The Legacy of Jack Layton on Federal Politics

My apologies on not doing a blog post over the past while.   I have to say that for the first time in several years, we actually had a summer in Manitoba!  Not only that, it was also a summer where mosquitoes were at a 30 year low in Winnipeg.   Quite frankly, between the two, I just really felt the need to dial down the partisanship for a time - sometimes, you just have to enjoy life. 

Not that I didn't hold certain opinions on items of interest to us political junkies...I had thought about issues such as reinserting the word Royal for our worthy and esteemed Navy and Air Force, or the G8/G20 auditor general report, or the Canada Post filibuster.  I  just felt, though, that I didn't really have the motivation to discuss any of these things out in the public domain.

That is, until the sudden and untimely passing of Jack Layton.   Like most Canadians, I was shocked and stunned to see how unwell he looked on July 25.   I don't subscribe to most of his political views, but I always felt that Jack was a good guy who believed passionately in his beliefs and sincerely was fighting for a better Canada.   Therefore, I hoped and prayed that Jack would get better.   Quite frankly, the country is well served by two parties with distinct ideological perspectives.  Then...the saddening news came out on Monday of his passing.   To pass away at 61 is too young, and understandably, the grief was felt right across the country, and particularly, with NDP and/or other left-leaning supporters.

But..as last week passed, certain aspects of the outpouring of emotion over Jack's funeral started bothering me intensely.   Unlike Barbara Kay's and Ezra Levant's positions, I had no problem with the Prime Minister offering a State Funeral for Jack Layton.  While there is no precedent in Canadian history, it was the right thing to do in response to public opinion.   As the week passed, the frenzy over his letter to Canadians (which was an interesting mix of 2 Timothy 4 + 1 Corinthians 13 + a political ad + a partisan directive), plus a movement to grant him the title of Right Honourable, plus lighting up the CN Tower in orange, and the lighting up Niagara Falls orange....well, now we were now deep into the "Dianification of Jack Layton."  Now...I don't have that much of a problem with Jack's Letter (although truth be told, I do agree with some aspects of Christie Blatchford's column even if her column was ill-timed and poorly worded), but the rush to a National Canonization of Jack really started me thinking about exactly what was Jack's Legacy, at least on the federal scene?

The more I think about this, the more I have come to believe that this question has to be answered in two aspects  - the political and the legislative.

The Political

• There is no doubt that what Jack was able to accomplish in moving his party from 2003 to 2011 was incredible.   Even in his speech to the country, the Prime Minister made reference of how Jack Layton should be proud for what he and the NDP accomplished in forming the official opposition with 103 seats on May 2.
• Withdrawing from the arrangement between Harper and Gilles Duceppe in September 2004 (or for those who are inclined to believe differently, the "coalition" manifesto that would have supplanted Martin as PM and appointed Harper)
• Propping up the Paul Martin government in May 2005 for extra social spending (this is also legislative)
• Helping defeat the Martin government in November 2005 to trigger an election - we all know how that turned out.
• Formalizing a coalition agreement with the Liberals, propped up by the Bloc Quebecois in November 2008 - we all know how that turned out.
• Not voting non-confidence in October 2009 when Michael Ignatieff decided that he was going to bring down the government.
• Helping defeat the Harper government in March 2011 - in the end, that worked out pretty good for the Conservatives.

The Legislative

• The extra social spending from the May 2005 non-confidence vote.
• The behind the scenes work that Jack Layton worked on the Residential Schools Apology to First Nations, which the Prime Minister acknowledged in June 2008 and again in the October 2008 English Language Debate.

Wait a second...why so light on the legislative?  Simple...for the most part, the Layton NDP essentially opposed the Harper government for the most part.  While the BQ and the Liberals propped up the Harper minority, that pretty much gave the NDP political cover to oppose the Tories without risk... or responsibility

My Analysis

There is no doubt that Jack came across as a genuine guy and sincerely wanted a better Canada and struck a tone that attracted those that are (or feel) disenfranchised.    He also was a great retail politician, and a master of the soundbite (I often think the best exchanges on this front were between him and Harper).   So...words such as loving, hopeful and optimistic have those qualities of enlightening and inspiring.   But to be critical (and I don't wish to be mean here, but simply factual), the author of those words also launched the worst political smear in the last decade when he verbatimly accused Paul Martin, in May 2004 of personally killing the homeless due to his budget cuts in the 1990s.  Now...Paul Martin is not my guy (not in the least), but for one (who is running to become the CEO of Canada) to accuse a Prime Minister of having blood on his hands...is pretty undignified (I will qualify this, though, with Layton expressing regret about his comments in April 2011 - nearly seven years later according to my googling).     Or...when you consider that prominent political blogger, calgary grit, had his followers declare the best attack ad of 2008 was the NDP French language ad attacking Harper (http://calgarygrit.blogspot.com/2008/10/election-08-ad-watch-here-come-our.html).   Ah..yes...the NDP using attack ads that help drive down voter turnout, etc, etc.

But wait a second...two really extreme examples do not define a man or a party, correct?  I mean...isn't that overly simplistic?  EXACTLY - but here's the flip side to that - the complexity of this world that we live in also lends it self to parties and people finding pragmatic solutions on issues for better governance.   And...during his time in Ottawa, Jack Layton and the NDP did little (in comparison to the Liberals and the Tories) to advance any legislative agenda because they did not have to contend with the most dangerous aspects of governance - which is responsibility.   As long as they didn't have to prop up the government, they had political safety to oppose and remain ideologically consistent. 

In 2008, Barack Obama became the 43rd President of the United States riding on a mandate and promises to end the recession and undue certain things that the Bush Administration had done.    Well...2 1/2 years later, the US debt ceiling has been raised to a ridiculous level without the US economy making a healthy return.  But...what riles a good chunk of his supporters also includes a failure to shut down the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay.   All of a sudden, "Yes We Can" doesn't feel so inspiring after all. 

I guess what I am saying is that inspiration is something we all seek as part of the human condition, but if it is not molded by responsibility (legislatively, politically, or personally, etc), then there is something missing in that inspiration is molded by pragmatic leadership.  I guess it becomes inspiration by example.

Think about this for a second...if Jack Layton were Prime Minister and he passed away after having to:

• Backtrack on promises to curtail the Alberta Oil Sands lest there be a renewed sense of Western Separation (the son of NEP?)
• Backtrack on promises to strengthen Medicare, but allow Quebec to maintain the highest level of private health clinics per capita lest his Quebec caucus get restless?
• Backtrack on promises to expand social programs (think back to how well that worked out for Bob Rae in the early 1990's as the NDP premier of Ontario?
• Backtrack on his position that 50%+1 is a reasonable interpretation of the Clarity Act for Quebec to separate from Canada?  (I realize that is a stretch with the mess that the PQ is in Quebec, but you get the idea).

I don't doubt that Jack wanted to do politics differently, and that he should be commended for.  I also don't doubt that he desired a better Canada, and for that there are lots of Canadians that will draw inspiration from him - however, I also believe that that kind of inspiration is rooted in ideals and not so much in the pragmatic realities of governance.  No doubt that Jack had some of those traits as a municipal politician in Toronto (and he did some good work there), but if you were to apply Jack Layton to the test of "Nation-Builder", that would be limited to his successes as a politican and not so much as a legislator.  At the end of the day, how Jack Layton changed Canada, for the good or better (depending on your point of view) may not be as much as his fans and supporters think.

A Tax on Tax and Quebec Compensation

In the summer of 2009, my wife and I decided to purchase a new vehicle.  After much looking around, we ended up picking up a Subaru Forester (and thereby securing the employment of 2.41 oilsands workers for 1.7234 years, but more on that later...) as we felt that, for a wide variety of reasons, this would serve our purposes.   And...as good free-marketers,  we purchased the vehicle in North Dakota as the cost savings was nearly $5700 with a full warranty, even after duty and exchange etc.   So...when we went to pay our duties and taxes at the CBSA station, I was a bit surprised as to why the figures out I calculated were off.   As it turns out, I was being charged GST on top of the Air Conditioning Tax I had to pay.  GRRR....Of course, we get into this issue all the time with GST and PST being charged on top of gas taxes...so...I have to go GRRR...again.

Now...expand this little story, if you may to the federal government budget on Monday.    Amongst the bits of the budget (Jim Flaherty had way too much fun to present this, by the way), was an item promising $2.2 Billion in compensation to Quebec for their Harmonized Sales Tax.   As a matter of public policy, I actually like the concept of HST as I think that long term, it creates efficiencies in our overall tax code.  (As an aside, the concept of this as public policy is distinct from how it was sold as per the debacle in British Columbia that led to Gordon Campbell's downfall and Christy Clark's ascendancy).   There are also legitimate concerns about prior partially exempt services that now feel the pinch of the HST, so from a cash grab point of view there are a variety of rebates that could be applied (although to raise corporate taxes as per Christy Clark in BC  would be an epic fail from my perspective).

In any case, Quebec's concerns about not being compensated fairly are legitimate.   If the Atlantic provinces could be compensated in the 1990s, and if Ontario gets $4.3 Billion and BC would get $1.6 Billion respectively from the Feds - well fair is far.

Here is what I have a fundamental disagreement with, though...in Quebec (and to my chagrin...PEI), the HST is calculated on top of the base cost of goods and services AND the 5% GST portion.  In every other province with HST, the PST portion is caculated on the base costs of goods and services ONLY.   Thus...in Quebec...this is tax on tax.  Instead of an advertised 13.5%, this is an actual tax rate of 13.92%.    So...I think that there should be a clawback of $88 Million to reflect the extra 4% in revenue Quebec is getting over other parts of the country that get/proposing HST compensation.  The problem here, though, is that to do this would infuriate the soverignists and then we start getting deeper into the pandering of Quebec/assymetrical federalism issues all over again.   Heck..if a $15 million cut in the Arts somehow became an attack by Stephen Harper on Quebec culture, how would a clawback of $88 Million (to make it in-line with other provinces) look like?

Sigh...

The Politics of Protest

It was March 2005, and as a member of the local Conservative Electoral District Assocation, I had the priviledge of attending the inagurual Conservative Party of Canada National Convention in Montreal.   It was an awesome time, connecting with other Tory activists, hearing the future Prime Minister give his most fiery speech to the faithful, good hors d'oeuvres, Montreal smoked meat (excuse me while I momentarily drool a la Homer Simpson here) and free booze.  To me...it was a mixture of networking, serious policy discussion and a bit of hero worship.  

And of course...there were protesters that were opposed to certain ideas that the Tories believed in.  About 100 people or so held placards, outside the Palais de Congress convention centre, shouting equal rights for gays and lesbians, hands off my womb, the Tories hate Quebec, etc, etc.  And...they were absolutely entitled to their viewpoints and protest

Now...think about a new scenario (for us right wing types, this might seem straight out of the Matrix, so make sure you swallowed the blue pill!)...in an NDP government where the RH Jack Layton, in his assymetrical federal wisdom, has just shut down the Alberta Oilsands but has allowed development of Quebec's shale oil resources.   Their convention is going on in Vancouver, when all of a sudden, 100 newly unemployed Alberta oilsand workers descend on the Vancouver Convention Centre, shouting that the NDP is killing jobs, hates Alberta, etc.   The fallout begins and the accusations being that big oil is behind these protests, the protesters are redneck uneducated rubes that are being used, Tory donations were used to help with travel expenses, and generally speaking this protest is not reflective of "tolerant Canadian values."

Why do I describe this hypothetical (and possibly really far-fetched) example above...well...the name Brigette DePape, the now turfed Senate Page who displayed the "Stop Harper" sign during the throne speech comes to mind.    Some of my friends on the left have made the argument that as context matters, there is more justification in her actions.   Speaking on the right (and I think for those who are not really engaged politically), I think that her actions should stand by itself.  Labels such as  "she's got spunk" and "rage against the machine" are all of a sudden in-vogue by the left vis-a-vis her actions.

But there is another element to this story that should be considered.   Protest happens whenever people feel disenfranchised.   But...disenfranchised people are not the exclusive domain or monopoly on the left, as the right feels the same way depending on their issue.    And..as I reflected on what I consider the unprofessional nature of Ms. Depape's protest  I started thinking about why is it that when one trends more on the left, it is somewhat acceptable to protest in radical ways.   Think about this...if there were two thousand farmers descending on Parliament Hill screaming their heads off about the continuance of the Canadian Wheat Board, they would be labelled as neo-Nazi, dumb-ass farmers that are standing in the way of progressive policies.    On the other hand, if there were two thousand people descending on the same hill, advocating  the shutdown of Canada's nuclear reactors and a Greenpeace banner was displayed on Centre Block (again), it would be seen as somewhat enlightened, clever, witty, etc.  

It just makes you wonder whether some disenfranchised protesters are more equal than others. 

The New Conservative Coalition

I read with interest this article, from the Toronto Star (of all places!), on the conservative base that propelled Stephen Harper to his majority government.  Normally, I don’t place much stock in the Toronto Star, but Susan Delacourt ocassionally has some ok things to say.

I would love to get my hands on the raw data behind the Ipsos-Reid mega poll that took place on Election Day (rumour has it that it was a poll of 36,000 people with a margin of error of sub 1%), but in his remarks to the Canadian Political Science Association at Wilfred Laurier University.  Probably the most interesting comment was Darrell Bricker (of Ipsos-Reid) was when he said :

“Brian Mulroney’s Tory coalition was never united on values, . . . never got along,” Bricker said. “It was an impossible coalition to hold together .  But Harper now has a coalition that is possible to hold together because they’re united by values, not just by geography or just by hatred of the Liberal party.”

I have to say that this statement is profound to say the least.   In many regards, the Harper Conservatives are more ideologically narrow than the Mulrouney Conservatives, and yet I always wonder why in the polling consistency, they have never gone below 28% in the last five+ years.   The conservative base has largely held strong and firm (even in spite of appointing senators, deficit spending, etc), because it is a coalition of taxpayers that share similar values.   In the past, conservatives were largely defined by their alienation from the Liberals and Ottawa (Quebec Nationalists and the blowback from NEP are prime examples of this); however the stability of this coalition was always tested.

Now…with a coalition of values that stretches from coast to coast to coast has become the new base, and while that base may not have the potential of the 1984 Mulrouney sweep (51% of the popular vote), it is definitely more stable.  How else do you explain the commonality between aboriginals who want further economic development, new immigrants in the GTA that have an entrepreneurial spirit, and rural Canadians that tend to want government to be not so much in their faces?

There are some issues with this conservative coalition to consider.   If the pandering to Quebec Nationalists is no more, there may also be a reality that a conservative government may in the future, may drift away from a reliance on “Western alienation.”  If the coalition of taxpayer values is a true and stable phenomenon, then there may be, in the future, less regional reliance on old grievances.    Of course, Western Canada tends to be more entrepenurial and less government reliance oriented (at least when you consider the government debt per capita ratios) so it may naturally conservative for some time.

What to make of the Cabinet?

The Prime Minister announced today his cabinet, and for the most part, I think that it's pretty good.   He's got a strong team in Baird at Foreign Affairs,  Clement to Treasury, and Flaherty remains at Finance.  In many regards, it's a steady as she goes approach.

I was pleased to see Joe Oliver get the Natural Resources ministry - as a former head of one of Canada's capital markets organizations, he will be able to strengthen Canada's marketability as a commodity superpower.   I'm not sure what to make of Julian Fantino's appointment to Associate Minister of Defence (procurement) - I guess the F35 procurement file drops on his desk.  

I have to say that I was disappointed in seeing Bev Oda remain at International Co-Operation.  She might be compotent as a Minister, but her political smarts is severly lacking.   I think she will be pretty non-existent.   I also wish that Chris Alexander would have gotten a Minister of State, but perhaps a Parliamentary Secretary position is in the works.  My feeling is that he would be a world class Foriegn Minister with a bit of time and experience in Parliament.. 


Indian and Northern Affairs is now been changed to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.  As a non-aboriginal person, I think this is a good idea, although there are some that are not in favour of this.

Finally, there is the appointment of three defeated candidates to the Senate.  Personally, I am of mixed feelings about this - on one hand, with a clear majority in the Senate, the Prime Minister can pretty much run his legislative agenda, including Senate reform.  On the other hand, it does have the optics of patronage.   Hopefully, the Prime Minister will be able to introduce the Senate term limits legislation in the fall, and this will all be moot.

The Nuances of the Abortion Debate

So...go figure...I’m going to dive head first into one of the most divisive debates that exists in Canada.   Full disclosure, I am personally prolife, but I also recognize that carte-blanche restrictions on abortion is about as useful as prohibition on alcohol.  The reality is that the premature termination of pregnancies has been around for nearly 2500 years.   

Pragmatically speaking, some degree of on-demand abortion is here to stay.  I believe that the majority of the Canadian public does not like the idea of abortion, but they also would not to see a woman’s right to choose to be banned.   I also realize (speaking for myself) that as a male, I can’t really ever appreciate the complexity and the moral questions that females face on this topic.    This debate is definitely prone to very, very emotionally charged rhetoric, and it is my sincere hope that at some point, we as a nation can have a rational discourse about this issue.

So...why post about this topic?  There are several reasons.  One of the stems from a conversation with someone who has some insights into the social conservatives within the Conservative caucus.    Afterwards, I had another conversation with someone who is somewhat active in the pro-life movement.   Then there is the Abacus Data poll  which suggests that the debate over this issue contains lots of shades of grey.   Finally, in 2013, I believe that this will be a flashpoint year as this is the 25^th Anniversary of R vs. Morgentaler.

I don’t think I am the type of person that will be an advocate for prolifers; but as a matter of public policy (which I think a federal government will have to address at some point in time), I am interested in how we got to this point with this issue in our political discourse.    So...here goes:

1)      Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of this was when abortion was integrated into the criminal code in 1969.  What’s fascinating about this was that the sponsor of the bill was then justice minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, in 1967.    Bill C-150, amongst other things, decriminalized homosexuality but it also enshrined the legality of abortion (section 251 of the criminal code).  However, amendments of the criminal code were such that:

a.       Abortions could only be done in a hospital, and

b.       They could only be done after the approval of the hospital’s Theraputic Abortion Committee (TAC) after consideration of the woman’s health.

2)      As a result of this, there became a patchwork approach to how abortions could be conducted.  A woman’s doctor could only refer to the TAC, or in some cases a doctor of a hospital would would refer to the TAC.  Some TACs were rubber stamping these requests, while others would grill the woman.
3)      Enter Henry Morgentaler.  I won’t get into his advocacy of choice issues, but essentially, he felt that abortions could be conducted outside hospitals and instead in standalone abortion clinics,  and in direct contravention of the Criminal Code that required TAC approval(s).
4)      In 1982, the British North America Act, 1867 was repatriated to become the Constitution Act, 1982.  The first thirty five sections of the Constitution Act form the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.   Section 7 of the Charter deals with the critical language of “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”
5)      In 1986, the Supreme Court heard the arguments by Morgentaler, Dr. Leslie Frank Smoling and Dr. Robert Scott suggesting that the Criminal Code provisions from 1969 were against the Charter with respect to abortion.  The doctors had been running an abortion clinic in Ontario for some time.  The Ontario Court of Appeal had previously sided with the government, and subsequently the doctors appealed to the High Court.
6)      On January 28, 1988, the High Court struck down the 1969 legislation, by a 5-2 decision on the grounds that The entire section 251 of the Criminal Code (how abortions should be conducted) violated Section 7 of the Charter, and that “The evidence discloses that there is no justification for the requirement that all therapeutic abortions take place in hospitals eligible under the Criminal Code. In this sense, the delays which result from the hospital requirement are unnecessary and, consequently, in this respect, the administrative structure for therapeutic abortions is manifestly unfair and offends the principles of fundamental justice.” (page 115)
7)      So...while the High Court affirms a woman’s right to choose and strikes down the hospital TAC structure as unconstitutional, the ruling does not address whether Section 7 of the Charter contains a right to abortion.    I think this is critical as the court only struck down the previous application of how abortions could be conducted and not the greater issue of whether there is constitutional and charter permissibility of restrictions on abortions.   
8)      In 1988, near the end of the first Brian Mulrouney mandate, a free vote was held on a new bill that would legalize abortion on demand to the first trimester, and further ban after the second trimester under the threat of criminal prosecution.   On July 28, 1988 both pro-life (because the legislation was too lax) and pro-choice MPs (because it was too restrictive) voted down this bill 147-76.
9)      Early in the second Mulrouney mandate, in 1989, a new abortion bill was introduced that would criminalize forms of abortion.  What is interesting about this bill is that cabinet was whipped, so Red Tories such as Joe Clark and Flora MacDonald were required to vote in favour of the legislation.  On May 29, 1990, this vote passes by nine MPs.  The legislation goes to the Senate to be voted on.
10)   At around this time the GST debate was heating up substantially.   As the Liberal dominated Senate was blocking the GST being passed into law, Mulrouney used a new tactic.  On September 27, 1990, with the consent of Queen Elizabeth II, the Prime Minister used his reserve powers to appoint eight new senators to overcome the Liberal majority and to pass the GST legislation.
11)   In February 1991 the Senate, for the first time in 50 years, tied voted on the abortion bill that was passed in the House.    As a result of the tie, the bill died right there.
12)   Given the public outcry over the GST debate, appointment of senators, and the ongoing issues over Meech Lake (and soon to be the Charlolettetown Accord), the government felt that it was too divisive to deal with the abortion issue.

Since this time, excluding the debate around the funding of abortion services under the Canada Health Act, there has been no changes to the legal vacuum around abortion.    Presumably, there appears to be some constitutional room to create “reasonable” restrictions on abortion that would be consistent with Section 7 of the Charter, but that would involve a ramping up of the rhetoric, and at this stage (like it has been over the last twenty years), there is no reasonable climate in Canada to have a debate.   The Prime Minister has made it very clear that he does not want to open up the debate which I think is the prudent course of action given the lack of a reasonable climate regarding debate.

I do wonder, though, how the Prime Minister would respond if the debate were forced on him and the Conservative Government.

Manitoba Flooding

First of all, I want to make it really clear that natural disasters should never, never, never be used for partisan purposes.   Whether it is in Quebec, or BC or Manitoba, these are times where political sniping must stop and we must all band together. 

My thoughts and prayers are with the people in Brandon, Portage La Prairie and those that will be directly affected by the deliberate dike breach that will likely take place sooner than later.   These are trying times for city residents, homeowners and farmers alike.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister took an aerial tour of the Western Manitoba flood region.   In times like these, we look to our leaders as those who need to be comforting and reassuring and stating that as Canadians, we will stand by our citizens in their time of need.   Judging from the local news footage, I think that the Prime Minister seemed to display the right human touch to Manitobans, if you go by the judgement of this this editorial.  Some will look at this as an opportunistic photo-op, but the reality is that we want our leaders to be seen and provide reassurance.  

Bon chance to my fellow Manitobans and military personel as we continue to fight the floods.