Canada Political Flash-Back: Stockwell Day and the Conservatives Wilderness Moment

Liberals and NDP, take heart! Not too long ago, Canada's Conservatives were in the wilderness--and the perceived leadership woes of one-time Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day paled the criticism now facing Liberal leader-aspirant Justin Trudeau.

For a sense of the evolution of Canada's conservative politics, and the important role Day and others played in it, check out this October 2012 article in the Edmonton Journal.

From TVO's Inside Agenda Blog:

Alberta Conservative Party Soul-Searching

By Keith Edmund White
Editor-in-Chief

A quick news-blurb and short primer on the fascinating party politics of Canada, which should stir the interests of U.S. political watchers--not to mention political comparativists.

The National Post reports on a Alberta Conservative Party motion to strip federal MPs of automatic voting privileges at provincial party meetings.

Why the intra-party tension? Well, in Alberta, while the Progressive Conservatives still run the Legislative Assembly, the official opposition is the Wildrose Alliance Party. And what does the charismatic leader of the Wildrose Party have to say about the Progressive Conservative Party:

[Danielle] Smith said the motion on federal Tory voting privileges is “reflecting the reality that there a lot of federal Conservative MPs who are conflicted about which party is the true voice of conservatism (in Alberta).”  [Source:  The National Post]

Mount Royal University professor Duane Bratt explains the distance between the federal Progressive Conservative Party, which now leads Canada's national government under Prime Minister Harper, and the provincial Progressive Conservative Progress of Alberta, which still leads the right-leaning province, but with some significant heartburn:

"So my sense is that a majority of Albertans, perhaps even a larger majority of Albertans, don't like the policies that Wildrose is promising, but it doesn't matter, because they want to throw the Conservatives out of office and they have a nice, likable, smart woman leading their party." [Source:  CBC News]

Foie Gras Dimsum - What China Can Learn from Canada

By David R. Kocan
Canada-U.S. Law Institute Managing Director & CUSLI-Nexus Chairman

Anyone who believes Canadian politics is boring wasn't watching last Wednesday's Quebec elections. After electing Parti Québécois leader Pauline Marois to Premier, she narrowly escaped an anti-separatist's assassin's bullet. Just another chapter in the big book that is the Canada-Quebec relationship. Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, tensions have arisen again in the Hong Kong-Mainland China relationship, as people flooded the streets to protest PRC efforts to introduce patriotism classes in city schools' curricula. Interestingly, Hong Kong also faced an election significant to its autonomy: last Sunday the city for the first time held a public poll to elect over half the Hong Kong legislature. While the pro-China faction won in the overall result, pro-democracy candidates still showed considerable popular support and hold enough seats to veto any changes to Hong Kong's constitution. 

In many ways Quebec and Hong Kong are quite similar. Both were transferred from one government to another. Both have subcultures distinguishable from their national governments'. Each has its own languages, food styles, customs, etc. Both have at times shown strong self-identification while at other times national pride. Moreover, both are economic powerhouses in their own right that benefit their greater societies. Many in China hope that Hong Kong's transition to the PRC will go smoothly and someday serve as a model for integrating other territories.

If Confucius were alive, today perhaps he would say "[s]tudy [Quebec's] past, if you would divine [Hong Kong's] future." In Quebec's case, tensions have ebbed and waned ever since its capitulation to the British following the Seven Year's War. British common law stipulated that the laws and customs of Quebec should remain in tact. But shortly after its transfer, the British King tried to "Anglicize" the newly acquired territory by implementing British common law and preventing Catholics from holding office. This led to a swift negative reaction which forced a British "retreat": the restoration of Quebec's customs and laws. Since then the national government has allowed Quebec to maintain its civil law system. Even so, Quebec's relationship with greater Canada has ebbed and waned as national interests conflict with provincial purvey.

The story of Hong Kong's transition from British to Chinese rule is much shorter but already exhibits similarities to Quebec's story. In 1997, the Chinese officially regained control of Hong Kong in terms with the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which among many things preserved the city's capitalist system and way of life for fifty years. This requirement also covered Hong Kong's British style legal system, which comprised the city's law and governance. By 1997, this legal structure became a part of Hong Kong's identity, inspiring aspirations for democracy.

For sure, the PRC has been much more careful with Hong Kong than Britain was when it obtained Quebec. China has, at least arguably, acted in accordance with the agreement and international law. But adherence to the law is often not enough. For instance, in FG Hemisphere v. DRC it appears the Hong Kong Supreme Court was influenced by a PRC letter that urged an outcome consistent with PRC policy. In FG Hemisphere, the issue was whether a government's assets were protected by sovereign immunity. Hong Kong common law provided no immunity from suit whereas the PRC granted absolute immunity. In its holding the Court justified its deference to the PRC by referencing the Hong Kong Basic Law, which granted the PRC authority over international matters. While there have been reports about the PRC influencing Hong Kong court decisions, this ruling came with little notice. Meanwhile, when the mainland attempts to influence Hong Kong's social issues, for instance, by mandating schools to teach to teach Chinese patriotism, the reaction is stronger. These interventions while legal, are often met by larger public dismay.
 
While Sunday's election has ended, the details of Hong Kong's planned transition to full democratic rule in 2017 still need to be hammered out.  So, in the meantime, Hong Kong and China may find value in looking to the lessons of Canada?

Generational Strains: Why In Canada and Not in the US?

By Keith Edmund White
Editor-in-Chief


Are we approaching the era of the Discontent GenY in Canada and the United States? Macleans' Emma Teitel vents about Gen-Y frustration with their boomer counterparts, but beyond the moaning of today's admittedly rough economic landscape, how will a generation of Canadians and Americans deal with an apparent lean decade--and what will their politics be?

Today Emma Teitel writes on Gen-Y's frustrations with the dwindling economy and a seemingly lack of empathy from their baby boomer counterparts:

Unfortunately not everyone has such generous sponsors, parents or otherwise (or a sponsor who can afford to be that generous). In fact, most people don’t. Yet our elders in the Conservative party (ahem: “There is no bad job”) and the media (isn’t it awesome when Globe and Mail columnist Margaret Wente writes a column railing against Gen Y kids for not finding jobs followed by a column about how she’ll never retire?) point to ambitious grads like Smulders, or the Toronto girls who pitched a tent at a busy intersection to attract potential employers—in order to illustrate their allegedly simple and logical point: times are tough and us kids need to get off our butts and just work a little harder. In a recent column, the National Post’s resident killjoy, Barbara Kay, went to town on my generation after a twentysomething waiter knocked over a glass of water in her lap and didn’t apologize (which Kay immediately interpreted as, “Because being Gen Y means never having to say you’re sorry”). She was equally shocked and appalled that according to an October 2011 National Report Card on Youth Financial Literacy (which I have now seen cited in at least three Gen-Y bemoaning editorials) 70 per cent of high school students “erroneously assumed they’d own their own home in 10 years,” and “the average respondent overestimated his future earnings by 300 per cent.” Wow. Breaking news! Teenagers have dreams. Apparently it has become a crime to think beyond your means. 

The anti-youth, “kids these days” attitude of many older people today, in reference to the ongoing student protests in Quebec and the Occupy movement, is cynical beyond belief—especially coming from a generation that in their youth could afford to be protesting about “big” things like the military-industrial complex, and not “little” things like tuition hikes and unemployment. When Margaret Wente was 23 years old, a chocolate bar cost 10 cents and a box of Corn Flakes cost 25. Tuition at the University of Toronto was well under $1,000. My father, who is roughly the same age as Wente, says he could make enough money at his summer job (he was a camp unit head) to pay for his tuition at U of T in the fall. And his books.

But, one question: is this strain a bump in the road--after an admittedly painful and long economic contraction--or is it the beginning of a new generational split?

Yes, the United States has the occupy moment, which is dominated by young voices. But you don't see American students or U.S. youth protesting at their universities or, like in Spain, rallying in anger.

Part of this, of course, has to be that Americans have gotten used to ballooning economic costs, that where any discussion of actually dealing with it are considered pie-in-the-sky thinking. But if Canada and the United States have to grow accustomed to low-growth, long-term economies, I think there's something the new generation of political leaders have to learn: as the 20somethings turn into 30 and 40 somethings, their collective past and current desires of government are going to be incredibly different from liberal/conservative debates in each country; debates that appear increasingly irrelevant to addressing the issues facing each country and the global economy.

But, while Canada as the ascent of the NDP to perhaps deal with this realignment, the United States has no such luck. In any case, it will interesting to watch the ascent of the Ys.

And, as a small counterpoint to Teitel editorial: at least in the United States, every generation is guilty of rationalizing the intractable problems of economically suffering groups. In the 90s the lament was globalization and its discontents, with NAFTA destroying industrial jobs, but pumping up middle class 401ks and raising American GDP--while lowering the prices of goods. There are always winners and losers, and with no simple solutions, we can't blame the 'winners' with not sending us their checks or giving us sympathy. Instead, the challenge is how to unite the underlying economic challenges facing all generations and make a coherent platform that gets us out of the 'win-lose' paradigm.

But that question is considerably easier to write than to answer.

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