Author: admin

The first debate of the NDP leadership campaign was held in Ottawa this afternoon and its theme was the economy.

All the questions put to the candidates were chosen by the party (not sure why two journalists — the excellent Stephen Maher and Jöel-Denis Bellavance — were chosen to be moderators given the fact that they had no role in questions or follow-ups) and, as a result, some important but difficult questions about how an NDP government would manage Canada's economy were avoided.

On one important issue, for example, we have very little information: What marching orders would an NDP government give the Bank of Canada? We heard nothing, unfortunately,  about this fundamentally important issue during today's debate.

I first explored this issue last month in a column published in our newspaper chain:

“… a group of NDP MPs has been quietly signalling that a New Democratic federal government would almost certainly give new marching orders to the Bank of Canada by asking it to make jobs and wage growth the key objectives of monetary policy rather than the bank’s current obsession, keeping inflation pegged at around 2% a year.

… the NDP is signalling that it is open to changing the bank’s obsessive focus on price stability, a change that would represent one of the biggest shifts to a policy that has been a cornerstone of business planning for governments, businesses and consumers alike.

Why would the NDP do this? Because many New Democrats and, quite probably, many other Canadians, think low inflation should not be the end-all and be-all for central banks and governments. Instead, full employment should be the overriding goal of both monetary and fiscal policy.

In other words, who cares about 2% inflation if you don’t have a decent job?

“Monetary policy has absolutely exacerbated increasing inequality in society,” Jim Stanford, the economist for the Canadian Auto Workers, told the Commons finance committee . . .

You can read the transcript of that Commons finance committee here. While no NDP leadership candidates are sitting on that committee, the lead NDP MP on Finance is Peter Julian, a senior and influential New Democrat. Reading between the lines of his contribution and the contribution of other New Democrats at this meeting, it seems that, at the very least, the NDP would like to re-examine the role of Bank of Canada in Canada's economy. And that, alone, should make it more of a focus in the current NDP leadership debate.

 

University of Chicago economist Gary Becker and judge and legal scholar Richard Posner are both considered two of America's leading conservative intellectuals.  At their blog, they ask: “Does America imprison too many people?”. They both answer in the affirmative.

Here's Becker:

“…it is a strong “yes

Imprisonment is the right policy for anyone committing heinous crimes like rape, assaults, robbery at gunpoint, and many other crimes where victims are badly harmed both physically and mentally. Imprisonment is the wrong punishment for crimes without victims, or where other punishments are more effective. The sale of drugs is the prime example of a “victimless” crime for understanding the data on imprisonment. Buyers of drugs for the most part enter into voluntary transactions with sellers. Yet almost one quarter of all persons in US prisons are there on drug-related charges. In addition, studies indicate that many others are there because they committed crimes to finance their expensive drug habits since drug prices are kept artificially high by US drug policy . . .

Imprisonment should be rarely used also for other victimless crimes, for crimes that do not greatly harm victims, and for crimes where victims can be adequately compensated by fines and other monetary punishments. In these cases, punishment should consist of fines, probation, and other ways that do not require imprisonment. Eliminating imprisonment for drugs and other victimless crimes,and for many other crimes would cut greatly the US’ bloated prison population,reduce the spending on prisoners, and cut down the depreciation of the market skills of offenders who did not commit serious crimes.

And here's Posner:

Some statistics: the incarceration rate had been 118 per 100,000 in 1950, and actually fell in 1972 to 93 per 100,00. By 2000 it had reached 469 and only since the advent of the economic crisis has it begun to decline as states try to reduce expenditures. Between 1950 and 2000 the white imprisonment rate increased by 184 percent and the black imprisonment rate by 355 percent; today 40 percent of prison and jail inmates are black, although blacks are only 13 percent of the overall population. Even though the U.S. crime rate fell by a third in the 1990s (and by two-thirds in many large cities)— the murder rate by more than 40 percent—the inmate population continued growing during this period, an increase that cannot be explained by population growth, since the population grew by much less than a third in the 1990s . . .

The fact that instead the U.S. imprison more persons in prison than foreign countries do, yet has no lower a crime rate, calls for explanation. If the demand for crime in the U.S. were no higher than in those countries, and the supply price no lower, we would expect the the United States to have a lower crime rate if it imprisons more persons. So the fact that our crime rate isn't lower requires investigation. The investigation might show for example that we criminalize more activity, which is the equivalent of increasing the demand for crime. If an activity is criminalized, this increases the amount of crime unless the criminalization of the activity drives its level to zero . . .

The comments of these scholars are of some note as Canada, through the passage of bill C-10, is about to “criminalize more activity” and, presumably, increase the rate of incarceration of its citizens.

 

 

 

The first NDP leaders debate is tomorrow. Below is a call to action from the Paul Dewar team to fight for their guy on social media. We've seen political operatives take to Twitter, Facebook and other social media in the federal election leaders debate last May and in debates during subsequent provincial election campaigns this year. As a journalist, watching those Twitter wars between dueling partisans is informative because it can give you a sense of what the campaigns think of how the debate is going.

But in all the debate battles earlier this year it Conservatives vs Liberal vs New Democrat (or their provincial equivalents). Tomorrow it's an all Orange-on-Orange fight. So far, it's been tough (for me, at least) to differentiate any candidate from the other. Each candidate is reluctant to take shots at another candidate or even mention another's policies. There was almost a division over the number of debates and Nathan Cullen has tried to stir it up with a bold (if, apparently unpopular) proposal for some form of co-operation — but not a merger — with the Liberals in order to defeat the Conservatives

But beyond that, the NDP leadership campaign has been marked by a remarkable unanimity on major issues. Anyone like the idea of continued corporate tax cuts? None of them do. Anyone ready to bust up publicly funded health care? Are you crazy? Who hates the idea of a national public transit strategy? They all love it!  National daycare anyone? Bring it on!

On all of those issues — and many more — all nine leadership candidates would find little to argue about.

But now we have the first debate where there will be significant national attention. The Dewar team — and others, I suspect — are being called into action. So even if the candidates keep it polite and respectful — and despite the call from Dewar's team to stay “positive” —  I'll be looking to Twitter and Facebook to see if anyone wants to drop the gloves and start making a move to help their champion win the NDP crown.

Here's that call to action from the Dewar team:

Paul needs you tomorrow.

While he debates under the hot lights of the Ottawa Convention Centre; you and the online team will be needed to take to Twitter and Facebook and push what he is saying there.

The goal is simple: to flood the twitter feed with positive reaction to Paul’s performance and to post good things on Facebook. 

So what you do is very simple—just watch the coverage (2:00 PM ET on CPAC or live streamed on NDP.ca) and tweet things that you are impressed with—even quote him (if you can in 140 characters). 

Remember to use the hashtag #ndpldr and #dewar4ndp. That way the folks following the debate will see what you are saying.

If you haven’t already you should probably start following some of the National Political reporters and even some of our NDP tweeters.  You can find a pretty good list here: http://www.davidakin.com/politicaltwits/media.htm

Also look out for other good tweets and retweet them. 

Keep the posts as positive as you can—no need to attack the other candidates, put down what they are saying or make cheap shots—and avoid all twitter fights. 

Facebook is a good tool before and after the debate.  In the lead up posting any good story about Paul will help as will posting any stories that come out afterwards.  

Tomorrow is an important moment in the campaign. Your help will be crucial in maintaining the momentum of our campaign. 

You're going to make the difference.

My Parliamentary Press Gallery colleagues Jöel-Denis Bellavance of La Presse and Stephen Maher of Postmedia have been invited by the New Democrats to be the event's (bilingual) moderators. I'm sure they've got some great questions prepared but let me put forward these for consideration ( I asked Peggy Nash some of these questions on my television program, The Daily Brief, on Sun News Network on Friday and also put some to Brian Topp when he appeared on the program recently):

1. Many of the leadership candidates have cited strong fiscal records of provincial NDP governments as evidence that New Democrats can run a balanced budget. But New Democrats have never been in charge of monetary policy — telling the Bank of Canada what to do. Recently at a House of Commons Finance Committee meeting, CAW economist Jim Stanford was highly critical of the agreements that successive Liberal and Conservative governments have struck with the Bank of Canada. Those agreements say the objective of Canada's monetary policy should be to keep inflation at 2 per cent. Mr. Stanford told the committee: “Monetary policy has absolutely exacerbated the inequality in our society.” So: If you led an NDP government would you force the Bank of Canada to consider a higher inflation target — Mr. Stanford suggest 4 per cent or 5 percent — or would you ask the Bank to consider the effects of employment levels when it sets interest rates in addition to or instead of inflation?
2. Recently, CAW President Ken Lewenza told Bloomberg News that not only should Canada not sell its ownership stake in General Motors but that the federal government should seek out other opportunities to buy ownership positions in other Canadian manufacturers such as Bombardier. What do you make of Mr. Lewenza's suggestions?
3. The current Conservative government distinguished itself as economic nationalists in refusing to approve the takeover of MacDonald Dettwiler and Potash Corp., the first occasions when foreign takeovers were rejected since the Liberals brought in the Foreign Investment Review Act. Did you agree with these decisions and why? Would you tighten or loosen Canada's foreign investment regime? How would you attract foreign investment?
4. Canada's economy is heavily dependent on exports of energy, be it carbon-based energy such as the oilsands or hydro-electric energy. Would encourage or discourage exports of Canadian energy? How would you do this?
5. Many economists argue that the best way for governments to raise revenue, comparatively speaking, is through consumption taxes rather than income taxes. How do you feel about this? Does the federal government have the right mix between consumption taxes, income taxes and other kinds of taxes?
6. The preamble to your party's constitution reads, in part: “The principles of democratic socialism can be defined briefly as: That the production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people within a sustainable environment and economy and not to the making of profit.” Do you believe in the principles of socialism and that, for entrepreneurs and business owners in Canada, profit ought to be a secondary consideration after “meeting the social and individual needs of people”?

Twitter enthusiasts are finding all sorts of ways to take advantage of the micro-blogging service. If you're not yet a Twitterer, here's how it works: You post short messages to your Twitter timeline that can be no more than 140 characters long. Your timeline is displayed at your Twitter home page (my Twitter posts, for example, are here). You can also choose to “follow” other Twitter accounts. “Following” an account makes it easier to keep track of those who you think post interesting Twitter content. You can sort those you follow into lists, get an account's Twitter feed via RSS, or use third-party apps like TweetDeck and HootSuite to manage all the Twitter content you want.

So with that:

An Oxford University history grad named Allwyn Collinson is using Twitter to 'live-tweet' the events of the Second World War as they are happening. He just started earlier this year which means that so far as his Twitter account @RealTimeWWII is concerned it is November, 1939 right now and the Russian army is advancing through central Finland. I talked to Allwyn about this project on my television program during Remembrance Day week. This Twitter account already has more than 165,000 followers (that's a lot in the Twitterverse).

Meanwhile, the Laurier Centre for Military, Strategic, and Disarmament Studies at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont. has set up the Twitter account @BattleOfOrtona where, next week, this Second World War battle — a bloody one where Canadian soldiers played a significant part — will be tweeted out in real-time.  So far, this account has just 147 followers

In any event, regardless of the followers, I think this is a great way to teach history or get people interested in these events.

Some other “This Day in History” type of accounts you might like to follow: This Day in History and History Day

 

Today, after Question Period, NDP MP Megan Leslie answered questions from reporters on the federal government's position on Kyoto, climate change, and the upcoming climate change conference in Durban, South Africa (my emphasis):

Leslie: “… We do know that Canada has sent lobbyists to the EU to lobby against the fuel directive to interfere with sovereign nations’ decision about legislation … we know the lobbying is happening by Canada on other countries, pressure on other countries. You know, whether it will work or not is a big question. I guess we’ll have to wait and see but it looks likes that’s what Canada is trying to do, is get other countries to pull out as well and if you can – if you can stop negotiations on climate worldwide, then – then what do we have to live up to?

…Members of Parliament from the EU have said they can’t believe this is something that Canada would do, especially … when they were talking about the lobbying of the EU, they say we can’t believe that Canada is doing this. This is not the Canada we know. People in the international community seemed very surprised and shocked. …This is really – it’s really under-handed . . .

I have a huge problem with the fact that our government is trying to derail the good faith negotiations of other countries. That is not what an international player should be doing. At the very least, step back from it and let other countries do the work that they want to do.

Leslie's complaint that the Government of Canada should not be putting “pressure on other countries” or “trying to dereail the good faith negotiations of other countries” comes two weeks after this:

Leslie goes to Washington to fight for delay on pipeline decision

Megan Leslie Goes To Washington
“The NDP has sent their environment critic to Washington with the purpose of lobbying to kill the Keystone pipeline . . .”

 

 

Legal beagle blogger Simon Fodden has a fascinating (and brief) post that, if I'm reading correctly, is a warning to all international users of the Siri voice-command feature on the iPhone 4S that spooks with the U.S. National Security Agency and other U.S. security services could be screening whatever is you were whispering to your iPhone. Fodden is passing on information posted by lawyer Norman Letalik to a legal beagle e-mail list the two are on:

“… the best practice would be not to use the dictation feature on an iPhone 4s for any dictated information to which you intend legal privilege to attach. Note as well that Apple’s dictation servers are located in the US, so the dictated information may also be scanned for national security purposes by the US Government pursuant to powers given to it under the Patriot Act …”

More from Fodden here…

NDP leadership candidate Brian Topp unveiled his proposal for tax reform today.

Should he one day form a government, Topp would, among other things, bring in a new top income tax bracket, asking Canadians who post taxable income of greater than $250,000 to pay an income tax of 35 per cent on anything above that amount. The current top federal tax rate is 29 per cent and that kicks in on income above about $128,000 a year. He'd also tax most capital gains as income. (Capital gains are taxed right now at a discounted rate.) His point: Wether your income comes from using a shovel all day or from placing goods bets in the stock market, you should be taxed in a similar manner.

Read his press release from today or download the 11-page plan. (Both are PDFs)

Topp was in our studios in Ottawa today and I talked to him (left) about his plan and, as you'll see on the video, asked Mike Moffatt, an economist and senior lecturer at the University of Western Ontario, to weigh in on Topp's plan.

Also have lots of great feedback on Topp's plan at my Facebook page.

The edition of the Sunday New York Times delivered to my neighborhood has these two pieces. One made the front page, one was back on page 28.

Out of Work and Trying to Stay Positive	A Family's Billions, Artfully Sheltered
“[Dionne Henry] had to miss her father’s funeral in Jamaica last year because she could not afford to go. Fresh fruits and vegetables are now a luxury. She keeps her hair short, cutting it herself to avoid the expense. Her only new clothing in more than two years has been a dress her sister paid for and a $25 blouse she bought for an interview..”	“In 2006, Ronald S. Lauder, who is now worth $3.1 billion, paid $135 million for the Klimt painting Adele Bloch-Bauer I.”
“Ms. Henry receives $351 a week in unemployment benefits, which are set to expire in January. She pays $896.51 a month in rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Crown Heights, Brooklyn. After she first lost her job, she fell a month behind on rent. Then last year, Ms. Henry, who is single and without health insurance, had surgery to remove uterine fibroids, and she fell behind again. The surgery cost $7,000, and she still owes $5,000. After her rental debt grew to $3,394.16, Ms. Henry’s landlord filed evictions proceedings. A lawyer referred Ms. Henry to the Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies, one of the seven agencies supported by The New York Times Neediest Cases Fund. She received a grant of $1,543.12 from the fund and was able to save $1,851.04 as eviction proceedings dragged out in housing court. A judge eventually ordered her landlord to accept the back rent and to allow her to remain in her apartment.”	..His vast holdings — which include hundreds of millions in stock, one of the world’s largest private collections of medieval armor, homes in Washington, D.C., and on Park Avenue as well as oceanfront mansions in Palm Beach and the Hamptons…”

Over coffee or a beer, I've often heard (and repeated) that the two key endorsements among the NDP's Quebec caucus that one might seek if one was an English Canadian NDP seeking to succeed Jack Layton was Alexandre Boulerice, 38 (left),  and Guy Caron, the rookie MPs from, respectively, Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie and Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. Though both are rookie MPs, both are skilled communicators and both have excellent connections to organized labour in Quebec, still very much a wild card in the current NDP leadership race.

Now, before we go any further. This post is about the NDP leadership and Quebec. And, at this point, it is still very much a debatable point whether Quebec will amount to a hill of beans when, next March, New Democrats convene in Toronto to select a leader. That's because New Democrats will elect their leader on a one-vote, one-person basis. There are no weighted votes for any constituency or region. And, according to the most recent membership numbers, NDP members in Quebec account for less than 6 per cent of the 95,000 or so eligible voters. And yet, Quebec was la seule raison for the NDP's big win on May 2. Quebec has 75 seats in the House of Commons and Quebecers gave all but 16 to the NDP.  So, as you read through this post, keep this paradox in mind: Quebec is vitally important to the NDP so far as the caucus and the House of Commons are concerned but, if you were thinking coldly about winning the NDP leadership, you could likely blow Quebec off and still find yourself watching the tulips sprout at Stornaway next spring. In other words, Dawn Black is way more important than Pierre Ducasse. But more on Dawn Black and Pierre Ducasse in a moment. Let's turn first to the NDP in Quebec.

Guy Caron is the chair of the his party's Quebec caucus. In any other party, this is hardly a noteworthy position. The Conservative caucus is pretty much a committee of cabinet. (Four of five Conservative MPs from Quebec are in cabinet.) The Liberals have 7 Quebec MPs and it is pretty much a Montreal caucus. The BQ Quebec caucus? Well, the BQ is a Quebec caucus, of course.

But the NDP is different. They have 102 MPs in the House of Commons. And 59 of those MPs (that's coming close to two-thirds) are from the province of Quebec. And Caron is the chairperson of that group. Not only that, but before he was elected on May 2, Caron was a researcher and economist with the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, the CEP. This is a big union (and the only union I've ever been a member of, too boot), with lots of members in both French and English Canada. Caron himself is, in my experience, as comfortable speaking in English as he is in first language.

Boulerice, too, has a union background, as a communications advisor for the Quebec division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE). He once worked as a journalist for TVA/LCN. CUPE, like the CEP, has lots of connections in English Canada. And Boulerice has turned into a up-and-coming star in the House of Commons. Appointed by Jack Layton to be his party's Treasury Board critic he has, on many occasions, been one-half of the English/French one-two knockout punches the NDP have been throwing at Conservative cabinet minister Tony Clement over the $50 million Muskoka boondoggle (left). I confess I do not know him well but, based on his performance in the House and based on what those who do know him well say about him, I dare say he may be better cabinet material than most of those in cabinet now whose home riding is in Québec.

For the power of their personalities, their connections, and their professional background then, Caron and Boulerice have rated at or near the top of the charts so far as NDP leadership race endorsements areconcerned.

Which is a long way of getting around to the endorsement letter out today: Boulerice explains his choice of Brian Topp:

… Artisan des dernières campagnes électorales du NPD, Brian était un des piliers de l’équipe de Jack. Sa connaissance du programme et ses talents de stratège seront des atouts de premier ordre à la Chambre des communes. Sa connaissance du Québec sera également inestimable pour conserver les 59 sièges que nous avons gagnés aux dernières élections. De plus, son expérience comme chef de cabinet adjoint dans le gouvernement du NPD en Saskatchewan sera essentielle pour faire le passage entre l’opposition officielle et une équipe aguerrie capable de gouverner.
De plus, peu de gens le savent, mais Brian est un gars bien de chez nous. Il a grandi au Québec. À Longueuil plus précisément. Parfaitement bilingue et résolu à mettre fin aux divisions entre le Québec et le reste du Canada, Brian a tout ce qu’il faut pour être un leader rassembleur. Avec Brian, je suis certain que nous saurons bâtir sur les gains au Québec et convaincre le reste du Canada de se joindre à la prochaine vague orange.

From caucus, Topp has already secured the endorsement of Françoise Boivin, Alain Giguère, and Charmaine Borg.

Caron, like Angus and many MPs, is still undeclared so far as the leadership goes. So Boulerice's endorsement is a good get, if only for defensive and strategic reasons, I think, for Topp. If Topp has Boulerice, then Boulerice isn't out using his union and journalist connections to organize and evangelize for another candidate. And the Friday night announcement of his endorsement is a bit of a counterpunch, if you will, to news, earlier this week, that Toronto-based NDP leadership hopeful Peggy Nash had won the endorsement of Pierre Ducasse. Ducasse, as a 29-year-old, ran against Layton for the leadership in 2003. Ducasse lost, of course, but it was to Layton's credit that the first thing he did upon winning was to reach out to Ducasse — a self-described “p’tit gars de Sept-Iles” — to get him to help Jack in Quebec. Ducasse did, in fact, give Jack a lot help in Quebec and – Thomas Mulcair's claims notwithstanding — the NDP's success on May 2 can, in many ways, be attributed to the seeds Layton and Ducasse planted way back in 2003.

So a good Quebec “get” for Nash. And,though I would be pleased to be advised otherwise,, neither Paul Dewar, Nathan Cullen, Robert Chisholm, Niki Ashton, nor Martin Singh have any significant Quebec endorsements. (Again: See caution at the top of this post that, at the end of the day, Quebec endorsements may not be that important on voting day).

Now, there are, of course, two candidates for the leadership who are already members of the Quebec NDP caucus. Romeo Saganash, the Cree leader from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou was the second person to declare his candidacy after Topp. The other is Mulcair, the MP for Outremont in Montreal. Saganash has not yet received significant endorsements from his home province.

Mulcair, on the other hand, has shown the most strength in Quebec if you are measuring strength the way the way they did it 30 or 40 years ago, in terms of caucus support. The day Mulcair announced his candidacy, he did it with nearly half of the Quebec NDP caucus standing behind him and endorsements from others who could not be there.

But Caron is still out there. He along with Karl Bélanger (the long-time press secretary of Layton and, before him, Alexa McDonough) are the two most 'influential' Quebecers still up for grabs so far as endorsements go in the NDP leadership race. (Though an organizer in Dewar's campaign messages me tonight to say that Steve Moran is right up there, too, in this category.)

So that's the update on the NDP fight in Quebec.

And, as Boulerice noted in his letter tonight endorsing Topp, everyone will be pals, anyway, at the end of this thing:

“En terminant, je m’en voudrais de ne pas souhaiter bonne chance aux huit autres candidat-e-s. La qualité des candidatures démontre la profondeur de notre équipe. Au-delà de cette amicale compétition que représente la course au leadership, je suis convaincu que nous serons tous unis pour travailler ensemble et battre Stephen Harper aux prochaines élections.”