Harper 2012

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 5:05 PM - 0 Comments

Josh Barro suggests a solution to the Republican Party’s current predicament.

On @mattyglesias‘s point re: moving successful public sector leaders to bigger markets, why not make Stephen Harper the GOP nominee?

Barro figures Mr. Harper has always wanted to the President of the United States and Yglesias says Mitt Romney would be better off running in Canada. Barro ventures Mr. Harper is “massively more charismatic and relatable” than the current Republican frontrunner.

Setting aside the citizenship requirement, this makes for some fun speculation: How would Stephen Harper do in a race for the Republican presidential nomination? Or, put another way, how would Stephen Harper do in a race for the Republican presidential nomination if he was able to carry his record from Canada? I’m tempted to say he’d do very well. But he would conceivably have to directly engage social conservative issues like abortion and same-sex marriage and that would require a fairly major deviation from how he has handled himself as a party leader here.

Ken Lewenza’s endorsement

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 3:18 PM - 0 Comments

The CAW president has apparently re-joined the NDP for the purposes of endorsing Peggy Nash. He’d already signalled his support four months ago when Ms. Nash launched her campaign. Ms. Nash previously worked for the union as an assistant to Mr. Lewenza.

Six months ago, Ken Lewenza publicly endorsed and argued for an NDP-Liberal merger. Ms. Nash is on the record as being against a merger and she has rejected Nathan Cullen’s proposal of joint nomination meetings.

Update 5:15pm. I asked a CAW spokeswoman whether Mr. Lewenza still supported a merger. Here’s the response. Continue…

Candice Hoeppner, political scientist

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 2:04 PM - 0 Comments

Speaking in the House before the vote to eliminate the long-gun registry last week, Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner recalled how she had introduced similar legislation in the last Parliament. She then proceeded to gloat.

Unfortunately, some individuals on the other side of the House broke faith with their constituents. They told their constituents they would vote to end the long gun registry but they did not. Instead, they voted in the interests of their party bosses. However, every cloud has a silver lining. We decided that we might have lost a battle but we were determined that we would not lose the war. We made an effort to get out and talk to Canadians. We knew that we needed a majority government. We needed a mandate from Canadians in order to end the wasteful long gun registry, and that is exactly what we received.

Listening to Michael Ignatieff’s demands that all Liberals vote to keep on criminalizing law-abiding gun owners meant that we exchanged Liberal Larry Bagnell for the Conservative member for Yukon. It meant that we exchanged Liberal Anthony Rota for the Conservative member for Nipissing—Timiskaming. It meant that we exchanged Liberal Mark Holland for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, the Conservative MP for Ajax—Pickering. They were great trades.

It was not only the Liberals who lost. Listening to the big union bosses in the backroom of the NDP did not work out so well for some of those members either. The good people of Sault Ste. Marie made what some would call an MP upgrade from Tony Martin to the Conservative member for Sault Ste. Marie.

This is an interesting version of recent electoral history. Continue…

The labour appeal

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 12:50 PM - 0 Comments

Paul Dewar details his labour policy, including a ban on replacement workers and a promise to reinstate the federal minimum wage and gradually raise it to a living wage.

A government led by Paul Dewar will legislate, at the federal level, Manitoba’s innovative “60 day rule,” to enable either party involved in an impasse to ask the Canada Industrial Relations Board to impose binding arbitration and end the strike or lockout. Since this rule was implemented in 2000, it has brought several protracted disputes to a fair and neutral resolution while creating a strong incentive for employers and workers to negotiate in good faith. Since its implementation, the number of days lost to strikes and lockouts in Manitoba has fallen by more than 2/3 compared to the previous decade.

This morning,  the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada announced its endorsement of Brian Topp. I confess I’m not well-versed in union politics, but this is apparently significant. Mr. Topp has also been endorsed by the United Steelworkers. (Though the Toronto Area Council of the United Steelworkers went with Peggy Nash.)

The United Food and Commercial Workers has endorsed Thomas Mulcair. The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers has endorsed Paul Dewar.

The case for OAS reform

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 10:30 AM - 0 Comments

Human Resources Minister Diane Finley made her appeal for Old Age Security reform yesterday in Toronto. The Globe, Star, Postmedia and Canadian Press have their takes.

Here is the final third of the prepared text for her remarks, with all the usual caveats about checking against delivery (a full video of the speech hasn’t yet appeared online). Continue…

‘We need to finish the job of making ourselves a viable progressive alternative’

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 9:30 AM - 0 Comments

Brian Topp talks to the Toronto Star and challenges Thomas Mulcair.

He does not accept my point about restoring government revenues. That’s a pretty fundamental issue. If you don’t do that, you can’t follow through on your commitments. His proposal, to the extent that I can understand it, to divert revenues from our environment plan to general government revenues is wrong.

I haven’t heard him speak clearly on this issue of equality. Canadians are increasingly aware that the Conservatives have broken the government and there is much they can’t do together as a result. If Mitt Romney had filed that tax return that he released about three or four weeks ago in Canada, he would have paid lower tax than in the United States. That cannot stand. You cannot do what we need to do together as a society when the Conservatives have broken the government like that. It’s not about increasing taxes on “people”; it’s about reallocating money that is currently being spent on tax giveaways to people who don’t need help, in order to transfer the money to funds to people who do.

Mr. Topp also answers Mr. Mulcair’s proposal that the party needs to “renew.”

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Stephen Harper on Iran

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 8:30 AM - 0 Comments

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, was interviewed by Fareed Zakaria last weekend and discussed his assessment of Iran’s nuclear capabilities and how the United States views the situation. Mr. Dempsey said it was “not prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran” and that sanctions and diplomacy are having an effect.

To this, he added several interesting points. First, he said the United States does not believe Iran has necessarily “decided that they will embark on the effort to weaponize their nuclear capability.” Then, he and Zakaria had this exchange.

ZAKARIA: When you observe Iranian behavior, does it strike you as highly irrational? Does it strike you as sort of unpredictable, or do they seem to follow their national interests in a fairly calculating way?

DEMPSEY: That is a great question, and I’ll tell you that I’ve been confronting that question since I commanded Central Command in 2008. And we are of the opinion that the Iranian regime is a rational actor. And it’s for that reason, I think, that we think the current path we’re on is the most prudent path at this point.

ZAKARIA: Do you think that the Israelis understand that the United States is counseling them not to strike, and do you think that they will be deterred from striking in the near future?

DEMPSEY: Well, I’m confident that they understand our concerns, that a strike at this time would be destabilizing and wouldn’t achieve their long-term objectives. But, I mean, I also understand that Israel has national interests that are unique to them. And, of course, they consider Iran to be an existential threat in a way that we have not concluded that Iran is an existential threat.

Compare and contrast that with the Prime Minister’s rhetoric on Iran. Continue…

Dancing about numbers

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 5:32 PM - 0 Comments

Alice Funke reviews the NDP membership numbers. Joan Bryden tallies reaction from the leading campaigns: including a claim from the Topp campaign that since the start of 2012 it has signed up more members in Quebec than the Mulcair campaign. Of 4,107 new members signed up in the province since January 1, Ethan Cox claims half came through the Topp campaign.

I reached out to a few campaigns for reaction. Below is some of what I heard in response. Continue…

The need for cooperation

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 3:59 PM - 0 Comments

Jamey Heath, a member of Nathan Cullen’s campaign team, responds to Bill Tieleman.

Critiques of Mr. Cullen’s proposal equate it with so-called strategic voting. Mr. Cullen is not proposing strategic voting because Mr. Tieleman is right: it does not work. He’s proposing cooperation … Every candidate proposes some form of cooperation with Liberals. Brian Topp has many things he’d consider: a coalition; an accord like the one in Ontario in the 1980s; an alliance case-by-case. He helped orchestrate 2008′s would-be coalition, when Peggy Nash was party president and Niki Ashton, Paul Dewar and Thomas Mulcair were all MPs who said yes. If differences are so vast, why does everyone agree the parties can work together? The issue isn’t if Liberals made some horrendous mistakes in government. They did. Rather, it’s that given everybody agrees they’d cooperate after an election, why not cooperate beforehand, too?

Bigger than Saint John

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 2:34 PM - 0 Comments

According to new figures just released by the party, the NDP now numbers 128,351 members.

Provincially, the numbers are as follows (with October 2011 figures in parentheses).

British Columbia 38,735 (30,000)
Alberta 10,249 (9,033)
Saskatchewan 11,264 (8,929)
Manitoba 12,056 (10,307)
Ontario 36,760 (22,225)
Quebec 12,266 (1,695)
New Brunswick 955 (-)
Nova Scotia 3,844 (1,300)
Newfoundland 1,030 (200)
PEI 268 (135)
Territories 924 (-)

I’ve asked the Liberals and Conservatives for their latest numbers. The Liberals were apparently at 60,000 last May.

The trouble with imaginary cooperation

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 12:46 PM - 0 Comments

Bill Tieleman finds various reasons to reject Nathan Cullen’s pursuit of joint nomination meetings.

First, electoral cooperation plans have always failed miserably. In the 2011 election, several groups promoted strategic voting – endorsing the candidate they felt had the best chance of defeating a Conservative, or retaining a close opposition seat threatened by a Tory. Project Democracy says over 405,000 people consulted their strategic voting website, and many others heard about their efforts. But while Project Democracy targeted 84 ridings, they were successful in only 26 of them, where non-Conservatives were elected. Conservatives won the other 58 ridings — or 69 per cent. Interestingly, Project Democracy admits it endorsed the “wrong” candidate in 11 ridings, meaning they promoted the candidate who it turned out had less of a chance to defeat a Conservative than another opposition candidate. Oops…

Second, it’s highly unlikely that the NDP or Liberal parties will agree to the joint nomination proposal. Aside from it requiring party constitutional changes, a majority of members would probably reject the idea.

Third, as Aristotle said: “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” In other words, you can’t simply add up Liberal, Green and NDP votes in any riding and presume they will all go to a “unity” candidate against the Conservative.

Note: Tieleman has endorsed Peggy Nash.

Parliament, heal thyself

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 12:13 PM - 0 Comments

On Friday, MPs spent a couple hours—starting here, resuming here—discussing the rules and procedure of the House.

The ideas, amendments and complaints raised are likely all worth consideration, especially for fans of such stuff, but various matters of general interest came up: including time allocation, Question Period, petitions and statements by members.

Below, some chosen highlights. Continue…

How to salvage C-30

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 10:27 AM - 0 Comments

David Fraser offers four amendments.

There are many, many problems with the warrantless access to customer data in Bill C-30, known as the lawful access bill. The main problem pointed to by the proponents of the Bill is that it takes too long to get a warrant that requires an internet service provider to hand over customer name and address information that corresponds with an IP address. If that is really the problem they are trying to address, it would be best to address it by making the warrant-seeking process more efficient and limit warrantless requests to circumstances where there is a real emergency.

Ivor Tossell explains the dangers contained in the present bill.

Baird and Bibi

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 9:33 AM - 0 Comments

An early draft of John Baird’s speech to the United Nations last fall originally contained an expression of support for Palestinians.

But a lengthy paragraph that expressed positive Canadian sentiments toward the Palestinians was eventually trimmed over the course of a handful of early revisions and was eventually cut altogether. ”Canada is a leading supporter of the Palestinian people, having committed $300 million over five years to assist the Palestinian Authority to build capacity in the key areas of justice sector reform, security, and sustainable economic growth, as well as providing humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza, including refugees,” the first draft stated.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be in Ottawa next week to meet with Mr. Harper. The Star suggests Mr. Harper might subsequently announce a trip to Israel.

Threats and support for Vic Toews

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 8:28 AM - 0 Comments

A second video purported to be from Anonymous has been released.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs Police, on the other hand, apparently supports C-30, but it’s unclear how either side will be able to use this to bolster their respective arguments. The Harper government might appreciate the endorsement of its legislation, but it previously chose to ignore the CACP’s support for the long-gun registry. The opposition might disagree with C-30, but it still champions the CACP’s support for the long-gun registry as an important consideration.

Meanwhile, Michael Geist again offers some solutions.

The case for Peggy Nash

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, February 20, 2012 at 3:54 PM - 0 Comments

The text of a note sent to supporters today by Nash campaign manager Riccardo Filippone. (I’ve only deleted the bit where Mr. Filippone asks for your money.)

Dear friends,

Did you hear John Ibbitson’s suggestion that the NDP must either “elect a leader with the best chance of entrenching the party’s recent political gains in Quebec and beyond or continue dreaming the social-democratic dream”?

Peggy’s answer to that? We can have both.

I have worked with Peggy since she was first elected to the House of Commons in 2006. Over this time, I’ve had the opportunity to gain insight into the impressive career that has led her to this point. At every turn, I see the realization of so many dreams she aspires to, on behalf of us all.

Continue…

The case for Brian Topp

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, February 20, 2012 at 3:46 PM - 0 Comments

Brian Topp draws perhaps the most profound compliment of the NDP leadership race to date.

NDP leadership candidate Brian Topp has concluded an energetic five-day swing through BC with a slew of new supporters including Todd Wong, the renowned founder of the Gung Haggis Fat Choy cross-cultural celebration. ”Brian has a wonderful humanistic quality.  I found him to be thoughtful and caring – not aggressive or aloof.  People that I admire and trust – they trust and admire Brian, and now so do I,” Wong said after meeting with Topp at a Chinese New Year’s celebration.

“Wonderful humanistic quality” improves upon Libby Davies’ gushing that Mr. Topp possessed a “cuteness about him.”

Where do we draw the line?

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, February 20, 2012 at 12:20 PM - 0 Comments

Kris Kotarski makes an important observation: what Vic Toews said last Monday wasn’t without precedent.

On Nov. 15, 2011, Toews responded to a parliamentary question by saying, “I would call on the Liberals to finally stop putting the rights of child pornographers and organized crime ahead of the rights of law-abiding citizens.” So, the Liberals were siding with child pornographers.

On Feb. 2, 2012, Toews told Parliament that “Rather than making things easier for child pornographers, I call on the NDP to listen to the police, listen to the provinces, and support these balanced measures that protect law-abiding Canadians and their children.” So, the NDP were enabling child pornographers.

Just in case anyone missed that, on Feb. 3, 2012, Toews tweeted that “Lawful access will aid child porn investigations. I call on the NDP to stop making things easier for predators and support these measures.”

As I wrote last Tuesday, I don’t think anything we’ve heard over the last month or so has been beyond the rhetorical parameters of the last four years. And in that regard, having had a front row seat for such stuff, it’s been interesting to watch Mr. Toews’ sentence become such a problem for him and his government. I suspect that owes a lot to the legislation involved: online surveillance is much more tangible to the average Canadian than say justice policy or war, so the slur is more easily transferred beyond Mr. Toews’ partisan opponents. The Prime Minister can say Stephane Dion sympathizes with the Taliban, for instance, without great swaths of the public feeling insulted. But when the Public Safety Minister says anyone who has doubts about the government’s pursuit of online surveillance stands with child pornographers, a sizeable number of people are going to feel insulted.

Maybe there’s also something more tangible about the evil invoked as well. Maybe suggesting someone sides with a foreign enemy seems almost cartoonish. I suppose the Internet’s great ability to churn out reaction and draw attention also elevated Mr. Toews’ attack. But it still seems to me to be nothing more than an extension of everything else that has been said these last four years. I’m not sure, in the moment, I heard it as something above and beyond what I’d already heard. And, for that matter, I’d be interested to know whether anyone on the government side (or even the opposition side) immediately knew that a previously uncrossed line had been breached.

I’d note that no one stood after QP on the day of Mr. Toews’ remark to raise a complaint. Not until a full day later did someone stand and demand that Mr. Toews apologize (and in that case it wasn’t even the MP at whom the minister had directed his remark).

Two days after Mr. Toews’ comment, Conservative MP Shelly Glover stood and ventured that the NDP was “anti-Canada.” When Liberal MP Denis Coderre demanded she apologize, Ms. Glover declined and, in fact, declared that she stood by her comment. A quick search of Google News seems to show no reporting of this.

The case for Paul Dewar

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, February 20, 2012 at 10:32 AM - 0 Comments

The text of an email sent by NDP MP Hélène Laverdière to her riding volunteers, shortly after she endorsed Paul Dewar.

Much has been said about the massive support of Quebecers for the NDP in the last federal election.

Yes, the ideas, the values, the social project that was proposed by the NDP met the aspirations of many Quebecers. But as many have pointed out, it was also Jack’s voice that reached out to Quebecers. This man, Jack Layton, touched people with his sincerity, authenticity, and integrity. What they chose, on May 2, was leadership they could trust, leadership that struck a chord, a new way of doing politics.

Continue…

The case for Nathan Cullen

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, February 20, 2012 at 9:30 AM - 0 Comments

Shortly before this past weekend’s membership deadline, Nathan Cullen won the endorsements of two social media outlets, based primarily on his promise of cooperation with other parties.

Youth-led Leadnow.ca boasts a membership of 80,000 — roughly the same as the NDP’s membership at the start of the seven-month leadership campaign. Avaaz has more than 13 million members worldwide, 604,547 of them in Canada. ”These two groups coming on board is huge for us,” Cullen, a British Columbia MP, said in an interview. ”They have networks that go far, far beyond normal party structures. … The sheer number, that’s absolutely staggering.”

All the same, Greg Fingas raises various questions about how Mr. Cullen’s plan for joint nominations would actually work.

Taxing the rich, only different

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, February 20, 2012 at 8:30 AM - 0 Comments

Nathan Cullen has quibbled with Brian Topp’s tax proposals, but Mr. Cullen’s plan is rather similar.

Mr. Topp proposes to tax those earning more than $250,000 at a rate of 35%. Mr. Cullen proposes to tax those earning more than $300,000 at a rate in the “low 30s.”

Mr. Topp proposes to raise the corporate tax rate to 22.12%. Mr. Cullen proposes to raise the corporate tax rate to 20%, except for oil and gas companies, which would be taxed at a rate of 25%.

Mr. Topp adds two measures which apparently aren’t in Mr. Cullen’s plan: taxing capital gains (with two caveats) as ordinary income and taxing income from cashing in stock options at the full rate.

‘Failed his ministerial responsibilities’

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 6:24 PM - 0 Comments

Paul Dewar releases a statement calling on Vic Toews to resign.

Over the past week, the Minister of Public Safety has failed his ministerial responsibilities.

First he introduced Bill C-30 which undermines Canadians’ online privacy. Then he accused Canadians who raised privacy concerns of supporting child pornography. Today we learned that he had not even reviewed the most intrusive provisions of the bill before introducing it in the House of Commons.

Canadians expect better. I call on Mr. Toews to step down as Minister of Public Safety.

The buck stops with the Prime Minister. He must hold his cabinet members to account.

This is the week that was

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 5:01 PM - 0 Comments

Thomas Mulcair said the NDP had to renew itself. Jack Layton’s mother endorsed Brian Topp. Jack Layton’s mentor endorsed Mr. Mulcair. Paul Dewar’s campaign said their candidate was well-positioned to win. The Mulcair and Topp campaigns found similarly for their candidates. Greg Fingas called it too close to call. Mr. Topp and Mr. Dewar exchanged pleasantries. Peggy Nash tried to clarify her stance on user fees. Mr. Topp had precedents. Mr. Topp and Ms. Nash promised emissions reductions. And more MPs chose sides.

Vic Toews attacked. Vic Toews tabled. Vic Toews parsed. Vic Toews denied. Vic Toews retreated. The Internet mocked. The Prime Minister foretold. The government accused. The Internet was unforgiving. And Vic Toews seemed unclear. Continue…

Vic Toews v. C-30

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 2:39 PM - 0 Comments

Also from the Public Safety Minister’s interview with The House, there seems to be some confusion as to what the Harper government’s online surveillance legislation actually entails.

In an interview airing Saturday on CBC Radio’sThe House, Toews said his understanding of the bill is that police can only request information from the ISPs where they are conducting “a specific criminal investigation.” But Section 17 of the ‘Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act’ outlines “exceptional circumstances” under which “any police officer” can ask an ISP to turn over personal client information.

“I’d certainly like to see an explanation of that,” Toews told host Evan Solomon after a week of public backlash against Bill C-30, which would require internet service providers to turn over client information without a warrant. ”This is the first time that I’m hearing this somehow extends ordinary police emergency powers [to telecommunications]. In my opinion, it doesn’t. And it shouldn’t.”

iPolitics has a longer transcript of the exchange. Here is the text of Section 17. Continue…