldn't be so hesitant to speak about those issues.
DAY: But when you ask me the questions, I am very forthcoming. I am not hesitant at all. I think the media, some of the media, not all, some have matured beyond this. But some are really hung up on these sexual issues.
MESLEY: The sexual deviants.
DAY: Well I don't think, you know, those are your words. And I certainly would never use them. But I can tell you that when I say I have an agenda of respect, I respect people. And when I say that I want to see freedom in this country, and I want to see taxpayers experiencing freedom. I want to see Members of Parliament. You know, I think, I think it's very strange that the media, who generally report things fairly straightly, I don't complain about the media. But the things they don't report. Why do we not see media reports on the fact that we don't really have true democracy in the House of Commons? That MPs are threatened, or deprived of future positions if they speak out on behalf of their constituents instead of supporting the government. That to me is a real violation of freedom. And yet, we rarely, we don't hear an ongoing pressure on that issue. Those are the types of things that people are concerned about. The tax issues. The freedom issues. The criminal justice issues. The fact that our armed forces now are not regarded, and don't have the same pride that they did in the 20th century because of how over the last seven years the Liberal government has zapped the resources from them. These are big issues on the minds of Canadians. And the issues that some of the ones that you raised today, rarely come up in town hall meetings. I have had more town hall meetings than any other candidate on this campaign. These issues rarely come up. But I do say, if you have an issue you want to bring forward you will have your say. In government you will not always have your way because things are decided democratically, but people will always have their say.
MESLEY: I just want to get a sense of whether, you won't tell me, but I'll ask anyway.
DAY: I am transparent, I'll tell you anything.
MESLEY: Can you beat Jean Chretien?
DAY: I wouldn't be in this race if I didn't think I could. He talks about me a lot. When he is in Berlin he talks about me. When he is Portugal he talks about me. And he says he is not afraid of me. I don't think he should be.
MESLEY: What can you do that Preston Manning couldn't?
DAY: Well I have already broken through in Ontario. I already have a very good organization in Quebec. The fact that I have lived in Quebec, I can speak French, I can listen in French which is probably even more important.
MESLEY: Is being younger a card?
DAY: It seems to help. I mean, we have a very significant youth movement on our campaign, and that's from coast to coast. A number of college students and high school students. That's the future, that's where the energy is coming from. That's where the new ideas are coming from. So it helps. I am just going to be natural and be myself. I am not going to suggest that because somebody is older...
MESLEY: Heaven forbid. That got you into trouble at the Convention. The suggestion that he be senior statesman. I saw a few backs go up at that.
DAY: Well what I had said was whether I win this race, or whether Preston wins, both of us have committed to stay on. And I said I am very encouraged by that because if I am honoured to win, is exactly what I said, then I am very pleased, and actually encouraged to know that Preston, who has said he would stay, would be there in a very senior role. We need him to do that. The respect that he has, the capability he has is very important. But we are focused on July 8th, and I am not assuming that I will win. I am working hard to win. We have got a good lead. We don't take any vote for granted. But if I don't, then I'll be there for him.
MESLEY: Stockwell Day, thank you very much.
DAY: Nice talking to you.
MESLEY: We've invited Preston Manning to appear on the program before the second round vote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A sampling of viewer mail.
I watched the National last night (June 27) and not being a regular viewer was taken back by the poor attempts made by Wendy Mesley to turn what I thought was a professional show into a tabloid review.
I was not familiar with Stockwell Day nor the least bit interested and was about to turn the program off when I noticed the interaction between the anchor and guest and wondered if it was her style or a particular agenda she was given to get dig up the personal gay and abortion views of Stockwell Day.
It was clearly apparent that he was well spoken and tried repeatedly to answer questions in a professional and tactful way and whenever Wendy did not like what she was hearing she rudely cut him off with a new question trying her unprofessional best to slight him. She appeared quite immature and unprofessional often laughing after asking pointed questions or looking down rather than facing her guest.
I knew nothing of Stockwell Day or his platform, but gained tremendous respect for him from this show and rather agreed that the media does not focus on what's important but what's scandalous.
I hope that you review last night's performance again and feel that an apology is in order to your guest and your viewers. ~ I would also be interested in knowing your view on last night's show.
Tina Forth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was interested in Wendy Mesley's interview last night. She is charming and always pleasant to watch but Stockwell Day scares me.
When he blandly talks about giving power and "respect"(his favourite word!) to citizens, someone should ask him about his role in Klein's government (after all he boasts of his tax achievements there) and Long's role in Harris'. Neither of them seem to listen to "citizens!"
In Alberta, the expressed wishes not to have private hospitals of a large percentage of the population were ignored.
In Ontario, the Toronto Megacity was pushed through in spite of a referendum indicating massive opposition.
At present an education bill is being rammed through without proper consultation. Even the Toronto School Board (the largest in the Province) was not heard!
Instead of grass roots power, power is more and more concentrated in the provincial government and in the process local autonomy as in education has been destroyed.
When he blandly talks about what "Canadians want" who is he referring to? The people who attend Alliance town hall meetings? Probably, but of course those are the only "citizens" who matter!
Lisa Hill
Toronto
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not a Stockwell Day supporter, but the questioning from Wendy Mesley was hard to watch. With a silly smile on her face and her constant unprofessional jabs, I couldn't help but feel sorry for Stockwell. I was impressed with the way he kept his cool and his answered each question. In the future, please have someone who can be objective and professional doing your interviews.
L. Fode
Medicine Hat AB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great interview. Wendy didn't let go and let us see Day in his new clothes.
Denis Wall
Ottawa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy's interview with Stockwell Day was interesting, however what is this great interest in the rights of Gays and Lesbians? We are all people, by law and God, so give the poor, the sick, the homeless and the old people on who's back this country was made a break. Stick to important issues such as mentioned. As well known Gays have comfortable incomes and all they fight is for recognition, whereby the other groups fight for their livelihood and survival. ( Sorry also abused people, such as battered women, natives and more )So please address these issues with more vigour. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Fred Reindl
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being an English teacher, I love debating and I wholeheartedly support challenging interviews. However, Wendy Mesley's heavy-handed interview of Stockwell Day, in which she constantly cut off his responses, was a discredit to your normally objective station. It was quite clear that she wanted him to make inflammatory comments about homosexuals and abortion, and when he didn't, she was quick to put words in his mouth.
It was sad to see a giggling Mesley talk about homosexuals as "sexual deviants," while she was condemning Day for allegedly making anti-homosexual comments. Asking tough questions is one thing, but poisoning an interview with one's own political biases and inflammatory rhetoric is an insult to public debate. I hope the next time Stockwell Day appears on your station that he, rather than Wendy Mesley, will be allowed to answer questions for himself. Only then will Canadians be able to truly judge his personality and political views.
Jeff Morrison
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I sat and watched the Magazine interview with Wendy Mesley and Stockwell Day I must say it was the most bias and unprofessional interview I have ever seen. I was appalled at the way Mesley conducted herself. Rather than let Mr. Day finish what he was saying she kept on interrupting him and kept on badgering him on his social views after he had already answered her questions. It seems that Mesley was the only person obsessed about making an issue about homosexuals and sexual preference and at every turn was clearly trying to undermine Mr. Day's record by wrongfully misstating the facts!
Anyone who watched that interview knew full well that Mesley had her own agenda and at every turn tried to make Mr. Day slip up. This interview was very one sided and Mesley conducted herself very poorly. Thus this is not the kind of journalism that people have come to expect from the CBC. I must commend Mr. Day for speaking his mind in such an honest manner when confronted with such absurdity. Why is it when someone is doing well in politics the media takes it upon themselves to tear that person down?
Alex Hardy
Markham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday night's interview with Stockwell Day was a disgrace to the democratic process and blatantly displayed where the CBC's true political loyalties lay.
I would like to validate myself and the viewpoints I am about to present:
I supported Tom Long on the first ballot
I am socially liberal
I now support Stockwell Day
Wendy Mesley's interview with Stockwell was an absolute horror to behold. I think it was fairly clear whom Wendy will vote for in the next federal election. Stockwell repeatedly clarified his position on social issues but, to no avail, the merciless "interview" continued; it was quite clear that the host of the magazine was blatantly trying to bait him.
I, myself, am socially liberal and I do not agree with Stockwell's personal beliefs, however, it is very clear that Stockwell cannot force his views upon the Canadian electorate. I take solace in the fact that Stockwell Day has been saying, publicly, that these issues are not going to be presented to the electorate. The electorate must present these issues to him.
In fact, had your biased hostess done any research into the Alliance then it would have been very clear to her - very clear - that Stockwell must support the policies put forth in the party's policy document. These are the policies that he must carry out; these are the issues first and foremost upon his agenda. Why? Because his leadership is subject to review at the next leadership convention (see CA's constitution) and his position is controlled by the members. His views are personal, the policies are public.
Stockwell has publicly stated that, in fact, he will run the next federal election upon fiscally conservative themes, not, as The Magazine would like us to belief, a social conservative agenda hell-bent on denying homosexuals their rights and outlawing abortion. In fact, the only way that abortion, capitol punishment, or homosexual rights will ever be brought up on a federal level will be with the presentation of a citizen's initiative whereby a certain portion of the population gives notice that something should be done about a certain issue. In each of the preceding cases, ALL the candidates for the leadership have said that a national referendum would be held to decide the issue. Even socially liberal Keith Martin. Do your research.
Frankly, the CBC, being publicly funded, should present an unbiased view on all political issues. Instead of presenting a biased, left wing agenda to the Canadian Public, perhaps your hosts and your programs should present a well-balanced view of all the issues at hand. Two hundred thousand of the people who pay your salaries have memberships in the CA, approximately 40, 000 of the people who help to pay Wendy's salary voted for Stockwell Day. Leslie's personal attack on Stockwell Day, using misquotations, misrepresentations and utilizing very very little research has done nothing but smear a credible, viable candidate who wants a better candidate.
Wendy, in fact, did not let Stockwell finish one - one - sentence on the issues at the forefront of this race: tax cuts, senate reform and health care. In fact, she did not even let him finish his responses to the two most important questions of the night: What do you have that Preston doesn't, and Can you win the next federal election. The premise of this interview was obviously not an interview with a candidate, it was a blatant attempt to focus Canadian attention on the issues that aren't important at this juncture.
I find it hilarious that Wendy is foisting a Liberal agenda (those who support funding for this broadcaster) upon the viewers of The Magazine. If the Canadian Alliance came into power and stopped funding the CBC Wendy might have to host a show that made a profit by drawing viewers. Ooops, there goes Undercurrents!!! Wouldn't that be a pity?
Wendy's personal agenda of diminishing and publicly harassing the forerunner in this leadership race was unfounded. I would like to see a public apology and a personal reply from Leslie to this email defending her stance.
Justin Lambert
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was very disappointed in Wendy's interview of Mr. Day. Most of here questions were about homosexuals. When Mr. Day returned the subject to important maters of the economy, taxes, how Parliament would operate, Ms Mesley would ask another question about sex. Who cares!
Dave Sawrey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was distressed watching Wendy Mesley's interview tonight with Stockwell Day - in particular the way in which he was able to talk circles around her because she did not seem to be properly prepared.
For example, when she questioned him about the Alberta Government's record on human rights, and referred to the Supreme Court decision on Delwin Vriend, he was able to reframe the question in such a way that it appeared to be an issue of religious freedom. In fact, Delwin Vriend tried to appeal his firing from a Christian college to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, but the Commission refused to hear the case because sexual orientation was not included in the human rights legislation. The issue was not the firing itself, but Vriend's right to appeal the firing to the Human Rights Commission. Stockwell Day's government then fought the inclusion of sexual orientation right up to the Supreme Court. In other words, he and the rest of his government buddies used taxpayer money to try and deny us our equal rights as human beings. This is not a religious issue. The Supreme Court remedy was to request that sexual orientation be read into the Alberta Human Rights legislation. The Alberta government's response was to immediately begin to talk about erecting "fences" and using the notwithstanding clause to exclude gay and lesbian people from having the same rights as others.
Secondly, the flat tax that he bragged about has in fact not yet taken effect, so cannot be the reason so many people "have flocked to Alberta". Calculations have also shown that when the tax is introduced, the middle class will be paying much higher taxes than before; only the rich will profit. Is this the Alberta advantage?
Your interviewer seemed to accept the spin Day placed on both of these very important issues.
I'm also surprised that the interviewer did not question him about the health privatization issue, notably the forced passage of Bill 11 [using closure] despite the wishes of the great majority of Albertans - or, for that matter, his government's challenge of the Gun Control legislation, legislation which does enjoy the support of the majority of Albertans. Yet he claims that the Canadian Alliance under his stewardship would respect the will of the majority. Could he not have been challenged on his view of "democracy?"
Day is part of a government that has consistently fought a war against the sick, the poor, the disadvantaged, and those that are different. It frightens me that he was so easily able to portray himself as a moderate when in fact his record is that of an extreme rightist.
Thank you.
Jacqueline Dumas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As is usual in her interviews, Wendy Mesley spent more time trying to dig up "mud" and make the interview of Mr. Day as sensational as possible. We watched with the hope of getting more knowledge of this man's position regarding many issues. Wendy interrupts, cuts off; and positively badgers the people she interviews. We realize the "show must go on", but Wendy is way overboard. Bad job!
Ed & Lois Gaglardi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am writing to complain of the interviewing style employed by Wendy Mesley on the Magazine last night in the Stockwell Day interview.
I am not a member of any political party but I do vote.
I would appreciate hearing more of what Mr. Day had to say without Wendy's constant and premature interruption. With the exception of one occasion, Mr. Day was interrupted mid-sentence leaving the question unanswered. It was obvious that Mr. Day himself felt that he was being prematurely cut off because late in the interview he told Wendy to wait so he could briefly finish his point.
I feel that Brian Stewart is much more tactful in his interviewing techniques, he keeps the interview on track, which is paramount, but yet he allows the person to express themselves even when they have a differing opinion.
It must be remembered that what Mr. Day has to say is far more important than what the interviewer has to say. After all, who is it that will possibly lead this country??
Do your viewers a favour, discontinue the services of Wendy Mesley. Employ someone with class and skill, rather than one with a belligerent attitude and an obvious personal agenda.
Thank you,
Philip Lee
Kars, Ontario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am writing to congratulate Wendy Mesley for her interview with Stockwell Day. Ms Mesley's insistence that Mr Day be held accountable for his frightening social views is long over due. To often journalists allow him to hide behind the rhetoric of tax cuts and crime prevention which in turn only mask his true agenda.
It is important that the Canadian public not forget his extreme knee-jerk reaction to the Vriend decision and his refusal to distance himself from those in his camp who consistently fear-monger about the so-called homosexual agenda. I am consistently frustrated when commentators fail to call him on his tryanny-of-the-majority view of human rights. Through out the interview he was clearly uncomfortable and desperately trying to steer away from these fundamental issues.
If these extreme views existed about women (indeed, perhaps they do given his insistence on re-opening the abortion debate) or visible minorities the media would be much more vigilant and probing. I can only hope that this interview will stand as an example of what investigative journalism should be. Not a commercial for a candidate, but a difficult and tireless examination of those who call themselves political leaders in this country.
Morgan Camley
Toronto
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My wife and I regularly watch the National and the Magazine and for the most part do so because the level of reporting and coverage tends to be consistently professional. The exceptions come rarely, but last night's interview with Stockwell Day was a glaring example of unprofessional display.
Wendy Mesley truly lowered the interview to what I would expect from a National Enquirer 'reporter'. Not only did she consistently and arbitrarily cut Mr. day off mid-sentence, but never once did she display any semblance of listening to her interviewee. If she had an agenda (or a point), it was buried in her repeated meanderings. And when she was caught with thin material and misquotes, her display of nervous school-girl twitters only highlighted the fact that she was well beyond her league.
We watched the whole interview, not because of the stellar interviewing, because we had genuine interest in Mr. Day's platforms and opinions. Frankly, before yesterday, I had only mild curiosity in Mr. Day's party and his policies, but given his adept handling of a rather un-adept interviewer, I feel encouraged to learn more about him.
As for further Magazines, I can assure you that if Wendy is interviewing, we will quietly be changing the channel. I can only hope that corporately CBC will continue in its endeavour to maintain high quality news coverage. And interviews.
John Edmonds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have never before written CBC but I felt I must write and tell you how disappointed I was with Wendy Mesley's interview with Stockwell Day last night on The Magazine. Not only did she interrupt him repeatedly but she refused to let him discuss issues important to me and other Canadians. I know very little about Stockwell Day. I am a Canadian citizen but have lived out of the country for 11 years before moving back to Canada four years ago. It has taken me about four years to feel settled enough to begin to develop an interest in Canadian politics.
I wanted to hear Mr. Days's opinions on issues besides Gay rights and capital punishment. I have seen Wendy's show "Undercurrents" a couple of times. I'm sorry to say I did not enjoy it. Her "in your face" style strikes me as unprofessional and conjures up thoughts of "The Enquirer" and that genre of "journalism." Her treatment of Mr. Day was likewise unprofessional, disrespectful and disappointing. I think Mr. Day said it well when he said that some of the media has matured past the point of dwelling on secondary (in this case sexual) issues. Ms. Mesley obviously has not. I enjoy "The Magazine" most nights that I watch it. Though I don't always agree with the opinions set forth I feel it is professional and informative. I believe last night was an exception. Thank you for your consideration of my opinion.
Sincerely,
Kerri Wyman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last night (June 27) I turned on the 10:00pm CBC News (The National) and then kept watching as The Magazine was aired. What peeked my attention was the interview with Stockwell Day...a man I know little about. I generally do not watch CBC interviews or talk shows because I find the hosts almost invariably have a strong left wing bias. Questions are usually focussed on a narrow band of issues. Interviewers are often arrogant and condescending when the person being interviewed has a point of view different than their own.
Last night's Magazine was no exception. Fully one third of the interview was devoted to Mr. Day's views on Sexual orientation. Questions were phrased and rephrased in an attempt to make him look intolerant. He was accused of skirting the issue after he had clearly explained his policies and how he had been misquoted by reporters. It was obvious that your show was not interested in where he stands on issues such as health care, education, the debt, and taxes. These are the issues Canadians are concerned about. I would hazard to guess that where a candidate stands on sexual orientation would not even rank in the top ten issues concerning voters. It would seem hat the CBC would prefer tabloid type journalism, trying to manufacture controversy on select topics to further its agenda. There was further evidence of this in last night's interview when Mr. Day's sentences were often cut off by the host as he talked about his platform.
During the interview I gained a respect for Mr. Day. I learned some of what he stands for (no thanks to the questions asked). I also learned he has manners. Please take a lesson from this.
I expect that when Preston Manning is on The Magazine in a few days your biased questioning will continue. If I miss the show, I won't be too disappointed.
I find that the CBC is in a conflict of interest. It is partially funded by government and so has a stake in supporting political parties that will keep the cash flowing if elected. I have no idea why a fiscally responsible right of centre politician would agree to be interviewed on one of your shows given your left wing bias. These shows provide a disservice to democracy in Canada.
These are strong words, and I expect that after you have read them I will be labeled a "Redneck" and "Homophobic". Nothing could be further from the truth. I have numerous friends that are of different races and some are gay. The mere fact that I feel the need to state I am not a bigot speaks to the assumption I make that you will categorize me as someone filled with "hate". I believe it is the CBC that is intolerant.
Jeff & Sheryl St.Gelais
Victoria
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Mesley's interview with Mr. Day was a disgrace. I am not a supporter of the Alliance or Mr. Day. Ms. W. was hostile and overly confrontational. She overfocused on the moral issues and only examined his economic policies in a cursory fashion. She failed to link his moral views with economic and tax issues. She failed to challenge his view that Canadians prefer solidifying health and education to tax cuts.
William Johnson in today's Globe and Mail clearly outlines Mr. Day's provincial rights position. This important issue was not examined. The CBC should know and do better. After all if Mr. Day comes to power he may dismantle the CBC.
C Posner
Winnipeg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I question the usefulness of pursuing to the extent which I saw the other night of questioning Day or Manning on their social conservative views. We the viewers may discern for ourselves the philosophy of these men if more tough questions were asked about how they would attack some major social ills of our country, homelessness for example. I have not heard anyone ask Day or Manning about foreign policy or environmental issues. Their answers to the gay and lesbian issues are so predictable, boring, and non-committal that they are quite useless.
Martha Dawson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The media obsession with the Christian right opinion (sex) of this man is boring beyond belief. Is anyone but the media interested? I can hardly wait for Chretian and Martin to be asked if they are going to bring an abortion law before parliament and what do they feel about homosexuals. I will be glued to my seat waiting for their reply as the media gives them equal time with hard questions.
Beverley Mould
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Mesley's full frontal attack on Stockwell Day last night was unconscionable. Her desperate and repeated efforts to promote the CBC anti-western Canada, anti-Alberta and anti-Christian agenda insults millions of Canadians. Had she not been so soundly trounced by someone who had both integrity and sincerity on his side, her unbalanced and single issue assault would have been infuriating. But she was, and she ended up looking merely pathetic.
Derek Coke-Kerr
Edmonton, Alberta
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last night (June 27) I watched, with interest, Wendy Mesley's interview with Stockwell Day. Unfortunately, I was unable to watch the entire interview, as I became frustrated with Ms. Mesley's constantly interrupting Mr. Day's answers. To his credit, he did not get outwardly frustrated with her rudeness.
It is unfortunate that supposedly intelligent, sophisticated, informed individuals must resort to such tactics when they do not receive the responses they apparently expected, or when they realize that the interviewee is saying something that does not reflect the interviewer's personal agenda.
Ms. Mesley chose to flog the homosexuality and abortion issues, at times preventing Mr. Day from answering completely, when it became apparent that he was successfully avoiding the web of deceit that she appeared to be spinning.
Something else that was apparent to me was Ms. Mesley's "selective hearing" - listening for certain "hot-button" words that might trigger the opportunity to distort his position on the issues.
At one point, Mr. Day asked Ms. Mesley a question which she chose to ignore. When he asked a second time, she quickly changed the subject.
Overall, the interview was interesting, in spite of the interviewer's lack of objectivity.
David Groves
Calgary, AB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I watched Stockwell Day being interviewed by Wendy Mesley, June 27, on the Journal. I was quite disappointed by the way Ms. Mesley kept interupting Mr. Day in mid-sentence. She had an agenda that she was pursuing, namely, Mr. Day's views on homosexuality and his position on abortion, and she kept hammering to keep the interview to these subjects.
I thought Mr. Day did a very good job putting her "in her place," and in the end, Mr. Day impressed me as a very intelligent man, very composed in the face of what I would qualify as a very impolite and unprofessional interviewer.
I was very disappointed, as in the past, I always enjoyed Ms. Mesley's CBC work.
I sign a former Radio-Canada employee who has watched hundreds of interviews being produced.
Angela Bourgeois
Shediac, New Brunswick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I listened to Wendy Mesley interviewing Stockwell Day on the Magazine last night when she tried to get a commitment from him on social issues. He just skirted the issue and also downright lied about his position on these issues. I just don't trust him.
As a person with a social conscience, what worries me is who do I vote for in the next election. Day is too far to the right. Chretien has got to go!
If he did I might consider voting Liberal, but frankly Chretien embarrasses me as a Canadian especially when he is on the world stage. His French is as bad as his English. His time has come. Why don't the public have a say in this. Joe Clark isn't going anywhere.
In desperation, I'm inclined to vote NDP, but I know that wouldn't work federally. I'm afraid the Liberals will get in again which would be a disaster.
I know a lot of people feel as I do, and I have been following politics for a long time. I'm a senior citizen.
Thanks for listening to my comments.
Mary Foley
North Toronto
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was shocked at one of Stockwell Day's remarks when he complained about the media "being hung up on the sexual issues" referring to a question on gay and lesbian rights. I was hoping that you would pursue this comment further. Apparently Stockwell Day does not understand discrimination, and how much the gay and lesbian community has suffered from it over the years.
When one third of gay teenagers commit suicide because of discrimination this becomes hardly a "sexual issue". The issue of equality and tolerance should be much more important to everyone than tax cuts and improving the economy. We have seen enough intolerance throughout the world as a result of discrimination of majorities against minorities.
Wendy, you also mentioned some offensive "quotes" that you attributed to Stockwell Day which he said he doesn't recall saying. We all have the right to know if Stockwell Day did indeed make offensive statements. If that is the case, Day should make it clear as to whether he still stands by these offensive statements, and if not, he owes everyone an apology for making such statements.
For someone to want to become the PM of a great tolerant country like Canada, and yet make offensive remarks about minorities is very outrageous. The job of the PM is not to even be neutral on these issues, but to stand firm on the principles of equality and tolerance regardless of what the majority thinks! Minority rights should never be waived if the majority believe they should!
I believe that the media should be fair, and part of being fair is to make it clear whether Stockwell Day did indeed make offensive remarks, and whether he still stands by these remarks or is willing to apologize for them. Fortunately, we live in a (mostly) tolerant society, and I am confident that Canadians will make the right choice once they know the facts.
Dr Maher Quraan
Vancouver, BC
Leadership 2000 interview with Day and Manning
4 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Leadership 2000 interview with Day and Manning
by Trouble » 05/ 27/ 03 2:04 am
"If Martin doesn't surprise us by becoming a principled leader, then at least we can be comforted that he is preparing his lips for a whole lot of American butt kissing."
--Greg McNeely
--Greg McNeely
-
Trouble - Posts: 6986
- Joined: 09/ 28/ 02 4:11 pm
by Trouble » 05/ 27/ 03 2:16 am
Preston Manning
From The Magazine
July 4, 2000
http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/ua/manning.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good evening. As you saw in the news, the race for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance is down to the last days. And Preston Manning is in what may be the contest of his career. He's spent a decade trying to build a party that reflects his vision and can unite the political right, only to be faced with the possibility that someone else may lead it. I'm joined now by the man in question. Preston Manning is in Ottawa, where he's getting ready for debate tomorrow with Stockwell Day.
TOM KENNEDY: Thanks for joining us, Mr. Manning. I know your schedule must be pretty hectic these days, as they say.
PRESTON MANNING (Canadian Alliance Leadership Candidate): Well, it is. Good evening, Tom.
KENNEDY: Canadians have been watching you now for ten years. You built Reform, you built the Alliance party. And I am sure there are a lot of people out there who are very curious. When you looked up at those figures, when they first came in, the first round of balloting, and you saw that you were quite a ways behind. I mean, people must be wondering what must have been going through your mind when you must have understood that the party you built may end up being led by someone else.
MANNING: I was starting to figure out how we could win it on the second ballot, Tom. So, we have been in these positions before. And we thought it would be a horse race. We have had good candidates for the Alliance leadership. And so we have been spending the next two weeks seeing how we can win it on the second ballot.
KENNEDY: Who was the first person you spoke to after you saw those results?
MANNING: Oh well, I was together with Sandra and some of our campaign team. The numbers weren't too different from what we had expected, except we thought Tom Long's vote would be a little higher, and Stock's a little lower. So we expected a send ballot, and that's what we are ready for.
KENNEDY: If you would allow us to eavesdrop after the fact. What was the very first thing you said after you saw the results?
MANNING: Oh, I can't remember, Tom. We pretty quickly got on to, you know, what we have to do on the second ballot. We have got an enormous upside. There were 85,000 people that didn't vote, a lot of them in Alberta. So there is a huge pool of voters there that we intend to get out at the second ballot. And then, of course, Tom Long's people, and Tom has given me his endorsement. He says I can win, I am more likely to win in Ontario and he had 22,000 votes. So there is a large number of people that we can appeal to for the second ballot. And that's exactly what we have been doing.
KENNEDY: I'll get to that in a moment, Mr. Manning. But a lot of the analysts are saying that the other candidates were effected in the same way that you were. In other words, other candidates had just as much trouble getting their vote out, as you did. In fact, some analysts are saying that your turnout was even better than the other candidates. Can there be another explanation for why the result was what it was?
MANNING: Well, there could be, but I would suggest that I probably know the numbers as well as anyone. I have been pretty involved in getting a lot of those people on that list. So we'll trust our own judgement on that point, Tom.
KENNEDY: Mr. Manning, after ten years of trying to build an alternative to the Liberals, I am wondering, what do you feel is more important. Is it your own personal ambition to become Prime Minister, or is it the objective you have had for over a decade, to have a viable alternative to the ruling Liberals?
MANNING: Well I think that's a false choice, Tom. I want to do both. Which is a very typically Canadian answer. We want to create a principle alternative to the Liberals. And that's what we have done through the Canadian Alliance. And I also argue that the experience I have got on the national stage, and in the federal Parliament, gives me the, I am ready for the job of Prime Ministry. If what people are looking for is actually a change in government, not just a bigger opposition.
KENNEDY: Is your opponent, you mentioned offering a principled alternative. Is your opponent in this leadership race offering a principled alternative?
MANNING: Well, we are both committed to the same alternative. The Alliance, we spent two year at two big conventions, involving thousands of people, developing the principles on which the Alliance is built - fiscal responsibility, social accountability, democratic accountability, and reformed federalism. And all of us candidates for the leadership are committed to those principles, and the polices built upon them.
KENNEDY: But, you understand, of course, that if the Alliance can not come up with a formula that's going to convince Canadians to give them a mandate. In essence, the dream that you have had for ten years, is more or less lost. If there are members of Alliance who honestly believe that Stockwell Day has got a better chance of becoming Prime Minister, what would your advice to those Alliance members be?
MANNING: Well, my advice to all of the Alliance members is pick the person that's ready to be Prime Minister, and the person that's most likely to win. And I'll be presenting the arguments, as I have been, that I am now in a position to win, particularly in Ontario. We know that I can win the west. But that I am particularly in a position to win Ontario in a way that I never was before. And I am extremely excited about that. And I would like an opportunity to do it.
KENNEDY: But you have also heard that your opponents are saying you have had a chance, you have had a couple of chances, in fact, over the past 10 years to make the breakthrough in Ontario. And not just in Ontario, in Quebec as well. You have had ten years to make a breakthrough in Quebec as well, and you haven't succeeded. And why not give Stockwell Day a chance to do what, in fact, you failed to do over two elections?
MANNING: Well, there is a couple of arguments there, Tom. First of all, the situation is entirely different. We got 1.7-million votes in Ontario in two elections, but no seats because of the vote splitting. And that's why we created this united Alternative Canadian Alliance, to stop the vote splitting. And with that we can turn those votes into seats. We also have the Angus Reid poll, where they asked Ontario voters who would you like to lead this Alliance? And I won that poll two-to-one, over Stock Day. And these are the people we have got to go and convince to support us. And maybe within six months. So the situation is different. And then to cap it all off, Tom Long, who has been very successful in leading election campaigns to win seats in Ontario provincially, took a look at Stock, took a look at me. And said that I had the best chance of winning in Ontario, and was willing to help form this Manning-Long alliance. So we got some great stuff going in Ontario. And I am just itching for the chance to get at it.
KENNEDY: Well also, there are a lot of people in the organization of Tom Long, who decided that Stockwell Day was going to give them a better chance in Ontario.
MANNING: Well, Tom, Tom, if you came over to our Ottawa campaign office today, you would find it packed with people. And it's packed with people who are Tom Long campaign people. And our people working together to find and contact those Tom Long supporters, particularly in Ontario. We got the lion's share of that team, and not just their endorsements on paper. We have got them working on the phones. So we are quite pleased with that. Alliance is working at the grass roots level, and not just at the level between Tom and myself.
KENNEDY: Mr. Manning, do you think Stockwell Day would be a good Prime Minister?
MANNING: I think any one of the candidates that ran for the Alliance would have the potential to be a good leader and eventually to be a Prime Minister. I think the question is who is ready now? Because you might recall, Tom, we came to Ontario in '93, with the idea, new party, new leader, vote for us. And it was people in the older parts of the country, particularly in Ontario, said, no. New party needs experienced leader that spent time on the national stage in every part of the country and spent time in the federal Parliament. Now, I have gone and got that experience. So, with this new party, the Alliance, which has some new things in it, we can also combine the experienced leadership. And we think that's the combination that will help us win, not just in Ontario, but in points east.
KENNEDY: Mr. Manning, you're a relative known, well in fact, you're a very well known quantity in Canada. You have been around for more than a decade. Some can see that as an advantage, I suppose some would say, in some senses it's a disadvantage. But when you look at your opponent, you have probably seen that the Liberal party, reports are the Liberal party is getting ready now to attack Mr. Day in case he wins the leadership because of personal views and quotes that have been made of, that Mr. Day allegedly has made over the years. Do you think that Mr. Day's positions on some of the, I hate to use the word, but some of the "hot button issues" over the last few years, that he has been said to have made. Do you see that as being a problem if he in fact wins the leadership?
MANNING: I don't see his positions as a problem on some of those issues. They are very similar to my own. I think the challenge is how you present your positions on those issues, and when you present them.
KENNEDY: Has he been making a mistake in the way he has been presenting these issues?
MANNING: Well, I wouldn't comment on what he has done, but do know that with Reform, from 1993 to '96, we made some mistakes in that area with those types of issues - abortion, gay rights, and so forth. And we learned some hard lessons. And I learned some lessons on how to manage those issues, how to be faithful to your own values and to represent them. But also to do it in a way that you don't scare off the majority by thinking they are going to impose something on you.
KENNEDY: Is there a risk that Mr. Day has scared off the majority, or scared off voters because of his views?
MANNING: Well there is always that danger. I have say I have been through it before. And if you get a new leader he will be put through that ringer. The Liberals will put him through it, the national media will put him through it. And the challenge for the Alliance is we don't have a lot of time. We could be in an election within six months. And that's my argument that I am ready for the job now. Partly because of that experience a number of years ago.
KENNEDY: Mr. Manning, what's left to do? You don't have much time left, and you are in second place. What's left to do?
MANNING: Well the big thing is to convince people that I can win the election. I'll present evidence in this debate that we are going to have on why I can win in Ontario. And the Manning-Long alliance can win. But the other big challenge for us, Tom, is to get the vote out. There was 85,000 Alliance members who didn't vote. Large numbers of them in my home province of Alberta. So there is a super effort being made to impress upon those people, it's very important. You're getting a chance, not just to pick an opposition party leader, but perhaps the next Prime Minister. And we would urge everyone that's got the right to vote to get out and vote on July the 8th.
KENNEDY: Mr. Manning, you have built Reform, you have built Alliance. Do you think there is a place for you in the party that you built, but if that party is led by somebody else?
MANNING: Well all of us, Tom, have said that we are willing to be on the team. And we want the team to hold together regardless of who the leader is. And so I have said that as have all of the other candidates. I'd like the chance to lead the Alliance because I know how it was put together. I know how it can be held together. And I know what its upside is for actually forming a principled alternative to the Liberals.
KENNEDY: Well, thanks very much for joining us. I am sure, as I said at the beginning, that your schedule is quite busy. We thank you for giving us the time.
MANNING: Thank you, very much, Tom.
From The Magazine
July 4, 2000
http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/ua/manning.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good evening. As you saw in the news, the race for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance is down to the last days. And Preston Manning is in what may be the contest of his career. He's spent a decade trying to build a party that reflects his vision and can unite the political right, only to be faced with the possibility that someone else may lead it. I'm joined now by the man in question. Preston Manning is in Ottawa, where he's getting ready for debate tomorrow with Stockwell Day.
TOM KENNEDY: Thanks for joining us, Mr. Manning. I know your schedule must be pretty hectic these days, as they say.
PRESTON MANNING (Canadian Alliance Leadership Candidate): Well, it is. Good evening, Tom.
KENNEDY: Canadians have been watching you now for ten years. You built Reform, you built the Alliance party. And I am sure there are a lot of people out there who are very curious. When you looked up at those figures, when they first came in, the first round of balloting, and you saw that you were quite a ways behind. I mean, people must be wondering what must have been going through your mind when you must have understood that the party you built may end up being led by someone else.
MANNING: I was starting to figure out how we could win it on the second ballot, Tom. So, we have been in these positions before. And we thought it would be a horse race. We have had good candidates for the Alliance leadership. And so we have been spending the next two weeks seeing how we can win it on the second ballot.
KENNEDY: Who was the first person you spoke to after you saw those results?
MANNING: Oh well, I was together with Sandra and some of our campaign team. The numbers weren't too different from what we had expected, except we thought Tom Long's vote would be a little higher, and Stock's a little lower. So we expected a send ballot, and that's what we are ready for.
KENNEDY: If you would allow us to eavesdrop after the fact. What was the very first thing you said after you saw the results?
MANNING: Oh, I can't remember, Tom. We pretty quickly got on to, you know, what we have to do on the second ballot. We have got an enormous upside. There were 85,000 people that didn't vote, a lot of them in Alberta. So there is a huge pool of voters there that we intend to get out at the second ballot. And then, of course, Tom Long's people, and Tom has given me his endorsement. He says I can win, I am more likely to win in Ontario and he had 22,000 votes. So there is a large number of people that we can appeal to for the second ballot. And that's exactly what we have been doing.
KENNEDY: I'll get to that in a moment, Mr. Manning. But a lot of the analysts are saying that the other candidates were effected in the same way that you were. In other words, other candidates had just as much trouble getting their vote out, as you did. In fact, some analysts are saying that your turnout was even better than the other candidates. Can there be another explanation for why the result was what it was?
MANNING: Well, there could be, but I would suggest that I probably know the numbers as well as anyone. I have been pretty involved in getting a lot of those people on that list. So we'll trust our own judgement on that point, Tom.
KENNEDY: Mr. Manning, after ten years of trying to build an alternative to the Liberals, I am wondering, what do you feel is more important. Is it your own personal ambition to become Prime Minister, or is it the objective you have had for over a decade, to have a viable alternative to the ruling Liberals?
MANNING: Well I think that's a false choice, Tom. I want to do both. Which is a very typically Canadian answer. We want to create a principle alternative to the Liberals. And that's what we have done through the Canadian Alliance. And I also argue that the experience I have got on the national stage, and in the federal Parliament, gives me the, I am ready for the job of Prime Ministry. If what people are looking for is actually a change in government, not just a bigger opposition.
KENNEDY: Is your opponent, you mentioned offering a principled alternative. Is your opponent in this leadership race offering a principled alternative?
MANNING: Well, we are both committed to the same alternative. The Alliance, we spent two year at two big conventions, involving thousands of people, developing the principles on which the Alliance is built - fiscal responsibility, social accountability, democratic accountability, and reformed federalism. And all of us candidates for the leadership are committed to those principles, and the polices built upon them.
KENNEDY: But, you understand, of course, that if the Alliance can not come up with a formula that's going to convince Canadians to give them a mandate. In essence, the dream that you have had for ten years, is more or less lost. If there are members of Alliance who honestly believe that Stockwell Day has got a better chance of becoming Prime Minister, what would your advice to those Alliance members be?
MANNING: Well, my advice to all of the Alliance members is pick the person that's ready to be Prime Minister, and the person that's most likely to win. And I'll be presenting the arguments, as I have been, that I am now in a position to win, particularly in Ontario. We know that I can win the west. But that I am particularly in a position to win Ontario in a way that I never was before. And I am extremely excited about that. And I would like an opportunity to do it.
KENNEDY: But you have also heard that your opponents are saying you have had a chance, you have had a couple of chances, in fact, over the past 10 years to make the breakthrough in Ontario. And not just in Ontario, in Quebec as well. You have had ten years to make a breakthrough in Quebec as well, and you haven't succeeded. And why not give Stockwell Day a chance to do what, in fact, you failed to do over two elections?
MANNING: Well, there is a couple of arguments there, Tom. First of all, the situation is entirely different. We got 1.7-million votes in Ontario in two elections, but no seats because of the vote splitting. And that's why we created this united Alternative Canadian Alliance, to stop the vote splitting. And with that we can turn those votes into seats. We also have the Angus Reid poll, where they asked Ontario voters who would you like to lead this Alliance? And I won that poll two-to-one, over Stock Day. And these are the people we have got to go and convince to support us. And maybe within six months. So the situation is different. And then to cap it all off, Tom Long, who has been very successful in leading election campaigns to win seats in Ontario provincially, took a look at Stock, took a look at me. And said that I had the best chance of winning in Ontario, and was willing to help form this Manning-Long alliance. So we got some great stuff going in Ontario. And I am just itching for the chance to get at it.
KENNEDY: Well also, there are a lot of people in the organization of Tom Long, who decided that Stockwell Day was going to give them a better chance in Ontario.
MANNING: Well, Tom, Tom, if you came over to our Ottawa campaign office today, you would find it packed with people. And it's packed with people who are Tom Long campaign people. And our people working together to find and contact those Tom Long supporters, particularly in Ontario. We got the lion's share of that team, and not just their endorsements on paper. We have got them working on the phones. So we are quite pleased with that. Alliance is working at the grass roots level, and not just at the level between Tom and myself.
KENNEDY: Mr. Manning, do you think Stockwell Day would be a good Prime Minister?
MANNING: I think any one of the candidates that ran for the Alliance would have the potential to be a good leader and eventually to be a Prime Minister. I think the question is who is ready now? Because you might recall, Tom, we came to Ontario in '93, with the idea, new party, new leader, vote for us. And it was people in the older parts of the country, particularly in Ontario, said, no. New party needs experienced leader that spent time on the national stage in every part of the country and spent time in the federal Parliament. Now, I have gone and got that experience. So, with this new party, the Alliance, which has some new things in it, we can also combine the experienced leadership. And we think that's the combination that will help us win, not just in Ontario, but in points east.
KENNEDY: Mr. Manning, you're a relative known, well in fact, you're a very well known quantity in Canada. You have been around for more than a decade. Some can see that as an advantage, I suppose some would say, in some senses it's a disadvantage. But when you look at your opponent, you have probably seen that the Liberal party, reports are the Liberal party is getting ready now to attack Mr. Day in case he wins the leadership because of personal views and quotes that have been made of, that Mr. Day allegedly has made over the years. Do you think that Mr. Day's positions on some of the, I hate to use the word, but some of the "hot button issues" over the last few years, that he has been said to have made. Do you see that as being a problem if he in fact wins the leadership?
MANNING: I don't see his positions as a problem on some of those issues. They are very similar to my own. I think the challenge is how you present your positions on those issues, and when you present them.
KENNEDY: Has he been making a mistake in the way he has been presenting these issues?
MANNING: Well, I wouldn't comment on what he has done, but do know that with Reform, from 1993 to '96, we made some mistakes in that area with those types of issues - abortion, gay rights, and so forth. And we learned some hard lessons. And I learned some lessons on how to manage those issues, how to be faithful to your own values and to represent them. But also to do it in a way that you don't scare off the majority by thinking they are going to impose something on you.
KENNEDY: Is there a risk that Mr. Day has scared off the majority, or scared off voters because of his views?
MANNING: Well there is always that danger. I have say I have been through it before. And if you get a new leader he will be put through that ringer. The Liberals will put him through it, the national media will put him through it. And the challenge for the Alliance is we don't have a lot of time. We could be in an election within six months. And that's my argument that I am ready for the job now. Partly because of that experience a number of years ago.
KENNEDY: Mr. Manning, what's left to do? You don't have much time left, and you are in second place. What's left to do?
MANNING: Well the big thing is to convince people that I can win the election. I'll present evidence in this debate that we are going to have on why I can win in Ontario. And the Manning-Long alliance can win. But the other big challenge for us, Tom, is to get the vote out. There was 85,000 Alliance members who didn't vote. Large numbers of them in my home province of Alberta. So there is a super effort being made to impress upon those people, it's very important. You're getting a chance, not just to pick an opposition party leader, but perhaps the next Prime Minister. And we would urge everyone that's got the right to vote to get out and vote on July the 8th.
KENNEDY: Mr. Manning, you have built Reform, you have built Alliance. Do you think there is a place for you in the party that you built, but if that party is led by somebody else?
MANNING: Well all of us, Tom, have said that we are willing to be on the team. And we want the team to hold together regardless of who the leader is. And so I have said that as have all of the other candidates. I'd like the chance to lead the Alliance because I know how it was put together. I know how it can be held together. And I know what its upside is for actually forming a principled alternative to the Liberals.
KENNEDY: Well, thanks very much for joining us. I am sure, as I said at the beginning, that your schedule is quite busy. We thank you for giving us the time.
MANNING: Thank you, very much, Tom.
"If Martin doesn't surprise us by becoming a principled leader, then at least we can be comforted that he is preparing his lips for a whole lot of American butt kissing."
--Greg McNeely
--Greg McNeely
-
Trouble - Posts: 6986
- Joined: 09/ 28/ 02 4:11 pm
by hiti » 05/ 27/ 03 9:54 pm
trouble, you just had to do it!!! You had to remind us of what was and never was, what could have been and was destroyed!!!
The dirty effin &*% $#@* !@# $% @ #$%^&
Here is the truth!!!
MESLEY: Well so does your own party. Tom Long and the head of Preston Manning's campaign. They are the ones who have sort of fed us the controversy on this.
The dirty effin &*% $#@* !@# $% @ #$%^&
Here is the truth!!!
MESLEY: Well so does your own party. Tom Long and the head of Preston Manning's campaign. They are the ones who have sort of fed us the controversy on this.
"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?"
But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." -JOHN F. KENNEDY
-
hiti - Posts: 14174
- Joined: 01/ 07/ 01 2:01 am
- Location: Mid-West
by Trouble » 05/ 28/ 03 4:01 am
the head of Preston Manning's campaign.
The Liberal
RICK ANDERSON! who was at the recent Simon Fraser institute Unite the Right session with his buddy Preston Manning - so they could all pay homage to the great Harris. 
"If Martin doesn't surprise us by becoming a principled leader, then at least we can be comforted that he is preparing his lips for a whole lot of American butt kissing."
--Greg McNeely
--Greg McNeely
-
Trouble - Posts: 6986
- Joined: 09/ 28/ 02 4:11 pm
4 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
- Board index
- Delete all board cookies • All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Free Dominion - Principled Conservative - Party and Canadian Politics - Canada Blogs -
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Playstation3 © Sony Corporation
PS3 Style designed by Jester
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Playstation3 © Sony Corporation
PS3 Style designed by Jester
