Demarchy

There have already been scores of dirision for Christie Blatchford’s mind-boggling column in the National Post this past week regarding Jack Layton’s death.

Allow me to add to that.

Let me begin by saying that Jack Layton was a man consumed by public life. That’s not a bad thing. It was a choice be made to spend the majority of his life fighting and working to improve the lives of everyone. From tackling the issue of violence against women, to clamoring for LGBTQ rights, publicly addressing the issue of climate change, championing the anti-war movement; the list goes on. Jack was someone whose beliefs were not political opportunism. They were not the cause-du-jour. 

So that’s what’s so sickening about Blatchford’s column. It’s not her objection to the state funeral. It’s not her discomfort with public reaction. No, Blatchford’s writing smacks of one thing; arrogance. 

Arrogance in thinking that she knows what Jack’s life and death should mean. Arrogance in thinking that she should have a say in his legacy. Arrogance into thinking that the public reaction is somehow less genuine or less real because of who Jack was, and about the impact of traditional and social media.

Read More

Even with Jack Layton’s imposing force still prominent from the national stage, the speculation is abound as to who shall step into his large shoes and noted mustache.

Yesterday, the grief was thick. The attacks were few (unless you’re a bottom-feeder like Warren Kinsella or Christie Blatchford.) I myself was pretty distraught. Today, the political question arises.

On the first day you mourn, on the second you get back to work.

Some may say it’s too soon. Some recoil at the thought of trying to replace a Canadian cultural icon who has only been dead a day. Those fears are misplaced. Jack made it pretty obvious, during his tenure and the letter that he left behind, that the movement is bigger than he is. The best homage to his memory is to get to work building the party and continuing the fight in the House of Commons.

Yadda yadda yadda it’s time to wildly speculate about who will be the next to lead the NDP.

The Globe today came out with the two “front runners” (as anointed by the corporate media politicgensia.) 

Brian Topp and Thomas Mulcair.

First off, I’m going to throw it out there that the so-called “front-runners” were leaked either by the staff of Brian Topp, or Thomas Mulcair. Topp wants to make it look like a two dog race between him and the logical front runner, while Mulcair wants to set up a non-declared likely non-candidate as his only opposition. Both are shrewd political savants who know their way around a controlled leak.

Stories have come out tonight about Topp wringing his hands at the prospect. That’s a classic process piece. You leak that you’re a contender, you plant the idea that people are asking you to run and then you deny that you’re considering it, asking that folks respect the previous leader. If you run, folks think they did it because of grassroots pressure. If you don’t, people start going wild about who will replace you (despite the fact that you may not have been running in the first place.)

I don’t think Topp will run. If he runs, I don’t think he’ll win. If he wins, I don’t think he’ll be effective. Not because of any animosity I have towards Topp, but simply because the NDP needs to draw from within at a time like this. Given the NDP’s emphasis on “Team Layton” (prior to the last election, and increasingly since) it sends a message of incredible weakness if the candidate selected is one that is not a sitting MP. It gives credence to those who say that the current caucus is inexperienced. Putting out some of those names as contenders allows the public to meet “Team Layton.” 

Have no doubts, there has been a small pack of MPs who have been quietly setting themselves up for a run for when Layton steps down. Given the tragic circumstances of how he left, they’ll wipe away the tears and get back in the race.

Another factor to keep a close eye on is where Anne McGrath and Brad Lavigne go. McGrath, Layton’s chief of staff, and Lavigne, the NDP’s political guru, represent a massive amount of power in the party. If they do not go to Mulcair, that could be a direct repudiation of the anointed one.

So, given that the Globe has done a terrible job vetting the candidates; here’s my list.

Thomas Mulcair

Yes, he is the logical front-runner. He is as mean as he is brilliant.  Having been the NDP’s lone guy in Quebec for the previous several years, he is now the natural leader of the pack for the newbie Quebecois MPs. His fluent bilingualism is a big help. His solidly French roots may not help in the Prairies, however (sad, but that’s the way it is.)

Mulcair is a relatively right-leaning guy. Having contemplated joining the Conservatives and having served as a Liberal minister (in Quebec, mind you) - his socialist bona fides are definitely in question. For the talking heads, that may seem like an advantage. With the Liberals recovering from a whopping, it may seem logical to have a party-straddler than can further supplant them. Yet, political expediency doesn’t always play over well when put to the masses of the NDP membership (as, perhaps, it shouldn’t.)

To that end, Mulcair will have a hard time winning over some of the New Democrat mainstays who will come out in droves for the leadership race. Not to say it’s impossible, however, but it will require some maneuvering. In 1995, Alexa McDonough and Lorne Nystrom outflanked natural front-runner Svend Robinson to hand McDonough the leadership.

The party today, however, isn’t exactly the same as 15 years ago. Jack’s election marked a shift from pragmatic Blair-esque Third-Way policy and towards a moderate social democratic populist makeover. Convincing the party faithful to forsake Jack’s politics in favour of leadership that led the party to dismal failings throughout the 90‘s will be a tough sell. Mulcair, if not properly branded, will represent that failing.

Nevermind that the man is a bristly porcupine of a politician known for his gruff demeanor and short temper. Enchanting voters like Layton did will not come easily to Mulcair. Virtually the only way his victory is assured is if he can scare the party into thinking the Quebec seats are in play. If that happens, he will be a fit of desperation to entrench and maintain the party’s Quebec breakthrough. That may come at the cost of new seats in the Praries and BC, and could even see the party relegated mostly to La Belle Province.

Libby Davies

The party’s other deputy leader. A genuinely nice woman who is affable and smart as a whip, but can still play the political game.

She is no doubt the left wing of the party and likely the most logical Jack Layton stand-in. She certainly represents the circa 2008 party that built the framework for the massive Quebec breakthrough. She would be the cause celebre of pro-Palestinian, environmental, social justice and labour groups. That’s a double-edged sword, however, as she has been vilified before over statements she made regarding Israel. No doubt the Conservatives have attack ads already mapped out.

Given she’s not fluently bilingual (something that can be remedied in the next year) and she has a few skeletons in her closet (as any good activist should) I’m not sure she’s a likely choice to win. Running, however, could shift the debate leftward and give credible opposition to Mulcair. Given that many, many of those within the party are terrified of a Mulcair victory, Davies could play the spoiler - especially if she drops out late and endorses someone else.

If, by some stroke of luck, she was elected she would be the first Queer leader in North America. That’s pretty cool.

Peter Julian

A relatively unknown figure for non-political geeks, Julian has looked like a leader for the past three years. Given his status as a long-time British Colombian MP, he represents a part of the country that could hand the NDP victory (assuming they can hold on to Quebec, which Julian might have a tougher time doing.)

Julian was recently touted to be the next leader of the BC NDP, a move he appeared to consider, but eventually decided against it. Had he run, he likely would have beat Dix and might have even become premier. My suspicion is that he weighed his options and figured he could take a shot for the PM job.

Julian would resonate rather well with suburban families. He’s a relatively mild-mannered guy, but can deliver a helluva speech when he needs to. He’s pragmatic but with strong convictions. He’s been a long time critic of free trade and has lobbied for move oversight of Canadian mining companies operating abroad. He would be a darling of labour and environmental groups across the country. He also seems to have a large amount of support from the United Church.

He would be one of the most likely candidates to go up against Mulcair and have a shot.

Paul Dewar

Dewar is a natural leader. He is a massive policy wonk, especially on foreign affairs, and has garnered a fair amount of respect for his work in committee. He’s young, well respected in his riding. He’s a solid, but rather safe choice.

The fact he lives in Ottawa could play against him, as he may come to be seen as a career politician and contrary to Jack’s message of making parliament work. However, having his constituency so close to Quebec would make it rather easy to identify and interact with the Francophones that the NDP need so badly to keep.

He’ll need a haircut, though.

Andrew Cash

Okay, not a likely choice. The newly-elected Toronto MP is a brilliant speaker who radiates intelligence and confidence. A relatively young guy with strong credentials on arts and culture issues (he was formerly in a punk band with colleague Charlie Angus) he could do a fantastic amount to court young voters. If Harper’s poll numbers sink enough, he may even help the party break into the 905 around Toronto.

His campaign in Toronto was a model for the rest of the candidates across the country. He ran a social media-oriented, high-energy, well-staffed and well-financed campaign that was considered a dark horse at the outset and ended up blowing away his Liberal challenger by 11,000 votes.

He also bears an eerie resemblance to Tommy Douglas. So, y’know, he’s got that.

Peggy Nash

MP-turned-party president-turned MP, Nash may be the best chance of getting a woman elected as party leader. She has very strong labour ties but is currently the finance critic and could take the government to task on battling the deficit. She could simultaneously appeal to the pocketbook-watching nuclear family while energizing groups like the Canadian Auto Workers (for whom she used to work.)

Her experience on advancing women’s equality could definitely build up support amongst the party’s most important base - females.

Making her leader carries the risk, as with Cash, of making the party look Toronto-oriented. Which is not the worst thing in the world, because the only real areas of growth are the Toronto suburbs, the Prairies and BC. The nation’s largest city would be a good start.

Joe Comartin

Long-time justice critic for the party, Comartin represents the northern Ontario roots of the NDP. You can put a check mark next to his name in the ‘labour’ column. He’s run before (against Layton) and would be a good choice to combat Harper’s tough-on-crime agenda. He’s also been a strong supporter of the gun registry, so he would be an effective voice for this who want to save the endangered gun control regime.

However, Comartin isn’t exactly young and would have a remarkably tough time connecting with the Quebecois caucus.

Olivia Chow

Her name has been banded about in the wake of Jack. Suffice it say, I would be very surprised. Chow does great constituency work from what I’ve heard, and she’s been very vocal on a few issues.

However, she’ll have a tough time cobbling up the support required to become leader. Making her deputy leader to whoever does get the nod would be a nice gesture and a show that Jack is still within the party.

Her voice should be well heeded, however, as she has the best idea of where Layton wants to take the party and it would be a stunning coup for anyone who picks up her endorsement.

Megan Leslie

Listen, she won’t run, but that won’t stop every left-leaning person in her riding from pleading with her to (myself included.) Leslie is a smart, honest, personable, funny, anti-politician who would be immediately liked by anyone under 30, women, environmentalists and social justice activists. She’s been a strong advocate for tough environmental standards, she helped craft the NDP’s pharmacare legislation and she’s been elected amongst the best MPs several times now.

She’s young, easy on the eyes and even picked up a strange endorsement via the American Embassy that was released in the Wikileaks Cables.

Formerly a legal aid lawyer, Leslie would ‘woo’ a lot of Canadians with her strong stances on affordable housing, harm reduction strategies and student issues. Would they all be popular? Not necessarily.

She, however, appears to have no interest in running. Shame.

…And the rest of the pack

The NDP have never been known to have a large field for leadership races. No doubt this one will be as pared-down as possible, considering the party won’t want to detract from the work going on in Ottawa with internal bickering. That being said, there are several factors at play - ambition to possibly become prime minister, the feeling of obligation to carry Jack’s banner and the perceived need to stop Mulcair.

The entire Quebec caucus (Mulcair aside) is the unknown factor. Some may run. It would likely be disastrous unless they are squeaky clean, are solidly bilingual and have a ubiquitous appeal to all of Canada. There may be a few of those in there, we’re just not sure yet. (Some interesting names pop up like Hoang Mai, Romeo Saganash and Hélène Laverdière who could do a lot to advance immigration, Aboriginal affairs and international relations, respectively.)

There’s also the outside contenders. Folks like Brian Topp who, if they run, will be directly admitting that the current NDP team is unfit to govern. It will likely foster dissent within the party and the membership. Such a move smacks of elitism and patronage. Please, for the love of god, make someone who has served the Canadian public your leader. Please, NDP, please. 

To read the other half of this story, check out my article in the Halifax Media Co-Op.

—-

“[Jim Maloway] will be voting with the Northern MPs. He’ll be voting to scrap the registry.” Said Jason Schreyer, constituency assistant for Maloway, MP for Elmwood-Transcona in Manitoba.

News like that sparks concern over defendants of the controversial long-gun registry. When the bill to scrap the registry came to a vote in the house last November, 12 New Democrats and eight Liberals voted with the Conservative Party to get rid of the catalogue of rifles and shotguns.

Among the registry critics within the NDP caucus are John Rafferty, Bruce Hyer and Niki Ashton, who are all but sure to hold steady on their vote to get rid of Canada’s catalogue of rifles and shotguns. According to Jane Taber, writing in Globe and Mail, there are three New Democrats who had previously voted in favour of the bill who are on the fence about swapping their vote. Ontario Members of Parliament Charlie Angus and Glenn Thibeault have confirmed that they will indeed vote with the majority of the NDP caucus to try and save the registry. Assuming Taber is right and there is one other, that leaves nine New Democrats who will still be voting with the Conservatives. That will likely spell doom for the registry.

According to NDP justice critic Joe Comartin, none of the other MPs have indicated that they may change their position.

 “I’m not absolutely certain … A number of them are considering all the evidence that came out.”  He said, but stressed that, at that time, none had actually indicated that they would switch their vote.

 Carol Hughes, New Democrat MP from Ontario, is one of those who are mulling the pros and cons. Hughes was one of the one of the 12 New Democrats to initially support the bill to scrap the registry.

“I need to use some prudence and hear what everyone says.” Said Hughes.

Last year’s vote on the anti-registry legislation wasn’t necessarily an approval of the bill itself. The vote was to move the bill to a second reading in the house, and then to refer it to the House standing committee. A motion put forth by Liberal MP Mark Holland would axe the bill immediately.

“We need a bit more time to talk about it in committee.” Said Hughes, who doesn’t support Holldand’s motion to bring it back to a vote immediately. She is undecided about the actual bill.

The Liberals aren’t having the same sort of divisions in their own party because leader Michael Ignatieff is opting to whip how his MPs vote. If anyone in the Liberal caucus doesn’t vote to keep the long-gun registry, they could be ejected from the party.

The option really isn’t being considered by the NDP, says Comartin. The NDP does not whip the vote on private members bills, he said, and it’s not prepared to start.

A private member’s bill is a piece of legislation introduced by an MP who is not a cabinet minister usually regarding an issue of special or local concern. It is uncommon for these bills to succeed in the house. Government legislation, on the other hand, is a bill that is introduced by the ruling party and are more likely to get passed.

Private members bills only get two hours for debate, whereas a government bill has unlimited time. A government bill is only introduced once, regardless of whether it passes or is defeated, whereas private members bills can be introduced repeatedly. There have been various incarnations of the present bill to scrap the long-gun registry, some of which are still floating the house.

The fact that it is a private member’s bill, says NDP deputy justice critic Megan Leslie, is evidence of the politics being played.

“Because of the way they introduced these private members bills, there’s no room for discussion,” Leslie said. “They get to play politics … It’s about more than politics, it’s about people’s lives.”

“I don’t think the Conservatives want to get rid of the long-gun registry because it’s a great fundraising tool.” Said Stoffer, explaining that by having a wedge issue, Harper can continue to attack the opposition and rally his base of supporters.

Jack Layton, in a move to save the registry, plans on introducing a legislative compromise in the house of commons that could save the registry.

Candice Hoeppner, a backbench MP from rural Manitoba, introduced the bill last year. Her office agreed to an interview for this story but later backed out citing time restraints.

Hoeppner has also touted a non-scientific poll conducted through a police magazine which asked officer to respond with their views on the registry. 92% of the 2,631 respondents supported scrapping the registry.

Halifax Chief of Police Frank Beazley, however, takes issue with the poll, saying that it’s very easy to manipulate statistics to support a position.

“If the majority of officers in the country didn’t support it, the police association wouldn’t support it against the wishes of their members.”

The Conservatives have nicknamed the registry “The Billion-Dollar Boondoggle.” While the program has, indeed, cost taxpayers over a billion dollars since its inception, that number has taken a sharp decline in the past decade. Last year the entire registry, including handguns and long-guns, cost just $4 million.

“Too much money was spent in the early days,” Said Beazley. “I don’t think $4 million is excessive for a national program.”

That’s the crux of an RCMP report that was submitted to the federal government in February, but was kept under wraps. The Conservatives didn’t want to release the report until after the vote in September.

“Canadians don’t need another report to know that the long-gun registry is very efficient at harassing law-abiding farmers and outdoors enthusiasts, while wasting billions of taxpayer dollars.” The office for Public Safety Minister Vic Towes told the media via email.

Despite not being released to the general public, the CBC obtained a copy of the report.

The report calculates the real cost of the registry by looking at how many lives may have been saved by the registry. It figures that, given 22,000 have been denied access to a firearms license, a fraction of those deemed a risk would be libel to commit a crime using that gun had they been allow to purchase one. The report goes on to argue that if a fraction of those people were to kill or seriously harm themselves or someone else, it would represent $3.9 billion in medical costs and losses in productivity. That more than covers the net cost of the registry.

Kelly pointed out that there are “Numerous people that [the registry] has kept a gun from.” Which is supported by the report.

1516 people were refused a gun license between 2006 and 2009. Of the 443 refusals studied, 59% were deemed a risk to themselves or others, 14% were refused due to violent behaviour, another 8% were refused because of domestic violence charges. 33% of those refused were prohibited from owning a gun by the courts. Some applicants fell under multiple categories. Only 14% were refused ownership due to infractions such as unsafe firearm storage or providing fake information.

Of the 6093 people who had their licenses revoked, 69% was due to the intervention of the courts, while 30% were labeled as a risk. Violence played a role in 10% of those cases. Fake information and improper storage accounted for 5% of those revocations.

The report certainly hasn’t swayed the government, however. It’s also unclear if it will be enough to convince the other eleven New Democrats to throw their weight behind the registry.

Stoffer summed up the political push-and-pull over the fate of the registry, explaining that the vote could go either way,

“It’s a 50-50 crapshoot.”

Okay, hear me out.

Ignoring the fact that Ignatieff is not even considering voting against the upcoming Conservative budget, regardless of the fact that Harper knows his poll numbers are not even good enough to ensure him a minority and if we forget that Jack Layton and the NDP are carefully planning for a post-Christmas election;

There’s going to be a fall election.

How do I know? I don’t, really, but if this government is good at anything, it’s obsessive-compulsiveness in the face of irrelevance. That is to say; there’ll be an election simply because the timing is good. It’ll be two years since the last election and time has not been kind to the doddering old Liberal leader. Harper has tormented Ignatieff like a schoolyard bully, telling the resident bookworm that his parents don’t love him because they’re divorced. All I can say is that it’s good news for Dion, as he finally gets a reprieve from the meticulous ribbing from the prime minister.

Harper will do as he did in 2008; he’ll embed a poison pill that makes it impossible for the opposition leader to vote for it. He’ll either vote against it and trigger an election or abstain and look weak. Either way, Harper can portray him as not letting the house do its job.

But, in the end, Harper’s move will be out of quiet desperation. He knows his poll numbers are mediocre, if not bad. He is well aware that despite showing rigorous control over his cabinet, he’ll be ousted in the event of a third minority; replaced by someone who can deliver the goods.

So, then, Harper needs a stage. An election could be his chance to give out his Magna Carta of governing, as it were, and allow him to recap four years as prime minister. The last of his Canadian Action Plan reports are a prelude to this.

But who really wants an election? Gilles Duceppe and Elizabeth May, the latter because he wants to finish his tenure as leader and the former because she wants to keep her position.

The Bloc is stuck in the same place as the NDP. Their mobility is slowly creeping upwards, but largely dependent on their popular leaders. They must throw their weight into one more election, then start weighing their options for replacements. 

The Greens are tired of being shut out of parliament and know that it’s now or never. If they can’t capitalize on progressive environmental sentiments stirred up by Copenhagen, the Alberta oil sands and the Gulf oil spill, they may as well give up. May knows that one more lackluster election will spend the end for her. If she wins upwards of three seats, she may be able to fend off pretenders to the throne. With the threat of a convention, possibly before the new year, May is anxious to show that she can deliver.

So what does this mean for Canada’s leaders? It means retirement; voluntary and forced. Harper and Ignatieff are desperate to show their respective parties that they’re capable of achieving government; a majority for Harper or a minority for Ignatieff. If it’s another Tory minority, say hello to prime minister Flaherty and opposition leader Rae.

Layton, easily the most popular leader, is in no hurry to go. However, considering his age, the length of his tenure and his health, he knows he needs to find someone as capable as he is. Whether that’s the young, internationally-minded Paul Dewar, B.C’er Peter Julian or Robert Chisolm; prospective first-time MP, successful leader of the Nova Scotia NDP and unannounced candidate for Dartmouth. 

Duceppe knows that after he leaves, the Bloc will lose popularity. He’ll likely run for the premier job, but there are few other very high profile MPs to take his place. It follows, then, that he’ll prolong the Bloc’s advantageous position in the house for as long as possible; likely he’ll be pushing for a coalition or accord. 

The Canadian political landscape a year from now could be a lot different than it is today. The make-up of the house might be more-or-less the same, but the dialog will be radically altered, as for the first time in recent memory, every party might get a new leader in a matter of months.