This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
Tag: Jagmeet Singh
In politics, there are important issues and there are useful issues. International issues and foreign affairs are important… but rarely useful, politically. No one could deny that the recent Hamas terrorist attacks, Israel’s military response, and the resulting humanitarian crisis are important things.
But watching the debate unfolding about this new crisis in the Middle East during the NDP convention, it’s hard to imagine how useful this is for New Democrats. Few voters really care about the party’s position on Palestine and Israel, and even fewer will think about it on Election Day.
Among the major parties, the NDP is the one most sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Already in 1938, J.S. Woodsworth, first leader of the CCF, was opposed to the right of Jewish refugees to enter Palestine, claiming “it was easy for Canadians, Americans and the British to accept a Jewish colony, as long as it was elsewhere. Why ‘pick on the Arabs’ other than for ‘strategic’ and ‘imperialistic’ reasons?”
This position created a lot of turmoil within the party at the time, especially since Woodsworth, a pacifist, had been the only MP to vote against Canada’s declaration of war on Hitler’s Germany. The party would eventually line up behind the creation of Israel. But the debates were lively and accusations of racism and anti-semiticism, numerous.
Interestingly, the first Jewish politician to become leader of a party in Canada was Stephen Lewis in Ontario in 1970. His father David, became the first Jewish leader of a federal party in 1971. Another New Democrat, Dave Barrett, was elected premier of British Columbia in 1972, becoming the first Jewish premier.
This is to say that the NDP’s desire to find a balanced position on the conflict between Israel and Palestine goes back a long way. This desire for nuance has forced NDP leaders to be funambulists over time: a two-state solution; Palestine has the right to independence; Israel has the right to defend itself; denouncing terrorist actions and violations of international laws.
But this balanced position does not make all New Democrats happy. Ed Broadbent, Alexa McDonough and Jack Layton all had to manage very delicate situations. Numerous resolutions denouncing Israel are regularly brought to NDP conventions. Candidates have been rejected or dismissed because of their overly strong pro-Palestinian positions or anti-Israel statements.
Former MP Svend Robinson was once arrested by Israeli soldiers while trying to enter Ramallah, arguing that he was there to carry a message of solidarity and to promote peace.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper called for the resignation of Layton’s deputy leader, Libby Davies, for her support of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel.
On the other hand, many NDP MPs have been part of the Canada-Israel Inter-Parliamentary Group, which “furthers cooperation and mutual understanding” between Canadian parliamentarians and members of the Israeli Knesset.
Under the leadership of Tom Mulcair, some felt the party was taking a stronger position in favour of Israel. Ignoring the latter’s epic quarrels with leaders of the Jewish community, MP Sana Hassainia even slammed the party’s door using the issue as an excuse, pointing to Mulcair’s in-laws being Holocaust survivors and to the sizeable Jewish community in his constituency.
From there to say that the NDP is under the thumb of the Jewish lobby, there is only one step, happily taken by the most pugnacious. There is a mirror reaction from the fiercest supporters of Israel, who believe that the NDP is infiltrated by pro-Palestinian hysterics. In this context, having a reasonable discussion is mission impossible.
Jagmeet Singh had to play a balancing act once during this last Convention, marked by scenes of demonstrations, heckling, delegates being removed and police intervention. This is not Singh’s fault, but it gave the party an immature image, as videos of the confrontations made the rounds.
At the tactical level, these ardent pro-Palestinian activists target the NDP because it is the lowest hanging fruit. They assume the message will have a more significant and immediate impact on delegates and party policies than if they showed up at a Conservative convention.
They will claim victory when they see New Democrats stand up in Question Period, denouncing “the impact of this war on the Palestinians”, calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and asking the government to “stand up for international law”. Important questions, to be sure.
Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives are relentless on the cost of living, asking Prime Minister Trudeau to “reverse his inflationary policies,” “to lower interest rates” and to “allow Canadians to keep their homes.” Useful questions, without a doubt.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
The world is largely focused on the war between Israel and Hamas, for obvious reasons. Mere days before this terrible conflict began, a lightly-reported moment occurred in Canada that could ultimately have a direct impact on our political process.
The first draft of the Liberals’ pharmacare legislation was rejected by Jagmeet Singh and the NDP. Health Minister Mark Holland described negotiations between the two parties as “extremely fluid.” In contrast, NDP health critic Don Davies told the media the initial draft “doesn’t meet the New Democrats’ red lines at this point” and that they’re “waiting for a next draft to come to us.”
National pharmacare was one of several key policies identified by the two parties last March when they jointly signed a supply and confidence agreement to keep Parliament afloat until June 2025. “Continuing progress towards a universal national pharmacare program by passing a Canada Pharmacare Act by the end of 2023,” as highlighted in Delivering for Canadians Now, A Supply and Confidence Agreement, “and then tasking the National Drug Agency to develop a national formulary of essential medicines and bulk purchasing plan by the end of the agreement.”
One of the NDP’s main campaign planks during the 2021 federal election was related to national pharmacare. They wanted to introduce “a drug plan with universal coverage that will cover the total cost of expenditures on drugs listed on Quebec’s public drug plan formulary.” This led the Parliamentary Budget Officer to provide an open estimate to the NDP on Aug. 27, 2021. According to the PBO, this proposal could have reached an annual cost of nearly $11.5 billion by 2025-26.
No party leader could ever spin this huge amount of public spending in a positive fashion. Unless you’re somehow able to convince people that money grows on trees, that is.
Hence, the three-year supply and confidence agreement is the NDP’s only realistic opportunity to get some semblance of its national pharmacare plan in place. Yet, they’re currently taking an unrealistic approach that won’t help achieve this lofty goal.
According to the Canadian Press on Oct. 5, “Davies said the NDP will accept nothing less than a commitment to pharmacare paid for and administered through the public single-payer system, though it doesn’t have to happen all at once. The NDP would be willing to start with essential medicines and expand from there, he said, but wants to see the timelines enshrined in the legislation.”
The federal government knows full well this isn’t doable. The costs of implementing the NDP’s vision of national pharmacare are way too high to begin with. When you add in the current affordability crisis that’s hurting many Canadian families, it’s not even a discussion worth having. That’s why Holland and the Liberals likely believe the two sides will meet somewhere in the middle once the negotiations are done.
But what if they don’t?
Today’s NDP has been gradually turning into a party where the fringe left has acquired more power and influence within the grassroots membership. Last weekend’s party convention in Hamilton, Ont. provided several indications of this.
Pro-Palestinian demonstrators disrupted the proceedings for a spell, for instance, which led the police to getting involved. Counter Signal circulated a bizarre video clip that dealt with yellow cards being provided to some NDP delegates to “enforce gender parity at the mics” during the debates. Singh survived his leadership review, but only received 81 percent support – down from 2018 (91 percent) and 2021 (87 percent). His left-wing leadership evidently isn’t far enough to the left to satisfy some of his party faithful.
To top it off, NDP delegates gave unanimous support to make pharmacare the redline in their supply and confidence agreement with the Liberals. Maybe the two parties won’t meet in the middle, after all.
Is the NDP getting prepared to bring down the Liberals before June 2025? While it’s difficult to say with absolute certainty, it’s starting to look a bit more likely. They’re in the best position to bring down the curtain on Trudeau’s mediocre, ineffective leadership, after all.
The risks are huge. The NDP will lose its influential role in propping up the Liberals. Polls currently show Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives in majority territory. The party doesn’t have much money in its war chest to run an effective campaign. It’s largely devoid of mainstream ideas that Canadian progressives would naturally support.
At the same time, Singh and his senior advisers may privately believe they have enough momentum to leapfrog the weakened Liberals and become the Official Opposition once more. A second political breakthrough, similar to the late Jack Layton’s memorable “Orange Crush” in the 2011 election, could be worth the gamble in both the short term and long term.
It may all come down to Liberal-NDP negotiations related to a wildly expensive national pharmacare plan and an imaginary redline. Hard to believe, when you think about it.
Michael Taube, a long-time newspaper columnist and political commentator, was a speechwriter for former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
This content is only available to our subscribers!
Become a subscriber today!
RegisterAlready a subscriber?
Subscriber Login
In Canada as elsewhere autumn 2023 is a strange political time on various fronts. And it is not always easy to know just what to make of various opinion polling anomalies.
Take the case of two late September Canada-wide polls, broken down for federal parties in the third most populous province of BC, between the vast Pacific Ocean and the Rocky Mountains.
On the evening of September 28 the almost always interesting Polling Canada tweeted the BC provincial results of an EKOS federal poll taken September 19–24. As in the country at large this showed the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) well out in front, with a remarkable 53% of the provincial vote. The NDP had 22% and the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) only 12%.
At almost the same time, in the early morning of the same day Polling Canada had tweeted the BC provincial results of a Leger federal poll taken September 22–24. This proposed a rather dramatically different BC provincial picture: LPC 32%, NDP 30%, and CPC.29%.
With the confidence and supply agreement between Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh in mind (both of whom have particular BC connections), these Leger numbers could be read to suggest that the province sometimes known as British California may have now become a progressive bastion in Canada, broadly comparable to Gavin Newsom’s California in the USA.
What all this could suggest about BC seems especially striking when set beside the Ontario results of the same Leger federal poll taken September 22–24: CPC 45%, LPC 28%, NDP 18%.
These Leger Ontario numbers look more like the EKOS numbers for BC. Partisans of the BC EKOS poll raise methodological issues with the Leger poll. On Twitter (now X), Polling Canada offers a methodological note on its BC Leger poll: “Sample size = 141 Online.”
Several commenting tweets urge this size is just too small. Yet 141 would be BC’s approximate share of the Canada-wide population in a cross-country sample of 1,000 people. And the EKOS poll whose results Leger poll critics like better has a Canada-wide sample of 1,025.
Methodologically, Polling Canada just notes “IVR” on its BC EKOS poll. And veteran polling guru Allan Gregg has quietly criticized “the interactive voice response (IVR) surveys that bombard telephone numbers with recorded questions which, quite frankly, isn’t any more scientific than … trying to stop people … on a street corner.”
Finally, in the technical rating of Canadian federal pollsters proposed by physics and astrophysics professor Philippe J. Fournier’s 338Canada website EKOS gets B+ and Leger A+!
All this having been said, there does remain an obvious enough sense in which less than 150 observations is not a very good sample size for political opinion polling.
Yet the insurmountable general problem here is that cross-Canada samples large enough to provide seriously reliable regional results are prohibitively expensive. (The average country-wide sample size of the most recent half-dozen polls followed by 338Canada is 1,385!)
The typical smaller-number, less reliable regional samples in Canada-wide polls are sometimes intriguing — and even revealing. But regional inconsistencies in these cost-effective soundings of Canadian opinion at large are not unusual. It is almost always wise to treat regional results of cross-country polls with grains of well-seasoned salt.
All this having been said again, there remains some further support for the Leger poll’s Canadian bastion of progress on the Pacific coast in recent polling on BC provincial politics.
338Canada’s latest model of a BC election held now shows the NDP with 71 seats, BC United (old BC Liberals) 11 seats, Greens 3, and Conservatives 2. In the early autumn of 2023 the progressive NDP BC provincial government — under new leader David Eby, but in office since the spring of 2017 — is arguably in greater command of provincial politics than ever before.
(And, it is tempting to wonder, is this somehow related to the 2023 wildfires?)
The ultimate truth probably is that both the recent EKOS and Leger polls reflect different strands in the complex web of BC provincial and federal politics. Both clusters of regional opinion are out there in the wet coast air.
The big question for the near-enough future is no doubt which of the two rather different late September 2023 BC polling pictures will prevail in the next federal election on or before October 20, 2025— EKOS’s conservative dominance or Leger’s progressive bastion? The answer could have something to do with the futures of both Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
Because we are living in an age of deeply unserious politics, we have seen yet another example of how correctly stating whose jurisdiction a particular constitutional responsibility lies becomes the dumbest political scandal. To wit, on Monday, prime minister Justin Trudeau stated that housing is primarily not a federal responsibility, but that the federal government was going to step up and do what they could do help provinces and municipalities with the crisis that we have collectively been sleepwalking into for a couple of decades now. Immediately, opposition leaders, the pundit class and much of legacy media all declared that these words would haunt Trudeau, because as we are all well aware by now, the discourse in this country is completely dysfunctional when it comes to discussions about jurisdiction—something that the premiers have long been able to take advantage of in order to avoid responsibility for the messes that they’ve created and refuse to clean up.
As legacy media has declared that “nobody cares about jurisdiction,” it has given tacit permission for opposition politicians to simply lie about what the government is doing, and should be doing—not to mention about what they would do if they were in government. To that end, Pierre Poilievre summoned journalists to a scrum outside of the West Block on Tuesday, and tried to ridicule Trudeau’s assertion about federal responsibility, pointing out that policies around immigration, infrastructure and taxes are things the federal government has power over, and that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is federal (ignoring of course that it operates at arm’s length from government). None of these, however, are an actual constitutional responsibility around housing, and none of these addresses any of the root problems around the housing crisis.
Yes, the federal government could and should create tax incentives for purpose-built rental housing, but that won’t help if you can’t get a permit or zoning for a rental property, whether a low-rise gentle-density building on a single lot or a high-rise. We cannot forget that in some cities like Vancouver, there are tens of millions of federal dollars for affordable housing projects that are languishing because the city won’t issue the permits for them. The federal government has already mandated housing and density around infrastructure projects they help fund, and they are already finding federal properties that they can either sell or develop into housing—things Poilievre says he would do if he were to form government (but more likely would just take credit for the work already done).
What Trudeau cannot do, which Poilievre pretends he could if he were in government, is force municipalities to give out more building permits. There is no constitutional power to do so, and if you think that picking fights with mayors and threatening to withhold federal infrastructure dollars to do so is a winning gambit and not a recipe for prologued court battles, well, you’re in for a surprise. Trudeau’s government is trying to use a carrot approach with their $4 billion Housing Accelerator Fund to incentivize municipalities to use that money to streamline their processes or undertake other processes that can get more housing projects started, but it also took them a year to start getting that money out the door, so there is a lengthy turnaround time for any of these kinds of policies.
Trudeau also cannot force lower rents or stop “corporate landlords” or the practice of renovictions, as Jagmeet Singh demands, because landlord/tenant legislation is entirely provincial. Yes, the Liberals did make some kind of a promise around “renovictions” in the last election, but they have never laid out just what mechanism they hope to use to stop them, which is as much of a problem in terms of the misleading processes that other parties are making on the housing file. Singh also accuses Trudeau of not showing leadership and simply pointing fingers at provinces and municipalities, but he has never articulated just what “showing leadership” is supposed to look like when you don’t have the federal levers to fix the root problems, which are very much about cities refusing density, and the NIMBYism that pervades this obstruction.
Another sub-plot to this crisis has been the concern-trolling around immigration numbers, and how “irresponsible” it is for the federal government to maintain high levels when we have a housing shortage. Frankly, this is not only a gateway to racist commentary (and believe me, I see it all the time in my social media), but we continue to need these high immigration levels because of our labour shortage and aging population. If anything, this should be a kick in the ass for the provinces to do something about the housing crisis, especially as provinces like Ontario demand more control over the immigrants they want to settle in the province. The added issue of international students not being able to find housing is a crisis that the provinces entirely created for themselves by cutting funds to post-secondary institutions and freezing tuitions, which forced those institutions to seek more international students (whom they can soak for much higher tuition). They should be held to account for this.
Because housing is a provincial responsibility, and because municipalities are creatures of the provinces under the constitution, premiers have the power to do something about this crisis, whether it’s abolishing R1-zoning in municipalities, forcing density targets, or using their own resources to build and maintain social housing (particularly in light of the fact that many provinces took federal dollars intended for that housing and then spent it on other things). We should also have legacy media demanding accountability for this from provincial governments like they’re supposed to do. Instead, we get them saying things like “a federal responsibility is what voters tell the federal government its responsibility is,” or demands that the federal government “force the provinces to force municipalities” to do something—because apparently the prime minister can just Green Lantern away Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution. If the premiers are going to be forced to move, it’s because their voters are demanding action, and that can’t happen so long as we collectively keep making excuses for them and trying to blame the federal government instead.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
NDP leader Jagmeet Singh introduced a motion in the House of Commons on Tuesday that called for the Liberal government to replace David Johnston as special rapporteur dealing with election interference. He won’t withdraw from the three-year confidence-and-supply agreement with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau if the latter won’t heed his call, however.
If you’re shaking your head in utter confusion right now, I wouldn’t blame you.
What’s the point of calling for a non-binding motion that has no real meaning, and no specific consequences, attached to it? With a subtle nod to the popular 1990s British sitcom, it’s all about keeping up appearances.
While it’s true that Singh hasn’t been completely mute during the bombshell allegations of Chinese interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections, he also hasn’t been a significant participant. “We don’t want to see any interference in Canadians’ ability to make decisions about their future,” he said in a news conference last November. He also joined the Conservatives and other opposition parties in support of a public inquiry in late February. “The way to stop alleged secret Chinese interference is to refuse to keep their secrets for them,” he said, and a “fully independent and non-partisan public inquiry is the way to shine a light into the shadows.”
Both statements were fine, but hardly revelatory or earth-shattering.
When Johnston recommended against holding a public inquiry on May 23, Singh’s response was rather tepid. The NDP leader called the decision “incredibly disappointing,” and suggested “we firmly believe Canadians would benefit from a fulsome, public investigation that maintains the integrity of our intelligence that must be kept confidential.” He also mentioned “New Democrats will keep pushing for an independent, public inquiry that gets people the answers they deserve and fully restores trust in our elections.”
What caused Singh’s shift from being incredibly disappointed with Johnston to calling for his head on a silver platter in one week’s time?
Some have suggested the news involving Johnston’s lead counsel, Sheila Block, could have had some impact. Democracy Watch revealed last week she had donated $7,593.38 to the federal Liberals between 2006-2022. Of the 19 separate political donations that were identified under “Sheila Block” and “Sheila R. Block,” none of them went to any other party.
Did this controversy change Singh’s opinion? It’s possible.
A more likely explanation is NDP MP Jenny Kwan recently being informed by CSIS that she was being targeted by the Chinese government. “What CSIS confirmed with me is that I was a target and I continue to be a target,” she said in the House of Commons foyer on May 29. “They use the term ‘evergreen’ meaning that I will forever be targeted.” Singh also spoke to reporters and made this assessment, “I’ve been very clear in not attacking Mr. Johnston personally and I’ve maintained that, but…It is very clear that the appearance of bias is so high that it erodes the work that the special rapporteur can do.”
What’s happened to Kwan is awful, of course. Singh has every right to be frustrated. Yet, he didn’t speak out as firmly when Conservative MP Michael Chong and former Conservative leader Erin O’Toole revealed the very same thing after their meetings with CSIS.
Therein lies the problem.
Singh’s newly-formed doubts about Johnston’s role as special rapporteur on foreign interference may have only materialized due to a caucus colleague, Kwan, getting caught up in this unfortunate situation. It leaves the impression that his political radar doesn’t focus on major controversies affecting Canada if the NDP isn’t involved in them. Even in the dog-eat-dog world of modern politics, where rigid ideology and partisan rhetoric are both understood, this particular stance doesn’t fly.
It’s also concerning that Singh largely ignored (or avoided) the red flags that started to rapidly appear when Johnston was named special rapporteur. Some were known, including the former Governor General of Canada’s association with the Trudeau family dating back to the 1970s and his previous status as a member of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. Others were revealed and re-revealed, including Trudeau’s description of his newly appointed special rapporteur as a “family friend” in 2017 and Johnston’s long-term interest in China, including his two daughters having lived there for two years to study Mandarin.
Johnston was far too tied to Trudeau, his family and the matter at hand to be a truly impartial observer. It was always assumed the PM would pick someone he knew and trusted for this padded role, which lacks the political and legal authority to have any meaningful influence or sway. Nevertheless, the PM shouldn’t have chosen Johnston – and Singh, who has helped prop up this minority government, could have spoken out immediately and suggested Trudeau pick someone else.
He didn’t, and that moment has passed. If he hopes to have any meaningful impact in this discussion going forward, he’s whistling Dixie.
Many MPs in the House of Commons laughed uproariously at Singh last December after he exclaimed, “When I’m prime minister, I will keep my promises.” This slip of the tongue made him look ludicrous, out of touch with reality and completely delusional with respect to his political future. The NDP leader’s non-binding motion related to Johnston’s role as special rapporteur is further proof that Parliament’s reaction that day was wholly justified.
Michael Taube, a long-time newspaper columnist and political commentator, was a speechwriter for former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
