Elections & Political Parties

2007 Jack Layton Interview

Greg Farries — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:30:36 -0700

Greg Farries (MLW): You were first elected to the House of Commons in 2004. Most Canadians, however, know very little about the day-to-day life of a parliamentarian. Over the last three years, what are some of the important things you have learnt about being a Member of Parliament?

Jack Layton: I’ll stress two. First, life’s pace can be gruelling for an MP, especially on the road, and you need to take care of yourself. It’s too easy to slide into forgetting about diet, exercise, and all that goes into keeping your body healthy, your mind sharp and your work effective. I recommend literally scheduling exercise and self-care time with staff, and keeping those appointments like any other. I also cycle to work whenever I possibly can – that really helps keep me grounded.

Second, you really need to stay connected with people outside of federal politics. Parliament Hill can be like a closed system, with its own language, customs, priorities, and cast of characters. To stay inspired with fresh energy and ideas, I always urge MPs to look beyond the experts who roam the Hill. For me, the best practical wisdom still often comes from ordinary people I encounter in Toronto and on the road.

Greg Farries (MLW): A leader of a major political party in Canada is faced with numerous challenges, both within their party and from without. As leader of the NDP, what do you believe are some key qualities of good leadership?

Jack Layton: Good leaders blend pragmatism and principle without sacrificing either. They set a clear direction, lead by example and hold themselves accountable for results. For me, the mechanism of that leadership is team building. After all, that’s the very idea of social democracy: citizens coming together, as a team with a vision, to get things done. That holds whether you’re leading a caucus or a country.

I continually re-learn three lessons about team-based leadership. First, it requires a great deal of active listening, constantly testing the team’s direction against a breadth of ideas and experiences. Second, you need to balance listening with a relentless commitment to action, continually re-earning trust that process drives results. Finally, leadership itself is a team project—the best part of my job is supporting exceptional leaders at work within our caucus, our party and in the wider community.

Greg Farries (MLW): Some might argue that western social democratic parties have gone through a significant evolution since the 1980s. As leader of the largest social democratic party in Canada, do you see a change in the policies and behaviour of left-wing parties? If so, what sorts of changes?

Jack Layton: Well, one clear change is the growing strength of those large corporate interests most threatened by social democracy. They’re consolidating control over cultural and political resources. Their think-tanks have excelled at framing regressive policies in compelling moral terms. Their political parties are feeling freer to slide further right.

All of this has some progressives wondering if they must shift to “the centre” to stay competitive. While I reject that idea, I won’t pass sweeping judgement on so-called Third Way governments. Governing is a difficult local balancing of principles and pragmatics. In practice, many of these Third Wayers have been much better for ordinary people than available alternatives. Others have clearly left their principles behind.

I can tell you that Canada’s NDP is proudly and firmly grounded in the principles of social democracy. This party knows what it stands for. You will see no movement towards a mushy middle ground. The NDP already reflects the mainstream on most of the issues people use to describe what Canada stands for. Our challenge is to continue articulating those policies in terms of their underlying values—fairness, safety, compassion, community—values that most Canadians share.

Greg Farries (MLW): Some would argue during the late 1990s, the right-of-centre in Canada found electoral success difficult, due in part to vote splitting between two political parties. Do you think left-of-centre parties are now facing a similar battle, with voters divided amongst the NDP, the Liberals, and the Greens?

Jack Layton: There is one principled left-of-centre party in Parliament: the NDP. Only the Liberals try to frame NDP-Liberal vote-switching as a battle of left-of-centre parties. What they do is beg progressives to hold their noses and vote Liberal to “Stop Harper”—even when switching votes to a third-place Liberal helps elect a Conservative. This campaign is based on fear as opposed to any honest competition of ideas.

There is a progressive tradition within the Liberal Party that I respect. But it has withered to a point where it is consistently buried, and good people along with it. And today, the Liberal MPs people elected to “Stop Harper” won’t even oppose Harper’s agenda when it matters most in Parliament. What the NDP offers is a principled, credible alternative to that agenda.

Greg Farries (MLW): The Liberals and Conservatives have traditionally been viewed as the key parties in the debate on Canadian federalism. What is the NDP’s view of the state of Canadian federalism today? Moreover, how would you differentiate your Party’s views from those of the Liberals and the Conservatives?

Jack Layton: We strongly support Canadian federalism, but the federation is not working well. Starting in the mid-1990s, Ottawa walked away from its responsibilities for national programs in housing, health and income security—and from supporting provincial priorities in post-secondary education and infrastructure. The results are painfully clear: a fiscal crunch for provinces, crumbling public infrastructure, falling service standards and hardship for ordinary Canadians.

Now we have a Conservative government that antagonizes provinces by breaking promises on equalization and threatening divisive debates on spending powers.

Instead of divisive debates, the NDP proposes results-oriented leadership. That means ensuring reliable federal funding of shared-cost programs so provinces, territories and local governments can plan without fearing abrupt policy changes. It means taking the reins where those levels of government have invited it—including national strategies for prescription drugs, child care, transportation and infrastructure. It means developing a framework for national standards in areas of provincial jurisdiction that respects Quebec’s autonomy. It means restoring fairness to equalization—in our view, through a rules-based system designed to equalize basic services for Canadians.

Greg Farries (MLW): In 2005, the NDP was able to advance part of its agenda during the Liberal minority. Do you see any issues where there is potential for cooperation between the NDP and the Conservative government? Or do you believe the Conservatives are still fundamentally "wrong on the issues" as you expressed during the 2005-2006 election campaign?

Jack Layton: The Prime Minister has repeatedly rejected our proposals on the big issues. On the mission in Afghanistan. On confronting global warming. On closing the growing gap between the rich and the rest. And with his Throne Speech taking Canada further down the wrong path, I am not hopeful of finding major areas of cooperation with Mr. Harper.

That kind of cooperation is rarely easy, whether it’s Conservatives or Liberals in charge. Bringing in Medicare or public pensions was not easy. Rewriting the 2005 Liberal budget was no easy partnership either. Remember, that was a difficult exercise that started with overcoming Paul Martin’s initial deal with Stephen Harper to bring in massive corporate tax cuts.

Greg Farries (MLW): As leader of a party that is officially supportive of initiating a discussion on electoral reform nationally, do you see the issue as having much life in the national political arena, after the defeat of the Mixed Member Proportional electoral reform in the Ontario election?

Jack Layton: That election provided the shallowest kind of endorsement for the status quo. Because the most alarming result of all is that barely half of eligible voters even cast a ballot. That’s an all-time low. Such is the level of cynicism among average voters. And our antiquated first-past-the-post voting systems breed more of it.

Someone, somewhere, needs to break this vicious cycle. I want to see it happen federally. People deserve a voting system that makes every vote count, that re-engages them in the political process. But the “right” moment for voting reform won’t appear like a sunny day in February. It will be the result of hard work and tough debates, and the sooner we move forward, the better.

Greg Farries (MLW): The NDP victory in the Quebec by-election caught many by surprise. Obviously, having a strong and credible candidate helped the party there. Can we read more into this victory than that? How does the NDP plan to expand on this toehold in a province that has been pretty unresponsive to the NDP up until now?

Jack Layton: Thomas Mulcair ran on an explicitly progressive platform: action on the environment, a new direction in Afghanistan, and fairness for average families. Pundits would do well to hear the message that Outremont voters sent before theorizing it away.

Thomas Mulcair’s credibility is a tremendous value. Absolutely. His is the credibility of a former cabinet minister and federalist social democrat. That’s important. He can speak directly to Quebec’s healthy and tenacious social democratic tradition. With the Bloc Québécois well past its best-before date, Tom offered Outremont voters a choice that’s both progressive and federalist—and they responded.

In the next election, you will see more household names running for the NDP. Thomas Mulcair’s trailblazing has helped make that possible. And these candidates will be creating more four-way races throughout Québec. When you get involved in four-way races, you start to elect MPs. And when you do that, you’re on your way to building a new tradition of electoral success.

Forum Member Questions:

Members of the Maple Leaf Web Forums where given the opportunity to propose questions to Mr Layton. The following questions where selected out of the 30+ submitted.

jennie (Forum Member): The Ontario provincial NDP has made commitments to honour the ‘duty toconsult’ with Indigenous communities about land uses on their traditional and treaty lands, and to pursue revenue sharing agreements. (Source) Will the federal NDP also commit to supporting meaningful consultation with Indigenous Peoples regarding all uses of their traditional and treaty lands, and respecting their interests in those lands?

Jack Layton: The NDP believes that a restoration of the nation-to-nation relationship that existed when the Crown signed treaties with First Nations is long overdue. Restoring this relationship means a full seat at the table for First Nations leadership on federal government issues that affect First Nations’ jurisdiction and the recognition of First Nations’ languages and history as a cornerstone of this country. Clearly, restoring this relationship ensure that meaningful consultation with First Nations will occur every time the use of their traditional and treaty lands is in question.

But this question is not only an issue of party policy; it is also the position of the Supreme Court of Canada. In the Haida and Taku Tlinglit cases, the Court made it clear that the federal government must consult with First Nations before making resource development decisions that affect their lands and that the government cannot assign this responsibility to anyone else. It’s time that our government lived up to their responsibility – legal and moral – and gave First Nations a real voice.

August1991 (Forum Member): Mr. Layton, you changed the long-standing, official NDP policy to withdraw Canada from NATO. Instead, you now want Canada to remain a member of NATO but you want to "transform" it. What do you mean exactly and is this related to your desire to withdraw Canadian troops from Afghanistan?

Jack Layton: Since the war in Afghanistan began nearly six years ago, there has been little sign that NATO is willing to acknowledge its failings or change its approach in Afghanistan. NATO has been facing increasing problems in Afghanistan, including rising civilian casualties.

NATO needs to realize that if they continue to follow the narrow-minded agenda of the Bush administration on this issue, then they will simply fuel the cycle of violence in Afghanistan

Canada has been involved in the counter-insurgency mission in Kandahar since 2005 when the Liberal government deployed troops to the southern province. With Liberal support, the current Conservative government extended the mission to 2009.

This mission is not making life safer for ordinary Afghans and it’s not improving the humanitarian situation in that country. Canadian soldiers serve courageously in Afghanistan, but when Canadian funds are disproportionately skewed towards military spending we cannot win the hearts and minds of local Afghans.

The mission is wrong and it doesn’t work. That’s why the NDP has consistently called for our troops to be withdrawn from the counter-insurgency mission and for a refocus of our efforts on aid and reconstruction.

geoffrey (Forum Member): Both the Conservative and Liberal parties have strong youth movements with many up and coming leaders. The NDP has recently seen some of its veteran members, ones’ that carry a great deal of respect in both the House and among Canadians, retire from politics. Are you confident that your party has enough youth involvement to have the same national presence 10 or 20 years down the road?

Jack Layton: It’s always sad when those who have spent years building the NDP and working on behalf of ordinary Canadians decide that it’s time to move on to other things. But they never stray far and they leave a legacy of hard work and accomplishments for the rest of the team to build on. They also leave in the knowledge that there are many others waiting in the wings, ready to take on that work.

One of our great strengths is the youth presence within our party. I am constantly impressed by the young people who are involved. I am inspired by their innovative ideas, their energy and their proactive attitude. The young people in the NDP are not only the leaders of the future – they are leaders today. Many have gone on from their experiences in the youth wing to play key roles in the party. They are helping to shape the direction of the party now so that it will be where it needs to be in 10 or 20 years.

The NPD is very committed towards youth involvement, and we have taken many steps to develop our college and university presence, we’ve hired a person who does youth outreach. The youth energy is strong in our party!

geoffrey (Forum Member): How do you see the unionized labour movement and business working together to improve Canada’s productivity compared to the rest of the OECD?

Jack Layton: At a time when we are facing crises in our core industries – manufacturing, auto and forestry – it’s important to look at every potential tool to solve them.

Unions are responsible for many of the advantages that workers have in Canada – decent wages, benefits and safe working conditions. These conditions attract workers to our country. The labour movement and business could to work together to attract talent to Canada and to ensure that the talent that we have already stays here by making Canada a leader in labour standards.

Companies often cite our skilled workforce as a reason to set up business in Canada. Unions and business could work together to invest in training and education in order to develop a skilled and stable workforce that makes Canada productive and makes us competitive at a global level.

But this work is not just up to unions and business. The government has an important role to play in facilitating this cooperation, in investing in training and education and in taking steps to address the crises in our core industries.

jdobbin (Forum Member): Should the leader of the Greens party be allowed to join the leader’s debate in the next election?

Jack Layton: It is the networks that have always made the decisions about who participates in the leaders’ debate. It will be up to them to make the decision again in the next election.

August1991 (Forum Member): Bob Rae characterized the Ontario NDP as a party of protest, but not a party of power. How do you view the federal NDP - is it a party of power or protest?

Jack Layton: The NDP is a party with strong principles that works hard to put in place pragmatic solutions to the problems facing everyday people. We know what we believe, we are united, and we stand up every day for working and middle-class families.

Our actions speak loud: we are the effective opposition to Stephen Harper in the House of Commons.

Diane Ablonczy Talks about the Conservative Merger

Greg Farries — Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:00:00 -0700

Mapleleafweb: Realistically, what do you hope to accomplish in the 2004 election? What would be a successful result (in terms of seats or percentage vote)? What would be an unsuccessful result?

Diane Ablonczy: It’s very difficult to make a realistic assessment on 2004 election possibilities at this time because there are so many variables, such as: how will Paul Martin perform? what impact will continuing Liberal ethics troubles have? who will lead the new Conservative Party and how will he or she be perceived by voters? What I can say is that voters are very troubled by Liberal mismanagement, waste, undemocratic process and ethical lapses. They are looking for alternatives. Ordinary citizens have expressed a strong wish for a united Conservative alternative and for meaningful competition and choices in our democracy. I sincerely believe the new Conservative Party of Canada will generate more enthusiasm in the coming election than is currently expected. I realistically expect us to substantially increase the present number of conservative seats in the House and with a solid NDP vote, a minority government is also realistic.

Mapleleafweb: What do you think would be the ideal profile for the leader of the new Conservative Party.

Diane Ablonczy: Pan-Canadian rather than regional; project substance, competence and the ability to win respect at senior national and international levels; a personality that draws a warm response from others: qualities of likeability and good humour; a clear and articulate vision for Canada’s future direction on important issues and for our place in the global community and how to achieve that; believability on important issues of ethics, democratic renewal and inclusiveness; someone demonstrably able to attract and lead a capable team to run the nation’s affairs.

Mapleleafweb: How will you prevent social policy from turning into a battleground at a policy convention?

Diane Ablonczy: There must be an evident commitment to respectful and open debate framed by a clear set of well-considered proposals from a forward-looking conservative perspective. Most Canadians are small-c conservative on social issues but that is linked with a distaste for extremism or vilification of any segment of society. If the issues are clearly defined, there is an insistence that debate be reasoned and respectful, and decision-making is fair and open, the range of perspectives present in any group or organization should provide a healthy and dynamic process on deciding social policy issues: one with which most Canadians will agree.

Mapleleafweb: Do you think it’s possible to develop policies that will satisfy all groups?

Diane Ablonczy: The results will be satisfactory to the extent the process is satisfactory. If participants believe themselves to have a fair opportunity to be heard and to express their points of view in an environment which insists on moderate and well-reasoned input, and if the eventual decision-making process is fair and open, I believe participants will live with the results even when their particular point of view did not carry the day.

Mapleleafweb: Is there a place for so-called “Red Tories” within the new party?

Diane Ablonczy: Without question. I believe that what unites all conservatives is far greater than that which divides them. What will be required is wise leadership that helps keep the focus on common goals, allows respect for the expression of points of view, and insists on a fair and open resolution of issues and decisions. Canada is made up of a broad range of interests and perspectives. Dynamic political vehicles must mirror that in order to truly speak for our society and to win the right to represent it.

Mapleleafweb: What will happen if David Orchard is successful in his bid to stop the merger? Is it possible to return to the way it was before this all started?

Diane Ablonczy: I think this is a moot question, but the conservative unity movement is much broader than any particular vehicle. It is a dynamic whose time has clearly come, and in my view is unstoppable. That’s good news for Canadian democracy.

Mapleleafweb: There are those in both the Progressive Conservative and Canada Alliance that are sceptical of this merger. What would you say to these people?

Diane Ablonczy: We are all hopefully politically active because we want something better for Canada than the other political vehicles offer. But we will not make a real difference so long as we are vote-splitting. We have common policies and perspectives on most issues, and our parties contain a similar range of viewpoints. We ought to trust the democratic process to fairly resolve differences within our membership, and to reach balanced solutions to issues. Canada is harmed by the lack of true political competition and robust choices. People are looking to us to fix that. Let’s provide the meaningful leadership and vision our country needs at this time.

Doug Bailie From Fair Vote Canada Talks about Electoral Reform

Greg Farries — Mon, 01 Sep 2003 00:00:00 -0600

Doug Bailie is one of the organizers behind Fair Vote Canada, an organization looking to reform Canada’s electoral system to adopt a system of proportional representation.

Mapleleafweb.com: Tell me a little about Fair Vote Canada.

Doug Bailie: Fair Vote Canada was started last summer when a few of us who had been discussing proportional representation online began to work towards a formal organization. We started up a website and began sending out an e-mail newsletter (which now reaches about 275 people).

Now, we’re looking forward to our first national meeting which will be in Ottawa, March 30-31, and that is where we will hammer out a formal statement of purpose and establish the organization’s structure.

Mapleleafweb.com: Besides some scribbling by academics, there hasn’t been a strong citizen-based movement to adopt PR in decades. Why do you think the time is right now?

Doug Bailie: I think that now is the right time because of the way the opposition has been fragmented since 1993. That fragmentation has made the distortions of our winner-take-all system more obvious. I think there’s a greater degree of frustration among people who feel the pressure to vote strategically. Plus, it has over-emphasized the regional aspects of Canadian politics — giving the Liberals overwhelming dominance of Ontario while they are under-represented in the West and vice-versa for the Alliance.

All of this makes it easier to get people’s attention when you talk about voting system reform.

Mapleleafweb.com: The regionalization you speak of is an important feature of Canada’s party system since 1993. How would proportional representation help that?

Doug Bailie: Our current electoral system tends to give more seats to parties which have their votes concentrated in a particular region and fewer seats to those parties which have their votes more thinly spread across the country. So, in both the 1993 and 1997 federal elections, the Tories and the Reform party got about the same number of votes, but Reform had several times more seats than the Tories because Reform voters tended to be concentrated in the West.

Proportional representation would not turn that situation upside down — that is, over-representing parties with broad national support while under-representing parties with regional support — it would simply give everyone their due representation. So, PR is not a solution for regional tension in Canada, but it would not, I believe, exacerbate regional tensions the way the current system does.

Mapleleafweb.com: One criticism of PR is that it leads to political instability. People hear “PR” and they think of countries with unstable party systems, such as Italy. How do you answer that criticism?

Doug Bailie: There are dozens of democracies in the world which use some form of proportional representation. Opponents of PR always bring up Italy or Israel, which have both had problems with governmental stability, and use that as evidence that PR is flawed. But the experience of Italy and Israel does not reflect that of most PR countries. The truth is there is a broad range of experience ranging from the instability of Italy and Israel to the kind of stability we’ve seen in Germany, where government leaders tend to stay in office for ten or fifteen years at a time.

The reason there is such a range of experience is because electoral systems are just one ingredient in a country’s political soup. It’s an important ingredient, but it doesn’t make or break the governmental stability of a country.

That said, there is certainly a lot of room for criticizing the particular PR systems which are used in some countries. And it makes sense for those of us in Canada to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of other countries’ electoral systems.

Mapleleafweb.com: This brings up an important point. There are many kinds of proportional representation. One of the characteristics of the electoral reform movement has been the infighting over the preferred model of PR. Do you think that weakens the cause of PR?

Doug Bailie: It would be hard to argue that it didn’t. But my experience has been that the vast majority of PR supporters in Canada are focused on the goal of adopting a more proportional system and they are willing to compromise on their preferred model, if they have one at all.

Perhaps the more serious split is between the supporters of PR and the supporters of the Alternative Vote, which is a majoritarian system. Both groups want to change the electoral system, but they have significantly different criticisms of the current system and significantly different solutions.

Mapleleafweb.com: What other difficulties do you anticipate in the electoral reform campaign?

Doug Bailie: I think the strength of electoral reform is that it is not a left-vs- right issue. So you can bring together, as we are in Fair Vote Canada, people from across the political spectrum. But the flip side of that is that electoral reform tends to be a government-vs.-opposition issue. And how do you make such a major change in the political system without the support of the government?

I often come across people who think PR is a great idea but it is futile to talk about it because the government — no matter which party forms the government of the day — will always block it. While there’s a lot of truth to that, it is not absolutely true. Other countries have managed to change their electoral systems now and then. New Zealand is perhaps the most recent and most relevant example for Canadians to look to. And finally, I guess I believe that citizens can force change in the political system, in spite of entrenched interests, if they band together in sufficient numbers.

Mapleleafweb.com: It’s clear that the Liberals benefit from the current system and don’t have much appetite for change. But what about the opposition parties? Is there much will among them for electoral reform?

Doug Bailie: I think it’s building. For one thing the attempt to “unite the right” turned out to be much more difficult than many Reform-Alliance supporters expected. While that process is continuing, I think both Alliance and Tory members are more likely to be critical of the electoral system now than they were a few years ago.

Support for voting system reform, and proportional representation in particular, has been growing within the NDP. PR is now official party policy and it was included in last year’s election platform. Also, the party introduced a motion in the House for debate on electoral reform last week, which used up one of their opportunities to control the subject of debate in the House — so I think that indicated that the issue is taking on increasing significance for the NDP party and caucus.

There is even some support in the Bloc Quebecois.

I think as the sense that Canada is devolving into a quasi-one-party state, opposition parties will become more and more interested in voting system reform.

Mapleleafweb.com: If people are interested in learning more about Fair Vote Canada or your Ottawa conference, where can they get more information?

Doug Bailie: They can visit our website http://www.fairvotecanada.org/. Information on the conference, the list of speakers, registration and the agenda are all available online. You can also find more general information about who we are and what we hope to achieve.

Any inquiries can be directed to info@fairvotecanada.org or by calling 416-410-4034.

Jack Layton Talks about the NDP and Leadership

Greg Farries — Sat, 01 Mar 2003 00:00:00 -0700

Question: Maple Leaf Web - You won a pretty convincing first ballot victory in the leadership contest, even though you came in as a bit of an outsider compared to some of the other candidates. To what do you attribute your victory?

Answer: Jack Layton - Team building. Hundreds of people in every province and territory worked on our campaign. We were able to inspire NDP members, with our ideas and platform (which is still available at www.jacklayton.ca). And our team was able to attract thousands of new members to the party, including a lot of young people.

Q: Maple Leaf Web - Some of the other candidates in the leadership campaign stressed the importance of having a leader in the House of Commons. Most of the sitting MPs supported other candidates. Is it important to you to seek a seat in the Commons soon? How do you plan on building bridges with the party’s
parliamentary caucus?

A: Jack Layton - I have to say that the caucus has been really great. Right from the start, they have been very supportive. We have a tremendous team of women and men working for their constituents and voicing the real concerns of Canadians in the House of Commons. They are there to lead our fights in the House.

I’ve worked with them to establish new approaches, most notably by creating five advocacy teams. These teams will propose solutions and connect the Parliamentary team with academics, community organizations and citizens across Canada. So each of the NDP’s priorities - health, the environment, peace, communities, democracy - now has an advocacy team.

And even though I do not have a seat yet (something I’m very confident will change after the next general election), I am still spending three or four days a week in Ottawa when the House is sitting. I am there, strategizing with my caucus colleagues and available to speak with reporters after Question Period, and I think we have been pretty successful so far. Also, I’ll spend a lot of my time traveling across the country because my personal priority is to mobilize our party activists.

Q: Maple Leaf Web - The NDP resurgence in 1997 was due to a breakthrough in Atlantic Canada for which Alexa McDonough was widely credited. The party’s traditional strength is in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. You’re from Ontario, a province that has been reluctant to embrace the NDP in recent years. How do you plan to maintain support in Atlantic Canada and the Prairies and still break through in Ontario?

A: Jack Layton - Well, the NDP believes that its obligations are to Canada as a whole - and in order for the NDP to gain national strength, it means expanding where we are strong, and building where we are not. In the end, it all comes down to vision and leadership.

The NDP is offering something that has been in very short supply in this country under Chrétien. We offer hope. Not false hope, but realistic hope that we can build again - that together we can start moving forward with vision and values that go to the heart of the Canadian community, values shared by Canadians from coast-to-coast-to-coast.

If we work hard, and stay true to our social democratic values, the small victories, household to household, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, riding by riding, can add up to big victories.

Q: Maple Leaf Web - One of the perennial concerns for the NDP is its ties with organized labour. With the impending changes to Canada’s election finance laws (supported by your party), donations from unions will be severely limited. Is your party going to be rethinking its ties with the labour movement?

A: Jack Layton - The fact is the last federal election had the lowest voter turnout of any election in our history. Canadians are losing faith in their democratic institutions and in the political process.

We need to reverse that. Changing the way that parties are funded will do that. So yes, it is true that we will have to work differently, to fundraise differently, but in the end it will actually be a good thing for our party and for democracy itself in our country.

We always have to keep in mind that the labour movement is one of the founding partners of the New Democratic Party. It is a strong partnership that we need to keep in order to be a successful political movement. And clearly we will need to do a better job at reaching out to rank-and-file union members, and work hard at convincing them to take out individual
memberships in the NDP.

Q: Maple Leaf Web - Although the NDP has managed to stay alive through the last few elections because of the strong support of a dedicated core of supporters, the party hasn’t really caught fire with voters. How can the party can attract new supporters or regain the support of voters who have drifted away?

A: Jack Layton - We are already doing that! We have over 80,000 members now. And within the first week following the leadership convention, over 2,000 people joined the NDP! I am very excited by the enthusiasm I can feel and see everywhere I go.

But we have only started. Watch for us to launch campaigns that will put the NDP where it needs to be: at the centre of debate on the issues that matter to Canadians. We will be more visible, we are already attracting new voter support, establishing the NDP as the clear alternative to the Liberals. Our NDP team will be bold in our choices and creative in our approach, and we believe Canadians will want to log on to our web site, www.ndp.ca, and join with us in our campaigns for peace, for a better environment, for an improved public health care system and for a fair treatment of our communities.

Chuck Strahl talks about the PC-DRC Coalition and the Canadian Alliance

Greg Farries — Wed, 15 May 2002 00:00:00 -0600

Mapleleafweb: Why did you decide it was time to return to the Canadian Alliance fold?

Chuck Strahl: There were really three factors in determining the timing of our return to the Alliance caucus.

there was huge pressure from within the Coalition for us to simply join the PC party, while there was similarly consistent pressure in each of our ridings to return to the Alliance. When the choices seem irreconcilable and you have to choose one or other, siding with your local supporters is a no-brainer.
while the PC-DRC Coalition was working well in Parliament, it was not evolving into a viable electoral option for those of us in the DRC.
Stephen Harper handled our re-entry very well, giving assurances that it would be relatively painless for us individually (this proved to be true) while stressing that he simply could not wait forever.

MLW: How would you characterize your experience with the PC-DRC coalition?

Chuck Strahl: For the most part, our experience in the Coalition was positive. We were able to critique the government on the issues of the day while developing policy options both in the House and in the Standing Committees. In all cases we found a surprizingly large degree of agreement amongst members from both Parties. We also developed good working relationships (and friendships) amongst Senators, MPs, and both Parliamentary and partisan staff. Excitement grew as we saw the potential of people from diverse backgrounds pulling in the same harness, especially since our polling, consultations, and anecdotal information found that Canadians were and are in general agreement that the Liberals need a strong, unified alternative.

MLW: Many have suggested that the right cannot seriously challenge the Liberals while there are two parties. What is your opinion on this?

Chuck Strahl: Everyone - even strong partisans from both the Progressive Conservative party and the Canadian Alliance - agreed that challenging the Liberals while we are still challenging one another makes replacing the natural governing party more difficult. Is it possible to win while both parties still exist and compete with one another? Of course it could be done, but so many stars have to line up in the firmaments of political heaven that star-watching and navel-gazing become one and the same. Canadians waiting for unity on the centre-right are impatient, and the reality is that the record low voter turn-out of the last election could become a more chronic, serious, systemic problem as people give up hope. Of course, it is also possible that a party with a winsome platform and a dynamic leader could sway things quickly, and if the electorate decide that the other party has neither of these attributes, then forcing the government from office (or into a minority situation) is doable.

MLW: The leadership issue has been settled, what is the next step in pushing the Canadian Alliance Party forward?

Chuck Strahl: I believe there are three things that will propel the Alliance forward. First is the stability and confidence that comes from solid, reliable leadership. Every indication is that Stephen is playing his cards well on this front, and is looking like the ‘in-charge’ and ‘in-control’ person that Canadians demand from their leaders. Second, the Liberals can help by continuing their own self-destrcutive ways, with a steady diet of more scandal and arrogance. Thankfully, any government in power for three terms of office serve up lots of this kind of fodder, lending credibility to the axiom that ‘governments defeat themselves’. Lastly, when the electorate is finally ready to throw the rascals out, the Alliance have to show- through their behaviour, policy options, and professionalism- that they are the party of choice for those looking for an electoral alternative.

MLW: Mapleleafweb is releasing an upcoming feature on this summer’s G8 Summit. What should Canada’s main objectives be at the upcoming G8 meetings in Kananaskis?

Chuck Strahl: The G-8 conference is a bit of a crapshoot, really. It may prove to be a productive and innovative meeting, with plenty of interesting items on an agressive agenda, or it may prove to be a media/security circus. Assuming they are not subjected to a Seattle-type protest party, there are really two items I would like to see front and center. First is the whole package of security issues- international, hemispheric, and continental- and how the new reality of post September 11th will impact the G-8 on trade, immigration, terrorism, etc. Hopefully the leaders will have some provocative discussions (already underway, we must assume) to develop a common front to make international commerce, the free trade of goods, and the mobility of travellers less of a hassle for the good guys, and more of a problem for the bad.

The second issue is international free trade and a rules-based trading regime. Although this second issue flows from the first, it simply must be discussed with renewed passion and dedication given the protectionism that is creeping back into American and European governments. Canada needs the rest of the G-8 to commit anew to the goals and purpose of the WTO, and set in place achievable targets to keep the free trade process on the rails.