NDP's Patry Bloc Bolt: Short-Term Pain, Long-Term Gain?

By Keith Edmund White

Editor-in-Chief

Keith Edmund White on why the pundits are wrong on Patry's Bloc bolt, with some help from recent U.S. party-switching history.  And how the loss of one seat my just hand the NDP Parliament in 2015.

My google-news feed is filled with takes on Quebec NDP MP Claude Patry's switch to, in the National Post's words, the "moribund but still kicking" Bloc Quebecois.  

The BQ now boasts a whopping 5 members in Canada's 308-member Parliament.

But the NDP, Canada's Official Opposition Party, has one less seat.

So does Patry's Bloc party signal closing time for the NDP?

MLI's Brian Lee Crowley on Quebec Separation, the Clarity Act, and the NDP

Brian Lee Crowley, managing director of The MacDonald-Laurier Institute (MLI), hits the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP for signaling that Quebec separation should permit Quebec to initiate its separation from Canada.

The editorial shows the importance of the Quebec vote to the NDP, whose surprising strength in Quebec catapulted it to the Official Opposition in 2011.

Also, check out what else MLI has to offer.

From Crowley’s editorial:

Both the Bloc Québécois and the NDP are busy advertising how cheap they hold their country’s integrity and future. The BQ, for whom secession is the raison d’être, may perhaps be forgiven for returning to the charge with another bill to set the bar on achieving Quebec independence as low as possible, and abolishing the Clarity Act into the bargain.

The NDP, however, is another matter. This party has frequently stood four square behind Canada in the face of the separatist threat, and its courageous past leaders, such as David Lewis, Ed Broadbent and Alexa McDonough spoke out passionately for Canada. Yet today the heirs of this proud tradition stand in the Commons and, without blushing, say that a majority of one vote in a referendum should be enough to set Quebec on the path of separation from Canada.

…

These things are so fundamental to fairness and legitimacy that we don’t permit mere governments or even electoral majorities to change them on their own. We require big majorities before we allow these “rules of the game” to be altered. In the case of amendments to the Constitution, for example, most of them require the agreement of Parliament plus at least seven of the 10 provinces representing a majority of the population. That is a triple majority: a majority in Parliament and among the population and a two-thirds majority among the provinces. And some changes require all the provinces to agree.

The government of Canada could hold a referendum to get approval to change the Constitution and they could get 90 per cent of the population to vote yes and nothing would happen unless the change was approved by Parliament and two thirds of the legislatures representing a majority of the population. That’s not anti-democratic. It is the essence of democracy that fundamental rules require special procedures and broad consent to be changed.

That is what the Supreme Court meant when it said a clear majority of Quebecers needed to vote yes to a clear question before the rest of the country must sit down and discuss secession. Even after negotiating, both sides would have to ratify a constitutional amendment to effect secession. And those negotiations would have to consider the rights of minorities like aboriginal people, and those who voted not to leave Canada.

The logic behind this is impeccable and, like it or not, it’s impeccably democratic too.

"With the Green Party’s intervention, it’s a good bet he’ll been looking at his second decade as PM soon."

By Keith Edmund White, Editor-in-Chief

Yes, Canada's Left is under-cutting itself.  But personality-politics should settle this question before Canada's next round of parliamentary election.  So, stop complaining about the Liberal-NDP divide, let alone the Greens delivering Harper another term as Prime Minister. Though, as The Real Story blog shows, is can make for entertaining reading.

The Real Story, a Canadian political blog, mocks a defense of having three centre-left political parties on Canada's national political scene.  With the NDP-Liberals-Greens all competing for seats in Canada's ridings, a divided Left is going to deliver Canada another two terms of Conservative Prime Minister Harper:

Because for all the Green Party’s disclaimers about vote splitting [(1) you owe it to your supporters to run & (2) non-voters will only come out if you show political alternatives] one truth remains.

The truth – and Calgary Centre proves it – is that three parties on the centre left is useful to only one person in Canada. And that’s Stephen Harper. With the Green Party’s intervention, it’s a good bet he’ll been looking at his second decade as PM soon.

TRS isn't alone in this assessment, though it's logic-evisceration of Chris Turner's, the Green's candidate in Calgary by-election last week--op-ed claiming he didn't throw the election to the Conservatives is particularly delicious. 

But, first, it's entirely too early for all this belly-aching.  There are years before the next election..

Second, when you look at recent national polling, Canada' voters--not politicians--need to settle the Left divide.  The Liberals and Greens are painstacking close in popular support, and as long as that holds up, how do you expect an insurgent political party to tell members to lose prestige in the main of winning an election they could still win on their own?  

And, in any case, the Greens won't make the difference nationally.

My advice:  Green and Liberals, show your policy and leadership differences and take a look at the polling in two years.

Last thought:  Personality-politics will settle this.  Thomas Mulcair's tenure as Leader of the Opposition should settle which party is the leader of the Left soon enough, one or the other.

PQ’s Learning Curve: Just What the NDP Needs to Win in 2015?

Editorial

By Keith Edmund White

Ignore reports of slipping NDP support, which the Globe and Mail attributes to the Parti Quebecois's (PQ) narrow victory in Quebec last month.  The PQ may be just what the NDP needs to take Ottawa by storm in 2015. 

OK, first some background for those not hip to the Canadian political scene.  In what has been historically a two-party contest for Canada’s national government, the NDP—for the first time—offered a Canadian third way: crushing the once-dominant Liberal Party, but still failing to stop Canada’s conservative party—and Prime Minister Harper—from turning their minority government into a majority government (i.e. the Conservatives had been the biggest party in Parliament, but didn’t have a majority of votes until 2011).  So, now all three parties are plotting how best to approach Canada’s next election, slated to occur on or before October 19, 2015.

Now, all this Ottawa long-game chess-playing gets delightfully complicated by provincial politics.  Just like the first crack in the Obama 2008 coalition was a Republican winning Virginia’s 2009 gubernatorial race, the narrow victory of the Parti Quebecois (PQ)—a pro-Quebec secessionist party—has injected more drama in Canadian politics.  For better or worse, Quebec—owing to history and the ever-present chance another independence referendum—still grabs what some undoubtedly consider a disproportionate share of the nation’s media attention.  So the PQ’s victory has brought headaches—and opportunity—for Canada’s three major national parties.  But, don’t worry, the political pain is being shared, with the PQ already nursing some of their own political missteps.

Why should the PQ running Quebec worry the national Conservatives and NDP?  Well, for the Conservatives, beyond the PQ possibly dragging the country into a constitutional/secessionist crisis (unlikely given their minority government status), the PQ is Quebec’s left-leaning party.  (Note:  The NDP has not built a provincial party in Quebec, even though it owes its ‘government-in-waiting’ status to Quebec voters.)    What’s this mean?  The PQ, according to Paul Wells at Macleans, “is already doing the opposite” of the Harper government on spurring investment, immigration, and energy.  But the big issue here is taxes.  From Wells’s jeremiad-bordering editorial: 

Marois’s new government is already doing the opposite of what Harper laid out at Davos. Systematically. It’s like she’s keeping a checklist.  

“Is it the case that in the developed world,” Harper told the Davos toffs, “too many of us have, in fact, become complacent about our prosperity, taking our wealth as a given, assuming it is somehow the natural order of things, leaving us instead to focus primarily on our services and entitlements?” 

 Marois replies: nope! There’s still plenty of time to take wealth as a given and to focus on entitlements. The university tuition increases that were the object of half a year’s protests are cancelled. But the increased student aid that was supposed to compensate for the tuition hikes remains in place. That’s tens of millions of dollars’ worth of increased burden on universities. “We will continue to make the key investments in science and technology necessary to sustain a modern competitive economy,” Harper said at Davos. Marois is digging a funding hole for universities that will make good science that much harder to afford.

Will this actually cost the Conservative votes?  For now, the overall consensus of the Canadian media elite is that the PQ leftward push is politically foolish and economically wrong-headed.  So, the PQ is doing just what the right-leaning party of Quebec—and the nation—needs to win, right?  Show voters hungry for a change that they should give the reigns to a right leaning, not left leaning party.  Naturally, the Liberals—decimated at the national level, but still strong in Quebec—can play this to their advantage: able to cherry-pick what works for the PQ while bashing what doesn’t, and position themselves as a changed and renewed party that offers the best bet for Quebec voters.

But I suspect the real winners of the PQ in Quebec will be the NDP.  For Conservatives and Liberals to get traction from the PQ, the PQ must fail.  But the NDP can strengthen its next national bid whatever the outcome of the PQ’s minority government.  Yes, the PQ’s victory froze attempts to create a robust, provincial NDP party in Quebec.  But let’s not overlook the obvious advantage the NDP gets in a short-term (the PQ minority government will likely fall well before the next federal election): the chance to learn from every misstep and success of the left-leaning PQ government.

PQ policy subscriptions are—with the exception of succession—pretty close to those of NDP voters.  What’s the NDP missing?  Support of new and current Liberal voters.  How better to see what messages work—and perhaps witness their economic impact—than to have the PQ try push its own independent agenda.  If they succeed, the NDP can make these provincial policies successful national talking points, without the dead-weight of Quebec independence.  And if certain PQ policies crash and burn, the NDP has the time to distance and differentiate their national plans before 2015.  In short, it’s a no-lose for the NPD, barring an NDP debacle of such cataclysmic proportions that Quebec voters become lock-step Harper-ites (unlikely).

So, ignore the polls.  In 2015, the Conservatives will be the classic hangers-on—needing a resurgent economy and new ideas to hold onto Canada’s parliamentary reins for a fourth, yes fourth, time in a row.  The Liberals, well, are in the middle of a leadership contest that could be confused with a nostalgia-heavy spirit quest.  (Yes, I freely double-dip Paul Wells pieces whenever I can; but, do read Gerry Nicholls's compare and contrast piece on Stephen Harper and Liberal upstart/heir-apparent Justin Trudeau.)  And the NDP now has a PQ party too weak to sink their brand in Quebec, but just strong enough to goad Harper, and show the NDP how—or how not—to win in 2015. 

My advice to NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair:  don’t sweat the polls or the PQ.  Focus on using the PQ and Conservatives as foils to create an attractive center-left alternative.  Oh, wait.  He already is.

Canada's Parliament Returns From Summer Break: Previewing the 2012 Fall Session

CUSLINexus rounds up assessments of Canada's upcoming fall 2012 parliamentary session.

5 Issues That Will Dominate the Fall Session of Parliament, Kieron Lang, CTV News. CTV News outlines and even offers a video segment on the key issues of Canada’s Fall Parliamentary Session. In short:

(1) Trade. EU and Trans-Pacific Partnership deals will get high priority, along with the government's review of a state-owned Chinese company bid to buy Canadian energy producer Nexen).

(2) Quebec. Will the PQ’s return to power in Quebec prompt another referendum. If so, they’ll be headaches in Quebec City and Ottawa.

(3) Government Contracts. There’s been criticism of how the government is handling non-competitive government contracts its administrating.

(4) Courts.  As many as 4 Canadian Supreme Court justices may step down before Harper’s term is up—talk about legacy-making stuff.

(5) NDP.  Last year, the NDP wowed the Canadian political world with a 2nd-place finish. Then, tragically, its leader—Jack Layton died of prostate cancer. Now the NDP’s new leader, Thomas Mulcair has to define himself and the party that needs to show the Canadian public it can take the reigns of Canada’s government.

 
Hoping for a Changed Tone in Parliament? Don’t Hope Your Breath,  Michael Den Tandt, Times Colonist and The Province. Writing for two leading Vancouver publications, Den Tandt previews the fall session—finding it will be much like the last—and again emphasizes trade and Quebec, but highlights the critical role Ontarian voters will play in the 2015 election:

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair has as yet shown no inclination to back away from his “Dutch disease” theme, which holds that the high Canadian dollar, driven by booming resource revenue, is harming Canadian manufacturing, to the benefit mainly of Alberta and the detriment mainly of the rest of Canada.

That ensures the critical political battleground this fall, and likely for the next three years until election 2015, will be economic, with the NDP and Conservatives vying primarily for hearts and minds in Ontario, in particular in the industrial heartland of the southwest, where most Ontarians live and where the economy still rests on automobile manufacturing.

The Conservatives and New Democrats will co-operate, to the extent that both will seek to sideline the third-place Liberals. The Grits will seek to capitalize on their leadership race, which concludes next spring, to maintain visibility. To that end, look for a Liberal leadership candidate or candidates to emerge with a platform that is aggressively conservative economically and just as aggressively progressive on social issues. All eyes now are on MPs Justin Trudeau and Marc Garneau, who are expected to run but have not yet publicly announced their intentions.

Canada’s MPs Set to Return, More Polarized than Ever, Mark Kennedy, Calgary Herald, seconds the polarization while suspecting the Conservatives will push hard to deliver on their platform:

Moreover, emboldened by the majority power they secured in the May 2011 election, the Tories are intent on using that clout for the remaining three years of their mandate to press ahead with an agenda that includes billions of dollars in government cuts, diminished federal environmental oversight on private-sector energy projects, and cuts to the public pension system for future generations of seniors. All have sparked controversy.

But Harper is not backing down, even as public opinion polls showing the Tories’ popularity has dropped, leaving them in a tie with the NDP.

“We’re putting our foot on the gas,” the prime minister said in early July, explaining that he was sticking with the same cabinet ministers because he wants them to continue with the Tory agenda this autumn.

“I’ve told officials in Ottawa the majority is not time to rest.’’

“I think that one step at a time, I think we’re moving the country in the right direction,’’ said Harper.

A Rough Guide to the Fall Sitting, Aaron Wherry, Macleans, gives us a concise, tongue-in-cheek run-down. One aspect worth mentioning, some other debates that will be gripping Parliament:

Stephen Woodworth’s motion on the legal definition of a human being is due to be debated this month. Conservative MP Rob Clarke wants to overhaul the Indian Act. Conservative MP Russ Hiebert wants to change the rules for financial disclosure by unions. And Pierre Poilievre has mused of making it possible to opt out of paying union dues.

Fallout From Cuts Follow MPs Back to Parliament, Jennifer Ditchburn, Chronicle Herald. This Halifax-based publication focuses on the local--emphasizing constituent concerns over Conservative budget cuts:

The Conservative caucus meets for the first time Monday since Parliament packed up for the summer, but the catching-up chatter won’t all be about cottages and barbecues.

Many MPs have had to cope all season with the fallout from last spring’s budget cuts, some of which hit local services in areas such as train travel, the coast guard and interior waterways.

The lobbying has been going on hard in some cases to try and mitigate the impact of the decisions on constituents.

Canada's Political State of Play: NDP-Conservatives Tied, Liberals Down and Out

The most pressing political question of the next two years is just how the Conservatives plan to bounce back.    After a 2011 victory over 9 points over the second-place NDP, the two national parties find themselves.  If the Conservatives don't turn the tide, Canadians may find themselves ushering in the first-ever NDP era.  Fortunately, the Conservatives have until October 19, 2015 to turn things around, not to mention near-total control over the timing of Canada's next parliamentary election (for American readers interested in learning this feature of parliamentary democracy, click and go to Section E of the helpful Library of Parliament publication).

And about the once-ruling Liberal Party?  They're still stuck in the political wilderness.

From The Hill Times:

Last May the Conservatives won a 166 seat majority with 39.6 per cent of the popular vote nationally, while the NDP won 103 seats with 30.6 per cent of the popular vote.

According to the latest averaging of national polls by aggregator ThreeHundredEight.com, the Conservatives and NDP are now statistically tied in public support, with the two parties’ polling at 33.9 and 33.6 per cent, respectively. The Liberals are a distant third, polling at 21.7 per cent.

The NDP owes its persistent support to a breakthrough in Atlantic Canada over the past year. On election day the party received 29 per cent of popular support in the region, trailing both the Conservatives and the Liberals, who received 38 and 30 per cent popular support at the ballot box, respectively.

Canada's Party Caucus Round-Up: Liberals Open Up the Leadership Vote; NDP Plots for 2014; Conservatives Push Trade Agreements and Voice Concern Over China's Acquisition of Nexen Conditions

By Keith Edmund White

Two of Canada's national parties--the Liberals and NDP--are wrapping up caucus meetings today, with the Conservatives on deck to chart of their paraliamentary strategy for the next year.  In short, the Liberals are looking for a leader; the NDP is trying to keep their lead in the polls; and the Conservatives are pushing a economic strategy emphasizing energy and trade-liberalization while they can still hold onto power.

Now's the season for Canada party conferences.  For the out-of-power Liberals, their ongoing three-day meeting is dominated by an internecine leadership battle.  Of particular note:  the Liberals will be releasing today the voting rules for their April leadership race, which will expand the voting base to non-dues paying Liberal "supporters."  Why is this important?  When you change the rules of the game, results tend to change too.  Clearly, the Liberals are trying to ensure whoever their leader is, they'll enjoy a boarder base of popular support.  Whether this gets Liberals back in power--or even back as the official opposition--has yet to be seen.

On the other hand, the NDP--as the official opposition--will be focusing on how to challenge the Conservative's agenda, and how to prepare for an election they suspect will occur in Fall 2014.  The PQ's victory in Quebec's provincial elections could complicate NDP efforts hold on the seats they won in Quebec last year.

And then there are the Conservatives, who's caucus meeting will focus on policy details.  The Hill Times (subscription--but try the free trial) reports that the planned takeover of Alberta's Nexen, Inc.--an oil and natural gas generator--by the state-controlled Chinese Company Cnooc is getting the Conservative's attention.  Naturally, as Canada's #1 energy purchaser, America is watching too--and hoping to use the planned purchase to push China to (1) allow U.S. companies to buy Chinese companies, (2) make U.S. foreign investment in China easier, and (3) enforce intellectual property infringements.

From The HillTimes:

The “high stakes” CNOOC-Nexen deal will be one of the Conservative Party’s top priorities when the caucus meets for a half-day session on Sept. 17 on the Hill, says a political insider. 

“This is the largest acquisition ever in Canada by an offshore state-owned enterprise, and this kind of thing always generates some degree of debate and or unease,” Earnscliffe Strategy Group principal Yaroslav Baran told The Hill Times in an email. “You can bet there will be discussion about this—all the different angles, from populist sentiment to reciprocity to the market signals that the final decision will send.”

Industry Minister Christian Paradis (Mégantic-l’Érable, Que.) said last week in a statement that he will take the time needed “to carefully examine CNOOC’s proposed acquisition of Nexen Inc. and determine whether it is likely to be of net benefit to Canada.”

And for the U.S. perspective, MarketWatch.com reports:

Chinese energy giant Cnooc Ltd.’s $15.1 billion deal to buy Nexen Inc. is under increasing political scrutiny in the U.S. even as it faces a long regulatory review in Canada.

“It is rare that we have so much leverage to exert upon China. We should not let this window of opportunity pass us by. At some point, we have to put our foot down over China’s refusal to play by the rules of free trade,” U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, wrote Friday in a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

Geithner and the Treasury Department chair the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., or CFIUS, an interagency board that reviews deals for national security implications. Cnooc, or the China National Offshore Oil Corp., is a government-owned company.

The deal is subject to CFIUS review because Calgary, Canada-based Nexen has substantial drilling operations in the U.S. portion of the Gulf of Mexico.

It is expected that the Cnooc-Nexen (CA:NXY) deal will be reviewed by CFIUS in Washington and by securities regulators and courts at the federal level in Ottawa, Canada

But of the most interest to me, is the Conservatives push for additional free trade pacts.  From The HillTimes:

Mr. [Yaroslav] Baran, who previously worked as a Hill staffer to the government House leader, said the Conservative Party policy planks such as economic management, international trade, and resource development will also likely be topics of discussion for the party in the lead up to the fall legislative session.

“The new catchphrase is that trade is the new stimulus,” Mr. Baran noted, identifying the progress on the Canada-EU free trade agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership as key priorities for the government this fall.

“Diversifying trade relationships has been a key government objective over the past six years, with nine free trade agreements concluded to date—albeit with smaller countries—and [more than] 50 other negotiations underway,” he said.

This trade focus is important, especially when viewed through the Canada-U.S. bilateral relationship.  Pushing a resource-heavy strategy incentivizes Canada to implement policies that help the natural resource trade, which can disadvantage Canadian manufacturers.  Furthermore, the Conservative push for ever more trade-pacts could speed up the declining--but still very dominant role--American contribution to Canada's GDP.

In any case, the likely election in 2014 will bring with it a big question of economic policy:  Can Canada's manufacturing sector compete on the world stage, and--if so--should Canada return to a more balanced monetary and trade policy to support it?  And, if Canada does so, could that lead to decline in the resource-heavy trade that has supported Canada through the last decade?  Or will the NDP--pushing a "balanced" approach to Canadian economic growth--for the first time ever take control of Parliament and successfully navigate Canada through economic waters--that in the long-term--don't look all that smooth.

The Beginning of the NDP Era?

By Keith Edmund White
Editor-in-Chief


A recent poll finds that the NDP would win, albeit only with a minority government, if a federal election were now held in Canada. Is Canada's Liberal Party gone? In any case, the NDP--whose charismatic leader Jack Layton only died last year--is continuing to gain strength and might just be Harper's main worry at the ballot box in 3-4 years.

There might be a reason Harper is pushing for quick economic growth: his approval rating is in the 30s. But, perhaps, even more troubling is this: a recent poll not only gives the NDP leader Tom Mulcair an approval rating in the 40s, but finds if a federal election were held now in Canada the NDP, yes the NDP, would win with a minority government.

So, no idea who Tom Mulcair is? Well, here's an provocatively titled MacCleans piece (Mr. Mulcair is Mr. Angry) and quick rundown from the Huffington Post. Some interesting highlights: Mulcair's short-fuse has cost from $95K, he's voted in French elections, and was a one-time Liberal party member. I think more prescient are these concluding paragraphs from the Macleans piece:

Beyond ephemeral questions about the NDP’s reason for being, Mulcair, as leader, would have to grow into the new role as the face of the party, becoming both a unifying, consensus-building presence within, and a strong, assertive figure on the public stage. Concerns about his aggressive style will have to be assuaged. Former Winnipeg North NDP MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis wouldn’t comment on Mulcair’s temperament. “We had a good working relationship,” said the long-time Manitoba MP, who resigned in 2010. When asked why she is supporting Brian Topp, the former MP said, “Brian Topp can take on Harper in a style similar to Jack, that is not personal, ugly or distasteful.”

But the case for Mulcair is that however controversial his presence, he is also the most obviously ready to fill the chair directly opposite Stephen Harper in the House of Commons. “Leaders have to carve our their own way of doing things,” says Davies. “And I think Tom’s ability to be smart and articulate and direct and to present a clear alternative—and he’s absolutely got steely resolve to take us to government—I think is carrying on Jack’s tradition in a different sort of package.”

Clearly, in only two months on the job, Mulcair--short-fuse or not--is gaining on Prime Minister Harper, whatever murmurings he makes about shifting Canada more towards European welfare model. Then again, when the number one issue in Canada is healthcare and not jobs, perhaps this line doesn't hurt poll numbers as much as it would in the United States.

In any case, the once-dominant Liberal Party has a tough--but perhaps not insurmountable--path to political relevancy.

Accessing the Impact of Jack Layton’s Death on the Newly Empowered NDP and What Does Having this Party as Official Opposition Mean to Canada-US Relations?

By Erwin Braich
Staff Writer

Before becoming Prime Minister, in a speech to the conservative American think-tank Council of National Policy, Stephen Harper described Canada’s New Democratic Party (NDP), in the following way, “basically a party of liberal Democrats, but it's actually worse than that, I have to say. And forgive me jesting again, but the NDP is kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men.”[1] Since its founding in the early 1970s, this unapologetic left-leaning party Harper seems to scorn, has been an integral part of the Canadian political order. In fact, it was the NDP’s first leader Tommy Douglas who introduced universal healthcare, something that today you cannot leave out in the very first sentences describing Canada. More recently, the party was led from 2003 until this past summer by Jack Layton. Throughout his tenure, Layton passionately promoted his party’s principles while at the same time attracting more voters.[2] His savvy leadership translated to huge political gain for the NDP. In the federal election this past spring they surprised everyone. Layton was able to secure 103 seats for his party, and even oversaw a massive victory in Quebec, a place that the NDP had never even attempted to contend in.[3] Ultimately, Layton’s party leadership led to the utter collapse of one party (Bloc Quebecois) and the taking of the throne for Canada’s center-left spotlight, from the other (Liberals). But tragically, as the nation’s political scene was being reshaped by the emergence of the NDP as the Official Opposition, Layton succumbed to cancer in August. Which leads to the question: who will get behind the wheel of this reinvigorated political party? And in what direction will they steer Canada’s New Democrats?

There is no doubt Layton will be missed. Across Canada, only one-in-five think the NDP will be able to find a new leader as strong as Layton, while two thirds (66%) of Canadians disagree.[4] As of now, long-time NDP strategist Brian Topp is the sole registered leadership candidate, which will be formally decided at the party’s convention in 2012.[5] He has a stance on every Canadian hot-button issue such as advocating Canada must formally recognize Palestinian statehood, to being vehemently opposed to the Keystone XL oil pipeline project linking Alberta to the Gulf Coast.[6] Other potential candidates exist, among them Quebec MP, Thomas Muclair who gains popularity day by day. According to a poll released last week 28 percent of Canadians would vote NDP if Muclair is chosen to be the party’s leader, while 25 percent who would vote NDP if Topp is chosen.[7]

There is an important side note for any American observing the NDP leadership race. Canada has extremely tight campaign finance laws. Under the new rules, the maximum contribution an individual supporting one of these candidates can contribute is $1,200, but the NDP has instituted an internal policy that reduces this to a mere $1,000.[8] Also under Canadian law, corporations and other businesses are completely prohibited from contributing altogether. Needless to say, this is a vastly different campaign finance regulatory structure than seen in the United States.

So how will this impact the party’s effectiveness as Official Opposition? For one, it is the first time in history the NDP has held this position. So, if you combine this with the fact that they entered this Parliamentary session without real leadership, at first glance things can look somewhat unpredictable for the party. However, the NDP is now the sole voice coming from the political left in Ottawa. Given the huge blow dealt to the more centrist Liberals, (the Official Opposition for the previous five years) we can be sure that Harper’s Conservative government is going to be contested with more passion than ever before. Yet one thing to keep in mind is that any effectiveness is going to be tempered, because at the end of the day, the Conservatives have a majority government. In Canada it is only in extreme cases that an MP votes against his party. That said, any Opposition party’s role in a majority government will be more-so to stimulate public debate while waiting for the next election rather than directly affecting policy outcomes.  

            What could the NDP being the Official Opposition mean for US-Canada relations? Let’s be honest, the party has never been particularly friendly with the US. Expect Parliamentary debate to be reflective of this. The NDP have historically been known as the “anti-American” party extremely skeptical of American power. At one point they even called for Canada to pull out of NATO, because of their suspicion of American intentions.[9] And just this week NDP Immigration Critic (the formal Opposition “shadow” position to the Immigration Minister) MP Don Davies, called for Canada to ban former Vice President Dick Cheney from entering Canada for a scheduled speaking engagement, because of his role in the Bush administration.[10] While the Opposition’s current Foreign Affairs Critic, NDP MP Paul Dewar (another possible leadership candidate) has made clear that his party will closely examine any perimeter security cooperation between Canada and the US. [11] Alexander Moens, writing in the Fraser Institute’s most recent report on Canada-US relations, blames Canadian nationalist sentiment and specifically the NDP for creating what he terms the “political albatross” preventing progress on the Prosperity and Security agreement.[12] During Layton’s campaigning in 2011 he reiterated the NDP stance on Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan. He spoke on numerous occasions about how the party has been strongly in favor of bringing Canadian troops home since 2006 and immediately ending the military mission altogether.[13] The Conservatives on the other hand, are more in line with Obama’s plans of scaled down perseverance in Afghanistan. On every occasion the NDP has almost automatically opposed Canadian cooperation with the United States. We can anticipate that the NDP will be quick to challenge the Prime Minister on everything he decides to do regarding relations with the US. This is not only because it is the role of any Opposition to be the proverbial thorn in the governing party’s side, but also because there could not be more diametrically opposite sets of beliefs regarding Canada-US relations in Parliament.

Yet there is hope that things could gradually warm up between the Opposition Party and their stance towards the Americans. With the NDP’s new foothold in Quebec, they will now have to appeal to that province’s voters, who have historically been somewhat more supportive of Canada-US cooperation. Actually, amongst English-speaking Canadians, it is a well-known joke that when in Quebec, you will be treated more warmly if you tell them you are American rather than from another province. And from a policy standpoint they have always been Canada’s exception. One pertinent example is with regard to trade. In 1993, the NDP (and frankly most Canadians) had been staunchly against Canada’s commitment to NAFTA, but the opposition to the free-trade agreement was remarkable lower in Quebec where almost half of the population actually supported it.[14] This illustration is particularly germane to today, because the NDP under Layton’s leadership had advocated completely renegotiating the trade agreement. So might there be a chance the newly the acquired Quebecers lessen the party’s disdain towards the free trade pact? It is on key Canada-US issues like these, in which the new leader will have to balance traditional party positions with the interest of maintaining support in their newly conquered province.

Ultimately, Jack Layton’s legacy will be reflected by the strong position in which he left his party. As Official Opposition the NDP are going to be effective as determined critics of any move Harper’s Conservatives make, and at least for the meantime this critical voice should be at its loudest when it comes to Canada-US relations.

---

[1] Text of Stephen Harper's speech to the Council for National Policy, June 1997 http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes2006/leadersparties/harper_speech.html

[2] Ian Austen, New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/world/americas/23canada.html

[3] 2011 Federal Election Results http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html

[4] Angus-Reid Poll http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/43998/canadians-remember-layton-fondly-support-state-funeral-to-honour-him/

[5] NDP Party Website http://www.ndp.ca/leadership-2012

[6] Brian Topp, Globe and Mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/brian-topp/

[7] Joanna Smith, Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1058971--ndp-would-do-best-under-mulcair-poll-finds?bn=1

[8] Elections Canada http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&document=index&dir=lim&lang=e

[9] John Ibittson, Globe and Mail http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-foreign-defence-policy-differs-from-tories-in-style-more-than-substance/article2036769/?service=mobile

[10] Canadian Press Release, http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/09/26/dick-cheney-canada-visit-ndp-ban-bar-don-davies_n_980609.html

[11] John Ibittson, http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-foreign-defence-policy-differs-from-tories-in-style-more-than-substance/article2036769/?service=mobile

[12] Alexander Moans, “Skating on Thin Ice: Canadian-American Relations in 2010 and 2011” p. 26 [Google Books] http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=mBLlGi0kAakC

[13] NDP Party Website http://www.ndp.ca/press/canadian-leadership-in-afghanistan

[14]Guy Lapachelle, “Quebec under free trade: making public policy in North America” p. 255 [Google Books]

http://books.google.com/books?id=E40tHMkPlUkC