Sand in the Shorts: Good Jack Will Be Missed

By James Phieffer - also published in the Intelligencer (Tuesday August 23, 2011)

"I'm going to fight cancer now so I can be back to fight for families when Parliament resumes."

That line says it all: Jack Layton was a fighter. He was also a good and caring man.

Known as someone with a pragmatic side, he was willing to work toward compromise if that would help his constituents.

It was this pragmatism that has allowed him to enjoy the success he has had as the leader of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Layton came from a political family, from his father, Robert Layton, who served in the government of Brian Mulroney, all the way back to his Great-Grand Uncle, William Steeves, a Father of Confederation from New Brunswick, and later a Liberal Senator.

He was very active in political affairs as a youth in Quebec, and later involved himself in local politics after he moved to Toronto.

More about his biography will be printed over the coming days; what I wish to consider is the impact he had on Parliament Hill.

Jack Layton was an optimist, according to those who knew him, and that optimism was evident in how he approached his work.

This was part of how he impacted the NDP, as the party became a voice for optimism and possibilities.

He saw possibilities in a province that had only elected one NDP MP in its history, leading the party to a Quebec landslide in the 2011 general election when the NDP took 59 of 75 seats.

It was as much a victory for Jack Layton as it was the NDP. Across the province, unknown 'placeholder' candidates were elected, with the majority of votes being cast for Jack Layton. They didn't know who their candidate was, but they liked Jack.

His "Orange Crush" victory also swept aside the separatist Bloc Quebecois, something for which all Canadians should thank him.

Jack Layton was both a man of principle but also a pragmatist. There are stories about his time on Toronto City Council, where he brought together disparate points of view to form a workable, but principled, compromise.

He demonstrated his hold to his principles in matters such as his opposition to Toronto's bid for the 1996 Olympics as part of the "Bread, Not Circuses" coalition. This may have helped defeat him when he later ran for mayor of Toronto.

I was not a supporter of Jack Layton. He and I stood on different sides of a multitude of issues. But there is no question I respected him then, as I do his legacy now.

He helped build the NDP into a vital party in Ottawa, ensuring Canada has that which is essential to any democracy — a strong opposition.

He believed in standing up for those who could not stand up for themselves. He was a proud Canadian.

Maybe the best way to summarize Jack Layton is to use the words of popular Quebec television host Guy A. LePage. After having him on his show, Tout le monde en parle, he called him "un bon Jack" - good Jack.

He will be missed.

Lorne Gunter: Jack Layton, champion of elite privilege | Full Comment | National Post

By Lorne Gunther - from the National Post

Announcer: So, Jack Layton, you’ve just lobbied the grocery chain Loblaws on behalf of members of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU) against shuttering a grocery store in Sudbury, Ont. What are you going to do next?

Layton: I’m going to Disney World, at the union’s expense!

Okay, so that exchange didn’t really happen between an unseen announcer and the leader of the NDP — a la the promotional exchanges done each year after the Super Bowl with the game’s MVP (who receives a free trip to the Disney resort of his choice). But it could have.

According to a fascinating Canadian Press story this morning, last year, not long after Mr. Layton petitioned Loblaws to keep a store open in the northern Ontario community of Sudbury – a store that employed RWDSU members — the union flew him and his wife, NDP MP Olivia Chow — to Orlando and put them up at the fabulous Walt Disney World Swan and Dolphin resort.

To be fair, the union only forked over around $3,000 to cover the Layton-Chows’ airfare, hotel rooms (they stayed in separate rooms) and expenses. The couple were only in Florida overnight. In return for the trip, Mr. Layton had to address the union’s annual international convention, and there is no record of the Layton-Chows buying mouse-ear hats or riding the Rock ‘n’ Roller Coaster to the blastin’ tunes of Aerosmith.

Still, to gauge just how hypocritical Mr. Layton’s union-paid Florida trip was, try imagining the reaction if Stephen Harper had accepted a similar trip underwritten by one or more of the companies that operate oilsands plants.

Read more...

Lorne Gunter: Jack Layton, champion of elite privilege | Full Comment | National Post

The Night of 1,000 Delusions - Scott Feschuk - Macleans.ca

Layton imagined Harper would be psyched to meet with him to discuss NDP priorities. It was adorable.

By Scott Feschuk - from Macleans.ca

The most surreal moment of election night 2011 took form as it became apparent to one and all that Jack Layton, leader of the Opposition, had lost his mind.

It’s well and good to celebrate a historic surge in one’s popular support. A wide smile and a jubilant bit of cane-waving are undoubtedly in order. But a few lines into Layton’s speech, a nation gaped as it grew clear the NDP leader had mistaken his moral victory for, you know, an actual victory. He seemed to labour under the impression that he would hold sway in the next Parliament. Indeed, Layton went so far as to imagine that Stephen Harper would be psyched to meet with him to discuss NDP priorities.

It was kind of adorable, like a kitten pawing at a vacuum. One envisioned Layton’s aides whispering between themselves:

—Should we tell him?

—Nah, it’s cute. We’ll put it on YouTube and call it “I Can Haz Influence?”

All campaign long, Layton had ended his speeches by vowing theatrically that, as prime minister, he. Would not. Stop. Untiltheworkisdone. He stuck to this rhetoric on election night. But the Opposition leader doesn’t get to do the work. At best, he gets first dibs on criticizing the work. With more than a hundred seats in a Conservative majority, Jack Layton has never been so undeniably relevant—and so utterly inconsequential.

Layton’s wild imaginings were merely the evening’s most flamboyant. The Night of 1,000 Delusions had gained momentum only a few minutes earlier, when Elizabeth May of the Green party ventured a curious interpretation of her own election to Parliament. “Today we proved that Canadians want change in politics,” she told supporters.

Is that what we proved? Because when the governing party wins a third straight election, and does so with a strengthened mandate, some of us are tempted to resort to the familiar Latin of status quo. Although to be fair to May, her party did attract 40 per cent fewer votes nationally this time—so that was change of a sort. Read more...

The Night of 1,000 Delusions - Scott Feschuk - Macleans.ca

Kindergarten's In Session! NDP Waste No Time In Getting Started with Conspiracy

Less than 48 hours after they secured the role of Loyal Opposition in the House of Commons, Thomas Mulcair, the NDP's senior Quebec MP, and previously a perceived voice of reason, crying out in the darkness brought to issues by the likes of Libby Davies, decided to open his mouth. If the results are any indication, the next 4 years are going to be interesting - so long as you aren't a member of the NDP, or especially it's leader.

Jack Layton has been given a strict timeline.  Four years to organize his kindergarten cadre into an effective opposition team, and then move beyond that to a point where the public will see the NDP as a real government in waiting. The latter is no small job for an experienced leader of a major party - but Layton has no experience in government at this level.


He has been a city councillor in Toronto, and then leader of the fourth tier party in the House. Now he will have to learn that some of the more crackpot statements, ones that might have been quickly left behind before as the media focused on the governing and leading opposition parties, won't pass unnoticed now. And as we have learned from Wikileaks, the actions of the Opposition party are noticed, and noted, by other countries. It's part of any embassy's job - informing their superiors of who might end up in the highest office in the land.

So when a senior member of the NDP makes a boneheaded comment to the media about the truthfulness of the President of the United States, Layton needs to worry. And he needs to act, quickly and decisively. That means a public slap-down of Thomas Mulcair after he suggested there were no pictures of Osama Bin Laden's body, implying that the story of his demise was not true. It means that, from here on in, any time a member of his caucus says something of like stupidity - such as Libby Davies questioning Israel's right to exist - they need to be publicly castigated. In the meantime, he needs to be explaining the rules to his caucus.

The first rule they learn needs to be this: don't say anything about the United States that wouldn't have every member of the Republican Party shouting "Amen!". If they don't think what they want to say meets that standard, then ask Jack.

Second, they need to remember that, if all goes according to party plans, the NDP will one day be the governing party in Canada. In order to accomplish this, they really ought not scare the voters. So, if they are going to talk about matters concerning the economy, if what they want to say couldn't have come from the mouth of the Governor of the Bank of Canada themself, ask Jack.

Third, on any issue to do with the Middle East, ask Jack.

What it all comes down to is this. The NDP has one chance to make a good impression on Canadians. In four years, the Liberal party, if they have half a clue (okay, the jury is currently out on that one...), will have rebuilt enough to challenge for the role of lead opposition party. So by then, the NDP has to be in a position to go back to the people who voted them in and present themselves as a government in waiting. A party that can be trusted with the reigns of government. If they haven't established themselves as such by then, the odds are they won't get another chance. There are no guarantees of winning power - but if they have established themselves as a government in waiting, they will likely be able to remain the main alternative to the Conservatives, simply waiting for their opportunity to arise.

Or they can follow the lead of Libby Davies and Thomas Mulcair back to third, or fourth, party status.

Conspiracy theory: NDP deputy leader Mulcair doubts U.S. has bin Laden photos - thestar.com

Election Day Cometh

So it finally comes - Election day 2011, the day of the 41st General Election in Canadian history.  After starting off with a whimper, looking like it was a Question of a small Conservative majority or a return to the ante electione status quo, a political earthquake appeared to take place (according to polls), this election has turned into something of a horse race, for lack of a better metaphor.

Right now, the polls are open, Canadians are voting, and we don't know what will happen.  Until 9:30 PM EDT,  NDP leader Jack Layton's dreams of 24 Sussex Drive on the shoulders of the other opposition leaders live on in the candy-coloured (think red smarties) lands of his imagination.  Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe can tell himself the feelings of impending doom are nothing but the dim memories of a bad dream.  And Green leader Lizzy May can tell herself she will in a few hours she will be leader of a party with as many seats as an independent.

Liberal and Opposition leader Michael Ignatieff can tell himself that forcing this election wasn't such a bad idea, and won't necessarily lead to the annihilation of his party and political career.  Prime Minister and Conservative leader Stephen Harper can imagine the possibilities of helming a majority government.  These dreams may or may not come true, but until 9:30 PM tonight, the possibilities are myriad.

So let your dreams run wild, political leaders, for some time tonight, at least some of you are in for a most rude awakening.

Chris Selley: Layton ‘scandal’ not likely to matter much | Full Comment | National Post

by Chris Selley - from the National Post

It’s awfully tough to judge rationally, in a non-partisan fashion, what to think of Jack Layton having allegedly been found naked on a mattress in a massage parlour in Toronto’s Chinatown 15 years ago. Some say the establishment was known for, shall we say, its supplementary services. Mr. Layton says he had no idea. Are people generally naked while getting shiatsu massages? Do these massages often take place on beds, and not on some kind of more clinical apparatus? Some say yes, some say no.

Some say it would take a purebred moron not to recognize the joint as a rub-and-tuggery, but even if so, it would be impossible to convict Mr. Layton of anything more than extreme naivete. For me, it’s like being told Mr. Layton cheated in an important game of jai alai. I don’t know the rules; I have no basis on which to judge. Most people, I suspect, would conclude that in the grand scheme of political missteps, someone not being charged with a crime, 15 years ago, is pretty close to a non-event.

Know this for certain: In 1996, Toronto Police had absolutely no incentive to cut Mr. Layton a break. As a municipal politician, he was one of their harsher critics. If they had a good case against him, you can bet they’d have pursued it wearing a mile-wide grin.

The online debate, not least among journalists, has been largely about whether this was a “legitimate” story. It’s a bit baffling, really. Of course it’s a legitimate story. The NDP campaign hasn’t disputed a word of it. Toronto Police have launched an investigation into how the police officer’s notebooks on which the story was based got out — as well they should. They seem to have an information management problem. But people can’t complain about journalists ferreting out information they don’t like hearing, or that they think is prurient or mean-spirited or politically motivated, and applaud when journalists ferret out information they do like hearing. Read more...

Chris Selley: Layton ‘scandal’ not likely to matter much | Full Comment | National Post

Jack Layton, On Why Residents of Quebec Are More Important Than Other Canadians.

Believe in democracy as the idea of "one person, one vote", and that this is a sacrosanct part of Canadian government?  Jack Layton doesn't.  Consider this exchange from his interview with the Globe and Mail's editorial board:

Mr. Geiger: We have a couple of questions from readers. I just received a Tweet from Caroline Hayward. She’s asking, Do you support additional seats for Ontario and Western Canada? You favour abolition of the Senate, which is one way in our parliamentary system that regional voices can be aired. If you are going to do that don’t you need to have better representation in the rep by pop chamber, which required reform of the house?

Mr. Layton: Yes we do support more seats for Ontario and Alberta and British Columbia. We also support retaining the current weight of Quebec in the seat calculation and we think it is possible to find our way to both of those objectives.

You mentioned the Senate. Imagine appointing candidates to the Senate, Members of Parliament who were defeated by the people of their region, and then you put them in the Senate. This to me completely undermines any argument that the Senate constitutes regional representation.

I clearly am very unhappy with what is happening with the Senate. The Senate has now become an activist entity. Overruling decisions that have been made by the elected house of commons. Other countries would not tolerate this and yet we somehow find it acceptable.

Mr. Geiger: If you have more seats to western Canada and Ontario, how do you maintain that historic balance with Quebec? They either get proportionally more seats or they don’t. Are you suggesting that all regions get more seats?

Mr. Layton: There would be additional seats allocated in Quebec as well.

Mr. Geiger: Even though it is not justified by population?

Mr. Layton: Well it justified by the historic political weight of Quebec in the federation. There is a solution that can be found here. It’s not an easy thing to do but it is one that we need to work for.

But we absolutely support additional seats for Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. They are under represented at the moment and that needs to be addressed.

Mr. Stackhouse: And more seats for Quebec?

Mr. Layton: There would be an adjustment vis a vis quebec.

Mr. Geiger: So in other words, they wouldn’t have proportionally more seats.

Mr. Layton: Yes they would. Well, they would have more seats. Significantly more.

Mr. Geiger: But not proportionately more?

Mr. Layton: Well, it would begin to redress the very significant dis-proportionality we see.

In Canada we have a representative democracy, based on the idea that a given number of Canadians are grouped together in ridings to be represented by one Member of Parliament in our government. While the reality has always been that some ridings are more or less populous than the ideal, the objective has always been a basic level of equality.

But as the populations of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario continue to grow at a much faster rate than those of the other provinces, if seats in the House of Commons aren't redistributed to reflect this, or more added for those three provinces (and to others if similarly necessary) we run the risk of the ideal of "one person, one vote" becoming nothing more than a memory.

This is what Jack Layton has proposed.  He would guarantee Quebec's current percentage of seats in the commons in perpetuity, regardless of it's population relative to other jurisdictions.  So Quebec, which now has 75 seats, or just over 24% of the seats in the Commons, and is over-represented relative to ON, AB, and BC already (ON has 106 seats, AB 28, BC 36 - and based on even distribution, QC would have 68) would be locked in at that percentage.  Even if down the road Quebec's population were to merit only 20% or less of the seats in the House, they would still be guaranteed 24%.

Now, you ask, are there not other provinces much more over-represented than Quebec?  Yes - the only provinces NOT over-represented are, in fact, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.  But with an adjustment to the number of seats, this can be dealt with.  No province is guaranteed a fixed percentage of the seats in the House of Commons in perpetuity.  Yet.  Layton, in his quest for votes, is bribing Quebec with the promise of just such a guaranteed percentage.  This means that, as Quebec's share of Canada's population continues to shrink (projected to drop to 21% by 2026, with Ontario rising to 41% from the current 38.5%) the three currently under-represented provinces will see themselves even further discriminated against. As other provinces grow, this could become an issue for them as well.

The roots of the term democracy lay in the Greek demos, meaning people, and kratos, meaning power.  It is understood that the first examples of Athenian democracy were a literal  gathering of all citizens (not including slaves, women, etc - it was not an overly egalitarian society, to say the least).  Today, we realize a gathering of every Canadian of voting age in one place would be difficult, to say the least, and so we have a representative democracy.  This means the country is supposed to be divided into equally populated areas, each of which sends a representative to Ottawa.  While we don't in effect have this now, for a variety of (basically constitutional) reasons, the growth of the nations population, or the ability to add seats to the Commons, means we could see this problem eventually disappear.


But not if Quebec is guaranteed a permanent 24% of all seats in the House of Commons.  If we do, Canadian citizens outside of Quebec will have a new name.  Second class.

* - in particular those in Prince Edward Island (due to a constitutional requirement that no province have fewer MPs than Senators) and the north are underpopulated, while many urban ridings are overpopulated

Jack Layton, on the record - The Globe and Mail

Stephen Taylor – a blog on Canadian politics » Transcript of NDP conference call

I think it is important, as the election draws near, that the willingness of the NDP to act not in accordance with what's best for the people of Canada, but rather to seek what's best for them and their big labour cronies, and the other interest groups which drive the NDP forward. They care not for the little guy who is concerned about union dues being used for political purposes, or the new guy just hired, or the small and medium sized businessperson trying to create jobs for Canadian workers. They care about lining the pockets of their special interest supporters with taxpayer dollars.

In light of that, I will post here part of the transcript from an NDP meeting which took place as the Coalition sought to hijack the House of Commons.

Jack (Layton): Thank you very much, uh, keep the myth alive that I’m exhausted and working incredibly hard (laughter) I appreciate you relaying that, I was asleep by ten o’clock last night, and had a very good night, a very good sleep, and that was my Friday night. So, an update on where we are, the, uh, we’re in the middle of a very historic time, and we’re playing a key role in it, in some ways a catalytic role actually, because as we think back, we’ll realize that nobody really imagined that it would be possible for the Bloc Quebecois, the Liberal party of Canada ever to enter into any kind of a discussion around the future of the country and it turned out that we were the glue, and spotted and prepared for the opportunity, and had taken the steps that were required so that when that opportunity arose, which was when Mr. Harper made his disastrous strategic error, by not providing stimulus to the economy, and instead playing political games, we were able to move, and things began to move very quickly, however, many obstacles remain in our way, and so we’re in a real battle now. The negotiating process, I am, by the way in very very regular touch with the leader of the Liberal party, and the leader of the Bloc, frequently every day. At the same time, negotiation processes are underway, and in fact as we speak, our negotiating team that I’ve named to meet with the Liberal negotiating team are discussing the mechanics of a coalition government, and the form that it would take, the structure of cabinet, the way in which the logistics of a coalition government with the Liberals and the New Democrats would work, the key roles, and dispute resolution mechanisms, timelines, et cetera.

05:23 -
All of the logistics issues that you would expect would be a part of such a discussion are being negotiated now we hope that that part of the negotiations would be completed today. Our negotiating team consists of Brian Topp, who negotiated as a senior member of the Romano team in Saskatchewan, negotiating a similar coalition with the Liberal party there, and of course you know Brian is our campaign co-chair director. Ann McGrath, in her chief of staff role, she’s also wearing the president of the party hat still, and so she’s got several hats on at the moment. Ed Broadbent, Alan Blakely, Dawn Black, as a member of caucus I’ve selected to participate in this process, someone that I happen to know is also respected and trusted by key Liberals, Tom Mulcair, as our Quebec lieutenant, and Carl Belanger. Tom and Carl are the negotiating team with the Bloc team, and Brian and Dawn Black are negotiating with the Liberal team. We’re starting with two party talks, this will resolve itself into a tripartite conversation before the weekend is up, and the goal is to produce by the end of the weekend, an agreement on the machinery of the coalition, which would be signed off, particularly by the NDP and Liberals, but endorsed by the Bloc, and an agreement on policy program for the coalition, that would have three party agreement. I can’t go into the details on all of this stuff, particularly the machinery, but it’s in the process of negotiation, and we could consume an awful lot of time speculating about it, so I don’t propose that we spend that time today on this particular matter of question. But instead, there’s a golden opportunity today, for you to provide input on the policy matters, you can be assured that we have looked at our program, we’ve looked at our platform, we’ve looked at what I’ve been saying about economic stimulus, we’ve been in close consultations with the leadership of the labour movement around some of their key ideas and they’ve been providing terrific support, including at a high-level early morning meeting this morning, so much of what you would have want to see, it’s probably already there, you’ll hear a bit more about it later, but there’s an opportunity to touch base with all of you, because in the end, you’re going to be intimately a part of the delivery of all of this, and so that’s why we’re having this meeting at this point in time.
08:32 -
Jack: I made a list Judy, so I’ll take a whack and you’ll say if I’ve missed any…
Judy: Ya. Meetings, confidentiality, what can be said. Go ahead.
Jack: First, do MP’s have to be in Ottawa until we have a better sense of the potential confidence motion stakes. You have to remain agile. And with Ottawa being the base. Uh, and so when you’re organising your community meetings make sure there’s a speaker phone facility, or a webcam. Secondly, I believe that we should get immediately into the driver’s seats on organizing these community meetings, you have people who worked on your campaign who are exactly the kind of people, whether in labour movements, labour councils, uh, childcare groups, environmental groups, these are people that need to be pulled together. You get them together, and then they’ll take it from there, it doesn’t have to be your meeting, it shouldn’t be your meeting, but of course you’ll be there as the MP, and you’re part of the coalition, and you’re consulting with the community to make sure they’re open, so if anyone wants to come and protest and say it’s a bad idea, be there to make a real news event out of it, the youth comes with the emotion in favour of the coalition and an action plan coming from Thursday night, particularly focused on the weekend, with petitioning, and phone in shows, and god knows what else, a letter writing, one of the goals here is to of course, recruit as many names, addresses, emails, phone numbers as possibly can, because this coalition will need the support of these people, and then we will need their support when we get an election. Now, will there be an independent NDP caucus, yes. BQ stability issues, worry about BQ potentially being off-side, we’re taking that very much into account. We have numerous strategies designed to deal with it, I actually believe they’re the least of our problems, but in case I’m wrong, let’s just say we have strategies, this whole thing would not have happened if the moves hadn’t have been made with the Bloc to lock them in early, because you couldn’t put three people together in one, in three hours. The first part was done a long time ago, I won’t go into details, and the managing expectations, lists from groups, actually, the wisest people in the groups are already coming to the conclusion, some of them are in direct contact, saying probably wouldn’t be too helpful if we had long lists of stuff, right? What we really want is just to get Harper out and get the new group in because it’s going to be a hell of a lot better for everything we believe in, correct? Correct. So let’s stay on that track, and not start debating whether or not it’s twenty five percent change or fifteen percent change over here, let’s get them out, on the basis of unity not the basis of division. Somebody asked about Bill Casey, absolutely, in the game, uh, on confidentiality, we now have to get out and defend the idea of the coalition. This is not a secret that it’s been discussed, the various elements that are in it, you can say it’s all about getting the economy going, and transforming the economy for the twenty first century, use everything that you’ve seen in my speeches up until now, that you’ve all been using so well particularly when I’ve seen you on panels, and by the way, our team on panels, everybody, staff and MPs, rocking, absolutely rocking doing us proud, so yes, there is a coalition, we’re fighting for it, we’re trying to make it happen, we think it’s a good idea for Canada, the majority of Canadians voted to go in a different direction than Harper’s taking us, you can’t trust him, no matter anything, throw him out. What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it? He was given a minority, and he refused to work with the other parties, he had 38% of the vote and he’s trying to govern like he had 100% of the power, he’s the one who’s got democracy wrong, not us. So do not be defensive, to work among what we are doing is to give effect to the wishes of the majority of Canadians, have no doubt about that. The coalition for Canada, I love the idea, it could be a deal-breaker for the Bloc (laughter) so if we don’t go, we call it “The Coalition for Canada and Quebec,” (lots of laughter). Well, welcome to the real world of….that’s not funny
Jack: And let me come to, I know it’s complicated, so let’s just be wise about how we put this thing together. I think that there were many good comments that were developed from this, right from Aboriginal, which was on our mind, right through to many of these other suggestions and we will do our very best to put this together. And I’ll just say one other thing about the issue of the Bloc: nothing could be better for our country, than to have the fifty members who’ve been elected to separate Quebec to actually helping to make Canada a better place. I think we just approach it on that basis, and say we’re willing to make Canada happen, here’s other things that we’re going to be investing in and transforming together, they’re willing to work with us, we’ll accept that offer. What will be important to point out is that this will be an NDP-Liberal coalition, which is supported by the Bloc, with policy ideas that the coalition is bringing forward. Okay? And that’s going to be helpful to you in your dealing with those that have concerns, because they, you can see where Harper’s going here, he’s going to say it’s the socialists and the separatists and the opportunists getting together. You know? Those are their talking points, and so we just need to push back. I want to thank everybody for the input, I would get going this weekend on getting groups together, start talking about organizing those Thursday meetings, act as the catalyst to make it happen, and then just let it go, it’ll roar, and it’ll be very exciting. If you’re in a larger city, and there’s several of you, or if you’re in the largest city and you’re on your own, act as the catalyst anyway, chances are there’s a bunch of Liberals in the other ridings on whom we want pressure placed, as I mentioned at the outset of the conversation. I guess we’re at the end.
Judy: I just want to add one thing, and that is so the major thing is here that the message we’re focused on the message, so that’s not confidential, what’s confidential is strategy, the discussion, details, the speculation about the other parties and their motivation and what they will or they won’t do, we should not talk at all about war rooms, or campaigns in that sense. We’re building, trying to create a coalition government that will be a Liberal-NDP coalition that will be supported by the Bloc and that’s the message that we want to get out, nothing about the discussions in the background, and when in doubt, call, probably Brad, and Brad on that issue and on the whole issue of the campaign, and organizing meetings, people will want to reach you quickly, what’s the best way?
Jack Harris: Judy, Jack Harris here, I know it’s a structure question, but I’m at a loss at this point to know whether we’re talking about a short-term, quick economic stimulus coalition, or are we talking about something that could last two or three years, this is kind of important in our own minds, as well because aside from economic stimulus of course, this coalition will have to govern on every part of the government, of the legislative of the -
Judy: Okay, let me ask Jack to answer that and then Brad, you give the best contact information.
Jack Layton: Longer term. Not short term...
Fore the entire transcript, follow this link: Stephen Taylor – a blog on Canadian politics » Transcript of NDP conference call

NDP's cynical vows

by William Watson - from the Financial Post

Most of us didn't pay much attention to the NDP platform when it came out, on the then-reasonable assumption the party wasn't going anywhere near power, so the platform didn't really matter -which also seems to be the assumption the party itself made in writing it. But now that millions of non-readers are about to vote NDP, it's time to check out what, apart from smiling broadly, the party actually stands for.

The NDP platform, which is 26 pages long, contains 19 pictures of Jack Layton and 12 pages of text. Even so, those 12 pages list 146 bullets' worth of policy, with another 59 sub-bullets, for a grand total of 205 policy promises. The platform's title is Giving Your Family a Break: Practical First Steps. If there are 205 "first steps," how many second, third and fourth steps will there be?

The centrepiece of the platform is to raise the corporate tax rate from the 15% it's scheduled to hit next year to 19.5% and to use the resulting revenues to finance 66 of the "first steps" for which a separate three-page budget document provides cost estimates. The NDP must assume either that the almost one-third increase in the corporate rate won't affect employment and economic growth or that the benefits of expanded programs will offset the cost in jobs and output. Many critics of the Conservatives, including Prof. Henry Mintzberg of McGill University, argue corporate taxes don't have significant economic effects.

It's therefore very interesting that one of the costed NDP policy initiatives is to spend $1-billion a year cutting the tax rate for small businesses from 11% to 9%. When you're introducing 205 policy initiatives in just 12 pages of text, you don't get to spend a lot of time describing each one. About the cut in the small business rate, the platform says merely that it is "to support a sector of our economy that creates nearly half of all new jobs in Canada."

But wait a second. If small business creates less than half the new jobs in Canada, who creates the rest? Governments are responsible for some, though only to the extent they can find tax revenues to finance them. But nonsmall business, that is, big business, does much of the rest.

This promise appears in a section of the platform entitled "Reward the job creators." Strictly speaking, the platform doesn't say tax cuts will encourage small businesses to create new jobs. Maybe we just want to reward them for the good work already done -though $1-billion a year just to say thanks does seem excessive when we're in deep deficit. In fact, the strong implication is that cutting these businesses' taxes will cause them to hire more people.

But if cutting business taxes leads to more investment and jobs, doesn't that mean raising business taxes leads to less investment and fewer jobs? So why encourage small business investment and jobs at the expense of big business investment and jobs? Why have the government take a position in this way on which businesses create the next jobs? Read more...

NDP's cynical vows

Sand in the Shorts: Hysteria Aside, Kramp and the Conservatives Are Canada's Best Bet (Full Version)

This column appeared (in edited form) in the Intelligencer, Saturday, April 30th, 2011


With this being my last column before the election on Monday, May 2, I figured I would join so many others in endorsing my candidates of choice, for both MP for Prince Edward – Hastings, and for Prime Minister of this great nation. Now, I realize that most of you can guess who these will be. While I always strive to be even-handed news wise, I have never made any attempt to hide my beliefs on the opinion side. So rather than simply saying whom I shall vote for (for the one position I can vote for), I will try to explain why I made this choice, in hopes my logic will motivate you, dear reader, similarly.

First, I am heartily endorsing Daryl Kramp for another term as Member of Parliament for Prince Edward – Hastings. Mr. Kramp has continued the trend of strong MP's for this riding, vigorously acting on behalf of his constituents whenever the need arises. It is noteworthy that even many local voters who might not support the Conservatives as a party, look upon Daryl as a quality representative, and the man they've voted for before, and will again. He is someone who, through his involvement in municipal politics, as well as being a small business owner, has gotten to know many people in the constituency.

While Peter Tinsley's CV is impressive, and he is clearly a smart man, he has yet to develop his place in the community as fully, and as such needs some seasoning (I know the issue well!). Michael McMahon is known by many after teaching them science, but in this riding the NDP, barring a miracle, has not moved beyond third party status, and Mr McMahon's demonstrated intensity when dealing with some issues might not fit the riding's make up either. Patrick Larkin, the Green Party candidate, is, like Mr. McMahon, a strong candidate for a party with little to no chance in this riding, but left me wondering where he stands on many issues of importance locally. Tim Hickey, the lone independent candidate, has a vision for the nation, but neglected to share one of what he sees as being important for local constituents, and where he stands on key issues. Andrew Skinner, the Progressive Canadian Party candidate, the last of the candidates, needs to work on toning down his use of anti-American rhetoric as a means of contrasting himself with the other candidates, and make sure he boosts his knowledge of the issues and the area.

Moving on to my endorsement for Prime Minister, I believe Stephen Harper is the best candidate for the job. Having governed already since January 2006, he has done a good job of governing through a vicious global recession, maintaining a non-ideological stance where necessary to govern, but not abandoning the principles which have driven support for the Conservatives since 2003. While his time in office hasn't been without problems, it is important to consider what his strengths are, and also who the options are.

Stephen Harper comes from the libertarian stream of Canadian conservatism, seeing a need for a preservation of what is essential to our nation but unwilling to die for issues which, while important to some, aren't essential. He is the quintessential small-c conservative, working to limit the growth of government spending, while careful not to cut away programs which are necessary for things other than making work for bureaucrats sucking at the public teat.

He is a supporter of human rights, demonstrating that all the more with his proposal for an office to advocate for religious freedom internationally. He is a strong proponent of opening up Canada's Arctic and of having a strong national defence, as demonstrated by his decisions to purchase new main battle tanks for the Army, build new icebreakers and an Arctic deep water port, replace the aging CF-18 fleet, and bolstering Canada's Special Forces capabilities. And he has returned us to an era when Canada was a respected player internationally by working with the Liberals in a minority parliament to extend the Canadian contribution to Afghanistan, and by sending Air Force and Navy assets to help protect Libyan civilians and rebels.

Michael Ignatieff is a brilliant man, with, based on his writings before he came back to Canada, strong, principled views on areas such as human rights. Unfortunately, since his return he has flip-flopped on issue after issue, which has only served to highlight the fact that the Liberal party needs – for all of Canada's sake – a ground up rebuild. This is a party which has lost it's way, has lost it's principles, existing now only to be elected. Canada needs two strong, electable parties. Hopefully the Liberals take this opportunity to leave Trudeau and Chretien behind and give a total re-think to what their party stands for.

Jack Layton is probably a nice guy, and pretty smart. But his ethical choices have not always been well thought out, and his opening up of the Quebec-Constitution can of worms shows him to be a dumb opportunist. No good will come of this, and indeed it could stir up a waning separatist movement – never a smart idea. He also abused publicly subsidized housing in Toronto while serving as a city councillor, and more recently refused to take action when deputy NDP leader, and House Leader, Libby Davies questioned the right of Israel to exist. These are not the makings of a Prime Minister.

As to the Green Party, Elizabeth May needs to get herself elected before they deserve to be considered a legitimate party in the sense that the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP are. At least the nut-bar separatists of the Bloc Quebecois have seats in the Commons (hopefully many less, soon) – even if they are illegitimate leeches feeding on the Canadian body politic until they reach satiation and retire.

That, then, is my take. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, please remember this: if you don't vote, you don't matter. Get out and vote for your candidate of choice – it's the very least a Canadian who loves their country can do.

Libby Davies as a Minister in a Layton government?

    Tim Powers published an article today in the Globe and Mail speculating on who might be in the cabinet if Jack Layton were to form a government.  I just about choked when he mentioned Libby Davies as Minister of Foreign Affairs.  This is, after all the NDP MP who demonstrated a remarkable ignorance of history when she stated that the Israel has been occupying Palestinian territories since 1948 (the year Israel came into existence) and that "it’s the longest occupation in history".  She was caught on video making these comments at an anti-Israeli government protest in Vancouver on June 5, 2010.


    Now, were Ms. Davies to have checked her history, she would have found the Israeli military didn't move into the West Bank and Gaza until 1967, as a result of an imminent threat of attack by Jordan, Egypt and Syria.  So, for example, Tibet, which has been occupied by communist China since 1950, has been occupied far longer.  In history, other longer occupations include the German annexation of Alsace-Moselle (from 1871-1918), the Russian (Soviet) occupation of the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia)(1940-1991, broken by the German occupation of the area from 1941-1944), and the Allied occupation of Berlin (1945-1990).


    She also would have found that from 1948-1967 the West Bank and East Jerusalem were occupied by Jordan. 


    The key point here is that, for all that Jack Layton wants to show his party as being ready to lead, this is a party which has not yet shown itself to be "a government in waiting".  Had a member of the Liberal or Conservative caucus displayed such blatant bias against the existence of the state of Israel, along with a ridiculous lack of knowledge in the areas of history and geo-politics (and an apparent unawareness of the existence of Wikipedia, where she could have checked her facts before embarrassing herself), said member would have at the very least been publicly admonished and demoted by the leader of their party.


   
Instead, the only member of her party to call her out was Thomas Mulcair, who earned the enmity of other NDP MPs and supporters for his efforts.  And the question also must be asked - was Jack Layton's refusal to remove her from the post of deputy leader (a position she holds to this day) a sign of tacit agreement on his part with her basic views (if not her blundered exposition of same)?  Is an NDP government one which would take the side of Palestinian radicals (aka Hamas) against Israel, for all the talk of "even-handedness"?


    The fundamental question the voter is led to is this:


Is the NDP under Jack Layton fit or competent to lead Canada as Prime Minister?  The evidence says not.

Will Layton raise your mortgage payments? - The Globe and Mail

By Andrew Steele - from the Globe and Mail

The prospect of an NDP government remains remote, but the election of an NDP government in Ontario in 1990 seemed impossible a week out as well.

The recent Angus Reid poll, showing the NDP just five points behind the Tories, raises a frightening spectre for anyone with a mortgage.

What would the election of an NDP minority government mean for interest rates?

The markets have made little movement so far, but Doug Porter with BMO Capital Markets thinks “we could see a significant shift next Monday if these polls are remotely accurate.”

Already, there is some speculation that the polls are hurting the dollar. During this morning’s rally of major currencies against the U.S. greenback, the Canadian dollar was notably sluggish.

It’s unlikely the dollar will swan dive immediately if the NDP is elected. There is still a five-cent cushion over parity, and U.S. fiscal policy, oil prices and interest rate speculation tend to be bigger drivers of the loonie’s trajectory than politics in the short term.

But some wobbling is likely over the next week, especially if the markets had already priced in a Conservative majority and tougher fiscal policy in their earlier buying decisions. Another round of polls showing continuing NDP strength will only exacerbate that uncertainty.

The real test for the economy would come with an NDP budget. Read more...

Will Layton raise your mortgage payments? - The Globe and Mail

The NDP's missing constitution - Inside Politics

When so much of the complaints about the current government from the opposition focus on the need for openness, it is a trifle strange - to say the least - that the NDP is so busy hiding their constitution.

The NDP's missing constitution - Inside Politics

Does NDP pose more of a threat to national unity than the Bloc? - The Globe and Mail

by Adam Radwanski - from the Globe and Mail

The obvious, instinctive reaction is to cheer for Jack Layton – if not nationally, then in the province where he’s most caught fire.

Quebeckers have long parked their votes with the Bloc Québécois – a party that by its nature has no interest in building a better country. Mr. Layton’s NDP, which has seemingly come out of nowhere to lead the Bloc in popular support, offers the prospect of more constructive representation and more thoughtful consideration of Quebec’s role within Canada.

But before getting out the pompoms, Mr. Layton’s message in recent days raises an uncomfortable question: Could the federalist party pose more of a threat to national unity than the sovereigntist one?

To create the “winning conditions” that sovereigntists have long been seeking, and that will be in demand if the Parti Québécois defeats Jean Charest’s Liberals in the next provincial election, requires a strong sense of grievance. The oui side came so close to victory in the 1995 referendum largely because of the perception that Quebec’s interests had been rejected by the rest of Canada, through the defeats of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. But as of now, there’s nothing nearly so galvanizing in play.

For sovereigntists, it’s difficult to change that on their own. The PQ plans to try, with a stridently nationalist agenda aimed at provoking Ottawa. But Bloc MPs can make no serious claim to wanting to make federalism work, so it’s hard for them to help convey and spread a sense of disillusionment. Nor can they easily entice the federal government to launch into constitutional talks, of the sort that have previously ended in heartbreak, because no prime minister would be under any illusion that he or she could make them happy.

History suggests, however, that self-identified federalists are a different story. In the 1980s, Brian Mulroney built a coalition with soft nationalists, then tried to appease them. His reward was a chunk of his caucus breaking off to form the Bloc, a gesture with much more impact than anything the party they formed could do today. Their revolt, along with the frustration of the federalist provincial government of the day, helped set in motion the near-miss in 1995.

Since then, federal governments have stepped more carefully. Jean Chrétien’s Liberals went nowhere near constitutional talks, and took the opposite tack by introducing the Clarity Act. (That they also created all kinds of bad will with the sponsorship program is a different matter.) Paul Martin was more ambiguous – making former Bloc MP Jean Lapierre his Quebec lieutenant, and embracing “asymmetrical federalism” in a way Mr. Chrétien didn’t. But after dabbling with soft nationalism – giving the Québécois a “nation within Canada” designation, and engaging in a flirtation with Mario Dumont’s Action Démocratique du Québec – Stephen Harper has shifted back a little closer to where Mr. Chrétien was.

It remains highly unlikely that Mr. Layton will lead the government after May 2, but seat gains in Quebec and elsewhere could give him a big hand in shaping it. So it bears noting that there are a few shades of Mr. Mulroney’s approach in what he’s doing to win over Quebec.

The NDP has long had a commitment to provincial autonomy for Quebec that seems at odds with its interventionist message in the rest of the country. But Mr. Layton isn’t just promising not to impose federal programs. He backs extending Bill 101, Quebec’s controversial language legislation, into federally regulated workplaces. He is non-committal on the Clarity Act. He doesn’t want to add more seats in the House of Commons for underrepresented provinces such as Ontario and Alberta, without also adding more seats for Quebec so that it remains overrepresented. Read more...

Does NDP pose more of a threat to national unity than the Bloc? - The Globe and Mail

Second NDP candidate takes vacation from campaign trail

If the NDP can't field candidates who are serious about running for Parliament, how can voters place their trust in them to take a major role in the Commons as either the Official Opposition or, if Jack Layton is lucky, and the country is not, Prime Minister?

Second NDP candidate takes vacation from campaign trail

Jonas Himmelstrand: Universal daycare leaves Sweden’s children less educated | Full Comment | National Post

by Daniel Kaszor - from the National Post

While preparing for a trip to Canada, I have learned that many Canadians consider my country, Sweden, to be a model for good family policy. After all, Sweden has a universally accessible, government-funded daycare system, and a 2006 study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ranked Sweden at the top and Canada at the bottom in childcare provision. Indeed, Swedish family policies are internationally admired, offering comprehensive and affordable daycare, gender equality and a high percentage of women in paid work. This, however, is only one half of the story.

True, parental leave in Sweden is a generous 16 months. There are no babies in daycare. But when parental leave ends, practically the reverse is true: A full 92% of all children aged 18 months to five years are in daycare. Parents pay only a symbolic amount for this; tax subsidies for daycare are $20,000 per child, annually. Swedish taxes are among the highest in the world, and the tax system was designed to make both parents seek employment in the work force. Read more...

Jonas Himmelstrand: Universal daycare leaves Sweden’s children less educated | Full Comment | National Post

Jack Mintz: The campaign’s top corporate tax myths | FP Comment | Financial Post

by Jack M. Mintz - from the Financial Post

After the May 2 federal election, some politicians should sign up to a boot camp on corporate tax policy. Our election banter reminds me of the 1960s, with populist views that corporations only benefit the rich and powerful and should therefore be taxed to the hilt. The many myths about corporate tax policies being propagated are deplorable.  Read more...

Jack Mintz: The campaign’s top corporate tax myths | FP Comment | Financial Post