Jagmeet Singh raised more money than the rest of the NDP leadership field combined in the second quarter of 2017.
According to fundraising data published by Elections Canada late Monday afternoon, the deputy leader of the Ontario NDP raked in $356,784 from 1,681 contributors for the period that ended June 30.
That was well above Charlie Angus, who finished second with $123,577 from 1,285.
Niki Ashton raised $70,156 from 1,006 contributors, while Guy Caron brought in $46,970 from 568.
Peter Julian, who dropped out of the race in June citing fundraising troubles, still raised $28,673 from 296 donors.
In a press release, Singh cited the fact that he only officially joined the race on May 15, 2017 and that he therefore raised the impressive amount in only 47 days.
“Jagmeet Singh, candidate in the federal NDP leadership race, has raised more in the first 47 days than Justin Trudeau or Andrew Scheer at the same point in their leadership campaigns,” the press release said.
It added that the median donation was $40 and that two-thirds of the donations received were under $100.
The Liberals took issue with the $40 median donation being portrayed as evidence of a grassroots groundswell, pointing out that 87 per cent of all their donations in the second quarter were under $100 and that the median donation was just $11.
They also disputed the comparison to Trudeau’s leadership fundraising. A party spokesperson told iPolitics that — though Trudeau announced his intention to run on October 2, 2012, the race wasn’t officially underway until November 14, when the party began providing administrative support to the candidates.
In the first 47 days from November 14, the spokesperson said, Trudeau raised over $700,000.
All the same, with the NDP’s fundraising hitting a seven-year low in the quarter, Singh’s success is indisputably good news for the party, which takes a 25 per cent cut of all donations to leadership campaigns.
“Singh’s fundraising numbers also revealed how his message is resonating with new supporters for the NDP. A cross reference of address, name, and postal code with Elections Canada donor records, demonstrate that roughly 75% of the donors to Singh’s campaign have never before given to Canada’s NDP,” the Singh release said.
Singh himself argued his fundraising numbers show the party can take on the Liberals and Conservatives in 2019.
“I am very proud of what our team was able to accomplish in our first six weeks of the campaign,” he said.
By arrangement with ipolitics.ca.
By: Janice Dickson in Ottawa
Liberal MP Chandra Arya says he welcomes Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer’s suggestion to debate the Liberal government’s settlement with Omar Khadr.
Arya acknowledged that “it’s not just the Conservatives” who are against the reported $10.5 million payout to Khadr.
“Most Canadians … they’re uncomfortable, as the prime minister said.”
The Nepean MP was in the Centre Block Monday morning, delivering introductory remarks to summer school students who were touring Parliament. He spoke with iPolitics between tours.
“Most Canadians are a bit concerned,” he repeated, adding that sometimes the government has to make decisions that are unpopular.
Repeating what Justin Trudeau has said, it’s better than spending $30-$40 million down the road, Arya noted, admitting he too “is a bit concerned.”
He thinks it’s good that Scheer wants to bring forward the debate because the House of Commons is the right place for it and he’d rather debate the issue with his colleagues across the aisle than read their comments in a newspaper.
Arya’s passion for Parliament was evident in his brief talks to the tours.
“This is the most important institution in Canada. What happens here affects us all. This is what Canada is about,” he told the Nepean high school students.
“When I sit in the House of Commons and I look at all 338 members of Parliament I realize that I don’t have to go to every nook and corner of Canada because (the people) here, they represent Canada,” he said.
“I love (being an MP), I love every morning. Honestly I get up and feel I’m blessed.”
The former business executive, who moved to Ottawa from India about 14 years ago with his wife and son, said the highlight of his two-year political career has been seeing his private members bill C-305 pass unanimously in the Commons. Arya’s bill would expand the scope of hate-based mischief relating to places of worship to also include schools, universities, community centres, sports centres, senior residences, or any building or place used for educational, cultural, social or sporting events.
Currently, hate-based mischief against churches, mosques, synagogues and temples can result in a sentence of up to 10 years – whereas sentences for general mischief to other properties are up to two years.
Arya’s “quite happy” about the bill – which is currently stuck at third reading in the Senate – and expects it to pass and become law in the fall.
Given that only five per cent of private members bills become law, he picked this area to champion because he said it’s close to his heart.
“I’m from India, I’m a Hindu. We know the clashes between the religions and the discrimination that’s there … in other parts in the world, but this is Canada. Here we don’t tolerate that.”
After the Quebec mosque attack in February, Arya rose in the Commons and said the attack was a direct result of Conservative and PQ policies.
“The recent killings of Muslims praying in the mosque in Quebec City is not an accident,” he said. “This is the direct result of dog-whistle politics — the politics of fear and division.”
On Monday, Arya said Conservative MP Michael Chong has been more specific than he was on the issue and consequence of rhetoric.
“Words they are important and they can really hurt,” he said.
While all of the political leaders have “really good intentions,” what he was suggesting in February was that the rhetoric had to be toned down. Members of political parties may misconstrue rhetoric and some have extreme views, but he doesn’t think any current MPs have extreme views. Not even Kellie Leitch.
“She wants much more scrutiny of the Canadians coming in, but I don’t think she’s a racist.”
Arya used to publish a newspaper called The Ottawa Star before running for office. Initially it was weekly and then bi-weekly, but he started the paper for new Canadians because he found that the mainstream media was not covering new Canadians’ events well.
When he became the candidate for Nepean, he shut it down because as he put it, “You know, I was funding it from my pocket.”
Now, in the dog days of summer, the Nepean MP spends most of his time in his constituency office or at events.
He said he’s fortunate to represent the riding because the income is above average, unemployment is quite low and there are not many major issues, apart from public service employees who have had issues with the Phoenix payroll system.
“Ottawa-wide issues also affect us of course.”
When asked if he considers the summer a break at all, he laughed.
“No. No way. Last week there were four days I left at 8:15 a.m and was back home at 9:30 p.m.”
That said, for him it’s not a job where he puts on a suit and stares at the clock.
“This is life and I love it.”
By arrangement with ipolitics.ca.
by Ainslie Cruickshank in Ottawa
Social conservatives are hoping two anti-sex education candidates will split the vote in the upcoming Ottawa-Vanier byelection, leaving Progressive Conservative Andre Marin out in the cold.
“I don’t think it’s realistic that they will win without a large party machine behind them but they can certainly get enough votes to cause the pro-radical sex-ed PC candidate to lose if it’s a close race,” said Jack Fonseca, a senior political strategist with Campaign Life Coalition.
The coalition is a national anti-abortion organization and a vocal opponent of Ontario’s new sex education curriculum. It’s putting its support behind both Elizabeth de Viel Castel, a candidate running for the new single-issue political party Stop the New Sex Ed Agenda, and Stephanie McEvoy, who is running for the Canadian Constituents’ Party and also opposes the sex-education programming the Wynne government introduced last year — the first update to the sex-ed curriculum since 1998.
The new curriculum includes updates on healthy relationships, same-sex relationships, consent, mental health, online safety and the risks of “sexting”.
Marin has expressed support for the new sex-education curriculum, telling the Toronto Star that PC leader Patrick Brown “fell on the right side of the issue” after the party flip-flopped on it in the run-up to the Scarborough-Rouge River byelection. Requests for comment from Brown and Marin were declined Friday.
“The goal is to send a message to the PC establishment that you can’t win by alienating social conservatives. The social conservative wing of the party is very important and this is an issue you can win on,” Fonseca said.
The new curriculum is “age-inappropriate” and will put children in “harm’s way,” he said.
“Candidates owe it to the public to be open and honest and forthright on their position on such issues,” said Liberal campaign co-chair and Advanced Education Minister Deb Matthews.
While Matthews said she disagrees with their position, she added she gives members of the new anti-sex ed party credit for making their views on the issue clearer than Brown has.
“Parents want their kids to learn how to protect themselves from sexual predators, from online predators. We want kids to understand what healthy relationships are. And I think the public is with us on that,” she said.
In Ottawa-Vanier, Fonseca said Campaign Life Coalition will encourage its supporters to not only vote for either de Viel Castel or McEvoy, but also to volunteer and donate to their campaigns.
Queenie Yu, the force behind the new Stop the New Sex Ed Agenda party, is running under its banner in Niagara West-Glanbrook. She previously ran as an independent on an anti-sex ed platform in the Scarborough-Rouge River byelection, coming in fourth with 575 votes.
While some parents do support the new curriculum, many have concerns, Yu said.
“Each child is unique. Just because a child reaches a certain age doesn’t mean they’re ready to learn about certain subjects. Parents know their kids best. Parents – not the government – should be deciding when, what and how much their children should be learning about sex,” she said.
In Niagara West-Glanbrook, Fonseca said Yu is a “supportable” candidate but Campaign Life Coalition would be happy to see Sam Oosterhoff, the PC candidate, win the seat given the support he showed for parental rights during his nomination campaign.
While Yu said she hasn’t spoke with Oosterhoff, she said she has been assured by mutual friends that the 19-year old candidate shares her values.
“I’d vote for him if I lived in the riding,” she said, noting her goal for the anti-sex ed party isn’t necessarily to win seats but rather to keep the issue in the public eye.
Charles McVety, the president of the Canada Christian College, warned a split with social conservativescould cost the PCs the 2018 election after Oosterhoff won the nomination over party president and former Conservative MP Rick Dykstra and Niagara regional Councillor Tony Quirk.
That’s a message Fonseca repeated Friday.
Pursuing a more liberal approach to social issues risks alienating the conservative base and invites the creation a new, “formidable” conservative party in the province, he said, adding that could result in Liberal governments for years to come.
By arrangement with ipolitics.ca
by L. Ian MacDonald in Montreal, Quebec
A referendum question usually calls for a simple binary response: yes or no. In Britain on Thursday, voters will decide whether to “remain” in or “leave” the European Union.
The first draft of the referendum question required a yes/no response to a pretty straightforward question: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?” But the British electoral commission argued for something more nuanced: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union, or leave the European Union?” The commission persuaded the House, and the question was adopted by Parliament Sept. 7.
The first draft of the question was only 11 words; the final version runs to 16. But the distinction between “remain” and “leave” has become not only the ballot question but the basis of the Brexit campaigns’ duelling slogans: Europe, in or out.
There’s a lot riding on this — the stability of the EU, the unity of the U.K. itself. If the Leave forces win, there will be an unravelling of both. And in the final days of the campaign, most polls put the two options within the margin of error — too close to call.
So how did British Prime Minister David Cameron get himself into this predicament? He ran on it. Seriously.
In the May 2015 election, Cameron promised to hold a referendum on the EU if he won. He was trying to placate the Conservative base in England while pushing back against an anti-EU insurgency by the United Kingdom Independence Party on the right.
“It is for the British people to have their say,” Cameron declared at the time. “It is time to settle this European question in British politics.”
Be careful what you wish for. Having sown the wind, Cameron could be about to reap the whirlwind. Should the Leave forces prevail, he almost certainly would be be packing his bags at Downing Street the next day.
It shouldn’t come to that. It shouldn’t be this close, either. A YouGov poll for the Sunday Times on the weekend had the Remain side leading 44-43, having been down seven points — 46-39 — a week earlier. The pollster was in the field mostly before the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox, a 41-year-old mother of two who was shot and stabbed in her riding last Thursday by an apparently deranged Leave supporter.
In the shock of the aftermath, the campaign was immediately suspended on both sides. It’s not clear whether Cox’s death will bring some wavering voters to their senses, but the tragedy certainly became a dominant media frame in the closing days of the campaign.
Usually in referendums, undecided voters gravitate to the status quo, normally by margins of about two to one. That was the case in the Scottish independence referendum of 2014, and the Quebec plebiscites of 1980 and 1995. (In the Scottish referendum, the No side’s 55-45 win was helped by the clarity of the six-word question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”)
If that pattern holds for the Brexit vote, the Remain side should win by about four or five points, something like 52-48. But you never know.
There’s no doubt that a Brexit vote would be a devastating blow to a united Europe. The European project has been a work in progress since the 1950s, when it was founded as the six-nation European Economic Community, including France and West Germany, in 1957. The U.K. joined in 1973. Today the EU has 28 member countries, 19 of them using the euro as their common currency — a continent without borders, an economy of 500 million people.
The EU has weathered several serious recent crises, from the financial collapse of 2008-09 to the great refugee migration still in progress. The economic crisis underlined the fundamental weakness of the euro — the fact that no one seems to know how to sustain a common monetary policy across economies as strong as Germany and as weak as Greece. Britain never adopted the euro, Margaret Thatcher having carried the argument that relinquishing control of monetary sovereignty would be a surrender of political sovereignty.
The refugee crisis has prompted different responses across Europe; Germany and Sweden are leading by generous example in receiving migrants, while countries such as Hungary have erected barbed wire fences. Across the continent, extremist and xenophobic right-wing movements have flourished in the last year. Donald Trump would feel right at home.
Comparatively few refugees have landed in the U.K., but that hasn’t prevented the Leave forces from making immigration their main grievance. The New York Times notes that half of Britain’s 330,000 immigrants in 2015 came from Europe, and in southern England many residents complain about them taking their jobs. That’s one sentiment driving the “Take Back Control” slogan employed by the Leave side. Another is bungling bureaucrats in Brussels — foreigners meddling in their local economy.
All of which has left Britain divided and on the brink. Until the last week, England had been leaning to the Leave. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all clearly favour the Remain side. For Scotland in particular, the EU is a check and balance against the power of Westminster. A vote to leave it could well trigger another referendum on Scottish independence. In Northern Ireland, it could result in the end of a borderless relationship with the Irish Republic.
And Great Britain could become Little England — no longer a leader in Europe and much diminished in the world, including the world of financial services in which the City of London is a global leader.
As a fellow member of the G7 and G20, as a NATO ally and leader of the Commonwealth, as an important trading and investment partner, Canada’s preference should be obvious — for a United Kingdom in a united Europe, with no unravelling of either.
Republished in partnership with iPolitics.ca
It defies belief that voters in a country still recovering from decades of cruel dictatorship would elect as their president a man closely associated with death squads — a man who has said (only half in jest) that when there are beautiful nuns to be gang-raped, he wants to be first in line.
But that’s what voters in the Philippines just did. This nation of 98 million on Monday elected as president Rodrigo Duterte, the mayor of Davao City and a man for whom the description “bombastic demagogue” seems a massive understatement. Next to Duterte, Donald Trump comes off like a meek, self-effacing wallflower.
Yet both men represent the leading edge of a political phenomenon springing from the public’s disdain for traditional politicians — a sense that, somehow, democracy has derailed. In too many countries — not just the Philippines and the United States — far too many people feel that democracy no longer serves the people, or responds to their aspirations.
This — as George Orwell, Edmund Burke and many other political commentators and philosophers have noted — is the fertile soil in which demagogues take root. And demagogues can swiftly degenerate into tyrants.
That said, Trump and Duterte spring from fundamentally different problems with 21st century democracy. Trump was spawned by a dysfunctional, deadlocked federal system rusting at the joints. Duterte, on the other hand, embodies the frustrated hopes of a people who began the transition into democracy 30 years ago with the ouster of dictator Ferdinand Marcos.
That revolution has been unable to tackle the Philippines’ core problem. It remains a semi-feudal society where a score of families own vast estates and controlling seats in both houses of the National Assembly. Over 70 of the 80 provinces are ruled by old landed families. Over 20 of the 24 seats in the Senate are controlled by the aristocratic clans, and so are 80 per cent of the 250 seats in the House of Representatives.
Once before, Filipinos voted in a president they thought was a man of the people — someone who would break the aristocracy’s absolute control of political life. That was Joseph Estrada, who before becoming mayor of Manila was an actor who specialized in playing a Robin Hood-type street criminal who always looked after his own people.
Once Estrada got into the president’s Malacañang Palace in 1998, however, he proved to be just as venal as the previous occupants. He was deposed in 2001 by his vice-president, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, an offspring of one of the landed families.
Now, with Duterte, Filipinos are hoping again they’ve found someone who will break the hold of the landed gentry on the system.
Duterte certainly has accumulated a lot of street cred during his 22 years as mayor of Davao. Even though his family are the political dons of Davao (his daughter is succeeding him as mayor), Duterte has managed to convince voters that he’s an outsider, someone contemptuous of traditional politicians and their half-hearted way of doing things.
Take, for example, his approach to crime in Davao. Duterte has been cited by Human Rights Watch, the Human Rights Council of the United Nations and Amnesty International for, at the very least, tolerating death squads and the extra-judicial killing of hundreds of suspected criminals.
He has promised to bring the same uncompromising approach to crime to the national level. “(It’s) going to be bloody,” he said in a television interview last year. “People will die.” Duterte said he would oversee the killing of 100,000 criminals within six months of becoming president.
The new president is an enthusiastic womanizer, but his attitude towards women is indelibly marked by what he said about an Australian missionary nun, who was raped and killed during a prison riot in Davao in 1989. Speaking to an election rally in a sports stadium in April, he said:
“When the bodies were brought out, they were wrapped. I looked at her face, son of a bitch, she looks like a beautiful American actress. Son of a bitch, what a waste. What came to mind, they raped her, they lined up. I was angry because she was raped, that’s one thing. But she was so beautiful, the mayor should have been first. What a waste.”
Following an outraged complaint by the Australian embassy, Duterte apologized for his “gutter language,” but that’s all he did.
Filipino voters beguiled by Duterte’s brash populism seem destined for disappointment. Like Trump, he has no coherent policy platform and — more important — no supporting major political party in Congress and no national political network. The currency — the peso — and the stock market took sharp tumbles as Duterte’s election looked more and more likely.
The major mystery here is why Filipinos are so drawn to Duterte — a phenomenon every bit as baffling as Trump’s wild popularity among grassroots Republicans. There does not appear to be all that much to be angry about in the Philippines these days.
The current president, Benigno Aquino, has been the most positive and accomplished leader the Philippines has had for several generations — much like Barack Obama. Aquino has overseen the Philippines’ rise from “sick man of Asia” status to enjoying one of the strongest and fastest-growing economies in Southeast Asia.
He has faced down Beijing over China’s attempts to grab islands and maritime resources within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone in the South China Sea. He has quietly and efficiently addressed many of the structural problems that held the Philippines back. Poverty remains a major problem, but the future looks brighter than it has at any time since the end of the Marcos dictatorship 30 years ago.
So Duterte will have a hard time matching or surpassing Aquino’s record of reforms, especially as the new president has little political backing in Congress. But Duterte has addressed that problem already, in characteristic fashion. He has said that if Congress opposes him, he will close it down.
And there is the doorway to tyranny — wide open.
Republished in partnership with iPolitics.ca
As the world struggles against the rapid spread of the Zika virus, the Canadian government is opening its wallet to shell out nearly $5 million for research and international aid.
Health Minister Jane Philpott announced a funding package of $4.95 million before question period Wednesday afternoon, which she called a “significant and important international response” on Canada’s part.
The virus has been linked by health officials to causing microcephaly, a rare but serious birth defect that leads to unusually small heads and hindering newborn development.
“This will fund large international projects that will address the spread of the Zika virus,” she said.
According to the minister’s office, $3 million will go toward in research, through Canada Institutes of Health Research, and the International Research Development Centre. Specifically it goes into researching the link between Zika, microcephaly and Guillain-Barré syndrome, along with developing better ways of testing for the virus, studying how it gets transmitted, and finding better ways of preventing transmission from mosquitoes.
Public Health Agency of Canada will send $950,000 to the Pan American Health Organization for responding to countries hardest hit, and Global Affairs Canada will divvy up $1 million for humanitarian funding to a number of organizations, including the United Nations Children’s Fund, the World Health Organization, and the International Federation of Red Cross.
In the U.S., meanwhile, the White House and health officials have been urging Congress to grant $1.9 billion in new funding to deal with the health threat Zika poses internationally and domestically, and while waiting the administration has raided funding from an Ebola fund to make due.
In Canada, the Zika threat itself has been low because the country doesn’t have the Aedes type of mosquito that spreads the virus. According to Public Health Agency Canada’s last update from last week, Canada has 67 cases identified from travel and one from sexual transmission.
Zika has been around in Africa and Asia for decades, but in the past few years it was introduced into the Americas and has been spreading rapidly.
Republished in partnership with iPolitics.ca
by Selina Chignall in Ottawa
As 25,000 Syrian refugees live through the process of resettlement and beginning new lives in Canada, a Statistics Canada study published today reveals that the children of refugees who arrived in Canada between 1980 and 2000 are thriving.
StatsCan’s, Educational and Labour Market Outcomes of Childhood Immigrants by Admission Class, reviewed the 2011 National Household Survey to examine the socioeconomic outcomes of immigrant children who arrived in Canada before the age of 18 during those two decades.
The study examined each class of immigrant — skilled workers, business immigrants, live-in caregivers, the family class and refugees.
The study found children of all categories of refugees (private, government and landed) had achieved better graduation outcomes than their Canadian-born peers. They had also outperformed those who settled here through the live-in caregivers and family class.
Roughly 30 per cent of refugees from all classes went to university — whereas 24 per cent of children born to two Canadian-born parents attended university and 19 per cent of those born to live-in caregivers.
The highest portion of immigrant children were those who came via business and the skilled-worker class. Of those who came through the channel, 59% obtained a university degree, while 50% of those from the skilled-worker class got their diploma.
The study also found that the average earnings of refugee children — $41,000 to $44,000 — were similar to the earnings of children with both Canadian-born parents and immigrant parents who came into the country via the business and skilled working class streams. Their annual earnings were about $46,000
Janet Dench, executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR), said she’s not surprised by the positive outcomes refugees have in their new home.
“We have the proof before our eyes how refugees and children of refugees have proved themselves in Canadian society.”
Dench said it confirms what CCR has been saying for a long time: refugees contribute enormously to Canada.
However, there are barriers some refugee children face that can prevent them from pursuing higher education, including helping their families to pay off their transportation loan. Those looking to settle in Canada have to pay their way here and undergo a medical examination. If they can’t afford to do so, the government will help pay for these services, but the families have to reimburse them for the loan.
“We hear they might not be able to go to university because they have to earn money to pay off the transportation loan,” Dench said.
For some refugees, the loan is waived. For the rest, it can cost a family $10,000. They have one to six years to pay back the loan, depending upon how much the owe the government.
An issue that also could affect the future generations of refugees pouring into the country from countries like Guatemala, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Syria is that they come from war-torn countries whose education systems have or are close to collapse, said Monica Boyd, a professor of sociology at the University of Toronto.
A report from World Vision said between two million and three million Syrian children are not attending school. For many of these young children who have gone months and years without formal schooling, Boyd said it’s an added challenge when they start their new life in Canada.
According to a November 2015 report by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, of those Syrians who arrived in 2014, 34 per cent were under the age of 15, and 15 per cent were 15 to 24 and 48 per cent were between 25 to 64.
Statistics Canada and Boyd both said the younger the children are when they settle in a new country, the better education outcomes they have. She said this was due in part to youngsters spending a longer period in the school system where they can improve their language skills.
It’s harder for teens to catch up on language skills and to adapt to a new education system.
“Playing catch-up is an issue many teens face, and the educational system still hasn’t figured out how to support these students,” said Dench.
Republished in partnership with iPolitics.ca.
by BJ Siekierski in Ottawa
Elections Canada would need a bare minimum of six months to carry out a referendum on electoral reform, owing in large part to a loss of corporate memory on how to manage the process, Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand said Thursday.
Appearing before the standing committee on procedure and house affairs, Mayrand was asked by Conservative democratic reform critic Scott Reid to elaborate on a risk highlighted in the agency’s 2016-17 report on plan and priorities (RPP).
In the RPP, the agency states that it isn’t currently prepared to hold a referendum — something Reid and the Conservatives insist is essential if the Liberal government changes the way Canadians vote.
Reid believes that any change to the electoral system requiring a boundary redistribution isn’t going to allow enough time for one.
And he’s convinced the Liberals are trying to run out the clock on the possibility of a referendum without rejecting the idea outright — though Prime Minister Justin Trudeau hinted strongly on Tuesday that it was off the table.
“It might be difficult now, but it’s more difficult than it would’ve been six months ago,” Reid told iPolitics.
“And I’m trying to make the point now — because maybe it’s still possible — but a month from now it’ll be less possible. And with every passing day it becomes less feasible, which I think is the whole point.”
The Elections Canada RPP notes that the committee on procedure and house affairs began but didn’t complete a 2009 review of the Referendum Act, and Elections Canada suspended “readiness activities” pending the implementation of legislative amendments.
“In order to conduct a referendum, the agency would require a minimum of six months following legislative changes,” the RPP says.
Reid asked Mayrand Thursday whether six months was, in fact, the minimum amount of time they would need.
“It’s an absolute minimum — six months. Corporate memory is loose now, after more than 25 years. Not many people have run a referendum in our organization. So there’s a lot of work to do,” Mayrand said.
Furthermore, though it would be feasible to conduct a referendum under the current legislative framework, Mayrand said that wouldn’t be his preference.
“The Referendum Act is outdated — it has not been changed since 1992, which is the last time we had a national referendum. In that regard, it’s very much out of sync with the Elections Act — particularly around political financing,” he explained.
There would be no limit on union and corporate donations, for example.
“There’s no limit on contribution by any entities, so this might come as a shock. But again, the legislation still stands. Is it possible to conduct a referendum on the current legislation? It is possible,” he said.
“It would be, at times, awkward. But it is possible. It is feasible. My preference would be to see it amended, updated. But again it would not be impossible.”
For the NDP, which doesn’t see the need for a referendum, the greater concern is that the clock will run out on electoral reform itself.
NDP MP David Christopherson asked Mayrand to provide a “trigger point” after which it will no longer be possible to have reform in place for the 2019 election.
“I would put before the committee that legislation enacting reform should be there at least 24 months before the election…There’s all sort of hypotheses — I don’t know exactly what the reform will be — but if it involves a (boundary) redistribution exercise, which PR (proportional representation) does by definition — this is a significant undertaking,” Mayrand answered.
In accordance with both the constitution and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, after each decennial (10‑year) census a riding redistribution process has to be undertaken to reflect changes in where Canadians are living. That was last done in 2012, adding 30 seats to the House of Commons.
“How long would it take to engage the Electoral Boundaries Redistribution Act? I assume an amendment would actually be required to allow it to happen out of normal sequence. But how long would the actual process take?” Reid asked Mayrand Thursday.
“You’re correct. It would need legislation for it to happen. And the bare minimum — and again, it’s difficult, because I’m not sure what’s on the table — the bare minimum for a standard redistribution is 10 months,” he answered.
That, however, is only from the setup of electoral boundary commissions to the issuance of their final reports for the redistribution.
“There’s another seven months after that for implementing,” Mayrand said.
Republished in partnership with iPolitics.ca.
by Amanda Connolly in Ottawa
The level of trust Canadians have in the federal government is at its highest point since EKOS Research began measuring the key indicator 17 years ago, a new survey shows.
According to the poll, which surveyed 1,176 Canadian adults over the age of 18 on April 14th and 15th, 44 per cent said they “almost always” or “most of the time” trust the new Trudeau government in Ottawa to do what is right, compared to roughly 30 per cent who said the same before the October election, when Stephen Harper’s Conservatives were in power, and a low of 22 per cent in fall 2014.
That 44 per cent is the highest number tracked since EKOS began asking “the trust question” in 1990 and is the highest level measured previous to that by Gallup since the mid-1970s.
The poll was conducted more than three weeks after the Liberal government’s first budget, which was tabled on March 22 and reflected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s major, controversial, election promise of deficit spending to stimulate economic growth.
The current numbers also reflect that 53 per cent of respondents say they trust the government only some of the time or almost never, down from a six-year high of 76 per cent in August 2014 and just over 60 per cent in October 2015.
The poll has a margin of error of +/- 2.9 per cent, 19 times out of 20.
“It’s really quite surprising to see the amount of bouyancy in that number with the current government,” said EKOS pollster Frank Graves. “I would have guessed it would go up but I would not have guessed it would go up that much or that it would have persisted for several months.”
According to EKOS Research numbers, the number of Canadians who said they trust the government to do what is right dropped consistently during the 1970s and 1980s, reaching a low of roughly 20 per cent in 1990.
That time period encompassed the terms of former prime ministers Pierre Trudeau, Joe Clark, John Turner and Brian Mulroney, with trust levels beginning a slow climb again during the end years of Mulroney and the governments of Kim Campbell and Jean Chretien.
However, starting in 2000 that number became sharply more volatile than in years of the past, rising and dropping during the tumultuous end of Jean Chretien’s tenure and the entirety of Paul Martin’s government, before rising sharply and falling equally sharply between the time Stephen Harper came into and left office.
At the same time, the number of Canadians who say they believe the country is heading in the right direction may be levelling out to post-election norms.
Between April 2015 and October 2015, the number of respondents who said the country was heading in the right direction ranged from between 39 and 50 per cent, while those who said the country was heading in the wrong direction were between 49 and 62 per cent.
In January 2016, just three months after the election, those both reached their respective peaks: roughly 69 per cent said the country is heading in the right direction while roughly 32 per cent said the opposite.
Those post-election reactions appear to be moderating, with 55.2 per cent of respondents saying the country is heading in the right direction compared to 37.5 per cent who say the opposite.
The number of respondents who said the Government of Canada is heading in the right direction — and those who say the opposite — down slightly from where they were in January, with 60 per cent saying the government is heading in the right direction and 33 per cent saying it is heading in the wrong direction.
Given the recent post-oil crash economic turmoil in the country, that’s unusual, says Graves.
“That’s paradoxical because often a very poor economy has a corrosive impact on the public’s sense of whether the government’s moving in the right direction,” he said. “In this case, we don’t see that. We see the opposite. But that patience will not be infinite.”
Republished in partnership with iPolitics.ca.
by Amanda Connolly in Ottawa
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan yesterday launched the Liberal government’s Defence Policy Review, including the appointment of four prominent foreign affairs and defence experts to advise him on shaping the direction of the new government’s defence policy.
In a press conference Wednesday afternoon in Ottawa, Sajjan pledged to listen to the different perspectives and views that will emerge from Canadians, allies and advisors in the first review of Canada’s military policy in nearly two decades.
In particular, four names will carry special weight as part of Sajjan’s advisory council: former Supreme Court justice and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, former foreign affairs and defence minister Bill Graham, former Chief of the Defence Staff retired Gen. Ray Henault and Margaret Purdy, former deputy secretary to the Cabinet (Security and Intelligence) in the Privy Council Office.
“My goal is to establish a renewed vision for our military that will be nested in our foreign policy,” said Sajjan. “The role of this panel will be to provide me with the insight and perspective that comes from their many years of experience.”
All four have been appointed by the Privy Council Office but Sajjan did not say how much they are being paid for their insight, nor did he provide a total budget for the defence policy review.
The government is preparing to ramp up on two other high-profile policy reviews of its cyber preparedness as well as its international aid priorities, and demonstrated during its integrated roll-out of the adjusted mission against ISIS that it views issues such as defence, security, foreign affairs and international development to be interconnected.
However, while Sajjan said the teams at Public Safety and International Development work closely together, he did not say whether there would be any kind of an official liaison working between the departments as they launch their reviews.
Sajjan said earlier this year that he planned to have the defence policy review finished by the end of the year and said Wednesday that public consultations will wrap up July 31.
The government has launched a web portal to allow Canadians to submit their feedback for the review, and will hold six stakeholder roundtables in Toronto, Vancouver, Yellowknife, Edmonton, Montreal, and Halifax before the end of July.
The first of those will take place April 27 in Vancouver.
Published in partnership with iPolitics.ca.
-- Canada's economic development minister Navdeep Bains at a Public Policy Forum economic summit