In the latest polls, voter support for the NDP is holding firm. And Thomas Mulcair’s personal appeal is finally nuding up. (Fred Lum/The Globe and Mail)

John Ibbitson The Globe and Mail Jan. 11 2014

He has emerged from Jack Layton’s shadow, won over his party and earned the respect of people who follow Question Period. But now Thomas Mulcair has a bigger battle – to win over the country. And he must do it this year, long before the 2015 election campaign. He must also raise money at a rate his party has never known, and connect with a suburban middle class unsure of who he is. Most important, he must find some way to steal the spotlight from the hyper-charismatic Justin Trudeau.If he succeeds, persuading Ontario to swing left – and Quebec to stay there – he will offer New Democrats their best-ever shot at power. If he fails, he may lead them to the back of the pack.

More Related to this Story

High stakes. But Mr. Mulcair is supremely confident after his brilliant performance during the Senate expenses scandal; his relentless, prosecutorial grilling damaged Mr. Harper’s credibility and solidified his own reputation as a tactician.

“In 2015, people are going to be looking for somebody able to run the country,” he told The Globe and Mail during a wide-ranging conversation in his spacious Centre Block office above that of the Prime Minister. “I’ve got 35 years’ experience.”

The question is whether, even with those 35 years, Canadians are ready to hand the reins to the tax-and-spend social democrats, and to a leader often portrayed as impersonal and inaccessible?

His chief rivals have problems. Mr. Harper is battling scandal and voter fatigue while Mr. Trudeau is untested and still struggling to revive a party not far removed from its deathbed.

But both are much better known, and even the oft-maligned Prime Minister is more popular, a deficit Mr. Mulcair must overcome quickly. In politics, momentum is a fickle force, and the afterglow from the Senate scandal may soon fade.

His party has a strategy, however, one it hopes will make Mulcair a household name, and this week the first polling of the new year offered some encouragement. Nanos Research reports that, among voters asked which party they would consider endorsing, NDP support is holding firm while that of both the Liberals and Conservatives has not. Even better, Mr. Mulcair’s personal appeal went up and Mr. Trudeau’s fell, a sign the Liberal leader’s honeymoon may be coming to an end, just as a Tom-meets-the-people tour is to begin next week.

A threat to party unity – free trade with Europe – will reappear when Parliament returns Jan. 27, but he at least has had practice at healing internal rifts.

When Jack Layton lost his battle with cancer on Aug. 22, 2011, the NDP faced a crisis: how to replace a leader so beloved that even a Conservative luminary, former prime minister Brian Mulroney, remembered him as “someone who turned out to be a great man.”

The ensuing leadership campaign attracted eight candidates but boiled down to a race between Mr. Mulcair and another Quebecker: Brian Topp, a former party president favoured by the NDP establishment. Although he was deputy leader and had been in Ottawa for four years, Mr. Mulcair was still considered an outsider who might drag the party toward the mushy middle. He was also known for his quick temper. Feelings against him ran so high in some circles that former leader Ed Broadbent felt compelled to speak out.

“People should look carefully at the fact that, of the people [in caucus] with Tom, 90 per cent of them are supporting other candidates,” the NDP’s grand old man, then 75, told The Globe and Mail.

Nonetheless, when the vote was held in Toronto on March 24, 2012, Mr. Mulcair won convincingly on the fifth ballot. He then moved quickly to heal internal rifts – leadership rivals were given prominent positions in his shadow cabinet, former Layton aide Karl Bélanger became his principal secretary and, later, Anne McGrath, his predecessor’s chief of staff, was asked to lead preparations for the next election.

He also had to weather a crisis that divided his caucus, again without being dictatorial. When the sovereigntist Bloc Québécois introduced a motion to repeal the Clarity Act, the federal legislation that requires a clear majority vote before a province can try to secede, the NDP was torn. Their own policy was similar to what the Bloc wanted. But while some MPs, mostly from Quebec, supported the motion, others wanted nothing to do with propping up separatists.

In a caucus meeting that lasted hours, Mr. Mulcair heard everyone out. Later, he met MPs individually and in small groups to explain that, while the party could never support the Bloc motion, neither could it repudiate its own policy. In the end, the NDP put forward a “unity bill” worded so that it could vote against the Bloc.

One member crossed the floor. But party insiders say that, by showing such patience and willingness to compromise, Mr. Mulcair has since enjoyed solid support from his caucus. He is especially close to the many rookie MPs from his home province, as much mentor as leader, while instructing them in the campaign skills they will need if the party has any hope of preserving its gains in Quebec.

As a result, the NDP has largely avoided the “bozo eruptions” that are common to large groups of greenhorn MPs.

“What impresses pollsters and analysts in Quebec is the fact that the NDP rookies are doing well with no real experience,” says Montreal marketing expert Jean-Marc Léger. “There have been no big mistakes, and that has surprised everyone.”

At the same time, Mr. Mulcair is obsessive about message discipline (forming a coherent response to any issue and sticking to it) as well as keeping the leader front and centre as the face of the party. It’s the same formula his chief rival used to cement his control over his yet, like the Conservatives, the New Democrats seem to accept the Mulcair mantra that, with power in striking distance, everyone must be flexible and exercise restraint.

For example, Mr. Layton failed in 2011 to persuade the party faithful to change the preamble to the NDP constitution, with its lofty lefty references to “democratic socialism” and commitment “to modify and control the operations of the monopolistic productive and distributive organizations.”

When Mr. Mulcair became leader, he strongly endorsed a fresh rewrite, which relegated socialism to a party “tradition” and promised simply “to address the limitations of the market in addressing the common good.” This time the changes passed.

Even the once-skeptical Mr. Broadbent has come around: “I think he’s doing a splendid job,” he says. The two have dinner on occasion and talk regularly. As for the alarm he raised, Mr. Broadbent insists: “I’m totally happy about the present. The past is the past.”

Of course, it’s not all hearts and flowers. Within the confines of his office, the Leader of the Official Opposition shares the Prime Minister’s reputation for micromanaging, a trait his senior staffers have been working to temper. (They report that he has, reluctantly, come to realize that a press release delivered two hours late because he insisted on signing off personally on it is a press release wasted.)

Where Mr. Layton saw himself as a chairman of the board, happy to delegate responsibility, Mr. Mulcair prefers to exercise tight control, giving his aides limited autonomy. He holds brainstorming sessions to hash out a response to emerging issues and relishes a good argument, but soon makes up his mind and, like Mr. Harper, rarely feels there is anyone smarter in the room.

Both men can be uncompromising – a quality often prized in a leader – but there are differences between them. Mr. Mulcair is capable of changing his mind and not known to hold a grudge, while some days the Prime Minister seems to be about nothing but grudges.

“Tom is tough, but for him it’s never personal,” says NDP House Leader Nathan Cullen, who ran against him for the leadership.

Still, Mr. Mulcair and Mr. Harper seem so alike that now the only real difference between their parties, in the eyes of one NDP insider, “is that we’re good and they’re bad.”

That said, Mr. Mulcair has learned to bite his tongue – for example, when he invites small groups of MPs to discuss issues and priorities over dinner at his official residence. Those who have been to a Stornoway session say he lets everyone else talk, and sums up the discussion at the end of the meal.

The path to government also requires setting priorities, and Mr. Mulcair has chosen wisely. The NDP has pushed for bolstering the Canada Pension Plan, now a top issue for several provinces and one that threatens to leave Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and the Conservatives behind the curve.

The party’s opposition to untrammelled development of the Alberta oil sands has been echoed in powerful resistance to both the Northern Gateway and Keystone XL pipelines.

“I want my first act as prime minister on the international stage,” he says, “to be my attendance at the Paris conference in December, 2015, on the Kyoto Protocol” – the historic climate agreement that he says the Liberals signed in 2002 as a “communications stunt.” (A stunt that later became what environmentalists consider a tragedy when the Harper government withdrew from the accord altogether.)

But he is also an economic realist, and the NDP supports a proposed pipeline to carry western oil to the east. “We want development that benefits everyone, and we’re actually going to get it done,” he says, dismissing both the Liberals, for constantly saying one thing and doing another, and Mr. Harper, for his cynicism and “grim view of the world.”

Those are fine fighting words, but there is an old saying that he who wields the dagger may never wear the crown – especially if he’s a realist chasing an idealist in the polls.

The Justin factor

Even before walking off with the Liberal leadership last spring, Mr. Trudeau had emerged as the most popular public figure in the country: a handsome, charming, relentlessly sunny political animal and heir to a storied name. As well as being younger than other political leaders (he turned 42 on Christmas Day), he is blessed with the warmth and charisma that often come with growing up in the public eye.

In contrast, Mr. Mulcair is 17 years his senior and the product of an upbringing that encouraged toughness rather than warmth. He doesn’t endorse the notion that he is a hothead, but does admit to being “determined.”

“I come from a very modest background … I’ve had to work hard all my life,” he explains. “So I sometimes have a very frank way of dealing with things.”

Born on Oct. 24, 1954, he is the second of 10 children. His father Harry was an Irish Quebecker who, in the 1970s, moved the family from the Montreal suburb of Laval an hour north to tiny St.-Anne-des-Lacs in the Laurentians, where he was an insurance executive. His mother Jeanne is a francophone who taught school.

Together, they lived and breathed Catholic social activism and Liberal politics (his mother’s great-grandfather, Honoré Mercier, was Quebec’s ninth premier). “I have known since I was 14 that I wanted to go into politics,” Mr. Mulcair told one journalist.

Also while in his teens, he met his future wife (then visiting from France, Catherine Pinhas is a psychologist specializing in palliative care), before going on to earn a double degree in common and civil law from McGill University. “I didn’t work as a research assistant in law school,” he recalls. “I was making tar-and-gravel roofs.”

After graduating, Mr. Mulcair joined the provincial justice ministry in Quebec City before moving to the Conseil de la langue française, the agency created to enforce new language laws introduced in 1977 by the Parti Québécois.

These were difficult years to be a federalist. Réné Lévesque was premier, and separatists dominated the provincial bureaucracy. But Mr. Mulcair relished a good scrap, and in 1983 became director of legal affairs for Alliance Quebec, an anglophone lobby group later discredited after becoming more radical.

After two years, he left to practise and teach law, entering politics in September, 1994, a month before his 40th birthday (and a few months after the death of his father). He chose the provincial Liberals, then in office and the only real option for a federalist in Quebec, winning his seat even as the party lost power (setting the stage for the PQ’s 1995 referendum on national unity).

In the National Assembly, he was known as a fierce partisan. He cost his party $95,000 when one rival sued for defamation. Still, when the Liberals returned to power in 2003, Mr. Charest made him minister of “sustainable development, environment and parks.”

In that role, Mr. Mulcair brought in landmark legislation on sustainable development, but three years later clashed with the premier, a former federal Tory, and resigned from cabinet over a decision to open a park in the Eastern Townships to commercial development.

With his political career in limbo, he considered his options, talking to the Greens and even the federal Conservatives, but was more inclined to revive his legal career. Then, still a Liberal backbencher, he was invited by Jack Layton to address an NDP policy convention in Quebec City. The two men clicked, and he was soon being pressed to jump to federal politics as Mr. Layton’s Quebec lieutenant.

The following year he became just the second federal New Democrat ever elected in the province. He captured Outremont, until then a Liberal bastion in Montreal, in a by-election, repeating the feat (by a mere 1,300 votes) in a general election a year later.

And then came the miraculous Orange Wave of May 2, 2011, when popular affection for le bon Jack, coupled with disenchantment with the other options, created a surge of support that delivered 59 of the Quebec’s 75 seats (this time the Mulcair margin was nearly 13,000), and made the NDP the Official Opposition for the first time.

A month later, as a filibuster in the Commons was ending, according to Building the Orange Wave, a recent book by former Layton aide Brad Lavigne, Mr. Layton turned to his House Leader and asked: “Tom, will you be able to give the wrap-up speech? I’m feeling a little discomfort.”

“Of course,” Mr. Mulcair replied, gently patting his leader’s back. The jacket was soaked in sweat.

Polls that defy logic

A year after Mr. Mulcair moved from MP to party leader, Mr. Trudeau did the same, soon soaring in the polls. But his inexperience and lack of gravitas left him ill-equipped to deal with the tawdry accusations and sleazy machinations of the Senate scandal last fall.

Indeed, to most observers, his performance was embarrassing beside that of Mr. Mulcair, even if the NDP’s “roll up the red carpet” campaign to abolish the Senate seemed quixotic at first. As the third party, the Liberals receive less time in Question Period, and Mr. Trudeau’s determination not to be dragged into the muck – negative campaigning, relentless partisanship and TV attack ads – left him little room to manoeuvre.

Yet he more than Mr. Mulcair seems to have profited from the Tories’ discomfiture. A recent Ipsos Reid poll placed the Liberals at 35 per cent support, the Conservatives at 29 per cent and the NDP at 26.

In the eyes of many, this payoff was demonstrated in four federal by-elections held Nov. 25. The Liberals kept seats they already held in Montreal and Toronto, and came close to toppling the Conservatives in one of two ridings in Manitoba, where the NDP’s performance was dismal – perhaps because of Mr. Mulcair’s approach to the oil sands or unhappiness with the provincial NDP government. As for the near-upset in Brandon Souris, the Liberals cleverly recruited the son of an MP who represented the riding for 30 years as a Conservative.

In the East, the NDP’s results were better, as the party more than doubled its vote (from 15 to 36 per cent) in a Toronto riding vacated by Liberal high flier Bob Rae. Perhaps the best news came from Montreal, where support held firm in Bourassa, another Liberal stronghold, showing that the party remains formidable in a province it long considered a wasteland.

Quebec will decide which party comes out ahead when the Liberals and NDP drop the gloves for real next year, so Mr. Mulcair pulls no punches when discussing the so-called “natural governing party.”

“Canadians wind up so many times like Charlie Brown on his back after Lucy has pulled the football away – the Liberals flash left, and turn right. You can’t treat people that way and expect to get away with it over time.

“They’re going to crab-walk over to my voters and say, ‘Come on, you can trust us this time.’ And we’re going to say, ‘You can’t.’ ”

But Quebec hasn’t backed a winner since 1988. Elections are now decided in the big cities of English Canada, which means that, if he is to become prime minister, Mr. Mulcair must tackle the incumbent. On this front, the NDP is fighting fire with fire. It has tried to emulate the Conservatives’ organizing tactics and, leading up to the 2015 campaign, party insiders say, it will position its leader as a virtuous Stephen Harper – tough, competent, not necessarily likeable, but more focused on the needs of struggling middle-income families and from a party devoid of the sleaze that now clings to Conservatives.

They won’t admit it on the record, but senior Conservatives worry that the New Democrats could eat into their support among suburban immigrant voters in the 905 area code surrounding Toronto – where more than anywhere else, the NDP must grow.

Victor Fingerhut, a Washington-based political consultant who has worked with the NDP, believes it also has growth potential if it can persuade voters it is “the only party that stands up for working people.”

But that will be a tall order, in light of one issue that promises to place a serious obstacle in Mr. Mulcair’s path.

Rock and a hard place

Although united behind their leader, New Democrats are a house divided when it comes to the government’s much-discussed Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement.

Mr. Mulcair insists that he supports the principle of free trade with Europe. After all, the potential gains are tempting – a market of 500 million people in 25 developed nations. And Europe is an NDP kind of place, with stronger labour and environmental protections than Canada and a long tradition of electing social democrats.

Yet the New Democrats say they want to see the final text of CETA and hold public consultations before passing judgment. The Liberals quickly endorsed the pact in principle – Mr. Trudeau even stood in the House and congratulated Mr. Harper – but senior NDP officials admit privately that Mr. Mulcair is trying to buy time.

He knows the party must find a way to support CETA, or lose any credibility that it can be trusted to manage the economy. Nonetheless, many in the labour movement oppose the agreement strongly, as do social activists. They see it as a sellout that will let European companies sue Canadian governments that try to buy local, could cost fishers and farmers their livelihoods, and will increase health costs with greater patent protection against generic drugs.

Unifor president Jerry Dias says his union, the private sector’s biggest (created when the Canadian Auto Workers and Communications, Energy and Paperworkers merged last year), is particularly upset with provisions that would increase the duty-free exchange of vehicles.

“We build large cars,” he points out. “Our cars are not built for the European market.” But European cars are built for North America, and “will likely double their exports to Canada. And all that does is eat more and more into the Canadian auto industry. It’s just another nail” in the coffin.

Mr. Dias is a big fan of Mr. Mulcair, saying that “he knows that his relationship with labour is important … He really understands that we deliver.” But if the NDP supports CETA, “I think it will hurt how we perceive them.”

Even the delay may prove costly. The Conservatives see the agreement as their most important economic initiative and badly want to campaign as the only party to trust with the economy. They are already suggesting the NDP is opposed – if Thomas Mulcair can’t make up his mind, they will do it for him.

Planning on votes

Even if he solves his CETA dilemma, Mr. Mulcair still has to persuade voters that the heirs to Ontario’s Bob Rae disaster can actually form a credible government.

He is not without assets. When Ipsos Reid polls voters on which party shares their values, the New Democrats rule on anything social while the Conservatives dominate on economic affairs. “The NDP owns the compassion side of the agenda, the Tories own the management side, and the Liberals own nothing,” observes pollster Darrell Bricker.

But the clock is ticking. The Party Power Index compiled by Nanos takes into account both a leader’s performance and his party’s popularity, and last fall had Mr. Mulcair gaining ground at the expense of both Mr. Harper and Mr. Trudeau.

This week’s index has the NDP at 49.3, a half-point behind the Conservatives, while the Liberals, although falling, are still well ahead at 56.2. Mr. Fingerhut says that most people who would never support the Conservatives still have it in their political DNA to vote Liberal: “That’s the battle Mulcair has to face. He can’t be as good as Trudeau or even a little bit better than Trudeau. He’s going to have to be a whole lot better, to defeat him.”

But this time, the New Democrats are the Official Opposition, they still enjoy a credible level of popular support – and they’re making changes as they prepare for the election. The party has already updated both its fundraising mechanism, this week reporting that December donations reached $800,000 (a monthly record but still a far cry from the $2-millon collected by both main rivals) and its voter-identification efforts.

Now, to raise his profile, its leader is embarking on a cross-country series of community talks and kitchen-table conversations with working families, stressing two major themes. The first will be “affordability,” as the party tries to match the Conservative focus on consumer issues by targeting bank-machine fees, credit-card interest rates, electronic billing charges and other ways customers give and banks receive.

The second theme will be energy policy. Mr. Mulcair concedes that natural resources are “the motor of the Canadian economy,” as he declared in a speech last month, but he will accuse the Tories of squandering export opportunities through shoddy and short-circuited environmental reviews, dooming proposed pipelines to years of court challenges and leaving Canada with an international reputation for dirty oil and indifference to climate change.

The goal, senior NDP strategists say, is to depict Mr. Harper as the leader of a tired and corrupt administration interested only in helping his big-business friends, and Mr. Trudeau as a vacuous lightweight with few convictions and fewer policies.

Against them, Mr. Mulcair will be portrayed as an experienced leader who understands the struggles of working families and has specific proposals to help them. He and his message also will be promoted in local radio and newspaper advertising, but there will no attack ads and, thus far, no television ad campaign this year.

One thing that won’t change: the beard. Canadians don’t like them on politicians – the last prime minister elected with a beard was Alexander Mackenzie in 1873. But Mr. Mulcair has had his since he was 18, and not even his wife has been able to persuade him to give it up.

There are already signs that his personal profile is starting to rise. “In airports,” he says, “I used to get, ‘Oh, that’s the NDP guy.’ Now I get systematically, ‘Oh, that’s Mr. Mulcair.’ And, by the way, it’s no longer ‘Mr. Muhclair’ or ‘Mr. Mulclair.’ ”

Insiders also cite an Ekos poll showing Canadians now more willing to have a drink with him (24 per cent) than with the Prime Minister (22).

If only a whopping 44 per cent of them wouldn’t prefer to bend an elbow with Justin Trudeau.

Georgetti: The Tories Attack on the Middle Class Should Worry You

Posted on December 5, 2013 by CanucksBanter

Ken Georgetti President, Canadian Labour Congress

12/04/2013 http://www.huffingtonpost.ca

The Conservative government is engaged in a campaign to distract their supporters from a series of Senate scandals and cover ups. The Conservative fundraising machine believes that if it feeds its base a constant diet of someone to dislike, the donation cheques will keep rolling in. Workers and their unions are their current targets with a long list of legislation designed to keep their base happy.

The Conservative government’s recent volleys against workers and their unions will only serve to undercut the well-being and security of middle-class families in Canada if they succeed in pushing through their anti-union legislation. The Globe and Mail said as much in a recent series of articles on growing inequality in Canada — “declining unionization has contributed to wage inequality.”

Canada’s labour movement is not just about decent jobs, it’s about a better life for everyone. Unions have worked to protect good jobs, make workplaces safer, fought for paid vacation time, public health insurance and the Canada Pension Plan. When union members stand up for fairness everyone benefits — whether you belong to a union or not.

Canadians will see through the government’s attempts to divide people against one another. At one end of the legislative spectrum, the government uses giant omnibus bills to throw everything but the kitchen sink into one piece of legislation. The current budget bill runs to 308 pages and in the fine print it makes sudden and dramatic changes to the Canada Labour Code. One of those changes would place workers’ lives at risk by eroding their right to refuse dangerous work.

Other amendments to federal labour laws would erode workers’ constitutional right to bargain collectively by letting the government unilaterally, without negotiation, change the rules for bargaining with their employees. To add insult to injury, witnesses to the parliamentary committee studying the bill who would speak out against the changes were deliberately scheduled to testify after the deadline for the committee to make amendments passed.

What is the government really trying to fix here? We know that well over 99 per cent of all collectively bargained contracts in Canada result in an agreement rather than a strike or lockout. There was no consultation with any of the parties affected by this proposed legislation, and changing the rules without consultation and negotiation is simply heavy-handed and unfair. Given the Supreme Court of Canada will soon rule on very similar legislation introduced by the Saskatchewan government, the ideological cousins of this government, it’s also premature.

At the other end of the legislative spectrum, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) is offending parliamentary tradition by using its influence to introduce Private Member’s Bills and to force their passage. That is what happened with Bill C-377, an unconstitutional piece of legislation that will force labour organizations (but no one else) to undertake costly and time consuming reporting of even the most minute of financial transactions.

Bill C-377 was supposedly the initiative of backbench Conservative MP Russ Hiebert but we know that special interest groups met frequently with the PMO, including the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff Nigel Wright, and the PMO exerted pressure in order for the bill to pass.

The senate found Bill C-377 to be so offensive that it was sent back to the House of Commons in June with numerous amendments. But then the Prime Minister shut down Parliament and Bill C-377 is now going to be sent to the senate all over again. Bill C-377 is ideologically-motivated and aimed at wasting union members’ money and it is not needed. Our members already have access to financial information about the unions to which they belong.

Bill C-525, another Private Member’s Bill put forward by a Conservative MP, would make it nearly impossible for workers in the federally-regulated sector to join a union. The bill would consider workers who don’t bother to vote in a certification vote as casting “no” ballots on having a union. That’s not democratic — giving those who don’t vote control over those who do. If those rules applied to electing MPs, Parliament would be empty. One set of rules for Conservatives and a different set for workers — that’s unfair.

Finally, the recent Conservative Party convention in Calgary passed a number of aggressively anti-worker resolutions. One of them would allow some workers to stop paying union dues but still receive all the benefits that the union negotiates – all at the expense of their coworkers who do pay their dues. Leave it to ethically-challenged Conservatives, counselling people that it’s okay to dine and dash at a restaurant while leaving others at your table to pay the bill. That’s unfair and it’s a recipe for conflict and disruption in the workplace.

This government puts its extreme ideology ahead of all other considerations, but Canadians see these bullying tactics for what they are. The CLC and its affiliates ran a television advertising campaign during October and November 2013. We talked directly to Canadians about the positive role that the labour movement plays in our society. The response to our campaign has been overwhelmingly positive from both union members and the public at large. That response and our polling shows that we are on the side of the vast majority of Canadians. They will support a labour movement that works in the interest of fairness for everyone.

Ken Georgetti is president of the 3.3 million member Canadian Labour Congress.

Reform Act, 2013

Posted on December 3, 2013 by CanucksBanter

Michael Chong, P.C., M.P. Wellington-Halton Hills

On December 3, Michael Chong, P.C., M.P. Wellington-Halton Hills introduced to the Canadian Parliament a private member’s bill, Bill C-559, Reform Act, 2013: An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act (reforms).

The following is a backgrounder behind Bill C-559 put out by Mr. Chong.

On December 3, 2013, Michael Chong, Member of Parliament for Wellington-Halton Hills, introduced the Reform Act, 2013. The Reform Act is an effort to strengthen Canada’s democratic institutions by restoring the role of elected Members of Parliament in the House of Commons.

The proposals in the Reform Act would reinforce the principle of responsible government. It would make the executive more accountable to the legislature and ensure that party leaders maintain the confidence of their caucuses.

Responsible government was introduced to Canada in the 1840s by Robert Baldwin and Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine, reformers whose contributions to responsible government are commemorated in a monument behind Centre Block on Parliament Hill. Together, they led the first responsible government in Canada. Responsible government is the principle that the Executive Council (cabinet) is responsible and accountable to the elected Legislative Assembly (House of Commons), and not the appointed Governor.

Since Confederation, numerous and gradual changes have eroded the power of the Member of Parliament and centralized it in the party leaders’ offices. As a result, the ability of Members of Parliament to carry out their function has been curtailed by party leadership structures. The Reform Act proposes to address this problem by restoring power to elected Members of Parliament.

The Need to Reform Parliament

In Canada’s single-member district plurality (first-past-the-post) system, Canadians directly elect Members of Parliament to represent them in the House of Commons. This is the only franchise (excepting the occasional non-binding ad-hoc consultative Senate elections) that Canadians exercise at the federal level.

It is important to note why the role of the Member of Parliament is so vital to our system.

In many systems of government, citizens exercise three franchises, three votes. For example, in the United States, citizens exercise three votes at the federal level: A vote for the President, a vote for a Senator and a vote for a Congressman or Congresswoman. So, citizens have three avenues to pursue their democratic representation.

But in Canada, citizens exercise only one franchise, one vote: A vote for their local Member of Parliament. And they rightfully expect that their local member be responsive to their views.

It is for that reason that the role of the Member of Parliament in the Canadian system is so critical.

However, evidence demonstrates that Canadians are becoming increasingly disengaged with their elected Parliament. Recent public opinion research reveals that only 55 per cent of Canadians report being satisfied with the way democracy works in Canada,i dropping 20 per cent from 2004.ii Voter turnout during federal elections has reached an all-time low, and in the last federal election, four out of ten Canadians chose not to vote.iii

Studies have found that many Canadians are disengaged because they feel that politicians work for someone else, and are therefore indifferent to their views.iv

The Reform Act will help to re-engage citizens by introducing bottom-up reforms, giving greater decision-making authority to electoral district associations, and strengthening accountability in parliamentary party caucuses. When electoral district associations have the final authority over selecting party candidates in the electoral district, it ensures local control over who represents the district in Parliament. The Reform Act also provides greater power to elected Members of Parliament to hold their party leaders to account, thus reinforcing the confidence that caucus must have in the leader, and strengthening the principle of responsible government, the foundation of the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy.

The reforms proposed in the Reform Act are not new. If enacted, they would restore Parliament to the way it worked in Canada for many decades. Furthermore, many of the reforms proposed in the Reform Act are similar to current practices in other Westminster parliaments. The Reform Act would, however, codify into statute practices that are currently governed by unwritten convention.

The Reform Act proposes three main reforms: Restoring local control over party nominations, strengthening caucus as decision-making body, and reinforcing the accountability of party leaders to their caucuses. The Reform Act amends two Acts of Parliament: The Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act.

It is important to note that the Reform Act would not come into force until seven days after the next general election.

Restoring Local Control over Party Nominations

Currently, the Canada Elections Act effectively gives a party leader authority over the selection of a candidate by an electoral district association. According to paragraph 67(4)(c) of the Canada Elections Act, a prospective candidate must submit to the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, proof that a party leader has endorsed his or her candidacy. Only after this proof has been submitted, can the Chief Electoral Officer approve his or her nomination as a candidate for a party in an election. This requirement was introduced when the Canada Elections Act was amended in 1970.v Without such endorsement, the name of a prospective candidate and the political party with which he or she is affiliated cannot be put on the election ballot.

In other Westminster parliaments, the leaders of political parties do not exercise this type of centralized authority. For example, in Australia’s Labor Party and Liberal Party, decisions on candidate nomination are generally made by the local party membership.vi,vii In the United Kingdom’s Conservative Party and Liberal Democratic Party, candidates are generally selected by the constituency membership or constituency association.viii,ix In these parties, the final decision on candidate nomination rests with the members of local constituencies.

The Reform Act proposes to amend the Canada Elections Act, restoring local control over party nominations by replacing a party leader with a nomination officer, for the purpose of endorsing a party candidate in an election. Nomination officers are to be elected by members of electoral district associations through a majority vote. The Reform Act ensures that decisions pertaining to candidate nominations are made locally and are binding; meaning that the decisions of the electoral district association cannot be overruled by a party leader. By restoring control to electoral district associations to nominate candidates, power is effectively restored to Canadians, since it becomes a local decision as to who gets to represent the party in an election.

In effect, the Reform Act gives local associations the final decision on which candidate will run for a political party in that electoral district. Strengthening electoral district associations would enhance local engagement with political parties by giving these associations a stronger voice in a party’s direction.

Strengthening Caucus as a Decision-Making Body

Caucus is central to the functioning of a Westminster parliament. Most parliamentary power flows from the institution of Parliament through the caucus leadership to individual caucus members. Therefore, the structure and governance of caucus, as well as the accountability of the caucus leadership to its members, becomes vitally important in the Westminster system. Those members who sit outside a recognized party caucus are distinctly disadvantaged.

It is important to draw a distinction between registered political parties (Conservative Party of Canada, Liberal Party of Canada, New Democratic Party of Canada, etc.) which are created and exist outside Parliament, and parliamentary parties – also referred to as caucuses or recognized parties – which exist inside Parliament. While there is significant correlation between both types of parties, they are separate in structure and governance.

It is clear that, due to a series of changes going back decades, the ability of Members of Parliament to carry out their functions has been curtailed by caucus leadership structures. This stands in stark contrast to the significant power that members have in other Westminster parliaments, such as Australia and the United Kingdom.x,xi,xii

While the Parliament of Canada Act implicitly recognizes House of Commons caucuses by providing for the remuneration of House of Commons caucus chairs, no detail is provided as to how these caucuses should be structured or governed. In particular, no mention is made of how a House of Commons caucus chair is to be selected, nor is any mention made regarding caucus membership and expulsion. Currently, the structure, governance and membership of caucuses are regulated by unwritten convention. Over the decades, this unwritten convention has evolved in a way that has advantaged caucus leadership and disadvantaged caucus members.

The Reform Act proposes amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act in order to formally define the structure and governance of House of Commons caucuses.

The Reform Act would amend the Parliament of Canada Act by adding the definition of a House of Commons caucus.

The Reform Act would also formalize the procedure for the expulsion and re-admission of caucus members. Currently, the process for expulsion and re-admission is an undefined process that can vary between caucuses and individual cases. Under the Reform Act, a caucus member may only be expelled if the caucus chair has received a written notice signed by at least 15 per cent of the caucus members requesting that the member’s membership be reviewed at a meeting and the expulsion be approved by a majority vote by secret ballot of the caucus members present at that meeting.

Expelled caucus members may be re-admitted if one of two criteria is met. One criterion for re-admission is that the expelled member is re-elected to the House of Commons as a candidate for that party. The second criterion is that the caucus chair has received a written notice signed by at least 15 per cent of the caucus members requesting a vote to re-admit that member at a meeting, and the re-admission is approved by a majority vote by secret ballot of the caucus members present at that meeting.

The Reform Act also sets out a formal procedure for the election of a caucus chair. The chair of caucus is elected following every general election, or following the death, incapacity, resignation or removal of caucus chair. The chair is elected by a majority vote by secret ballot of the members of caucus who are present at a meeting of caucus. That meeting is presided over by the caucus member with the greatest number of years of service in the House of Commons.

The Reform Act also sets out a formal procedure for the removal of a caucus chair. The chair of a party caucus can only be removed if the chair has received a written notice signed by at least 15 per cent of the caucus members requesting that the occupancy of the chair be reviewed at a meeting, and the chair’s removal is approved by a majority vote by secret ballot of the caucus members present at that meeting. That meeting is presided over by the caucus member with the greatest number of years of service in the House of Commons.

These measures will enhance the accountability of caucus leadership to caucus members, ensuring party leaders and their caucuses are mutually accountable by virtue of requiring the maintenance of confidence. This is particularly important in House of Commons caucuses, since it is only members of the House of Commons to which the constitutional convention of confidence applies.

Reinforcing Accountability of Party Leaders to Caucuses

By convention, leaders of parliamentary parties must maintain the confidence of their House of Commons caucuses. While this convention is frequently used in Australia and the United Kingdom, it is rarely used in Canada.

Since the 1960s, party leaders in most Westminster systems have become more powerful in relation to elected Parliaments. With a few exceptions, the checks and balances on the power of party leaders has weakened. One of those exceptions is the ability of party caucuses to conduct a leadership review, which is the most important check and balance on the power of party leaders. In the United Kingdom’s Conservative Party, Australia’s Liberal Party, and New Zealand’s National Party and Labour Party, the party caucuses retain the power to review their party leaders.xiii,xiv,xv,xvi Within the last two decades, caucuses in all three countries have exercised this important power.

However, in Canada registered political parties have increasingly displaced the role of caucus in reviewing the party leader. Furthermore, the by-laws of registered parties make it difficult to initiate a leadership review.

Much like caucus structure and governance, little is set out in Canadian statute regarding leadership review. The Reform Act proposes to amend the Canada Elections Act to ensure that party by-laws recognize the current caucus power to review the caucus leader, by making explicit what is currently unwritten convention. Quite simply, the bill takes the current unwritten constitutional convention and makes explicit in statute the rules and process for caucus to review the party leader.

The Reform Act proposes that a party leadership review may be initiated by the submission of a written notice to the caucus chair, signed by at least 15 per cent of the caucus members. The review will occur by secret ballot, and the result will be determined by a majority vote of the members present at the meeting. When a majority of caucus members vote in favour of a leadership review, a second vote by secret ballot occurs immediately to select a person to serve as the interim party leader until a new leader has been elected. Aside from the election of an interim party leader, the Reform Act does not specify how a party leader is to be elected, leaving that decision to the political party.

The Reform Act makes registration of a political party contingent on the party’s by-laws conforming with these leadership review provisions. Registered political parties will have twelve months after the Reform Act comes into force to bring their party by-laws into compliance.

The Reform Act does not affect, in any way, the current power of registered political parties and their members to review a leader or to select a leader, regardless of what their current practises are.

Evidence shows that Westminster parliaments that operate under the rules proposed in the Reform Act, like those in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, are no more are unstable than the system Canada currently operates under. The length of time between leadership changes are about the same in both systems.xvii,xviii

Currently, party leaders exercise a great deal of control over caucuses, with the result that caucuses decreasingly function as decision-making bodies. The provisions proposed in the Reform Act would make explicit the requirement that the party leader maintain the confidence of his or her caucus, making the leader more accountable and restoring the role of elected Members of Parliament.

_________________________

i Anderson, Kendall, et al., “Lost in Translation or Just Lost?: Canadians’ Priorities and the House of Commons”, Samara Democracy Report #5, Samara Institute, February, 2013. p.2.

ii Anderson, Kendall, et al., “Who’s the Boss?: Canadians’ Views on Their Democracy”, Samara Democracy Report #4, Samara Institute, 2012. p.1.

iii Bastedo, Heather, et al., “The Real Outsiders: Politically Disengaged Views on Politics and Democracy”, Samara Democracy Reports, Samara Institute, December, 2011. p.2.

iv Bastedo, Heather, et al., “The Real Outsiders: Politically Disengaged Views on Politics and Democracy”, Samara Democracy Reports, Samara Institute, December, 2011.

v http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/bp437-e.htm

vi Australian Labor Party National Platform and Constitution, Constitution, part D. s.9. http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/australianlaborparty/pages/121/attachments/original/1365135867/Labor_National_Platform.pdf?1365135867

vii The Liberal Party of Australia is a Federation of Divisions. http://www.liberal.org.au/the-party/our-structure

viii Constitution of the Conservative Party, Schedule 7. s.15 http://www.bracknellconservatives.org.uk/sites/www.bracknellconservatives.org.uk/files/constitution_0.pdf

ix Liberal Democrat Federal Constitution Article 4 and Appendix Leadership Election Regulations. http://libdems.org.uk/constitution.aspx

x http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1922_Committee

xi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Labour_Party

xii Australian Labor Party, “National Executive Guidelines for the Election of the Labor Leader”, Ballot Rules, http://www.alp.org.au/ballot_rules

xiii United Kingdom, House of Commons Library, Leadership Elections: Conservative Party, Standard Note, SN/PC/1366, 7 December 2005, pp. 7-9.

xiv Guaja, Anika, “Labor leadership spill: the rules of the game”, The Conversation, [University of Sydney], 27 February 2012. http://theconversation.com/labor-leadership-spill-the-rules-of-the-game-5575

xv http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1922_Committee

xvi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Labour_Party

xvii http://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2012/06/keeping-party-leaders-honest/

xviii Blais, A., & Cross, W. P. (2012). Politics at the Centre: The Selection and Removal of Party Leaders in the Anglo Parliamentary World. New York: Oxford University Press.

Growth of inequality in Canada cannot be denied

Posted on September 28, 2013 by CanucksBanter

Statistics Canada’s National Household Survey confirms the gap between rich and poor in Canada has become enormous.

By: Jordan Brennan Jim Stanford Published on Thu Sep 26 2013

In a famous 2011 article in Vanity Fair, Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, first warned that our economic policies were increasingly dominated by the richest 1 per cent. Then the Occupy Wall Street movement electrified the concept with political urgency.

Now Statistics Canada has turned its attention to the problem, too. The agency’s National Household Survey has documented the stark differences in personal income between the richest 1 per cent and the rest of us. The data are less precise than would have been attained from the former long-form census (which was cancelled by the data-phobic Conservative government). But despite its flaws, the report confirms that the gap between rich and poor in Canada has become enormous.

Incomes for the bottom 90 per cent of Canadians averaged just $28,000, according to the report. In contrast, the top 10 per cent took home an average of $135,000. And the top 1 per cent pocketed $381,000.

Despite data like these, some still argue that income inequality in Canada isn’t an issue because it isn’t increasing. Others admit that the level of inequality is high, but we should graciously accept it because it encourages people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Neither argument carries much weight.

The accompanying figure starkly describes the historical trend. The thick gray line indicates the share of national income going to the richest 0.1 per cent of the population (the richest of the rich, if you like). The thin red line shows the Gini coefficient: a broader measure of income inequality, which ranges from a low of zero (perfect equality) to a high of one (total inequality).

By either measure, income inequality has reached a historic extreme. Inequality was high during the 1920s and 1930s (the “gilded age”), but fell sharply during the Second World War (as Canadians got back to work and taxes were raised to pay for the war effort). The three decades after the Second World War — a “golden age” of controlled capitalism — saw further decline in inequality. The economy was booming and powerful institutions (like progressive taxation and surging unionization) ensured the wealth was broadly shared.

Since 1980, however, we’ve entered another “gilded age.” Business-friendly economic and social policies replaced the former Keynesian welfare regime. In recent years, inequality has reached levels higher than at any time since the 1930s. And it is clearly staying that way, regardless of small year-to-year fluctuations.

Does income inequality matter? There’s a growing consensus among scientists from many disciplines that it does: in complex, surprising and economically important ways. Numerous studies document a powerful relationship between income inequality and varied dimensions of social pathology.

Indicators as diverse as happiness, mental illness, infant mortality, children’s educational performance, teenage pregnancy, homicide, imprisonment, social trust and social mobility all get worse as the income gaps within society deepen.

The reigning economic orthodoxy assumes the distribution of income reflects “market forces” and “productivity,” but history confirms distribution is actually shaped by the power institutions of society. In Canada, three core institutions have been especially important: corporate power redistributes income upward, while labour unions and governments redistribute income downward.

Previous research by one of us revealed the historical relationship between corporate power and the distribution of personal income. It turns out that relative size of the largest firms in Canada strongly affects the distribution of personal income: the inexorable corporate concentration in recent decades has clearly produced greater inequality.

This study, “A Shrinking Universe,” also documented the downward redistribution of income resulting from organized labour. Union density grew steadily from 16 per cent in 1940 to 37 per cent by 1975, but has declined steadily since then. As union density increased, income inequality decreased — and vice versa during the new gilded age.

Governments are also downwardly redistributive. The most obvious effect is through the tax and transfer system (although the progressivity of Canada’s tax system has diminished). Government spending also redistributes income downward. This is partly because public sector pay scales are more compressed than the private sector — with a higher floor and a lower ceiling. As public sector activities form a larger proportion of GDP, inequality moderates. The retrenchment of the Canadian public sector since 1992 has thus contributed to upward redistribution.

All of this suggests some obvious conclusions regarding how to reduce inequality: strengthen the voice of organized labour and amplify the redistributive aspects of the Canadian state. Our own history proves there is nothing “natural” or “inevitable” about the level and trend of inequality. The present lopsided balance of institutional power in our economy and society (with big business increasingly calling the shots) and the resulting skewed distribution of income reflect past political and economic decisions. We need not replicate those decisions in the future.

Jordan Brennan and Jim Stanford are economists with Unifor, the new union founded on Labour Day weekend through the merger of the CAW and the CEP.

Andrew Phillip Chernoff

The Outer Limits To The Inner Depths

Tag Archives: canadian politics

Liberal majority win is not true change for Canada

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair’s next task: Win over the country