Anybody’s guess

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM - 0 Comments

Joan Bryden surveys the pre-convention speculation, prognostication and introspection.

Former party president and veteran backroom strategist Brian Topp, for instance, has positioned himself as the anti-Mulcair candidate and is seen to be most ideologically attuned with Toronto MP Peggy Nash. Yet his Quebec supporters are most likely to switch to Mulcair if Topp is knocked off the ballot.

Indeed, various camps privately admit the purported ideological divide among the candidates — the allegedly more centrist Mulcair and Nathan Cullen versus the more traditionalist Topp, Nash and Paul Dewar — has been exaggerated for the purposes of sharpening distinctions during the campaign. And it’s not likely to play as big a role in determining second choices as many pundits have suggested. “This is not (a choice between) left-right, no matter what the pundits say,” says a strategist with one camp. “This is all about who can win.”

‘He’s ready’

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 at 1:28 PM - 0 Comments

A new video from the Topp campaign.

What was Jack Layton’s legacy?

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 at 10:30 AM - 0 Comments

To this and this, you can add Brian Topp’s summation.

Topp said it’s important to remember that Layton left “an extraordinary legacy” before his death last August. ”He showed that the NDP, as the NDP, could be very successful.”

Who has the momentum?

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 19, 2012 at 1:15 PM - 0 Comments

Joanna Smith looks at the latest fundraising numbers.

According to the latest fundraising data released by Elections Canada, Cullen has now pulled ahead of Toronto MP Peggy Nash and Ottawa MP Paul Dewar in terms of total net contributions to his campaign. Cullen received more than $32,700 during the Feb. 25 to Mar. 3 time period covered by the weekly report, bringing his total since the start of the campaign to almost $174,600 after the central party removed its 15 per cent administrative fee from donations. That means he is now in third place in terms of money contributed to his campaign behind Mulcair and former party president Brian Topp, who has raised about $204,300 since the beginning of the campaign.

The latest numbers for Mulcair were not available online Friday, but campaign manager Raoul Gébert said the weekly report would show an increase of about $35,000, which means he outperformed Cullen and remains in first place with about $261,400 in total.

‘Brian was the co-author of much of what Jack gave to all of us’

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, March 18, 2012 at 6:11 PM - 0 Comments

The text of a letter from Doris Layton, mother of Jack, that was sent to New Democrats today. Mrs. Layton endorsed Brian Topp last month.

Dear fellow New Democrats,

A value I instilled in Jack from an early age was to build his life on core principles, and his friendships on a shared commitment to justice. These are the family values Jack used to build a party, a caucus, and a winning team. Our party, our Official Opposition, is in some ways the house that Jack built, with our help, based on those shared values.

Always with an eye to social justice and improving Canada, Jack continually expanded that house, building each addition on the foundation of the last. From a caucus of 13, to 29 to 37 to 102, each victory was built on the last — convincing more Canadians of our principles through an ever-clearer message.

I have no doubt that Jack would agree our task now is more than securing the foundation of that house. Our job is to take the final steps towards government by growing our house. We will not do this by seeing our principles as a liability to hide or run away from, but as the backbone that will give us the strength and foundation to grow even larger. Continue…

The New Mulcair Party

By Paul Wells - Saturday, March 17, 2012 at 9:43 AM - 0 Comments

I don’t know about you, but I’m thinking Tom Mulcair probably wins the NDP leadership next weekend. If so, it would hardly be the first time the party’s members pick a leader the party establishment finds distasteful. In 2003 Jack Layton was a Toronto city councillor with almost no support in the tiny NDP caucus, who mostly backed big Bill Blaikie. Ed Broadbent did endorse Layton then, but for the most part he looked too big-city, too comfortable with Liberals and conservatives, and altogether too glib for people who thought they knew what was good for the NDP.

The NDP — the card holders — had a different opinion, and Layton worked out okay. These people don’t always do what they’re told. And indeed, the apparent stubborn popularity of Mulcair, who called himself a (Quebec provincial) Liberal for longer than he has called himself a New Democrat — and to a lesser extent the well-run campaign of Nathan Cullen, who supports formal cooperation with the Liberals — suggests New Democrats are open to the notion that the party needs something more, in its strange new circumstance, than more of the same.

Continue…

For and against Mulcair

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, March 16, 2012 at 1:04 PM - 0 Comments

Ed Broadbent talks to the Globe about Thomas Mulcair.

“Leadership skills are crucial in holding your caucus together, and I think that Brian has an advantage over Tom in that respect.”

And the Star.

“It’s one thing to be forceful and direct and both Tom and Brian are that, they’re both bilingual, but in terms of demonstrated capacity at team-building, I think Brian is the better candidate,” said Broadbent.

And the CBC.

Asked whether Mulcair understands what a social democratic party is all about, Broadbent said, “I don’t know, that’s what I don’t know.”

And the Canadian Press.

In reality, Broadbent said it was Layton and his inner circle “who put money and resources and developed together a coherent strategy for Quebec before someone named Tom came along.” ”It was the federal campaign in Quebec that got Tom elected in the first place in the (2007) byelection and then repeated after in the general election,” he said.

But Gerald Caplan, who managed the NDP’s 1984 campaign, endorses Mr. Mulcair. Continue…

Picking sides

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, March 16, 2012 at 9:30 AM - 0 Comments

Martin Singh and Jack Harris go to Thomas Mulcair.

Tom Mulcair stands out as the one who has the experience and skills necessary to defeat Stephen Harper in the next federal election and help us form the first NDP government,” said Harris, MP for St. John’s East.

But Sana Hassainia goes from Mr. Mulcair to Brian Topp.

I have carefully followed the debates as well as the race in general. After serious reflection, I decided to switch my support to Brian Topp. I have truly appreciated his determination to put forward progressive values.

Q&A: Martin Singh

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, March 15, 2012 at 12:30 PM - 0 Comments

As part of our coverage of the NDP leadership, we’re running interviews with each of the candidates here at Macleans.ca. Previously, we chatted with Nathan Cullen, Peggy Nash, Paul Dewar and Niki Ashton. Next up, Martin Singh. Our Gabriela Perdomo chatted with Mr. Singh yesterday.

Q: You are a pharmacist, a businessman, and you don’t currently hold political office. Before this race, what was your involvement in politics?

A: I’ve been active in the NDP for many years, about 15, working in a number of federal and provincial election campaigns. And also, more recently, [I was] elected as president of the NDP’s Faith and Social Justice Commission, and I’m president of the Sackville-Eastern Shore riding association.

Q: What prompted you to run? Why now?

A: When I first joined the party 15 years ago I did it after carrying out a careful investigation, and I became aware that they party has three key strengths. The first being reducing inequality, the second one being building strong social programs, and, also, at least when they form provincial governments, a very good job of managing the economy; good stewardship of the economy and engaging the private sector. So, for a person like myself, being a member of the business community, I was very much attracted to this. Our opponents at the federal level do not have a good stewardship of the economy and are not being able to reach to the private sector, and I was always confused by this. So, I was approached by some people who said, ‘You know, Martin, we think it would be very good if you could run, so at the very least we can put this myth to an end by the end of the leadership race. To have someone with a strong business background who also has a good standing in the party, would be great to run for the leadership campaign.’ Continue…

Vancouver reaction

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, March 11, 2012 at 8:28 PM - 0 Comments

The Globe, Star, CBC and Postmedia review the proceedings.

Althia Raj surveys the post-debate discussion.

After the debate, the candidates said they were unsatisfied with Mulcair’s answers. Mulcair hadn’t been “clear” enough Topp said, while Dewar stated the Quebec MP hadn’t provided “enough detail.” “These aren’t just about superficial language or local issues, this is about the foundation of who we are,” Ashton said.

Nash, who told reporters she believes she will be on the final ballot with Mulcair on March 24, suggested he was holding a secret agenda. “I think that’s a fundamental question as a leadership candidate that he needs to answer, what direction is he taking the party, and I don’t think we got a clear response,” she said.

Greg Fingas updates his rankings. Rabble threads here and here.

Live-blogging the NDP Vancouver Debate

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, March 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM - 0 Comments

4:21pm. Closing statements. Mr. Cullen goes for poetry, Ms. Nash is insistent, Mr. Dewar is emotional, Mr. Topp is aspirational, Mr. Mulcair is workmanlike. New Democrats have an incredibly difficult choice to make.

4:12pm. Mr. Cullen says Mr. Harper fears that the progressive majority will get its act together and defeat him. Interesting argument. I actually think Mr. Harper would prefer a two-party system. (P.S. Of course, that’s not exactly what Mr. Cullen is proposing.)

4:09pm. Mr. Cullen challenges Mr. Topp on making a distinction between pre- and post-election cooperation. Mr. Topp: “I’m adverse to strategies that won’t work.”

4:04pm. Mr. Dewar didn’t have an answer for Ms. Nash and he probably should have. Or at least I’d be interested to hear his response.

4:02pm. Have two opposition parties ever run a joint ad campaign against the governing party? Is there an example of this in England or any similar system?

3:58pm. The second pick-a-fight round. Paul Dewar notes that Peggy Nash is interested in “pooling” resources with other parties before an election. And yet, she opposes Nathan Cullen’s plan. Mr. Dewar seems to see a contradiction. Ms. Nash says she’s in favour of pooling resources with other parties if other parties want to campaign for proportional representation. But then she asks Mr. Dewar if he’d turn away the Liberals if they came to him and offered to pool resources towards an ad campaign against the Conservative crime bill. This is an interesting development.

3:56pm. On body language: Almost everything Thomas Mulcair talks about is situated just off to his right.

3:52pm. See, there’s actually a very interesting debate to be had about what the NDP is, where it is and what it needs to do towards 2015.

3:43pm. (The candidates are discussing immigration and economic policy, but I’d rather dwell upon the larger debate here). Mr. Mulcair has regularly referred to the party’s lack of a seat in Saskatchewan. It’s a glaring weakness, but is it an indication the party has been doing something wrong? In Mr. Layton’s four elections, the party’s popular vote in Saskatchewan went from 23.4% to 24% to 25.6% to 32.3%. The NDP had nearly four times the popular vote of the Liberals in Saskatchewan, but the Liberals have one seat and the NDP has zero. The NDP’s popular vote in the province in 2011 was six points higher than it was in the 2000 election, when the party won two seats. If the problem is that the party isn’t winning seats in Saskatchewan, isn’t the solution electoral reform? (Or at least redrawing the riding boundaries?)

3:36pm. So Mr. Mulcair’s position seems to that the party needs to do in every other province what it did in Quebec. What this means depends mightily, I suppose, on what you think happened in Quebec. If you think Jack Layton’s personal appeal is largely to credit for the NDP’s success in Quebec, it’s unclear what the NDP can do now to recreate that result elsewhere. Mr. Mulcair’s argument seems to be that the party’s gains can be explained by the party’s decision  (as he demanded) to stop using the phrase “ordinary Canadians.”

3:34pm. Hmm. Nathan Cullen asks Martin Singh if Mr. Singh would like to apologize to Mr. Topp for his comments at previous debates. That’s… interesting.

3:32pm. Paul Dewar to Mr. Mulcair: It seems like you’re a little down on the party. How can you inspire people to vote for the party when you don’t seem inspired by the party? Mr. Mulcair again says the party has to continue on the path set by Mr. Layton, but it needs to do something different to win in Saskatchewan.

3:28pm. Niki Ashton to Mr. Mulcair: You haven’t been entirely clear on how you want to change the party. Is it about changing the rhetoric or changing the direction? Mr. Mulcair repeats that it’s about continuing to move forward and not go backward. And yet, he then says the party needs to do something different to win more seats in Western Canada. “Refresh our language” seems the closest he comes to saying what needs to happen.

3:23pm. Brian Topp challenges Mr. Mulcair on taxes and reengages this idea that Thomas Mulcair thinks “the party is the problem” (Mr. Topp’s words). Mr. Mulcair’s basic response it that it’s too early to promise the sorts of tax reforms that Mr. Topp is pursuing, that the next NDP leader would be better off waiting a few years and seeing what the books look like then.

3:20pm. Our first pick-a-fight round. Peggy Nash goes after Thomas Mulcair: What exactly is his vision of renewal? Mr. Mulcair says the party must reach out beyond its traditional base and continue moving forward. Ms. Nash presses him for specific changes he would make. Mr. Mulcair says he’d keep moving forward as the party did under Jack Layton.

3:13pm. How would the candidates engage young people? The correct answer seems obvious: promise to capture Kony.

3:11pm. Paul Dewar’s campaign slogan should be “Endearing.”

3:03pm. Niki Ashton: “We must not and cannot sacrifice our values.” Thomas Mulcair: “Reach out beyond our traditional base.” Nathan Cullen: “Unite progressives.” Brian Topp: “A real NDP government.” There’s the grand philosophical debate that everyone is dancing around. How does this party move forward? It depends to a certain extent, I think, on how you view Jack Layton’s legacy. Was he a pragmatist who leaned left or a leftist who preferred pragmatism?

3:01pm. And we’re off. Seven candidates. Two giant Canadian flags.

2:55pm. For the purposes of a pre-game show, consider this fascinating interview with Thomas Mulcair. Fascinating point #1: He rules out a coalition of any kind with the Liberals. Fascinating point #2: He says we should be intervening militarily in Syria.

The NDP leadership contenders have their final televised debate at 3pm. The proceedings can be streamed online here and here. We’ll commence the live-blog shortly.

The Cullen spin

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, March 9, 2012 at 11:13 AM - 0 Comments

Jamey Heath, co-manager of Nathan Cullen’s campaign, sets his candidate’s outlook against those of Thomas Mulcair and Brian Topp.

This is the nub. Mulcair and Topp both support coalition governments with Liberals. There must, therefore, be sufficient ground among progressive voters to cooperate, and that it’s not hara-kiri to try. The NDP won more seats in 2006 after doing a budget deal with Liberals in 2005. It won more seats again in 2011 after trying to make Stéphane Dion prime minister in 2008. Voters, especially those in Quebec, don’t punish cooperation. Recall the barking dogs that got nothing done.

So back to Lego. Each candidate who gets that the NDP changed in May recognizes, in different ways, the need to add another piece to form government: progressive Liberals. The bet that Mulcair and Topp ask New Democrats to make is that enough of them can be convinced to vote NDP before the next election to replace Harper. Cullen is more generous. He says if a coalition is the endgame, why not find ways to cooperate before the election as well as after? Because the progressive majority depends on Quebec and progressive Liberals, and should be used as soon as possible.

See previously: Can’t they all just get along?, The case for Nathan Cullen, The trouble with imaginary cooperation and The need for cooperation.

The incumbent endorsements

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, March 8, 2012 at 10:14 AM - 0 Comments

In addition to a tally of overall caucus endorsements, I thought it might be worth breaking down where the incumbent NDP MPs have placed their support.

The NDP went into the last election with 36 MPs. One didn’t stand for reelection (Bill Siksay), two were subsequently defeated (Jim Maloway and Tony Martin) and Jack Layton passed away last August. The remaining 32 MPs who served in the last Parliament, only nine remain uncommitted, some of them having chosen to remain neutral.

The rest are either seeking the leadership or have endorsed a candidate and they line up as follows. Continue…

Game theory

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, March 8, 2012 at 9:30 AM - 0 Comments

The Topp and Nash campaigns rule out any kind of alliance to block Thomas Mulcair. Alice Funke, meanwhile, notes Nathan Cullen’s fundraising momentum.

A closer look at monthly donation data in the NDP Leadership race suggests that Nathan Cullen’s momentum may see him overtake Thomas Mulcair in the next week, if current trends prevail. More people gave money to Cullen than Dewar, Mulcair or Nash in the first 18 days of February, and he raised nearly as much money as the front-runner Mulcair over the same period.

Cullen’s share of the Total Number of Contributions from the beginning of February to the filing of the last financial report (end of business on February 18) moved him ahead of Dewar and Mulcair (27% of all the contributions made vs. 19% for the other two) compared with January, while Mulcair remains ahead of Cullen in the share of Total Fundraising (26% of the total funds raised vs. 24%) over the same time period of time.

Women for Topp

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 7, 2012 at 2:35 PM - 0 Comments

Five female NDP MPs—three current, two former—explain their support for Brian Topp.

Today we support Brian Topp because we believe it is the best way for us to continue the legacy of Jack’s important work. We know that Brian Topp will work collaboratively with women in the NDP to make important political gains for women. Brian shares our values. He cares passionately about equality for women. His approach to politics is courageous, inclusive and progressive.

The measure of the race

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 5, 2012 at 10:30 AM - 0 Comments

According to the latest figures, Thomas Mulcair leads all other NDP candidates in fundraising.

According to the reports, which cover all expenses from the start of the campaign up until Feb. 25, Mulcair has raised nearly $206,000 from some 1,347 contributors. That’s nearly $60,000 more than his campaign reported for the previous period ending Dec. 31.

He’s also pulled ahead of competitor Brian Topp who has raised about $183,000 from some 984 contributors. Topp, who was the first to enter the race with major endorsements from the likes of party stalwart Ed Broadbent, ended the year in the top spot but has since added just $14,000 to his coffers.

Meanwhile, Paul Dewar has edged out Peggy Nash in terms of fundraising to claim the No. 3 spot. According to the figures filed with Elections Canada, he’s raised more than $144,000 from 782 contributors. Nash has raised $139,449 from 727 contributors, while Nathan Cullen has raised $129,555 from 1,123 contributors.

Peggy Nash’s not-so-long shot at the NDP leadership

By John Geddes - Monday, March 5, 2012 at 10:20 AM - 0 Comments

Photo by Blair Gable

The seeds of a political life can be planted in the most unlikely places. For Peggy Nash, the Toronto MP who ranks among the serious contenders for the NDP leadership, the Languedoc countryside in southern France proved fertile ground. As a 20-year-old University of Toronto French major, she spent the summer of 1971 there as an au pair to polish her language skills. The couple who employed her happened to be French journalists back from covering political upheaval in Latin America. For a suburban Toronto kid who hadn’t been much engaged by politics, their worldly talk made a deep impression. “It got me interested and led me afterwards to doing solidarity work with Chileans and Salvadorians,” Nash recalls.

In fact, she went on to work for causes of all sorts—from feminism to environmentalism. But her main route to politics was that thoroughly traditional New Democrat path, the labour movement. Starting out as an Air Canada ticket agent straight out of university, Nash climbed the union hierarchy to become the first woman to lead the negotiation of a major auto industry contract, bargaining for the Canadian Auto Workers with Ford Canada in 2005. Her prominence in Toronto left-wing circles put her squarely in Jack Layton’s sights. The NDP leader, who died last summer from cancer, recruited her to run for Parliament. In what turned into one of the country’s most hotly contested ridings, she was defeated in Toronto’s Parkdale-High Park in 2004, then won there in 2006, lost the seat to to high-profile Liberal Gerard Kennedy in 2008, and took it back in 2011. [Thank you to commenter Christopher W Schulz for correcting the earlier version of the sequence of election results in Parkdale-High Park.]

In Nash’s leadership bid, that track record for tenacity matters. Her manner is typically unflappable, occasionally to the point of blandness. Evidence of a fighter’s streak helps among the NDP undecided. In the most recent leadership debate in Winnipeg, she positioned herself as keeper of the Layton flame, taking rival Thomas Mulcair to task for suggesting the NDP still needs to modernize itself, even after the late leader’s 2011 election breakthrough. “We got the support of 4.5 million people,” she said. “Don’t you think that proves that our party has been renewing itself?”

Continue…

The voting begins

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, March 1, 2012 at 2:55 PM - 0 Comments

As voting in the NDP leadership race opens, Greg Fingas reviews the candidates and offers a preliminary endorsement.

I’ve come to the conclusion that Topp is the best of the candidates as matters stand now based on his obvious strengths in policy command and organizational acumen, as well as the progress he’s made in his public presentation.

But equally importantly, even if he’s indeed at the bottom of the second tier for the moment, a candidate who’s written the book on how to make deals under fire looks like the best option to use his voting bloc to secure the best possible compromise outcome at the leadership convention. So if I had to vote today, it would be Topp leading the way.

What it takes

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 at 10:09 AM - 0 Comments

Roy Romanow explains why he’s supporting Brian Topp.

The Topp campaign has also released videos from Chris Charlton and Alexandre Boulerice (en francais here).

Nash on electoral reform

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 at 12:57 PM - 0 Comments

Peggy Nash promises to pursue proportional representation.

Nash’s plan calls for moving proportional representation beyond the platform to a campaign & legislative priority by making it a prominent, salient issue within public and political discourse; collaborating with like-minded organizations already working on this issue; cooperating with parties that support proportional representation to further raise awareness and public support; and inspiring non-voters to become engaged.

She will establish a Royal Commission on Electoral Reform to make specific recommendations on which system (or combination of systems) is best suited for Canada as well as the most effective legislative process to implement the changes.

Brian Topp and Paul Dewar have also formally endorsed PR.

What does Thomas Mulcair want to do with the NDP?

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, February 27, 2012 at 12:06 PM - 0 Comments

Watching yesterday’s debate, I said it was the most interesting question going. Rob Silver tries to parse what Mr. Mulcair had to say for himself.

Modern language, modern approach. I have no idea what that actually means, but I can guess. In part, it is easiest to define what he is proposing by contrasting it with his main opponents. Peggy Nash and Brian Topp have been carrying a message through this campaign that you can boil down to “the NDP doesn’t need to change, what we’ve been doing is working, we have passed the Liberals, our vote total keeps going up and if we keep doing the same thing, we will win.” They would stay true to NDP orthodoxy as opposed to moving to the centre; they embrace the NDP’s relationship with organized labour as opposed to downplaying it; they celebrate the party’s history at every opportunity, etc.

Mulcair rejects this approach categorically. He put it plainly on Sunday: “We did get 4.5 million votes but we are still far from being able to form a government. The only way we are going to be able to do that is to go beyond our traditional base, refresh our way of approaching these issues. We’re not going to defeat Stephen Harper with a slogan.” Putting aside the fact that “modernize our language, modernize our approach” is little more than a slogan, this strikes me as a pretty significant mandate for change if he is successful. He wants to make the NDP into a party of the centre, not the left. That would be a big change in Canadian politics with potentially far-reaching implications.

Live-blogging the NDP Winnipeg debate

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, February 26, 2012 at 2:47 PM - 0 Comments

4:30pm. And we’re done. Plenty there to dwell upon if the press gallery is so motivated. For instance: What precisely would Thomas Mulcair do differently? What specific policies or stances would he change or pursue? If Peggy Nash thinks the rich might pay more, why not say so now? If she’s worried about what the Conservatives will say, how will she ever address the issue? What are Brian Topp’s chances in Quebec? What does history and current polling tell us about his path to a seat? What does Paul Dewar mean by “issue-based campaigning? And how does he square that with his aversion to negative politics?

4:16pm. Closing arguments. In short. Continue…

Q&A: Peggy Nash

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, February 24, 2012 at 2:32 PM - 0 Comments

As part of our coverage of the NDP leadership race, we’ll be running interviews with the contenders. Next up, Peggy Nash. We chatted this morning.

Q: So I wanted to start with something that came up at the last debate, this issue of user fees. Obviously I read the statement that you sent me about clarifying your position, but just to clarify one last point on that: Would you, as prime minister, enforce the Canada Health Act, to stop a province from bringing in user fees? 

A: I want to work with the provinces to make sure health care is adequately funded. Ultimately, I’ll enforce the Canada Health Act, but I prefer to work cooperatively with the provinces because, of course, the implementation is in a provincial jurisdiction.

Q: Is there any question in your mind that user fees would constitute a breach of the act?

A: Yes, I think it would affect accessibility.

Continue…

Topp v. Mulcair on cap-and-trade

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, February 24, 2012 at 12:09 PM - 0 Comments

Brian Topp chats with Rabble readers and challenges Thomas Mulcair’s cap-and-trade plans.

In my view all revenues derived from our plan to reduce carbon emissions should remain within the environmental plan. These funds will be needed to do the job we need to do (transitioning to a much lower-carbon, much more-energy efficient and – not incidentally – a much for productive, competitive and prosperous economy). also, keeping them focused there will ensure public support for green measures. And I don’t think we want the government to become a carbon addict – dependent on revenues derived from carbon emissions which we want to radically decrease.

This last point is why I favoured rejecting the Liberal Party’s “carbon shift” plan in 2008. It is also a point of debate between Tom Mulcair and I. Mr. Mulcair said during the Halifax debate and then again in a recent interview with the Toronto Star, as I understood him, that he did favour diverting revenues from our green plan into general government revenues as an alternative to undoing the damage liberals and conservatives have done to public revenues. I asked him about this during the debate in Quebec City and didn’t make much progress in getting him to explain his reasoning – I disagree with his approach.