Email response to Jack Layton January 7, 2010

Reply from Jack Layton:

Thank you for your comments regarding Stephen Harper's unilateral
decision to prorogue Parliament. By locking out Members of Parliament,
Mr. Harper is shutting down democracy and preventing us from doing the
important work Canadians elected us to do.

I believe that Canadians value our democratic system. They are telling
the Prime Minister that he can't simply shut down our democratic
institutions just because he doesn't like what they're asking or doing.

Here are some facts:

- This is the second time in 12 months that he has prorogued Parliament
- This is the fourth time in 3 years he has abruptly ended a session of
Parliament
- He consistently fails to comply with the Access to Information Act
- He is ignoring an order by Parliament to provide access to all
documents relating to the Afghan torture issue.

Canadians also expect their MPs to work together and find solutions for
the challenges facing our country. There is a pension's crisis in
Canada. Many individuals are struggling to find work and need help to
recover from the economic recession. Yet, Stephen Harper chose to lock
the doors of Parliament rather than letting MPs work on these concerns.

Prime Minister Harper has adopted a blatant "run from accountability"
approach to governing. While he promised increased accountability, he
has done everything in his power to avoid the tough questions. At the
same time he is blocking elected MPs from Parliament, he is making plans
to stack the Senate with unelected Conservative Senators-something he
promised he would never do.

For more information on our position on this matter, please visit:
http://www.ndp.ca/press/statement-on-prorogation-by-libby-davies.

For our part, the New Democratic Caucus will be going ahead with our
scheduled January 18 strategy meeting and will discuss our plans for the
next few months. We will continue to advance our policies on issues such
as pension reform, jobs, the environment and health care while working
hard in our individual ridings.

Again, I appreciate having the benefit of your comments. Feel free to
pass along my message to anyone who may be interested. All the best.

Sincerely,

Jack Layton, MP (Toronto-Danforth)
Leader, Canada's New Democrats

My response

Dear Mr Layton,

What a disappointing response. I already know what Harper has done and I have a good sense of what we are in for if he is not stopped.  What you call a “unilateral decision to prorogue Parliament”, I call an assault on democracy. Going ahead with an already planned caucus meeting is hardly an adequate response to Harper’s calculated assault. People will rally on the 23rd, and out of that, hopefully, will come a commitment to continue to work for the overhaul of the electoral system in this country – a country now without a functioning democracy.

The past NDP strategy of attacking liberals in an attempt to claim their political turf is an abject failure and has only emboldened Mr Harper (see Tom Flanagan’s article in the Tuesday G&M). Your party must change direction and come out swinging at the Harper regime, and many are ready to help. I would think that the NDP would want to be a voice for democratic renewal instead of standing by with hat in hand waiting for Mr Harper to come back on stage. Thousands of Canadians are mobilizing and thousands more would too with effective leadership from you and the talented MPs in your caucus. Please, forget the retreat and get out to the planning meetings for the 23rd – speak out on the travesty Mr Harper is laying out for us. I cannot stand by and watch Harper make fools of us as citizens, and neither should you.

Sincerely

Paul Chislett

Windsor, Ontario.

John Peters in “The Bullet” October 17, 2007

Professor Peters has done a great service with this article. We must become more sophisticated in our views on politics in this country. We must revive class consciousness in the working class because the political and economic elites have never lost consciousness of class. Politics is not about political parties. The media reinforces this notion. Politics is about the struggle between power elites and the working class. A vote for the liberals or conservatives is simply a vote for those who claim to be our betters. We must begin to look after our own interests.

This means organizing, getting involved with the NDP and Socialist parties, forming education seminars to raise the consciousness of the working class, and working to improve the voters lists and identifying support for the Left BEFORE elections are called.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~(((( T h e B u l l e t ))))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Socialist Project e-bulletin …. No. 64 …. October 17, 2007
__________________________________________________

The Charming Cynicism of the ‘Third Way’:
The McGuinty-Sorbara Victory
and the Problems for Ontario

John Peters

Even though it was the first time in over seventy years that a Liberal premier had won two straight majorities in Ontario, Dalton McGuinty’s victory wasn’t much of a surprise. Going into the election all the pollsters were predicting a close race and even a possible minority government. They couldn’t have been more wrong.

With a first-past-the-post electoral system, and experienced campaign managers like Greg Sorbara, Warren Kinsella, and Don Guy, the Liberals knew full well that they didn’t need anything like a majority of all Ontarians for them to win. In reality, the Liberals and their ‘War Room’ team realized full well that they only needed a minority of voters to show up on election day to form the next government. That is exactly what they got.

With a record low voter turnout of only 52 percent — down from 54 in 2003 — and the winning party only needing popular support somewhere in the neighbourhood of 41-45 percent to win an election in Ontario, the Liberals again won a ‘landslide’. Duplicating their 2003 victory, the Liberals turned the support of 22 percent of Ontarians (1.8 million votes out of an 8.4 million electorate) into a massive majority in the provincial legislature.

Winning the vast majority of seats in Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa, and Northern Ontario, the Liberals won the support of urban, mostly middle-class voters generally contented with balanced budgets, more investment in schools, and vague promises of improving the environment. With four of Ontario’s six major economic sectors doing well — finance, construction, mining and metals, along with the small business service sector — wealth lubricated an upbeat mood among a small minority of voters and provided the base of liberal support.

It also helped that McGuinty again drew another woefully inept Conservative opponent — the aptly named John Tory, who like his 2003 predecessor Ernie Eves, showed himself just as inept at policy as at campaigning, and quickly shot his party in the foot with an education proposal — seemingly drawn from the 19th century — to extend public funding to all “faith-based schools.”

That the NDP was unable to get out of its message box also boosted the Liberals chances. Led by the charisma-challenged Howard Hampton, the NDP’s colourful but less than stirring campaign theme was “Get Orange: A Fair Deal for Working Families.” Not until the third week did Hampton show any emotion. Attacking Tory for derailing the election campaign into an education debate no one wanted, Hampton boosted the party’s popularity to a modest 17 percent on election night. But it was far too little to late.

The sad facts of the matter were that in shifting the NDP to the centre over the past three elections, through offers of tax cuts, property tax freezes, and electricity rebates, Hampton has only seen party fortunes stagnate, membership rolls decline, and the average age of supporters rise. Indeed, it now appears that the Liberals in Ontario are set to be the inheritors of the old ‘one-party/Red Tory’ dominance that has been the norm in Ontario politics. But this is a new kind of ‘Red Tory’ — more a ‘Third Way’ or ‘smiley, happy’ version of neoliberal policies seen commonly throughout Western Europe today.

 

 

Modern, Moderate ‘Third Wayism’

This modern, moderate, ‘Third Way’ version of neoliberalism is based on an attempts to build across-the-board appeal through policies peddled as ‘modern,’ ‘responsible,’ and ‘competent,’ while including neoliberal elements such as tax cuts and balanced budgets.

Similar to Tony Blair’s Labour Party attempt to construct a ‘Third Way’ in Britain, as well as others in Western Europe, the McGuinty Liberals ‘smiley, happy’ platform also embraces new ‘post-materialist’ concerns with the environment and gender equality. It also looks to uphold education and health as the traditional liberal institutions necessary for middle-classes to achieve success and prosperity through hard work, while protecting them from the risks of ageing, disease, and accident.

Then to top it off and to actually make this ‘Third Way’ politics work, the McGuinty Liberals have adopted the new politics of ‘inclusion’ by creating a new public face for Ontario. A number of Liberal cabinet ministers are openly gay. A number are women. The Liberal caucus is also by far the most ethnically diverse of any provincial government in Canada today. In direct contrast, McGuinty himself is a middle aged, white lawyer, a barely adequate public speaker, and comes across as a too-earnest uncle — well-meaning, but perhaps not the sharpest of players. Nonetheless, the combination of white and ethnic, gays and women, white-bread lawyers and hip, cosmopolitan up-and-comers, is something new to the traditional male-bastion of ‘reward your friends, punish your enemies’ provincial politics.

Another important political factor in making the ‘Third Way’ work for the Liberals is finance minister Greg Sorbara. Sorbara, a personable and charming lawyer from a family of developers in north Toronto — and also the chief campaign director — has made McGuinty electable by transforming ‘new’ liberal politics into good economic sense.

Mining companies as well as lumber and paper mills have seen tax write offs, grants, and incentives for new investment and their own energy efficient plants mean benefits. For contractors and transport companies — especially throughout Northern Ontario — the Liberals have put into place multi-million dollar highway funding. For ageing middle classes, as well as workers and their families, the Liberals are currently building new hospitals — with private financing — and new cancer and long-term care throughout Ontario.

These offer security and just as importantly new employment opportunities and public investments that support house values of a middle-class electorate. The investments in primary, secondary, and post-secondary education have done the same, and along with incremental changes to education funding formulas that have increased school budgets, the Liberals have secured the whole-hearted support of the primary and secondary school teachers — the ‘shock’ troops for the Liberal campaign in riding after riding.

By increasing programme and infrastructure back to earlier norms, from 12.9 percent of Ontario’s GDP to 14.4 percent, and carefully targeting spending at supporter, Sorbara has knit together a ‘Third-way’ agenda with older-style programmatic, ‘boosterism’ to help build the Liberals into the ‘natural party of government’ for two elections in a row. Such realities have only further cemented the public’s view that Sorbara and the McGuinty Liberals are the party that can make the tough choices. But whether Sorbara and McGuinty’s salesmanship and plans are actually good for Ontario is another matter. There are a number of ‘inconvenient truths’ facing them.

The Inconvenient Truths Facing Ontario

At the top of the list of ‘inconvenient’ problems is the fact that the province has lost 148,000 manufacturing jobs since 2004, and the unionized auto sector has lost close to 30,000 in the past two years. The same is true in forestry. An 80 billion dollar industry nationwide, and long accustomed to serious market swings, lumber and paper mills have recently seen the loss of 42,000 jobs and the downgrading of the debt and stock in all major forestry giants.

Nor do current policies for the environment appear sustainable. Ontario is one of the worst polluters in North America. But plans to close the coal-fired power plants by 2007 have already been pushed back to 2014. And to keep the lights on without producing global warming green house gases, the Liberals are preparing to build two more nuclear power reactors.

Policies to deal with Ontario cities are just as unplanned. Thanks to Mike Harris, Ontario is the only state-level jurisdiction in the advanced industrial world to make its municipalities fully responsible for social housing and social assistance, and the primary funder of transit, child care, public health, and shelter services. In less than ten years, Ontario cities have seen their deficits balloon. Toronto, at 5.2 million people is Canada’s largest urban centre (by itself larger than 6 of Canada’s smallest provinces combined) and has an annual fiscal deficit of half a billion dollars to match.

Toronto also has transit, poverty, and homelessness problems of astronomical proportions that have no provincial comparisons. But without any of the advantages of provincial royalty revenues, federal transfers, or provincial s support, there is little hope for Toronto or other now teetering Ontario municipalities.

Sorbara has promised to extend one of the subway lines north by 2010, and boost transit funding for woefully underserved cities like Toronto by 2017. The Liberals have also promised to upload some of the social assistance costs from municipalities.

But Ontario has more than 1.8 million living below the poverty line, and Toronto is now the unofficial “child poverty centre” of Canada with 345,000 estimated living in poverty — 44 percent of the total number of Canadian children living in poverty today. Toronto also has more than a quarter of its workforce in low-wage, non-standard, part-time, and temporary jobs.

For a party that proclaims, “We are all in this together,” the Liberals will face even louder opposition charges of ‘broken promises’ in 2011 if they do not address these problems in a serious and credible ways, and also challenge the Harper Conservatives to invest the federal surplus into cities and social programs.

Simply claiming — as they have done time and again throughout the past election campaign — that they ‘feel the pain of cities/people/or fill in the blank’ and that they will work to address these ‘in the near future/next year/or in the next decade,’ will not be enough. There is little reason to be optimistic.

In their recent election victory, McGuinty and the Liberals were able to turn the election campaign into a debate on education and the inadequacies of John Tory while saying little about health care, the environment or vanishing manufacturing jobs. As they showed, electoral cynicism and inequality still comprise the gold standard by which winning provincial politicians operate in Ontario. But salesmanship is a poor substitute for policies that actually improve jobs and daily life.

If the McGuinty Liberals are going to show themselves any different except in their public face from the Mike Harris and Stephen Harper’s of the world, they will have to do a good deal more than they have so far accomplished in the past four years. As 78 percent of Ontarians showed last Wednesday — either by voting for other parties or simply not voting at all — expectations are pretty low.

John Peters teaches political economy at Laurentian University in Sudbury.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(((( T h e B u l l e t))))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Bullet is produced by the Socialist Project. Readers are
encouraged to distribute widely. Comments, criticisms and
suggestions are welcome. Write to info@socialistproject.ca

If you wish to subscribe:
www.socialistproject.ca/lists/?p=subscribe

The Bullet archive is available at www.socialistproject.ca/bullet

For more analysis of contemporary politics check out
‘Relay: A Socialist Project Review’ at www.socialistproject.ca/relay
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Defy corporate Canada: Vote NDP October 6, 2007

A Message From Howard:

Don’t give Dalton McGuinty a Blank Cheque
We have just a few more days before election day, and voters are thinking about the decision that they have to make on Wednesday. They’re talking to their families and friends over the long weekend, and they’re talking about the campaign and their choices.

And do you know what they’re saying? John Tory has been a disaster as an opposition leader. His obsession with faith-based schools has given Dalton McGuinty a free ride by distracting from the real issues. John Tory has proven he’s not capable of presenting a credible alternative to Dalton McGuinty.

As for Dalton McGuinty – he has run a terrible campaign in a bubble. He’s kept himself in a bubble, far away from the working families he’s let down. He has refused to speak to his record.

He has utterly failed to tell voters what he would do if he gets another big majority. We know he isn’t John Tory, but other than that, he is offering nothing.

Meanwhile, New Democrats have put forward a clear, achievable alternative: a fair deal for working families. Six practical, doable commitments you can count on from the NDP versus six-dozen more promises from Dalton McGuinty that he has no intention of keeping. Six dozen McGuinty promises that aren’t worth the paper they are written on.

So where does that leave voters who are feeling Dalton McGuinty let them down?

It leaves them with the only party that stands up for working families. The NDP.

I’m inviting all voters who just don’t trust Dalton McGuinty and who are feeling let down by: his $40,000 pay raise, his stalling on the $10 Minimum wage, his failure to step in to protect good jobs, by skyrocketing tuition fees, by broken promises to children with autism, his refusal to adopt minimum standards of care for seniors in long-term care, and his wrong-headed commitment to nuclear power; to take a look at the NDP.

I’m inviting Liberal voters, Conservative voters, people who may never have voted NDP in their lives, and above all young voters, to take a look at our six NDP commitments to make your life better and more affordable.

To vote for the only party that will fight back when people are hurting.

I’m asking you – don’t give a Dalton McGuinty you don’t trust and you don’t believe a blank cheque.

Don’t give Dalton McGuinty a pat on the back and a licence to hurt working families for another four years.

Dalton McGuinty doesn’t care about working families.

Dalton McGuinty doesn’t care about the 1.2 million hard-working men and women who earn less than $10 an hour.

Dalton McGuinty doesn’t care about the seniors who spent their lives building this province who are living in despicable conditions.

One thing we do know Dalton McGuinty cares about is himself. He proved that by giving himself a $40,000 raise in eight days. A raise almost double the annual salary of the average working woman. But he has no money for seniors in long-term care.

Next Wednesday, the people of Ontario will pass judgment on Dalton McGuinty and his record of broken promises and letting people down.

We can show him that WE care. And we can do something about it.

You have the power to make it happen. You can vote NDP.

You can count on the NDP to fight for a fair deal for you and your family.

Howard Hampton
Leader, Ontario’s NDP

(http://ontariondp.com/node/1838)

The Ontario election and a Socialist perspective Sept. 24

(((( T h e B u l l e t ))))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Socialist Project e-bulletin …. No. 59 …. September 23, 2007
___________________________________________________

Treading Water: Four Years of Ontario’s Liberals

by Bryan Evans

The champagne corks were popping the night of October 2, 2003, the night four years ago when Dalton McGuinty and his Liberal party sent the Common Sense Revolution to the dustbin. Eight years of the most repugnant government in Ontario’s postwar history had concluded. It was indeed a cause for celebration. McGuinty’s Liberals had run on a platform which bravely stated that, if elected, taxes would not be cut again. Maintaining important public services was simply too important. The Liberals were unequivocal on this. They were equally unequivocal in saying taxes would not go up. This gave them a political edge, but it also blocked the need for public debate on that issue. But after eight years of watching the hollowing out of the Ontario public sector, it was refreshing to hear a commitment to reinvesting in public services and words of respect for the people who deliver those services.

Neoliberalism with a Human Face

That was then. There is now a four year record to examine. The enduring theme of the Ontario Liberals over this period has been that they have chosen to reinvest in health, education and social services. The record shows that they have reinvested in social programs, spending 19% more on these services in 2007 than in 2004. Although when inflation is factored in, the real growth in expenditure is a rather less interesting 10-11%. And when one looks at inflation in specific sectors, such as health for example, the sectoral inflation rate is about 9%. It certainly beats the roll-backs and gouging that took place under the Harris-Eves Conservatives. But it is, at the same time, indicative of the tepid commitments of the Liberal government and their unwillingness to reverse the policies and cuts of the Harris years. A stark illustration of this is the Liberal government’s recalcitrant and meager increase in social assistance rates. These were cut by! 21percent in 1995 and have never been restored to their pre-Common Sense Revolution levels.

It is worth noting that the Liberal failure to reverse the Harris cuts has occurred during a period of very decent economic growth and a concomitant expansion of government finances. Now that the economic future is rather less sure, as the Ontario manufacturing sector continues to be hammered with job losses and as financial markets appear very unpredictable, one must wonder, what will a 2008 Liberal budget look like? Should they return on October 10th with a majority, the odds are, and history predicts this, that Ontarians will see even this modest improvement cut back or, at best, frozen.

Throughout their four years in government, the McGuinty Liberals have maintained an abiding fidelity to the fiscal conservatism and the privileging of business interests which marked the Common Sense Revolution. This legacy lives on at Queen’s Park, having been politically embedded in policy and structures. The McGuinty government has not meant a rupture with the Common Sense Revolution: it has served to sustain that project. The evidence for this charge is ample. From the beginning the Liberals were committed to a policy of no tax increases. This is a promise they have kept (notwithstanding the reintroduction of an extraordinarily regressive health care surtax that sees teachers and Bay Street bond traders paying the same additional taxes).

Taxation has become a politically vexing issue. Working families have seen their pre-tax income stagnate for the past 20 years. At the same time, the tax regime has become increasingly regressive. Every advantage has been given to those with money to duck and dodge the taxman both legally and illegally. The McGuinty government again demonstrates that it is a party of and for business. Rather than tackle the question of taxation in a meaningful manner, the choice is to maintain the arrangements struck by Mike Harris. The Harris era 30% cut in the tax rate and the elimination of several dozen taxes on various business-related activities left in place a more regressive tax regime and one that is not capable of meeting the needs of Ontario infrastructure, social and economic needs. Fair taxation might have been a theme for a pragmatic government. But not this one.

Liberal P3s: Public Pays and Bay Street Profits

The McGuinty government has also sustained the usage of public-private partnerships. These are arrangements where private interests make safe investments in public infrastructure like hospitals. Citizens ensure profits with their tax dollars. The McGuinty government has invested some $30 billion in such infrastructure projects. They revealed in 2005 that they wanted to use workers’ pension funds for such P3s and leverage this with private investors. This is risk-free capitalism for private investors, but it has proven, in almost every study of the issue, to be more expensive for taxpayers.

P3s were a central and prominent theme of the Liberal government as far back as 2004, when Greg Sorbara, the Minister of Finance, announced a full review of government spending and priorities. As a result, in 2005, 15 ministries saw their budgets shrink and Sorbara signaled a strong preference for privatization and contracting out. He stated: “the province should only be in the business of direct service delivery when it can provide a service more efficiently than anyone else.” Health Minister George Smitherman also mused about the money that could be saved if hospitals contracted out all non-medical staff such as laundry workers, cleaners and kitchen staff. This essentially means cutting jobs for the workers making $18.00/hour, while increasing doctors’ incomes, who then invest their surplus incomes in sidelines such as for-profit nursing homes, and allowing hospital managers to pull down a rather nice $500,000 a year. People earning! $18/hour spend their money locally while the wealthy have a propensity to invest elsewhere.

Money for Nothing?

Another theme of the McGuinty period in power has been subsidies for capital in a range of sectors. The largest of these has been the Ontario Auto Investment Strategy, meant to attract or retain auto industry plant in Ontario. The auto companies used job blackmail to leverage these subsidies. American states do the same thing, creating a race to the bottom where the key beneficiary is the stockholder. Whether workers’ jobs are secured is unknown as the written agreements between the auto corporations and the Ontario government are not available for public review. Without greater public controls over investment, sectoral planning and public companies, this process will continue. The McGuinty government has done nothing to alter this aspect of neoliberalism.

Liberals Not in a Hurry

The most recent Liberal budget of March 2007 maintained the ‘talk progressive, act for business’ politics. The commitment to raise the minimum wage to $10.25/hour was sold as a bold move, but it is only to occur over three years and will still not exceed the cuts in real terms of the Harris years. Even this proposal had been resisted and disavowed by the government a mere week before the budget, a fact that speaks to the scare they received in losing what had been a rather solid Liberal seat in a by-election. New Democrat MPP Cheri DiNovo deserves full marks for placing the minimum wage back on the political agenda through her campaign to raise it to $10.00/hour — not in three years but immediately. Combined with the Toronto Labour Council’s “Million Reasons Why” campaign and the organizing efforts of UNITE-HERE, the message that declining and stagnant wages in the midst of unprecedented wealth was simply not acceptable struck a chor! d with working families in York South Weston and, indeed, across the province.

On other important fronts, such as energy, the McGuinty Liberals have been unsure as to how to proceed. They have flip-flopped on promises around shutting down coal plants, re-regulating the electricity sector and expanding renewable energy. They have finally settled on what they had opposed in the last campaign — expanding nuclear power generation. The lack of an energy strategy has been costly for Ontario workers, but also for the provincial government’s commitment to making a significant effort toward carbon emissions reduction (the cover they now use for the expansion of nuclear power). Once again, the Ontario McGuinty government has failed to plan and act decisively and, instead, sustains the neoliberal energy and environmental policies of the Harris government.

http://www.socialistproject.ca/relay/#iss19“>Beyond the Political Horizon of Neoliberalism?

The 1990s was a decade where the political horizons in Ontario were shrunk dramatically. The New Democrats self-destructed in their efforts to be respectable in the eyes of corporate Canada and, in the process, relegated the party to near obscurity. The Conservatives effectively reframed the terrain of debate and the Liberals cast themselves first as ‘tory-lite’ in the election of 1999. They learned from that fiasco and talked slightly left in their discourse and opposed the hacking down of public services. But they have not altered the neoliberal legacy of the Harris Common Sense Revolution (itself given political breathing space by the disaster of the Rae NDP government and its waffling on progressive issues before settling into public sector restraint). We still live in the policy shadow of that neoliberal mess as the provincial election date of October 10th draws near. The McGuinty government, too, has given the Ontario public neoliberalism! , albeit with a human face. The economic context is now different. If indeed Ontario, and perhaps the world, is slipping into yet another economic crisis, the breadth of insecurity may well be horrifying as the destruction of what few tools for social protection we possessed prior to 1995 have never been rebuilt.

For the Left, there are important choices to be made and, as with past elections, important decisions to be made about our role and future prospects. New Democrats deserve a measure of credit for making the minimum wage central to political debate. And they and the Greens were quick to condemn the reactionary Conservative proposal to extend public funding to faith-based schools. The Greens have gone even further and have called for a completely secular public education system. Despite their embrace of ‘market ecology,’ this position of the Greens, and a few others such as a focus on proportional representation, will almost certainly draw attention and register in electoral outcomes. Opinion polls are consistently showing that the outcome on October 10th is uncertain, with the Liberals down in minority government range, the Tories up and the Greens now on the electoral radar.

The New Democrats are consistently showing at 18-20 % in public opinion polls. This is still a long way from their historic pre-Rae government averages of 25%, but there are signs of resurgence. It may well be that a minority government will emerge and the NDP will have an opportunity to place important issues at the forefront of the government agenda. In this respect, the Left can play an important role in giving profile and substance to such issues as the pressing need for an anti-poverty strategy which encompasses the need for a living wage policy in addition to an economy that generates meaningful and quality employment, a sustainable and just settlement of the crises confronting Aboriginal communities, a re-conceptualization of health care before the profiteers turn this into a marketplace — and this is happening much faster than is generally acknowledged. And, of course, there is a need to link all of the above to environment policy.

Simply voting NDP is not going to deliver this agenda. There is an ongoing need to build a stronger anti-neoliberal coalition which would assist electoral mobilization by framing key issues that would otherwise be ignored. Again, the minimum wage is a stellar illustration of this point. It was nowhere on the political radar until extra-parliamentary forces placed it there, led by the long campaign of poverty activists around the Ontario Coalition for Social Justice, and some Ontario unions, especially UNITE-HERE and the Toronto Labour Council. The NDP was very slow to pick this up, reluctant even, until Cheri DiNovo and Paul Ferreira won two by-elections where the issue was a central part of their individual campaigns.

There is, as well, the significant and vital issue of organizing the socialist Left so that it can shape and inform debate but also play a role directly in all manner of engagement including electoral. The Left in Ontario, and indeed Canada, is incredibly disorganized. It is not really possible to speak of an activist union Left in any serious way, as it has neither organization and strategy nor campaigns across unions. The Left beyond that simply does not register as a social force, and is not capable of transforming union politics or winning specific campaigns at the current level of strength and unity. It is barely able to maintain the presence of socialist ideas in Ontario public discourse and education. This educational role is a crucial task for the Left during elections, given the make-up of parliamentary representation. Developing some additional organizational capacity in leading anti-neoliberal fights would also be an advance that the! election campaign can help spur. The referendum on Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP) is one crucial area where both education in democracy and some Left organizational capacity could be added. In the longer-term, an MMP system raises the potential of providing more options to workers and unions. For what it is worth, it would also ensure the New Democrats play an ongoing important role in setting the policy agenda of future governments. Anti-poverty, healthcare and indigenous rights campaigns during the election should also provide space for education in socialist ideas, and developing anti-neoliberal forces. These campaigns all deserve the utmost support and work of activists. But we are still some distance from being able to hoist the banner of socialism as an active social force in the realm of ideas, campaigns and political organization in Ontario. Without that Left reformation — and even if a minority government forms after October — neoliberalism and i! ts discontents will continue to dominate the agenda of Ontario! politic s.

Bryan Evans teaches public administration at Ryerson University.

Other articles on the Ontario election in Relay #19

• Anti-Poverty or Anti-Capitalism — Jacquie Chic
• Politics, Poverty and the Social Determinants of Health — Dennis Raphael
• What Goes Around, Comes Around in Northern Ontario — John Peters
• McGuinty’s Public Power Promise — Paul Kahnert
• Building Houses and Political Influence — Robert MacDermid
• A Progressive Directory

Ontario’s Referendum on Electoral Reform

• Against All Odds: Winning Electoral Reform in Ontario — Dennis Pilon
• The Ontario Referendum on Electoral Reform: Left Possibilities? — Besmira Alikaj
• Loading the Dice on the Referendum — Elizabeth Rowley

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(((( T h e B u l l e t))))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Bullet is produced by the Socialist Project. Readers are
encouraged to distribute widely. Comments, criticisms and
suggestions are welcome.
Write to info@socialistproject.ca

If you wish to subscribe: www.socialistproject.ca/lists/?p=subscribe

The Bullet archive is available at www.socialistproject.ca/bullet
For more analysis of contemporary politics check out
‘Relay: A Socialist Project Review’ at
www.socialistproject.ca/relay

Ontario’s NDP: our best shot at this time.

I describe myself as a democratic socialist. I belive that while no human cultural or political creation can be a pancea for all ills and challenges, socialism is at heart simply a way to best organize resources by those who need them. Socialism recognizes the inherent worth of every one of us as opposed to being worthy only if one can contribute to the economy, with worthiness  defined by wealthy elites.

The following is my letter to the editor which appeared in the September 13th issue of the Windsor Star. An election campaign is on in this province and while I believe the NDP is flawed and battered by neo-conservative and short-sighted middle class values, the party is a necessary stepping stone to a socialist transformation of the Canadian working class experience.

I just moved to Windsor and got myself on the voters list. Are you registered to vote? Make sure you are.

Working class Ontarians once again have a chance to repair the social landscape of the province laid waste by the Harris conservatives – damage barely acknowledged during the liberals’ caretaker regime. What are voters to decide? More do-nothing hype from Mr. McGuinty? Another divisive conservative election drive based on wedge issues like public funding for religious schools?  Watching unions get duped with the Working Families Coalition?

The bare minimum working class people can do is elect NDP members to office. Is it not obvious that a liberal or conservative is the same thing? The NDP is the party of the working class. The working class need not be victims of circumstance. In northern Ontario , where I originate from, the Bob Rae NDP government helped save jobs in the Spruce Falls mill in Kapuskasing , Ontario . Members like Shelly Martel (Nickel Belt MPP), Gilles Bisson (Timmins/James Bay MPP) and Charlie Angus (Timmins/James Bay MP) still fight against corporate greed on behalf of working class and First Nations people.

It’s time for some union leaders to crack open their Labour College of Canada texts and take a look at what happens when liberals use workers to get elected and then show them the door once in power.

Voters in Windsor must not be dragged into what ever strategy Buzz Hargrove has with his endorsement of The Working Families Coalition. The working class needs its own party in power to ensure that there is a true advocate for working class issues. We gained nothing in the past we didn’t fight for and that holds true today. Begging hat in hand by voting liberal is giving up; voting conservative is just plain self destructive. Voting NDP is the start of a struggle to truly fight for working class family values.

Update: The “war” in Afghanistan, and six more dead, July 5, 2007

Here is the response from Jack Layton, leader of the New democratic Party of Canada:

Thank you for your recent email regarding Canada’s mission in Afghanistan.

I have heard from many others also deeply concerned about Canada’s combat involvement in Afghanistan. More and more Canadians are coming to the same conclusion as the NDP. That this Bush-style counter-insurgency offensive is simply not working.

Five years after the invasion of Afghanistan, it is reasonable to examine the present situation. NDP Defence Critic Dawn Black has released our Party’s comprehensive report on the Conservative-Liberal mission in Afghanistan. It provides background on the conflict, analyzes the issues faced by Canadian troops and Afghan citizens, and offers concrete solutions to help stabilize the country.

In commenting on our report, journalist Barbara Yaffe said, “New Democrats, crowded on the political left by Liberals and Greens, are distinguishing themselves with a bold, common-sense position on Canada’s Afghanistan mission. …The NDP’s blunt conclusion is one that is mighty hard to refute.” (Vancouver Sun, July 10, 2007)

For more information, please visit: http://www.ndp.ca/page/5462

Some will say that if we do not support the mission, then we do not support our troops or we are abandoning the people of Afghanistan. This is not the case. We support our troops and their families and it is out of the deep respect for them and the people of Afghanistan that we are calling for a de-escalation of this conflict. http://www.ndp.ca/page/5496

Issues as serious as war require leadership. Unfortunately the Conservatives have adopted George Bush’s strategy of “might is right” and the Liberals try to come down on all sides of the issue. I have challenged the Liberals and Bloc to answer the question: “if the mission is wrong in 2009 – why isn’t it wrong also in 2007?”

While the other parties fail to provide leadership, the NDP has been clear from the beginning that Canada needs to begin a safe and immediate withdrawal from the combat-fighting in Afghanistan. I and my Party are not prepared to compromise on an issue as serious as war. In a speech given earlier this year I explain fully our position: http://www.ndp.ca/page/5023.

Looking forward, whether it’s on climate change, child care, prescription drugs, corporate crime, the high cost of ATM fees, takeovers by foreign companies, or the war in Afghanistan the federal NDP is working on the issues that everyday Canadians care about. You can find out more about our work at http://www.ndp.ca or by subscribing to our e-mail bulletin at subscribe@ndp.ca.

Again, I appreciate hearing from you. All the best.

Sincerely,

Jack Layton, MP (Toronto-Danforth)
Leader, Canada’s New Democrats
https://wordylefty.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/the-war-in-afghanistan-july-5-2007/

James Laxer and the NDP

Further to my last post, James Laxer has written an excellent critique supporting the NDP, on his blog . His approach is especially interesting because he points to the fact that Tony Blair will soon be leaving office and his successor will likely be faced with withdrawing British troops form Iraq, and,possibly, Afghanistan, although I’m not too sure the British would pull out of Afghanistan. Also, Laxer makes it clear that internationally, some kind of peace process will likely begin regarding Afghanistan before 2009 and significantly, Bush is at war with only 29% support in the polls – so how long can Canadian war-mongering continue?

The point to all of this is that Layton and the NDP are on the correct side of the issue, as well as in their support for Kyoto and the environment. But as local election issues, both these critically important and symbolic issues – war and environmental degradation – will not be seen as something a local NDP candidate can run on. Most people are not touched by the war or environmental degradation – yet- and the irony is such that if we don’t take war and over-consumption seriously, then we ignore it at our children’s peril. The real enemies of Canadians are greed, class warfare and environmental degradation – NOT terrorists!

The NDP and Afghanistan

I received a reply from Stephane Dion, Liberal Leader of the Opposition in the House Of Commons, 26 April, 2007. I had written to express my opposition to the Canadian combat role in Afghanistan.

In part, his reply stated that ” [u]nder [his] leadership. a Liberal government would retain the current number of Canadian troops until 2009 to honour the international obligation undertaken by Prime Minister Harper, but would review the current mission and reserve the option of re-deploying Canada’s combat task force to other under-resourced and critical foundations in Afghanistan…”

Typical Liberal fence sittting. Either the combat mission is wrong or it’s the right thing. The NDP has consistently opposed this war as being simply the wrong mission for Canadaian troops. This quote is the prime reason the NDP could not vote with the Liberals. The NDP introduced a motion of their own on 26 April, 2007 and a vote will be held on Monday, 30 April. The Liberals will likely vote with the Conservatives, thus showing their similarities to a party too much in tune with the Bush war-mongers.

Here is the NDP position:

Wed 25 Apr 2007 |

NDP tables opposition motion for safe and immediate withdrawal from Afghan combat role

OTTAWA – The NDP tabled a motion today to put an end to the counter-insurgency Afghanistan mission that the Liberals, Conservatives and Bloc Québécois want to last until 2009.

“The NDP motion, to be debated Thursday and voted on Monday, calls for an immediate safe and secure withdrawal of our troops from the counter-insurgency mission and to focus our assistance, not through counter-insurgency but through development and aid,” said NDP leader Jack Layton. “Both Liberals and Conservatives admit that the conflict in Afghanistan won’t be won militarily. We believe that two more years of participating in the wrong mission for Canada is two years too long.”

The NDP motion is consistent with the party’s position since the counter-insurgency mission began, unlike Liberal leader Stéphane Dion’s recent flip-flop on the issue.

“One year ago, Stéphane Dion voted against extending the mission in Afghanistan, on Tuesday he voted to extend it until 2009,” said Layton. “NDP MPs take their responsibility as Parliamentarians very seriously when we put young women and men in harm’s way. The question for the Liberals is simple: If the mission is wrong for Canada, why are they asking our brave men and women to participate in it two more years?”

The NDP’s motion re-iterates the NDP’s support for Canadian troops and calls on Canada to focus its efforts in assisting the people of Afghanistan by re-doubling its commitment to reconstruction and development.

What they’re saying

“The Liberals are saying the same thing that the Conservatives said last year. They have not called for the troops to be brought home. They are supporting the mission extension that Canadians oppose.”
Christine Jones, Co-Chair Canadian Peace Alliance

“What was Stéphane Dion thinking? The Liberal motion was uncritical of the military mission and supported its continuance unchanged, yet called for the government to notify NATO that our troops would be withdrawn from the combat mission in Kandahar when the current commitment ends in February 2009. There is something wrong inside the Liberal leadership to have so politically mishandled this motion.”
Steven Staples, Director Rideau Institute on International Affairs

“The motion proposed by the Liberal Party of Canada, asking the government to commit to withdrawing Canadian troops from Afghanistan in February 2009 and to immediately notify NATO, is nothing but a diversionary tactic […] a commitment of this kind, made two years in advance, will have no impact […] they are merely playing politics […] And we must not forget that it was the previous Liberal government that set Canadian’s foreign policy in this militaristic direction.” (translation)
Collectif Échec à la guerre

The wording of the motion:

(1) all Members of this House, whatever their disagreements about the mission in Afghanistan, support the courageous men and women of the Canadian Forces; (2) the government has admitted that the situation in Afghanistan can not be won militarily; (3) the current counter-insurgency mission is not the right mission for Canada; (4) the government has neither defined what ‘victory’ would be, nor developed an exit strategy from this counter-insurgency mission; therefore this House condemns this government and calls for it to immediately notify NATO of our intention to begin withdrawing Canadian Forces now in a safe and secure manner from the counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan; and calls for Canada to focus its efforts to assist the people of Afghanistan on a diplomatic solution, and re-double its commitment to reconstruction and development.

© 2007 New Democratic Party of Canada, all rights reserved. Authorized by the registered agent for Canada’s NDP.

Dysfunctional politics

If I said that Canadian federal politics are totally messed up, a listener might respond with, ‘what planet have YOU been on?’ So, I am going to say that Canadian federal politics no longer function – they once did – but no longer function as a democracy anymore. Principles are sold off for political expediency, war-mongers like Harper and Ignattief play for the press corps while Canadian soldiers die.

Federal politics are now cheap online poker matches, with party leaders throwing their hand down where a vote used to take place on principled stands of national importance.

The war in Afghanistan and the Harper government’s possible complicity in violations of the Geneva Convention have surely proved how devastatingly low federal politics have fallen. The NDP, in trying to stick to their unchanged stand against the war from the beginning, voted against a Liberal motion – a motion purposely designed to fail and allow the Liberals to do what they do best – look like they stand for something, when, in fact, they are merely manuevering for votes. The NDP DID NOT support the Harper government in principle. But the optics are terrible. However, the party will table another motion on Thursday. However, it cannot be denied that the whole anti-war effort, as represented in Parliament, is in a shambles. This country needs a socialist party to anchor the progressive base of politics in Parliament. The NDP are unable to do it alone and the Greens need to learn from their European counterparts.

Ceasefire.ca has made sense of what happened in Parliament, April 25, 2007. The day principles were sacrificed while others get to die.

The struggle continues to challenge the Harper government over Afghanistan

http://ceasefireinsider.wordpress.com/