One year after the Election

By Sean Kolenko, North Shore Outlook

Former North Vancouver federal Liberal candidate Taleeb Noormohamed is a bit of a road warrior. Earlier this week, he was busy working in New York City with stops to make in Chicago and Toronto before finally heading back to the West Coast.

If he’s an Air Miles man, an on-the-house departure is surely on the horizon.

Noormohamed’s latest jaunt has been in support of the Clinton Global Initiative, a group created in 2005 by former American president Bill Clinton to tackle challenges such as poverty, education and the environment.

To date, hundreds of participants — including Nobel Prize winners, heads of state, journalists and philanthropists — have taken part in various CGI events.

For those that have followed his, albeit brief, political career, it likely comes as no surprise that Noormohamed’s involved with the progressive organization.

But the 35-year-old is far from just a creature of the high-profile public-policy arena. Noormohamed’s just as comfortable talking shop in the sparsely decorated, coffee-and-cookie catered meeting rooms of North Vancouver hotels.

“When I ran I made a commitment that the issues important to Canadians and to North Vancouverites are top of mind,” says Noormohamed, explaining his work ethic. “Having an open dialogue is very important. It’s critical to create spaces for people — likeminded people with similar concerns — to talk about public policy.”

Noormohamed’s latest local talk, held by the North Vancouver Liberal Riding Association two weeks ago, was a reflection on the first year of the Conservative’s majority government. Donning an appropriately coloured red golf shirt, Noormohamed prefaced his remarks with an apology: he had too much to say.

Predictably, Noormohamed spoke at length about the fears of the Harper government’s moves to cease public debate on hotly debated issues such as the future purchase of F-35 jets, or the lumping of revamped environmental processes in its massive omnibus budget bill.

What he didn’t touch on, however, was his assessment of the New Democrats and their new leader Tom Mulcair in the role of Official Opposition and the Grits’ oft-discussed search for a permanent leader.

So, what does he think of the not-so-new-anymore second party in the Commons?

“The emergence of the NDP is still in large part because of Jack Layton,” he says. “We should reflect on that legacy, we all can learn from him. But there is a big difference between Muclair and Layton.”

The most glaring example of that difference, believes Noormohamed, is the growing gap — highlighted by recent polls that suggest the NDP is gaining ground on the Tories because Liberal support is moving to the left —  between liberal and conservative rhetoric in the country. And with the country’s longstanding centrist party now relegated to third place, the opposite ideologies present in Ottawa aren’t going anywhere anytime soon.

“They can’t see the middle,” says Noormohamed. “As much as Mulcair would like to operate from the middle he can’t because the messages the party puts out historically hasn’t been one of compromise.”

And what of a new Liberal leader? So much has been said of Bob Rae’s supposed interest in making his interim reign an official one, or Justin Trudeau’s popularity — bolstered by his defeat of Tory senator Patrick Brazeau in a charity boxing match in March — being a key ingredient in revitalizing the Liberal brand.

But Noormohamed advocates for a focus on policy, not a figurehead. A cohesive stance on issues of interest to all Canadians will be the backbone of the Liberal party, he says, as it works to return power regardless of who’s chosen to lead the effort.

“We have to continue with a reflective approach to public policy. A leader is important but most important is getting out of a messianic complex,” says Noormohamed.

“A leader has to have a strong team.”

Click here for the article in the North Shore Outlook.

Forty Under 40

Taleeb Noormohamed

President and CEO, Serebra Learning

Age: 35

Educated at both Princeton University and Oxford University, Taleeb Noormohamed returned to his hometown in 2007 to be vice-president of strategy and partnerships with the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Winter Olympic Games (VANOC).

In that role, he raised more than $60 million and was responsible for management of all non-commercial revenue and business development initiatives.

Shareholders at Serebra Learning Corp. recruited him to turn their fledgling e-learning venture around.

“Serebra was really lost. It lost its way and wasn’t sure what it was going to be. It came down to, ‘Do we turn this around?’ or ‘Do we shut down?’” he said.

“At our annual general meeting last year, I told them my mandate was to cut costs, increase revenue and bring in a deal that will show value. I said that within 18 months we would have a merger or acquisition, and so far we’re on track.”

Serebra was in negotiations for a merger with Bluedrop Inc. as of press time.

Noormohamed has a track record of bouncing between interesting jobs.

He had clearance to see top-secret documents when he worked as a senior adviser to Bob Rae when Rae was an independent adviser to the minister of public safety on questions related to the bombing of a 1985 Air India flight.

He also had that clearance when he was director of citizen engagement in the department of public safety.

After the Olympics, he led a comprehensive review of B.C.’s large-scale technology procurement contracts, valued at $2.2 billion, to determine what has worked and what requires improvement.

He is on the board of directors of Covenant House Vancouver as well as the West Vancouver Community Centre. Past charitable work includes being on the board of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.

He also volunteers extensively within the Ismaili Muslim community.

Click here for the full article

Ballad of a rebuild

By: Sean Kolenko, North Shore Outlook

For a party with only 34 seats in the House of Commons, the weakest presence on Parliament Hill in its history, the Liberal Party of Canada  has been the focus of some national discussion lately.

Part of the Grit-focused conversation centres on the future leadership of both itself and the NDP: Will interim leader Bob Rae , parliamentarian of the year, assume the role of permanent leader and how will the choice of a new head of the New Democrats affect the Liberals’ third-place standing? 

Neither question is approaching an immediate resolution — the NDP will elect a new leader in March 2012, the Liberals sometime in 2013 — but each decision is expected to help define the future of the party both from within and in regards to its competition.

The other news comes as a result of Peter C. Newman’s latest book When the Gods Changed: The Death of Liberal Canada. Unfortunately for the Liberals, what was originally planned as a story of Michael Ignatieff ’s heroic ascent to prime minster became a detailed account of the near destruction of Canada’s oldest political party.

In the second-to-last chapter of Newman’s book, he quotes former Pierre Trudeau aide and BC Liberal  leader Gordon Gibson on what he sees as the fundamental problem facing the Liberals today: “The Liberal party is in great danger of becoming an irrelevance. Alas, that assumes there is still something to be called the Liberal party.”

With that ominous statement in mind, I went out to a Liberal function in Lower Lonsdale on Saturday afternoon to hear what local residents had to say about the future of their once mighty party.

After some general housekeeping items, including a vote on a new party bylaw and a tallying of delegates interested in attending a function in Ottawa in January, a policy discussion began.

The standing-room-only crowd, which included Liberal senator and Blueridge resident Mobina Jaffer, left no stone unturned when offering thoughts on issues the party should be discussing at community roundtable events and, potentially, include as part of its future mandate.

Popular ideas at the meeting, amongst the more than 20 suggestions proposed, were the environment, healthcare and the growing gap between the country’s rich and poor.

Interestingly, 22 ideas — including the decriminalization of marijuana, support for Canadians living abroad and a strengthening of the public pension system — were offered before the economy, the Conservative government’s go-to platform issue.

The Liberals have been criticized lately for taking too centrist an approach to governing, maintaining an umbrella of ideas so big the party’s message often appears incoherent.

To be fair, Saturday’s meeting was an informal neighbourhood chat and not a hard-line policy meeting. But with so many wide-ranging thoughts being proposed one wonders whether or not the Liberals have learned the importance of a streamlined platform, something Canadians seem to hold in high regard after voting overwhelmingly for the more-easily understood, platform-digestible Tories and New Democrats.

“The next four years is about cleaning house, figuring out who we are and start sharing our ideas with people. We have to take a stand on issues and ensure it’s not just about the party but about Canada,” said Taleeb Noormohamed, former Liberal candidate for North Vancouver and speaker at the weekend event. 

“There is a stereotype of Liberals being too cerebral so how policies are discussed and imparted in the future is very important.”

Click here for the full article

How Harper's Foreign Policy is Failing Canada

By: Taleeb Noormohamed
Written for: The Tyee 

Sometime between 2005 and today, Stephen Harper made a decision: Canada didn't need to be a global player in the world of diplomacy.

This decision has been reflected in Canada's trade, aid and foreign relations strategies. But it fails to take into account that the impact is not just a short-term raising of the global eyebrow. Rather, it has had a long-term impact on Canada's global credibility, on our trade relations, and how seriously we are taken in parts of the world where we have economic interests.

The mistakes are well known, but the impact of these mistakes is far greater and has a far more profound impact than Harper will admit. Bureaucrats secretly complain that our diminishing international relevance has made us the laughingstock at summits, in trade negotiations and in post-disaster collaboration. It's not just because we don't want to contribute -- but because we show up at global events and act as if we matter more than ever.

In the words of the secretary general of Amnesty International, Salil Shetty, "The world has always looked to leadership from Canada and it has benefitted from Canada's strong position on human rights... That leadership however seems to have disappeared from the world stage."

Why?

First, Harper moved Canada away from its balanced, principled position as an honest broker in the Middle East, trusted by Arabs and Jews alike, to taking a decidedly pro-Israel stance on the Arab-Israeli conflict. The United States, Israel's staunchest ally, has a far more nuanced position on the conflict than we do. No one argues that Israel must be able to exist in safety and security. But to deny that Palestinians also be allowed a viable state is entirely out of step with reality. Recently, when U.S. President Obama suggested that the negotiations on a permanent Palestinian State begin with the pre-1967 borders, the E.U., Russia, the British and many others expressed support for this as a starting point. Not Canada.

Harper's view of the Middle East is so narrow that his support for the Arab pro-democracy movements this year reflected first a concern that this newfound desire for freedom would impact Israel -- and not for the fact that for the first time in generations, Arabs were ready to throw out their despotic leaders.

Indeed, as this week's G8 summit proved, Harper is unwilling to invest a single penny to help these Arab countries while other G8 members have willingly made smart investments in the name of global stability.

Losing more credibility

Secondly, at a time where more and more Canadian corporations are investing in Africa, Harper has systematically reduced Canada's aid programs and diplomatic efforts in that continent. This is irresponsible from a humanitarian perspective, but more than that, it is short-sighted from a trade and investment perspective.

Canadian companies are competing with Indian, Chinese and European interests for mineral and other rights in Africa. Yet our government refuses to acknowledge the effect that good aid and development policy can have in helping these companies, which in turn bring revenues back to Canada.

Harper's government has opposed U.N. attempts to declare asbestos a dangerous substance -- and while it is considered unsafe for use by Canadians, Harper is actively promoting exports to poorer countries. Because of the Conservative government's ideological approach to aid, Harper's own cause célèbre -- maternal and child health -- has been compromised because many of the organizations carrying out work in this area also provide safe abortions -- something Harper opposes.

Ignorant ministers, overworked diplomats

Third, Harper has reduced the size of our foreign service and our development agency. He has appointed ministers to these portfolios with little or no understanding of the complexity of geopolitical pressures and conflicts. Our diplomats are overworked and under-resourced. They face an ongoing struggle to be heard by the government they serve. Meanwhile, we are taken less and less seriously by others.

The proof? Omar Khadr, remains the only Western prisoner at Guantanamo Bay. Pavel Kulisek, an innocent Canadian, rots in a Mexican prison, with no trial, no evidence against him and no government push to bring him home. And in Libya, when Canadians needed to be evacuated, they had to be helped by others, because our government came up lame.

Now, to represent us in the world of international diplomacy, Harper has appointed a minister not known for nuance, compromise or non-partisanship. John Baird may serve well as a house leader responsible for beating others into submission, but on the international stage, his reputation of being uncompromising and arrogant will do little to advance Canada's objectives overseas.

Finally, it boils down to relevance: is Canada's role in the world important enough to Harper that he will treat it as a priority? Can Canada be relevant on the global stage with a total lack of refinement and sophistication at the ministerial level, and where our career diplomats are forced to carry a message rather than to build consensus?

The answer to the first, at least on the surface, appears to be no. This is because Harper has quite quickly figured out that there is no short-term gain in doing the right thing internationally.

Out of step with events

The proof? Harper suffered few consequences when we lost the vote for the Security Council seat -- a reflection of our diminished international reputation. He has faced little criticism from Canadians or the media for being totally out of step with historic events around the world.

So the question of Canada's relevance internationally will hinge upon how quickly the Conservative government realizes that its narrow world-view has long-term economic consequences. This affects our ability to influence decisions that may affect our security and prosperity. Our loss of a UN Security Council seat late last year is just the beginning.

George W. Bush's foreign policy agenda had consequences for the United States that should not be lost on Harper. At a time when Barack Obama has inspired millions internationally to cooperate, build bridges and work together, Canada is beginning to stand uncomfortably alone. We are unable to realize the true value of multilateralism and of being an engaged global citizen.

The U.S., with its considerable economic prowess and its military force may have been able to survive this type of miscalculation under Bush. We may not have that luxury -- and Harper must realize this before it's too late to recover.

Original article on thetyee.ca

Hey Libs! It's Not About the Leader

By: Taleeb Noormohamed
Written for: The Tyee 

The challenge we Liberals face is not deciding who our next leader will be, but deciding what kind of party he or she will lead.

The last five years should have taught us what Canadians told us at the doorstep during this campaign -- that they didn't know what we stand for. If you ask what differentiates us from the Conservatives and the NDP, most people can say what we are not for -- we are not for jails, nor jets, nor large deficits or promises that can't be kept. What we do stand for is much more problematic.

We need to look at the political landscape of Canada before we can find our place in it.

The bar for success has been set so low, in the minds of many, that when politicians make it over that bar without tripping, we celebrate this as success.

We don't tolerate or encourage mediocrity in any other profession. When a house is burning, no one says to firefighters, "Put out half the fire, and save half the people inside." We don't say to our kids when we drop them at school, "Just don't mess up, please."

But in politics, we settle for incremental, uninspired management. We define success not by what great things we achieve, but rather by the mistakes we don't make. Gone are the days when we measured political leaders by how they were going to take Canada to the next level here at home, or by the incredible contribution they enabled us to make in international relations.

For example, the Conservatives explained away our loss of a Security Council seat as the reaction of a few countries that disagreed with us on an issue of bureaucratic process.

In reality, our loss of that vote was a recognition by the international community that we have repudiated our role as a global player -- present at times of conflict to bring peace, there to build capacity and give a hand up in times of suffering and hopelessness. Instead, we had adopted an inward-looking, uninspired management of foreign policy. We were no longer helping others, just ticking off a checklist of formalities.

Heaping scorn

Conservative indifference to the plight of First Nations in our country is a sign that their fear of the unknown is far more important than correcting past injustices and providing a brighter future.

We've gone five years without a federal-provincial meeting on health care. The Conservatives grudgingly continue a six per cent increase in funding for our beloved Medicare, because government is required to. They seem to have no desire to make the system better and more responsive to the needs of Canadians. The bare minimum is what our current political leadership is willing to use as their benchmark of success.

The environment is no longer part of our discourse on the economic, social or physical health of Canadians. Instead, the Conservatives have replaced real action with worries that a difficult economic time is no time for improvements to environmental policy. Instead of looking at the opportunity this might provide to Canadian innovators and entrepreneurs, we accept "not right now" as a serious answer.

Worst of all, Conservatives have shown that their politics are not about ideas, or hope, or vision. Now it's about how badly they can bloody their opponents, and how much scorn they can heap on any new ideas that others might raise. Ideas like a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or a Constitution, or Medicare, or a race-free immigration policy once inspired the nation. Now the national aspiration is for a new era of tax cuts.

Rejecting new rules of the game

The hazard for us would be to accept the Conservatives' organized contempt for Canadians as the new rules of the game. Those rules have taught the population to see politics as less and less relevant to their hopes for Canada.

But they still have those hopes. Canadians have become tired of the negative. They are tired of attack ads, no matter how effective. They are tired of being force-fed criticisms of individuals. They want a debate about ideas, a vision for Canada that speaks to their souls -- they want to be inspired, to believe that we can be dramatically better than we are.

They expect those of us who seek public office to think not just about the next election, but the next generation. They want us to accept that no single party, no individual, has a monopoly on good ideas. They want us to do what is best for Canada, not to implement some narrow ideological roadmap to nowhere. And they want us to do it in a way that is respectful, modest, and hopeful about our future.

Here, I believe, is where our beloved Liberal party needs to begin searching for its soul.

Liberals have achieved great things, and left a series of indelible, audacious and inspiring marks on this country we call Canada. Liberals gave life to the wonderful idea of public health care, to a national flag, to the Constitution, to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We proved that a small country can give great hope to people around the world. The inspiration and influence we offer comes from our spirit and our belief in always seeking a better future.

What Canadians want

We must remind ourselves that while Conservatives were voting against many of these achievements, Liberals dared to do the right thing. And we must see this history as our obligation to continue to do better for Canada. This rebuilding cannot come with a few pronouncements of policy here and there, or picking up whatever the political fad of the day may be.

We need to offer a real vision of the Canada that Canadians want:

A Canada that will lead internationally by grappling with difficulties and daring to expand its international presence.

A Canada willing to take a short-term hit to ensure long-term success in the fight against climate change and environmental degradation.

A Canada willing to take a long look at our finances and dare to spend money more carefully, with more focus on long-term results.

A Canada that sees dialogue with First Nations as talking about opportunity to solve problems we all face -- together.

A Canada that sees multiculturalism and diversity as a force for unity to build the country, not as an opportunity to divide it.

A Canada that knows health is more than just hospital care, and invests in prevention, long-term care, and leading-edge treatments that actually save the system money.

A Canada that fosters innovation, education, and a workforce that can lead globally in industries of the future.

A Canada that sees the value in real engagement with our fellow citizens, and learns from rich and poor, young and old, so that everyone feels a part of building a country they have helped to define.

A Canada ready to dream about the next great national project.

The Liberal Party owes it to Canada to be the force that enables this. We should start in our communities and engage our neighbours in discussions about the Canada they want. They know best -- and we should all be listening.

What we learn we will share, regionally and nationally. We will take those lessons seriously, because they will form the foundation for what the Liberal Party needs to become -- a populist movement for change.

Listening to our neighbours

Canadians need a Liberal Party that speaks to them. That listens to them. That is prepared to disagree -- and to explain itself honestly and well. They deserve a Liberal Party that refuses to develop policy development in sound bytes.

If they are to support us, Canadians must see a Liberal Party that is done fighting itself. We will win that support in the grassroots, riding by riding. We can't waste time pining for a political saviour. What will save the party are good people bursting with good ideas, hopeful about the future, and willing to put everything on the line for Canada. Once we define who we are, we can choose a leader who accepts the vision we, the people, set -- and who will commit to making that vision real.

In the days after the election, amazing numbers of people have emerged who are hopeful for change. If we are ready to listen to them, the next four years may be the best thing that ever happened to the Liberal Party, and to the future of Canada.

Original article on thetyee.ca