What would Jack Layton say about Linda McQuaig’s push for a two-person debate?

Four federal by-elections have been called for Nov. 25^th, including in Toronto Centre. While a new poll shows the Liberals comfortably ahead, I think it’s going to be a real battle. And so does NDP candidate Linda McQuaig, judging by the gambit she launched this weekend.

McQuaig is challenging Liberal candidate Chrystia Freeland to a one-on-one debate on income inequality, a topic they’ve both written about at some length. Such a debate would exclude every other party running in this election, such as the Green Party and, oh yeah, the folks with a majority government that are running the country, the Conservatives.

Big difference between @cafreeland & me on income inequality. Debate wd help #torcen residents decide. #ndp #lpc http://t.co/gGNEf9Xc8N
— Linda McQuaig (@LindaMcQuaig) October 20, 2013

Freeland isn’t taking the bait; she says she’s looking forward to many debates with all the candidates.

Looking fwd to taking part in all-candidates debates over the coming weeks. Important for #torcen voters to hear from all parties #cdnpoli
— Chrystia Freeland (@cafreeland) October 21, 2013

Of course, the idea of excluding major parties for more limited debates isn't new. In 2008, the NDP and Conservatives teamed-up to bar Green Party Elizabeth May from the leaders debate. After pressure from the Liberals and Canadian citizens, the NDP and leader Jack Layton backed down, and the Greens were included.

McQuaig isn't talking about excluding the other parties she must not consider contenders from all debates though, apparently. Just from this one.

.@cafreeland Yes -- all candidates debates! How 'bout extra one on impt topic -- rising inequality -- we've both studied? #torcen #cdnpoli
— Linda McQuaig (@LindaMcQuaig) October 21, 2013

Of course, an additional debate of just two so-called front-runners isn't a new idea either. In the 2011 election, Stephen Harper challenged then Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff to a one-on-one debate that would have excluded the NDP's Layton. Ignatieff quickly accepted the challenge; Harper then quickly changed his mind -- he wanted it to replace all leaders debates. And that obviously wasn't on.

In retrospect, such a debate would have been rather arrogant and exclusionary, as fun as it all was at the time. The voters like to decide for themselves among all the candidates though, as the results of that election (vaulting the NDP into the official opposition) would show.

Which brings us back to Layton. What would he have to say about having a separate one-on-one debate that doesn't include other parties, as McQuaig is seeking to do in Toronto-Centre? Well, we know what he had to say about it in 2011:



Layton called this idea an "anti-democratic approach" the he didn't think was right or would be accepted by Canadians. He noted it "prejudges the position of Canadians" and compared it to American-style politics. So Layton, clearly, would have a problem with what the NDP is proposing in Toronto-Centre.

One has to wonder if McQuaig ran this by new NDP leader Tom Mulcair. And one also has to wonder what McQuaig and Freeland would debate, as most of McQuaig's ideas on the topic have been soundly and publicly disavowed by Mulcair as unrepresentative of the party's position.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Are NDP leadership candidates showing up for work?

The proverbial "knock-out punch" in a political debate is a largely fictional, media-driven phenomenon. At best, it's rare. But if there was one during the leaders debate in this spring's federal election, it was probably this blow NDP leader Jack Layton landed on Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff:

"You know, most Canadians if they don’t show up for work they don’t get a promotion."

Layton was taking issue with Ignaiteff's attendance record in the House of Commons, saying he shouldn't expect a promotion (to Prime Minister) when he spent so much time "not at work" in the House. Of course, Layton deliberately overlooked the fact Ignatieff wasn't on vacation, or at home watching TV, but was touring the country meeting with Canadians talking about their concerns for the country. An unfair shot, but that's politics, and it was a shot that resonated with Canadians (due, in part, to Ignatieff's feeble non-response) around the point the NDP began its meteoric rise up the polls .

Nevertheless, Layton has set the bar. If you want a promotion, get your keester into your seat in the House of Commons while Parliament is in session. Which brings us to the NDP's leadership race, which now features five sitting MPs among the registered candidates. Are these MPs who are asking for a promotion showing up for work?

Let's take a look at this week, which saw the House sitting dealing with issues such as the Wheat Board and the Gun Registry, to name but two of many.

Paul Dewar wasn't at work; he spent Wednesday and Thursday off the job in Saskatchewan campaigning for NDP candidates in the provincial election, as well as drumming up support for his leadership campaign. He also came to Toronto Monday evening to talk cities.

Thomas Mulcair wasn't at work but instead spent the week in B.C., spending four days in Victoria meeting with environmentalists. And maybe tea at the Empress, but that's unconfirmed.

Peggy Nash skipped work Friday to launch her leadership campaign in Toronto, although most MPs tend to skip out on the Friday house sittings. Unfortunately, like most Canadians, my boss still expects me to work Fridays, right until 5pm. And when you put "for a full time MP" on your campaign signs, should you really skip Fridays?

Romeo Saganash was also out in Saskatchewan this week, stumping Monday in Saskatoon and Tuesday in North Battleford. And a Happy Birthday to Romeo, who turns 50 this weekend.

Nathan Cullen didn't have a large Google news footprint this week, so I'm not sure if he left work or not. Once story from this week does have a brief mention of him "campaigning in Saskatchewan and Manitoba these days."

Now, if it were up to me, MPs taking a few days off work to campaign for the leadership wouldn't be too big a deal, as long as they're back for key votes and debates and aren't excessive about it. It's par the political course in this sort of situation. And an MP's job isn't just in the House, of course, but in their ridings too. And they can't let their seatless competitors Brian Topp and Martin Singh have all the fun, can they?

However, it's not up to me. Jack made it clear that if you don't show up for work (in your seat in the House of Commons), you don't deserve a promotion. And since the party seems unable to go a day in this race without invoking his memory or asking "What Would Jack Do?", shouldn't they be held to the standard he put forward?

You want a promotion, you come to work, right? So far, these NDP candidates are earning a #fail.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

We have, and need, more Jacks

As we begin to move forward now with Jack Layton's celebration of life behind us, and as we consider what his lasting legacy will be, I think it would be a disservice to his memory to gloss over his imperfections (he's a human being, we're all imperfect) and to pretend his example was a unique one. It was all too rare, but it's not unique, and if we're to honour his example we should recognize that.

As I wrote earlier, Jack was someone who entered politics for the right reasons. He wasn't immune to playing the political games, exploiting the wedge issues, and running the negative ads. That's a part of modern politics, as disquieting as that may be. And everyone faces an internal battle between their demons and their better angels. But in his journey through political life he tried to keep principle and pragmatism as his guide-posts, and be willing to work with anyone with whom he could forge common ground.

And in that, Jack was not unique. There are people like Jack in every party, and in every part of the country. To be sure, there are those that get into politics for the wrong reasons: the pursuit of power, or ego. And there are those that will use the ends to justify any means. These are the people that give politicians a bad name, and cause them to rank down with lawyers and journalists when it comes to public trust and respect. And they're also in all parties.

But there are also those that see public service as a higher calling, a noble sacrifice. They're willing to make the sacrifices inherent in public life – long hours, time away from family, lost earning potential, public scrutiny – because they believe public service is the obligation of a citizen and they want to see this country improved. They're in every party and, while they may disagree on the finer points of how to get there, they share the same noble motivations and the same end goals.

Given the low esteem we hold politicians in the country, the public outpouring of emotion we've seen this week has been impressive. Much of it has to do with Jack's positive and dynamic force of personality, but I think it's larger than that. I think it's the people embracing the idea that Jack has come to represent, in spirit if not always perfectly in practice: a different, more positive, cooperative type of politics. It's the citizenry sending a message that there is a better way.

I think the way forward is multifold. Politicians of all stripes should heed this message, and reconsider their ways. But I think the bigger challenge is for our citizens, and it's two-fold. First, recognize that there are more Jacks out there, and in every party. Seek them out and support them as they try to work in a system designed to stifle them; too many good people give up on public life, but we need them too much. Help them persevere. Second, be the change you want to see. Get involved, up to and including running yourself, in promoting the ideal of public service you would like to see.

It's easy to lament the state of modern political discourse, but it's also a cop-out. We get the kind of politics we demand; if we don't demand change ... if we don't make change, we'll never get it.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Goodbye, Jack

Anyone who saw Jack Layton’s final public press conference, where the energizer bunny of Canadian politics looked so frail and weak, knew he was in the fight of his life. Over his long career though, many had learned the perils of betting against Jack. He’s a fighter, and he was a fighter to the end.

Perhaps that’s why the news of his passing from cancer early this morning was so stunning. It’s just hard to imagine Ottawa, and political debate, without Jack. The NDP has had some larger than life figures -- Tommy Douglas, Ed Broadbent – but they were before my time. I remember Audrey McLaughlin and Alexa McDonough but for me, and more many, Jack Layton is the NDP. The happy warrior whose ever-present smile and trademark moustache belied a tireless determination to build a better Canada.

Politics can be a rough and tumble business. And make no mistake; Jack played the game as hard as anyone. But there’s also a collegiality that crosses party lines. A recognition that, despite our differences on this issue or that issue, we’re all united by a love of Canada and a desire to see it be the best it can be for all its people. And Jack typified that higher calling.

Some people like to talk about enemies in politics. I don’t like that kind of talk, and I don’t think Jack did either. Certainly, Jack wasn’t my enemy. I have nothing but respect for anyone who makes the sacrifice of public service, with all the slings and arrows that come with that commitment. And while we may have disagreed on points of policy, there’s no doubt Jack was fighting for all the right reasons. He elevated the debate, and spurred all around him to do the same.

And no matter your political learning, it was hard not to cheer Jack on this spring as, still recovering from his battle with prostate cancer, he tirelessly barnstormed across the country in an election campaign that brought his party to its greatest electoral success, and the cusp of something few would ever have thought possible before: governing Canada. His courage was inspiring to all Canadians.

It’s heart-breaking to see Jack leave us on the heels of his greatest success, with so much promise left unfulfilled. We’ll always wonder what might have been. It’s certainly too early at this juncture to consider what his legacy will be, or what the future will hold. I hope, though, that if Jack leaves us with one lesson, it’s this: you don’t need to dirty yourself in the mud to be successful. A positive vision and hard work will be rewarded.

Jack, you left us too soon. But we’re better for the time you shared with us.

Thank-you, Jack.

UPDATE: A touching final letter from Jack to Canadians (PDF).

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Clarity Act and the NDP’s Sherbrooke Declaration are not the same thing

Much buzz on twitter and in politicaldom yesterday on the confusion around the NDP’s position on recognizing a sovereignty referendum vote by Quebecers. NDP policies on this issue have been somewhat confused and contentious for years, but with their newfound relevance many are just now beginning to pay attention to them and try to get some clarity.

Much of the debate and the confusion has centred around two specific documents: the Clarity Act passed by the Liberal government under Jean Chretien and Stephane Dion following the 1995 referendum and a subsequent Supreme Court reference, and the Sherbrooke Declaration which has outlined NDP policy on Quebec since its adoption in 2005. I’d encourage you to read both documents to better frame the debate going forward.

In my view, the root of the confusion has been the NDP doing what many political parties have been guilty of: saying one thing in Quebec, and one thing in the rest of Canada. In Quebec, they point to Sherbrooke as their policy. In the rest of Canada, they seem to signal support for the Clarity Act, trying to back away from pre-Sherbrooke comments to scrap it. And they’ll have you believe those two positions are compatible.

However, if you’ve read both documents it’s hard to support that argument on two key points: acceptance of the referendum question, and the threshold required to accept a yes vote.

Setting the question

First, the question. Here’s the NDP position via Sherbrooke:

The NDP recognizes as well that the right to self determination implies that the Assemblee Nationale is able to write a referendum question and that the citizens of Quebec are able to answer it freely.

I read this as saying the Quebec national assembly has sole right to select whatever question they want and the NDP will accept it. Yet here’s the Clarity Act on this point:

1. (1) The House of Commons shall, within thirty days after the government of a province tables in its legislative assembly or otherwise officially releases the question that it intends to submit to its voters in a referendum relating to the proposed secession of the province from Canada, consider the question and, by resolution, set out its determination on whether the question is clear.

It goes on to set out broadly some criteria for judging the clarity of the question, and says the Government of Canada will not recognize an unclear question.

Now, I view those two positions as opposed, and it’s hard not to. The NDP says the National Assembly sets the question, and we need to accept it. The Clarity Act says we'll only accept a clear question, and the House of Commons will make the call. This is kind of important, because the sovereignty movement has a history of trying to hoodwink Quebecers with confusing questions and messaging that’s just not true, like they’ll keep their passports and the dollar.

Now, you could try to argue the NDP is just saying Quebec picks the question but that doesn’t mean the feds can’t reject it. I don’t read it that way, but to make that argument you’d have to overlook the fact they don’t say the question is open to judgment so, at best, in that scenario you’re arguing they’re deliberately misleading Quebecers by leaving that part out. But I don’t buy it; they’ll clearly accept Quebec’s question, no reservations. And accepting a confusing or misleading question that could lead to the break-up of Canada is unacceptable.

The percentage threshold

The other point of contention is around the percentage needed for a sovereignty referendum yes vote to be accepted. The threshold has generally in the past been accepted as 60 per cent, although it was revealed post-1995 referendum that if he got one vote over 50 per cent Jacques Parizeau was pulling the trigger in a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI).

In Sherbrooke, the NDP also affirms its support for accepting 50 per cent plus one:

The NDP would accept a majority decision (50% + 1) of the Quebec people in the event of a referendum on the political status of Quebec.

Clear enough. It had appeared to some recently that Jack Layton was backing away from this position, but under questioning yesterday he confirmed the party’s position:

"The Supreme Court decision says you need a clear majority. And our Sherbrooke Declaration put a number to what a clear majority means: 50 per cent plus one. That's been our policy for a long time, and it remains so."

With that clear, what does the Clarity Act say on the matter?

House of Commons to consider whether there is a clear will to secede

2. (1) Where the government of a province, following a referendum relating to the secession of the province from Canada, seeks to enter into negotiations on the terms on which that province might cease to be part of Canada, the House of Commons shall, except where it has determined pursuant to section 1 that a referendum question is not clear, consider and, by resolution, set out its determination on whether, in the circumstances, there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of that province that the province cease to be part of Canada.

Factors for House of Commons to take into account

(2) In considering whether there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of a province that the province cease to be part of Canada, the House of Commons shall take into account

(a) the size of the majority of valid votes cast in favour of the secessionist option;

(b) the percentage of eligible voters voting in the referendum; and

(c) any other matters or circumstances it considers to be relevant.

While it’s deliberately vague in setting a precise threshold, the Clarity Act does clearly say “a clear majority” is needed. Is 50 per cent plus one a clear majority? I don’t think so. If the act accepted 50+1, it would have just said majority. Clear is the operative word.

Stephane Dion yesterday said it best:

But Liberal MP Stephane Dion, who spearheaded the secession reference to the Supreme Court and authored the subsequent Clarity Act based on the court's ruling, scoffed at Layton's logic.

Dion said the top court would have said so if it meant a bare majority would be good enough to trigger secession negotiations. Instead the court insisted, 13 times, that a "clear majority" would be necessary.

"If (Layton thinks) 50 per cent plus one is a clear majority, what is an unclear majority?" Dion asked in an interview.

Indeed. Clearly, on the two fundamental points here – the question, and the threshold for acceptance – the Sherbrooke Declaration and the Clarity Act are opposed.

Pick a position

You may be asking yourself, so what? I agree, the NDP is free to take whatever position on these issues they want. They’re free to accept a confusing question, and they’re free to let Canada break-up on a one-vote majority resulting from that confused question. I disagree fundamentally and vehemently with both policy positions, but they’re free to take them. And as Antonio notes, both positions are within the Quebec political mainstream.

What they can’t do, however, is try to have it both ways. They can’t tell Quebecers one thing and Canadians another. They can’t say Sherbrooke is their policy but claim support for the Supreme Court opinion and the Clarity Act, because the two aren’t compatible. They need to pick a position, own it and stand by it in all of Canada.

As for the NDP pushback on this issue, which can be summarized as a) our position isn’t confused but no one cares about this so stop talking about it, and b) the Liberals making an issue of our position is akin to fermenting a national unity crisis, I can only say both positions are ridiculous.

With half the NDP caucus hailing from Quebec, and with most Quebec MPs now NDPers, some of whom have been unclear on the unity issue, their party’s position on this issue is incredibly relevant and should, at the very least, be made clear. And if talking about the NDP’s position on this issue is someone dangerous to national unity, is the problem really talking about it, or is the problem actually their position?

As Jack would say, that’s a hashtag fail.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Help unravel the mystery with Professor Layton!

This showed-up in my inbox the other day from Nintendo in a case of interesting timing, given current events. I found it amusing, and surely ripe for parody by someone with graphic design skills...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Layton sucks and blows on registry, but with pizazz

Follow the bouncing-ball. Jack Layton had a press conference on the gun registry today where he confirmed he can’t get his rural MPs to support what has long been NDP party policy and support the gun registry.

He doesn’t want to whip his caucus, because it seems likely some of them wouldn’t fall into line if he tried. I know the NDP insists its long-held principle they don’t whip private members bills (PMB), but in fact we all know this is only a Conservative government bill masquerading as a PMB to exploit that fact. As an aside, one wonders just what trickery the Conservatives could push through this loophole if they wanted to.

Still, Jack doesn’t want to be seen as doing nothing while his MPs kill the gun registry. So today he proposed a private member’s bill that would reform the registry. Coincidentally, his reforms are pretty much the same as the reforms proposed by the Liberals in April, reforms the NDP and its surrogates have been spending the last four months attacking as insufficient. The one notable difference is that the Liberals would enact the reforms when in government while voting to keep the registry now, while the NDP would introduce a private members bill as soon as it can this fall. Their hope is the reforms will convince their rural MPs to vote for the registry.

Sounds great, right? Sure. I liked these reforms when the Liberals proposed them in April, so I still like them now. I’m quite surprised it has taken the NDP this long to try to find a compromise, with an 11th-hour desperation play. While it’d be nice if Jack had said “great ideas Michael, now let’s take them one step further” instead of throwing bricks, I’m a glass half-full kinda guy.

But there’s just one thing: the vote to kill the registry will come well before Layton could possibly see his bill in the house. Layton’s answer to that?

Mr. Layton was pressed by reporters on how he expects this bill to become a reality, when Ms. Hoeppner’s bill is lined up for a vote so soon after Parliament resumes. He suggested that if all parties come onside, they could use the bill as a basis to reach a solution — presumably meaning that Ms. Hoeppner’s bill would either be amended or would die.

“There’s no good reason why we shouldn’t be able to sit down with goodwill and open minds. There’s no good reason why we shouldn’t be able to build solutions that bring us together.”

Now I’m certainly no government spokesperson. I’ll leave that dubious honour to Dimitri Soudas. But if Layton is seriously expecting the Conservatives to agree to kill the Hoeppner bill and get onboard with reforms to the registry they rejected when proposed by the Liberals in April, I expect they won’t find the government’s response to be favourable. They might even tell Layton “it’s our party’s policy not to interfere with private members bills” with a little smile. If the NDP is counting on Conservative help here, they’re dreaming.

Which means the vote to kill the registry will come long before a hypothetical NDP private members bill reforming it could ever see the light of day. And needless to say, if the registry is killed any bill to reform it dies as well.

So, that means NDP MPs will be faced with a choice, the same choice they’ve had all along: do they vote to kill the registry next month, or do they vote to keep it based on the promise of future reforms, either by a private member’s bill or by a new government.

For the Liberal caucus, it’s the latter. The choice has been made. Their leader, Michael Igntieff, has convinced them to support keeping the registry now by promising specific reforms by a future Liberal government.

Now it’s up to Layton to convince his caucus to do the same. He made an interesting comment here:

Mr. Layton was also critical of Mr. Ignatieff, who last April proposed many of the compromises that the NDP is now suggesting. The difference, said Mr. Layton, is that Ignatieff is saying he would make the conciliatory changes to the registry if the Liberals win the next election.

“But Liberal MPs are parliamentarians now,” said Mr. Layton. “Not parliamentarians in waiting. They need to act now.”

Yes Jack, and the vote on killing the registry will come first, and your MPs are parliamentarians now too. And you're not a leader-in-waiting either. So the question still remains: can you convince your MPs to accept a compromise or not? And if you can’t, will you whip them or will you let your MPs kill the registry?

This is a test of leadership Jack and, to paraphrase yourself, you need to act now.

UPDATE: Now with video, where the media openly laugh at Layton's feeble rationalizations. I hope his caucus takes him more seriously.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Jack Layton and Darrel Dexter extended caption contest

NDP leader Jack Layton shares a laugh today with Nova Scotia's NDP Premier, Darrell Dexter today at the Nova Scotia NDP's annual convention. Now here's a photo that needs a caption. My extended contribution is below, feel free to leave yours in the comments...

Darrell: Jack, I know that you've been in a righteous lather over the HST in BC and Ontario. You're not going to give me a hard time for jacking-up the HST by two points, are you?

Jack: Of course not, Darrell, you're my boy! You're my boy! We'll just ignore the fact that Nova Scotia now has both an NDP government AND the highest HST in Canada, and hope no one notices our hypocrisy.

Darrell: Awesome, you da man, Jack! Say, by the way, are you going to let your caucus vote to kill the gun registry or what?

Jack: Gotta go my man. Solidarity!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Like sands through the hourglass, these are the polls of our lives

A poll just dropped from Angus Reid that I’m sure will get the blogsphere buzzing today. There’s the usual horse-race numbers that are bad for the Liberals and their leader, nothing new there. That’s a drama for another day. No, what’s interesting is they also polled how a potential Liberal/NDP merger would fare.

Led by Michael Ignatieff, it found the electoral result with a merger would be pretty much the status-quo, hampered, says the pollster, by Ignatieff’s personal unpopularity:

However, led by Bob Rae it’s a different result, with a dead-heat and a shot at government, depending on the regional break-downs:

Apparently, says the pollster, Bob’s popularity in Ontario would be a difference-maker:

The prospect of a centre-left merger—similar to the one that allowed the Conservative Party to challenge and ultimately break the Liberal hegemony—is not greeted with the same enthusiasm by voters when the leader is revealed.

Ignatieff would not provide the new party with a shot at victory. Rae's popularity in Ontario, and to a lesser extent in British Columbia, would turn the next election into a tight contest.

I was slightly amused as I read this, and not just because of their comments about Rae’s popularity in Ontario, which certainly turns the popular meme on its head. No, I was amused because I was reminded of another Angus Reid poll of hypothetical leaders, this one during the last aborted Liberal leadership race.

From December of 2008, with Ignatieff as leader here were Angus Reid’s numbers (changes from the then current numbers in brackets):

Conservatives: 38% (-4)

Liberals: 33% (+11)

NDP: 13% (-5)

Bloc: 10% (-)

Green: 6% (-1)

And Angus Reid from December 2008 with Rae as leader:

Conservatives: 41% (-1)

Liberals: 26% (+4)

NDP: 15% (-3)

Bloc: 10% (-1)

Green: 6% (-1)

The point being, a hypothetical poll and a $1 will buy you a can of Fresca. And the X factor, of course, is the multi-million dollar demonization campaign the Conservatives unleashed on Ignatieff, and you can be sure one is sitting in a drawer on Bob.

Finally, back to the merger numbers, according to Angus Reid the LiberalDippers would fare best under Jack Layton (that sound you hear is a collective shriek of delight from the Blogging Dippers:

But Layton would immensely help the new party with good numbers in Ontario and a remarkable showing in Quebec, pushing the Bloc to second place for the first time in years.

Of course, I should caution those numbers don't factor in the thousands of Liberals who would be unable to vote, due to their heads having exploded.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Taking a few bullets from the Conservative rifle on the registry

As a Liberal who grew up in a rural riding I’ve never been a big fan of the long gun registry, and not just for political reasons. It was an issue that spoke to the ongoing urban/rural divide in the Liberal Party, a well-intentioned piece of legislation that didn’t consider the legitimate concerns of rural Canadians – most likely because their perspective just wasn’t present at the table when it was drafted.

If anything, for rural Liberals, it exposed a chicken and egg paradox – are Liberal policies not considerate of rural Canadians because we don’t have many rural Liberal MPs to offer input, or do we not have many Liberal rural MPs to offer input because our policies aren’t considerate of rural Canadians?

So I wasn’t optimistic when I read that Michael Ignatieff was offering some proposals on the gun registry he hoped would appeal to rural Canadians, or at least to those eight Liberals that voted to scrap the registry on second reading of Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner’s (not really) private members bill. But after hearing that all the caucus is apparently on board with the changes and will now vote against the Hoeppner bill, I took a look.

Essentially, the proposed Liberal reforms are as follows:

*First-time failures to register firearms would be treated as a simple, non-criminal, ticketing offence, instead of a criminal offence as they are currently;

*Fees for new licenses, renewals and upgrades would be permanently eliminated; and

*The registration process – especially the forms – would be streamlined to make registration as easy as possible.

I wasn’t optimistic at first, but I actually like these changes. When you talk to anti-registry folks they have a lot of arguments against it, some legitimate and some not. I think these reforms address nearly all of the legitimate concerns I’ve heard against the registry, or at least those I’m inclined to agree with.

Their big argument was criminality: why should I be a criminal if I forget to register Great-Grandpa’s old rifle from the Boer War? OK, it’s now a non-criminal, ticket offence. Another argument was I have a large rifle collection, you’re going to gouge me with fees? OK, no more fees. And all that paperwork? There’ll still be some, but we’ll streamline it.

The arguments that are left tend to lose steam:

Why should I have to register my gun? Well, why not? You register your car and your dog.

Criminals won’t obey the law and register! Criminals by definition don’t obey laws. Does that mean we shouldn’t have any?

It's too expensive? Yes, building it went over budget but that money is spent, the operating costs are actually low. If a house went over budget during construction, do you tear it down once built?

The police don’t use it! Tell that to the deputy commissioner of the RCMP and scores of police chiefs and officers across the country who say otherwise. Not all police support it, true, but many do. So if even half find it to be a useful tool, should we take it away for ideological reasons?

From there we descend into the conspiracy theories, about gun registration being the first step toward the government rounding up all the gun and marching us off to socialist work camps or something. I actually think that’s only if Obama gets a second mandate, actually.

The politics in Parliament

So with these proposed reforms, I understand that the entire Liberal caucus is now supposedly onside against Hoeppner’s bill. Reportedly Ignatieff will whip the vote, and I’m sure OLO wouldn’t whip it if they didn’t have them all onside. Well, one would like to think so, at least. It would be a pretty dumb move otherwise.

Even if all Liberal MPs are whipped, present and accounted for, and the BQ again votes no, it’s not enough to defeat the legislation though. Some 12 NDP MPs broke ranks and voted to kill the registry on second reading, mainly from rural ridings. The NDP says while it supports the registry, but it allows its MPs to vote their conscience on private members bills. Joe Comartin told Power and Politics Monday that while they’re trying to convince the 12, leader Jack Layton isn’t likely to whip the vote. Unless he changes his mind or convinces his 12 MPs to change theirs, the NDP will let the registry be killed. Indeed, they’ll help kill it.

It is a tricky situation, trying to bridge those cleavages within a caucus. We’ve been there. But hiding behind the “it’s a private members bill so it’s a free vote” line is a cop-out. The Conservatives are pushing this legislation; they did it as a pseudo private members bill PRECISESLY BECAUSE they wanted to peel off enough Liberal and NDP votes to pass it, because they knew they couldn’t pass it as a government bill. This is what the Conservatives want.

And if you believe the Conservatives aren’t whipping this vote on the down low, you’re hopelessly naïve. Not one Conservative MP from an urban riding (there are a few) or Quebec supports the registry? Well, all-righty then.

If the NDP really supports the registry, they need to either work with the Liberals and BQ on reforms that can get their caucus onside, or bite the bullet (to use a metaphor) and whip the vote. But it’s hard to have it both ways.

And the politics in Canada

Interesting to consider how this will play outside the Queensway. Let’s start with rural Canada. Will the Liberal reforms be enough to appease registry opponents? Not all of them. But some of them. There are those who will accept nothing less than abolition. They’re not likely to vote for Liberal for a boatload of reasons no matter what. But I think for many rural voters, the reforms address enough of their concerns to take this issue off the table for them. Getting them to vote Liberal will take a lot more, but it removes a roadblock and is a step in the right direction.

In urban Canada there’s probably no change as they support the registry and don’t think it should go anywhere, and I don’t think they’ll see the reforms as diminishing the effectiveness of the registry.

Now, what if the registry is killed by the Conservatives, with NDP support? Well, in rural Canada I’d see it as status quo. Could our rural MPs that voted to save it in vain be punished for trying to save the registry? Maybe. I’m sure the rabid registry haters would try to whip up some anger just out of spite. But given that they’d have won – the registry is dead – it’s likely most people who wanted it killed would be glad it’s gone and would cast their ballots on other issues.

In the cities, though, where support for the registry is strong, it’s another story. If the Liberal caucus unites in favour of the registry and the NDP splits to let it die, I wouldn’t want to be campaigning for the NDP in many urban ridings next election. What will they say in Surrey and Burnaby, in Vancouver-East, in Trinity-Spadina, and even Toronto-Danforth. Heck, how about Outremont?

And what about the Conservatives? We hear a lot of spin about how the Liberals are out of touch with rural voters on the registry. Well, aren’t the Conservatives then out of touch with urban voters on the registry? Hasn’t hurt them to date as they’ve taken no high-profile steps to kill it. Pass Hoeppner’s bill though and it’s another story, and I don’t think the “it’s a private members bill” line will fly with many urban voters. The Conservatives need to gain urban seats to move forward. This would make that dammed hard.

Were I a conspiracy theorist, I'd posit that the Conservatives want the NDP to defeat this bill. That lets them say to their base "we tried our best" while not pissing off the urban voters they need for growth purposes. And it lets them keep the registry alive as a red-meat issue, which has been their modus-operandi on justice issues from day one -- favouring politics and the appearance of progress over actual action.

So we’ll see how this all plays out. Right now, the ball is in the court of Layton and the NDP. Were I a betting man, I’d wager they find a way to get their caucus onside with some amendments. With the Liberals no longer to give them cover, being seen killing the registry would be unthinkable.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why are we so dammed afraid to get smart on crime?

As a Liberal who would describe himself as socially moderate and fiscally conservative, I'm increasingly angry and frustrated with the inability and unwillingness of the centre/left to get smart on crime policy. Increasingly, we’re letting the conservatives define the terms of the debate as we cower in the corner frightened and whimpering, afraid of being tarred with that label of political death: soft on crime.

I remember being dumbfounded during the 2005/06 election campaign, when the Paul Martin Liberals included support for mandatory minimum sentences for some (gun-related) crimes in the election platform, a move to echo ineffective Conservative policy proposals that was also adapted by the NDP.

Mandatory minimums don’t work, the evidence on that point from the U.S. is pretty overwhelming. Criminals know what they’re doing is wrong and they know there are consequences, mandatory minimums aren’t a deterrent. They do nothing to prevent crime, they only increase prison populations. They're about appearing tough on crime without doing the heavy-lifting to actually prevent crime.

Yet mandatory minimums were back this spring, with the Conservatives proposing them for a range of drug-related crimes including, in some cases, simple possession. And while the NDP stayed offside this time (they were voting against everything at that point) the Liberals, rather than having the courage to call bullshit, rather than having the willingness and the gumption to argue (with the facts on our side, by the way) that this is an expensive and ineffective excuse for crime fighting legislation that will do nothing to address crime, instead took one look at the polls and the election possibility and, afraid of the “soft on crime” canard, supported the legislation.

And now, as I wrote yesterday, we see a trial balloon from Conservative justice minister Rob Nicholson about making a mockery of civil rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to “randomly” force people to submit to breathalyzer testing.

I was astounded, and I wasn’t, to see NDP leader Jack Layton immediately jump on board with this big-brotherish Conservative proposal, in a seeming abandonment of the core principles I’d have ascribed to the NDP:

The New Democrats would support efforts to craft a new law to curb impaired driving by giving police the power to conduct random breathalyzer tests, says Jack Layton.

"It’s the kind of thing that could save some lives," the NDP leader said Monday outside the House of Commons.

I guess civil liberties don’t mean much to Layton when it comes to appearing to be tough on crime to troll for votes. Sadly, my Liberals may be following down that same road. Don Martin, in a column where he argues in support of this thing, indicates the Liberals are supportive of the proposal although he doesn’t quote sources.

Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh is quoted by the CBC as raising many of the same concerns I raised yesterday but, to my dismay, he doesn’t dismiss the proposal outright:

Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh, the former attorney general of British Columbia and a member of the House justice committee, said the question of whether any legislation would be allowable under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would come down to implementation.

"It remains to be seen what the actual legislation is when the minister brings it forward because we want to make sure that it's appropriately constrained and it's not too much of an infringement on civil liberties," Dosanjh told CBC News.

Dosanjh said the charter does allow for constraints on rights when they are deemed reasonable, but said he would need to see how those constraints are implemented before judging any future legislation.

"For instance... I wouldn’t want the east side of Vancouver monitored more than the west side of Vancouver because there is a clear economic division in the city," he said.

"We want to make sure that areas are not unnecessarily excessively focused on and that's why I think that we need to make sure that the legislation is properly drafted with appropriate constraints and guidelines for the police," he said.

I can’t believe my party is even considering this legislation which, to me, is diametrically opposed to what the Liberal Party of Canada, the party of the charter, has always stood for. And I’m surprised that I’m finding more alliance with conservatives, particularly I’m guessing libertarian Conservatives, in my opposition to this thing. Even the National Post’s editorial board thinks this is a bad idea. And while they occasionally publish my musings on the Web, the Post’s editors and I rarely, if ever, agree on policy.

So I ask again, why are we so dammed afraid of the crime issue? Why do we let the Conservatives falsely define the terms of debate?

We have the facts on our side, but we’re unwilling to even make the argument. Why aren’t we saying the Conservatives are soft on crime? Why aren’t we saying their crime policy is nothing but politically-motivated posturing designed to stoke public fears to win votes but that will do absolutely nothing to prevent crime?

Why aren't we pointing-out that, under the previous Liberal governments, most crime rates actually declined steadily, proof that the approach of balancing enforcement and detention with prevention and addressing root causes, being smart on crime, actually works?

Why aren’t we saying the Conservative crime-policy is half-assed? Why aren’t we saying that by ignoring crime prevention, by strangling crime reduction measures that are proven to work such as Insite, by doing nothing to address poverty and root causes, by focusing on detention and sentencing to the exclusion of all other areas of criminal justice, the Conservative crime policy is fatally flawed? That the Conservatives are ignoring measures that could actually reduce crime?

No, we’re not doing that. We’re too afraid we’ll lose and be labeled soft on crime. It’s pathetic.

I will grant that it would be a tough debate to win. It’s far easier to appeal to people’s demons than their better angels, its easier to stoke their fears than encourage their compassion, to sink to the lowest common denominator rather than raise the debate.

It would be difficult to do, but it would be the right thing to do. We have the facts on our side, we have truth on our side.

We might well lose the debate. But it’s not the debates that we lose that bother me. It's the debates we can’t be bothered to suit up for.

If we’re going to fall, we should fall standing-up for something.

Right now, we’re falling standing for nothing.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Friday Funny: Jack borrows Steve's Timmies play

Not only is the NDP voting/abstaining with the Stephen Harper Conservatives, Jack Layton is now taking a page from their press conference playbook with this Thunder Bay event tomorrow:

THUNDER BAY, Ont. _ Federal NDP leader Jack Layton holds news conference on HST. (4 p.m. at Tim Hortons, 110 Waterloo St at Victoria Ave.)

Like Blue Conservative father, like Orange Conservative son? Next think you know, Stephen Harper will grow a very classy and modern mustache. Or maybe it could be, as was suggested on Twitter, payback for that fetching orange tie that Harper wore during question period a few weeks ago.

Clearly, though, Michael Ignatieff is falling behind quickly in this war of coffee house pandering. I think the pointy-shoe, loud-colour-wearing kids in the OLO will be up late tonight plotting a strategic response.

Do they quickly send Michael to the nearest Timmies, even if it's one of those express ones inside an Esso? Or, maybe, rather than fighting on the now crowded Timmies battlefield, do they try to seize Coffee Time or Second Cup in a pincher movement?

It's tempting, but surely they'll remember their Von Clausewitz.

In Canada, Tim Hortons in the schwerpunkt!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Jack Layton on abstentions

Today, while the Liberals and the BQ voted non-confidence in the Conservative government of Stephen Harper, the NDP abstained. They stayed in their seats while Canada watched, ensuring we will continue to be governed by Stephen Harper.

The NDP thought long and hard about their strategy (get the flu, vote with the Cons, abstain) and kept it a secret until the last minute, when they revealed their grand plan: abstaining.

Toronto Jack is about to tell the media why abstaining was a strong statement about making parliament work/saving his ass, and I'm sure he'll be very eloquent.

Maybe he'll be as eloquent as he was in October of 2007, when the Liberals abstained on Harper's Throne Speech:

NDP Leader Jack Layton accused the Liberals of being an "absent Opposition" and handing the Tories the gift of being able to operate as if they had a majority government.

"Nothing makes people more cynical about politics than when parties don't do what they say, don't stand up for what they believe," Layton said outside the House.

UPDATE: Much more from the Cowboy.

FURTHER UPDATE: This is funny in hindsight (h/t to buckdog). Chickens roosting, indeed.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A Layton quote to remember

In an interview where NDP leader Jack Layton rules-out any intention to seek the Toronto mayoralty following the decision of the unpopular incumbent, David Miller, no not seek re-election, he also graces us with this gem:

Mr. Layton said that while Mayors typically do not emphasize their partisan connections, Mr. Miller's record serves as an example of how New Democrats govern.

You heard it here folks, and don't you forget: David Miller's tenure is an example of how NDPers govern. Next election, let's not forget that statement.

I know Torontonians won't.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) The League of Hypocrites: Harper, Layton, Duceppe

Looks like GritGirl is at it again:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Jack props up Steve

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Stephen Harper's undemocratic coalition

The Harper reformatories seem to think ghosts of coalitions past will be a major issue in this election. I'm sure they don't mean their own Entente cordiale with the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP, do they?

Yes, that's right. Back in 2004 when Paul Martin was Prime Minister, then opposition leader Stephen Harper got together with Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe. They wrote a letter to the Governor General, Adrienne Clarkson, asking her that if the Martin government should fall on a confidence vote please don't give him an election. No, no. Instead, turn the reigns of government over to the Conservatives, who are confident they can govern with the support of the NDP and the BQ.

Here's the letter that Harper signed with Duceppe and Layton or, as he prefers to call them now, the "separatists and the socialists" where he asks the GG to turn to him after a confidence vote, an action that he and his party would later liken to a "coup."

September 9, 2004

Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1

Excellency,

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program.

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice
has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe, M.P.
Leader of the Bloc Quebecois

Jack Layton, M.P.
Leader of the New Democratic Party

I guess coalitions are only undemocratic if they don't involve Stephen Harper. But then, Harper has flip-flopped on every position he has ever held in the name of political expediency, so what else is new?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

It's Groundhog Day for Jack Layton

This afternoon, it’s expected that Jack Layton will hold a press conference. He hasn’t been seen in days, and with Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff withdrawing his support for the Conservatives on Tuesday, all eyes are on the suddenly reclusive NDP leader: when he emerges will he declare that the Conservative winter is over for Canada, or will Jack see his shadow, and doom us to (at least) six more weeks of Harper government?

I wrote the other day about how Ignatieff has changed the dynamic going into the fall session of parliament. Is there any greater evidence of that than the fact Jack Layton, a man who never met a camera he didn’t like, hasn’t been available to the media some 48 hours after Ignatieff’s announcement, when the question on everyone’s mind has been: what will the NDP do?

While Layton’s reclusiveness is out of character, it’s perfectly understandable. Whereas before, he knew he could just reflectively declare he’s voting no and leave the Liberals to hold the bag, now he has a decision to make, and it’s a decision with consequences. So taking some time to consider his next step is prudent and advisable.

He has a few options. First, he could say Harper has to go and he will vote no to defeat the Conservatives at the earliest opportunity. This is possible, but not likely. He’s going to want to show that he at least made an effort at getting something from Harper, whether he’s optimistic of success or not. So, he can either enter into negotiations with the goal of extracting meaningful concessions to keep the government alive, or he can enter into negotiations with no real intention of making a deal, but just for cover to paint Harper as unreasonable.

There is a final possibility, of course: Layton could decide the Liberals are bluffing, and bet that Ignatieff will back down in the end, and prop up the government. Frankly, those are pretty long odds. If he won that bet, the payoff for the NDP would be huge: having left themselves no credible outs from Tuesday’s statements, Liberal credibility could be fatally wounded. But that’s why it’s unlikely to be a bluff. Ignatieff can’t back down from this, so if Layton made that bet it would be risky indeed.

I wrote previously about why a deal could make sense for both Harper and Layton, and why it could prevent challenges for the NDP as well, so I won’t rehash those argument in length. I will, however, offer this: when Layton was promising to vote against throne speeches and budgets he hadn’t read, he made clear there was a reason for that: it didn’t matter what Harper says at this point, the Conservatives just can’t be trusted.

We Liberals have tried to work with this guy and, sadly, we’ve come to the conclusion that Layton was right: the Harper Conservatives cannot be trusted. We gave him chance after chance, and we learned that the hard way. The EI panel shenanigans were just one of the final straws that made that abundantly clear.

So, if Layton does indicate today that he’s willing to deal with Harper, I think the question I’d want to ask him is “what makes you think you can trust Stephen Harper? What has changed?”

He fooled us once, Jack, so shame on me. But fool us twice? We shouldn’t get fooled again.

“If you oppose Mr. Harper and you want to replace him, I urge you to support the New Democrats -- now and in the next election.”
(Jack Layton’s response to Liberal’s decision to support the 2009 budget, January 28, 2009)

“If they're taking the wrong direction for the country, then I think a political party has to stand up against a government like Stephen Harper that leaves so many people behind and I think people expect you to stand on your principles.”
(Jack Layton, CBC-The House, August 15, 2009)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Do as I don't say, not as I don't do

The fall silly season must be just around the corner, as we see politicians jockeying for position and bloggers doing likewise.

Earlier in the week, we had NDP leader Jack Layton hold a press conference where he refused to say he’d vote down the government this fall, said he wants to get things done in parliament, and indicated Canadians aren’t keen on an election.

Later in the week, Liberal campaign co-chair Senator David Smith said they’re unlikely to force an election the second parliament returns, refused to say if they’d bring down the government later, said they want to get things done in parliament, and indicated Canadians aren’t keen on an election.

One of these people was principled and bold. The other was weak and caving. Or so my NDP blogging friends seem to think. I thought both were trying to manage expectations while keeping options open. But the differences may be more subtle to we mere mortals.

And if you’re been paying attention, what Senator Smith was saying isn’t anything new. EI was never the single be all, end all trigger issue. This has been clear since the spring. Throughout the summer, Ignatieff has dampened down the media-created election talk.

In the fall, the EI panel will report back, and the Conservatives will provide details on job creation, infrastructure spending and a plan to balance the budget. All of that will be evaluated in its totality, and a decision will be made.

All Smith said was to repeat EI isn’t the single trigger, it’s one consideration among many. And the timing makes an election the moment parliament returns unlikely. Once we have all the information, an evaluation will be made. But in the meantime, Canadians aren’t keen on an election and they want parliament to get things done and, as we’ve always been, the Liberals are willing to do that.

It’d just be nice if some of the other parties were too.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper and Layton meet, world keeps spinning

It appears little has come, at least yet, of yesterday's Harper-Layton tete-a-tete. My specualtion from yesterday stands though: it's in Harper's best interests to do a deal with Layton, but it would be a risky proposition for Layton to accept.

We'll see what the future may hold. And what the other parties will do. Either my Liberals will decide to go or they won't; about all I can say about that is we'll have to wait and see. What I found interesting, though, was Layton's attempts at positioning in his post-meeting presser.

The reporters tried to pin him down on whether or not he'll vote to defeat the government if the Liberals do (hey, could happen). Layton dodged, saying he doubts the Liberals ever will, that his party is the "least likely" of any party to support the government, the Liberals have voted with the Cons seven million times, and so on.

His unwillingness to give an unequivocal answer was interesting. Frankly, I wouldn't want to be pinned down either were I him, so strategically continuing to deflect any responsibility over to the Liberals is the right play for him. But when I read posts from NDP bloggers critizizing Michael Ignateff for refusing to give the same unequivical answer that Layton refuses to give, it does amuse me.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers