Jagmeet Singh, NDP Leader

831 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

A place in the middle can't be to the left of the middle.  It can only be in the middle.

Rev Pesky

From Ken Burch:

If Jack didn't have to get a seat 'til the 2004 election, Jagmeet doesn't have to get one before '19.

As always, in electoral politics, it is the voters who will decide which strategy is the correct one. Justifications, such as the one above, are interesting, but meaningless. 

JKR

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Ken Burch:

If Jack didn't have to get a seat 'til the 2004 election, Jagmeet doesn't have to get one before '19.

As always, in electoral politics, it is the voters who will decide which strategy is the correct one. Justifications, such as the one above, are interesting, but meaningless. 

The NDP won 19 seats in the 2004 election.

Stockholm

Does anyone SERIOUSLY think that the NDP would have won a single solitary extra vote or extra seat in the 2004 election if Layton had asked an NDP MP to resign so he could run in a byelection and have had a seat for the year leading up to the 2004 election? I sure don't

R.E.Wood

Stumbling Jagmeet Singh the perfect Christmas present for Trudeau's Liberals

At what point do we begin entertaining the notion of Jagmeet Singh as a Liberal plant?

Christmastime sounds about right; watching the new NDP leader stumble around the end-of-year interview circuit has been the perfect gift for Team Liberal.

Singh was insipid. Over-rehearsed. A platitude wrapped inside a focus group. And when he did stray from his message track, it was to fumble an answer about working with the Conservatives. Ayoye.

The non-MP from Toronto was indeed so poor that Justin Trudeau can safely turn his back on his left flank; Mr. Love & Courage won’t be punching the NDP out of its wet, post-2015 paper bag anytime soon.

Remember all of the heady talk of Jag-mentum and Jag-mania? Welcome to the Jag-erbomb.

... Watching Mr. Singh trip over his own tongue reciting his laundry list of pie-in-the-sky promises reminded me more of a student council president than a possible prime minister of Canada. Presentation matters. Stop talking with your hands, slow yourself down, hone your message and, for God’s sake, stop wearing the sharp three-piece suits. It makes you look alien, not approachable. There’s a reason Justin Trudeau always has his shirtsleeves rolled up.

And much more at the link:

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/macdougall-stumbling-jagmeet...

Yes, he's a Conservative, but shooting the messenger doesn't solve the problems we have with Singh.

Mighty Middle

Stockholm wrote:

Does anyone SERIOUSLY think that the NDP would have won a single solitary extra vote or extra seat in the 2004 election if Layton had asked an NDP MP to resign so he could run in a byelection and have had a seat for the year leading up to the 2004 election? I sure don't

At the time they only had 14 seats, a cushion of 2 to keep official party status. They couldn't afford to risk losing a seat to Liberals or Conservatives just to let Jack Layton sit in the house.

Stockholm

Even if the Ndp had had 50 seats when Layton became leader in 2003, I still don’t believe that Layton having or not having a seat made any material difference to the outcome of the 2004 election.

Pondering

R.E.Wood wrote:

And much more at the link:

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/macdougall-stumbling-jagmeet...

Yes, he's a Conservative, but shooting the messenger doesn't solve the problems we have with Singh.

He said this too:

If the NDP are to replace the Liberals as the lefties of choice, they’ll at least need coherence on the economy. Sadly, this is where Singh has soiled himself most comprehensively.

In the space of just one answer, Singh said he “firmly believes in a progressive tax system,” in which “those who are able to invest their fair share” are able to do so (?), before moving on to say he doesn’t have a “firm line” on balanced budgets, before then claiming to want a “robust budget” that’s balanced. Anyone else want to hand over the keys to that $2-trillion economy to Mr. Singh?

Because I like to see a competitive three-way race in Canadian politics, and because one is required for the Conservatives to ever again form government, my act of Christmas charity this year is to offer Mr. Singh and his merry band of haiku-spouting tweeters a few handy suggestions on how to get their poop together in 2018.

Replacing the liberals as the lefties of choice is old strategy that won't work any more. The Liberals aren't lefties. That would suit the Conservatives just fine if the farthest left we go is the Liberals.

Of course he isn't going to present his economic strategy now. All the parties do that during the election period. Platitudes and vague statements and "listening to Canadians" is exactly what Singh needs to be doing now.

I'm also tired of the refrain that Singh was supposed to be the second coming of Trudeau. The only people who ever said that were his enemies.

It isn't a matter of "killing the messenger". Why would you take advice from someone with whom you disagree with ideologically that wants you to fail? He isn't sharing factual information. It's just a hachet job.

brookmere

Pondering wrote:
Why would you take advice from someone with whom you disagree with ideologically that wants you to fail?

He says right in the part you quoted that the Conservatives need the NDP to do better if the former are to return to government.

brookmere

Stockholm wrote:
Even if the Ndp had had 50 seats when Layton became leader in 2003, I still don’t believe that Layton having or not having a seat made any material difference to the outcome of the 2004 election.
Let's flesh out that scenario a bit. Suppose Quebec had the largest share of those 50 MPs. The NDP had been doing badly in recent byelections in that province. The outgoing leader, who was the senior MP in Quebec, announced he was resigning his seat.

Do you think Jack would have gone for it?

 

Mighty Middle

Stockholm wrote:

Even if the Ndp had had 50 seats when Layton became leader in 2003, I still don’t believe that Layton having or not having a seat made any material difference to the outcome of the 2004 election.

They only won 19 seats. If they had 50 seats to begin with  that would have been a drop

mark_alfred

“I’d be willing to work with anyone to help achieve our values,” he [Singh] said. “The future’s looking more and more bleak, and I want to get at: how do we build an economy where we all benefit?”

I'm surprised anyone has an issue with this statement from Singh.  Writing off working with the Cons and deeming the Liberals as the only choice just leads to strategic voting.  It also boxes in the NDP.  Consider how effective Nathan Cullen was on the ERRE Committee, when he chose to work with the Cons to get the report done, since the Libs were unwilling.  This was very effective in pressuring the government and revealing that they were not serious about making 2015 be the last election under FPTP.  Also consider that Layton worked with Harper to bring about the apology to indigenous people regarding residential schools.   And, consider that Layton himself was not shy about being willing to work with anyone, Cons included, to get progressive measures forward.  Note this video at around the 1:28 mark.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFIY44RtkTI

mark_alfred

Here's a good article on Singh in The Guardian:  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/20/jagmeet-singh-canadas-pion...

Rev Pesky

Here's a funny thing form the Guardian article posted by Mark Alfred:

Media commentators have asked if Canada is ready for a non-white NDP leader, pointing to a recent poll in which 31% of the 1,477 respondents said they would not vote for a politician who wore a turban and carried a kirpan.

Notice how the writer jumped from 'non-white' to religious symbols. The two are not interchangeable. 

voice of the damned

The Guardian's thesis is based on the assumption(held also by Singh) that people who voted for Trudeau because he espoused progressive values are now doing a deeper analysis to see if he's actually implementing those values in a meaningful way. For example... 

This is where Singh is hoping to capitalise in the run-up to the country’s next federal election, slated for 2019. “It’s one thing to say you’re feminist, but then what does that mean? Not selling arms to a regime that is the most repressive and probably one of the worst human rights violators, particularly towards women, like Saudi Arabia?” Singh asked, alluding to the government’s decision to push forward with a billion-dollar arms deal with the country.

But how many Liberal voters are saying to themselves: "You know, I thought it was pretty cool when Justin said that it was 2015 so we need gender parity, but when I read these Amnesty International reports about Saudi Arabia, I'm wondering if that's the kind of country Canada should be doing business with"?

Probably about the same number of god-fearing fundamentalist Republicans in the US Deep South who think their government should stop arming the Saudis because they repress Christians.

 

 

mark_alfred

voice of the damned wrote:

The Guardian's thesis is based on the assumption(held also by Singh) that people who voted for Trudeau because he espoused progressive values are now doing a deeper analysis to see if he's actually implementing those values in a meaningful way.

Agreed that that alone will not cause the Libs to lose.  But, the one (and perhaps only) thing the Libs have going for them is the popularity of Trudeau, and his image of being a good guy.  So, whittling away at that with facts will help.  And, people did expect "real change" from him, so pointing out areas, including foreign affairs, where there's little evidence of change, helps in tarnishing the good guy image of Trudeau. 

More important, though, is people's personal interest.  Those who were interested in seeing electoral reform are furious, and that did get the Libs a lot of strategic votes.  Those votes will not return to the Libs. 

Also, some youth I've met are not too happy, given that 1.) the Libs did not raise the minimum wage, and 2.) they've done nothing about precarious work (in fact Morneau said "We have to accept that", in reference to a question on precarious work).  Regarding the minimum wage, recall that Trudeau derided the NDP's pledge to raise the minimum wage as misleading, in that only raising the federal minimum wage was declared by Trudeau as insufficient (thus hinting that his party would go further than the NDP and perhaps engage with the provinces too on the issue).  After the election he was very clear that he never intended to raise the minimum wage at all.   

The real interest that many voters, specifically homeowners, have is making sure their main investment in life, that being their house, is secure.  If housing prices start to fall dramatically, the Libs will lose (mind you, IMO housing prices need to go down, but slowly rather than via a dramatic crash).  Any party that looks like it could lead to financial insecurity (and thus fears of housing prices crashing) will not win.  This is the main struggle the NDP have, IMO.  They need to make sure that they can overcome this fear, which makes proposing big items (that please the NDP base, but worry some others) tricky.  That said, I like the fact that Singh is talking about some big items like free tuition, increasing the capital gains tax inclusion rate, increasing corporate taxes by 4.5%, pharmacare, drug decrim and greater harm reduction, etc.

cco

mark_alfred wrote:

The real interest that many voters, specifically homeowners, have is making sure their main investment in life, that being their house, is secure.  If housing prices start to fall dramatically, the Libs will lose (mind you, IMO housing prices need to go down, but slowly rather than via a dramatic crash).  Any party that looks like it could lead to financial insecurity (and thus fears of housing prices crashing) will not win.  This is the main struggle the NDP have, IMO.

Odd, then, that the party that actually presided over the biggest housing price crash since the Great Depression not only got reelected, but proceeded to win a majority government in 2011. Maybe the NDP just needs some new branding, like calling spending an "Economic Action Plan".

mark_alfred

cco, you're thinking of the USA, not Canada.  Housing prices didn't crash here.

Rev Pesky

As far as the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, what was the NDP position? If I remember correctly it was split between those who favoured going ahead with the Conservative engineered deal because it provided well-paying union jobs, and those who didn't want to be involved in arms sales to the Saudis.

In any case, the NDP did not make it a big issue in the last election, so coming forward now to batter the Liberals over an issue which they themselves were very careful in approaching is a bit disingenuous.

As far as precarious work and minimum wages, most people are aware that those are provincial issues, not federal. I doubt the federal party can make much headway there. 

There is an area of federal concern which the NDP has always shied away from, and that is foreign policy. Singh has highlighted his reaction to Trump, but what of the NDP foreign policy overall? For instance, would the NDP recognize Palestinian statehood? Why do I think they want to avoid dealing with that, and other foreign policy issues?

mark_alfred

Here's the statement on the vote on Jerusalem at the UN General Assembly, in which the Libs abstained.  The NDP were not shy in criticizing this (see link), and the statement is in line with NDP policy.  http://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-statement-vote-jerusalem-un-general-assembly-...

NDP policy wrote:
New Democrats believe in ..  Working with partners for peace in Israel and Palestine, respecting UN resolutions and international law, supporting peaceful co-existence in viable, independent states with agreed-upon borders, an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, and an end to violence targeting civilians.

Mighty Middle

Rev Pesky wrote:

As far as the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, what was the NDP position? If I remember correctly it was split between those who favoured going ahead with the Conservative engineered deal because it provided well-paying union jobs, and those who didn't want to be involved in arms sales to the Saudis.

In any case, the NDP did not make it a big issue in the last election, so coming forward now to batter the Liberals over an issue which they themselves were very careful in approaching is a bit disingenuous.

As NDP Foreign Affairs critic, Paul Dewer did make it an issue during the election. And spoke about it several times in the lead up to the election. Saying they would cancel the export permits if there were human rights violations.

Watch - September 25, 2015

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/powerandpolitics/canada-s-relationship-w...

voice of the damned

Mighty Middle wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

As far as the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, what was the NDP position? If I remember correctly it was split between those who favoured going ahead with the Conservative engineered deal because it provided well-paying union jobs, and those who didn't want to be involved in arms sales to the Saudis.

In any case, the NDP did not make it a big issue in the last election, so coming forward now to batter the Liberals over an issue which they themselves were very careful in approaching is a bit disingenuous.

As NDP Foreign Affairs critic, Paul Dewer did make it an issue during the election. And spoke about it several times in the lead up to the election. Saying they would cancel the export permits if there were human rights violations.

Watch - September 25, 2015

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/powerandpolitics/canada-s-relationship-w...

That's interesting, because in the one speech I remember seeing from Mulcair on the topic, he said that the deal was a bad thing, but that it was too late to cancel it. At least that's what I remember. But I haven't been able to watch Dewar's statement yet, so I don't know how much of a contradiction there was between the two positions.

Rev Pesky

From mark_alfred:

Here's the statement on the vote on Jerusalem at the UN General Assembly, in which the Libs abstained.

The specific question I asked was about the position of the NDP re: Palestinian statehood. Apparently they don't have a position.

​As far as the Saudi arms deal, here is a video of Thomas Mulcair (during the election) explaining the NDP would not stop the deal from going through:

Mulcair explains why he wouldn't stop Saudi arms deal

​When the questioner asks about the NDP policy of allowing the deal to go through, Mulcair says, "I've said that myself, five times!"

​Maybe Singh needs a history lesson about his own party.

 

Mighty Middle

Rev Pesky wrote:

​Maybe Singh needs a history lesson about his own party.

 

Different leader, different policy. For instance Jagmeet Singh said he doesn't oppose running deficits.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Finance and budgetary policies

New Democrats believe in:

a Balancing budgets and confining short-term deficits to severe economic downturns and national security emergencies.

Mighty Middle

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Finance and budgetary policies

New Democrats believe in:

a Balancing budgets and confining short-term deficits to severe economic downturns and national security emergencies.

“I’m open to deficits if it’s to keep the economy supported and also to prevent austerity, to continue supporting social programs,”

- Jagmeet Singh

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/jagmeet-singh-picks-up-justin-trud...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Well, I'm not sure whether supporting the economy or supporting social programs is a "severe economic downturn" or a "national security emergency".

I just wanted us to remember that this is an NDP policy, not Mulcair making it up as he went along.

mark_alfred

Rev Pesky wrote:

From mark_alfred:

Here's the statement on the vote on Jerusalem at the UN General Assembly, in which the Libs abstained.

The specific question I asked was about the position of the NDP re: Palestinian statehood. Apparently they don't have a position.

I quoted the exact policy from the NDP, which states, "supporting peaceful co-existence in viable, independent states with agreed-upon borders," --> it's s. 4.1(f).  It's right there in my response, Rev Pesky.  Here's NDP policy:  http://xfer.ndp.ca/2017/Documents/2016_POLICY-EN.pdf

Rev Pesky wrote:

​As far as the Saudi arms deal, here is a video of Thomas Mulcair (during the election) explaining the NDP would not stop the deal from going through:

Mulcair explains why he wouldn't stop Saudi arms deal

​When the questioner asks about the NDP policy of allowing the deal to go through, Mulcair says, "I've said that myself, five times!"

However, regarding the Saudi Arms deal, Mulcair's (and the NDP's) position, as I understood it, was that a contract had been signed (by a private contractor rather than government), and legally there was no basis for government to interfere in that contract.  Saudi Arabia is an ally.  We have no official sanctions against them (that I'm aware of).  So, there's no reason to renege on a done deal (not entering into a deal in the first place is another matter, though).  However, as I understood it, conditions upon the deal (and any deal involving military equipment) were that the LAVs were not to be used against the Saudi's own civilians and/or used in human rights violations.  So, (if I'm remembering correctly) after this deal had gone through and some of the LAVs had been delivered, there was evidence that Saudi Arabia had breached some conditions of the deal, at which point the NDP did demand that any further sales be halted, which the Libs ignored.  See http://georginajolibois.ndp.ca/liberals-must-take-principled-action-in-w...

Also, the NDP had, before Singh, called upon the government to implement Parliamentary oversight of arms exports controls, to prevent such deals from private contractors being entered into without transparency and oversight.  Anyway, I think Singh has every foundation from the NDP and the NDP membership to demand better of the government when it comes to arms deals, despite your bizarre protestations against Singh raising these issues. [edited]

mark_alfred

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Well, I'm not sure whether supporting the economy or supporting social programs is a "severe economic downturn" or a "national security emergency".

I just wanted us to remember that this is an NDP policy, not Mulcair making it up as he went along.

I'm not sure when that became a policy, however.  Perhaps it was during Mulcair's (or maybe Layton's) tenure, which could open the door to the possibility of it being both an NDP policy and Mulcair making it up as he went along.

That said, I support the general idea of the policy.  Relying on running deficits to fund general services when it's not in response to a severe economic downturn or national emergency is not good practise -- it makes us too reliant on banks, which may demand more control over government in return for purchasing bonds.  But, tying us so clearly into not running deficits was awkward....  as Mulcair was talking about the great tradition of Tommy Douglas and western CCF/NDP governments not running deficits, we had both the former Manitoba and current Alberta NDP governments announcing that they planned to run deficits.  It just looked stupid.

mark_alfred

To stay on foreign affairs, but to get back to Singh, here's a video of him speaking against a motion by the Ontario Progressive Conservatives (OPC) that expressed support for opposing BDS.  Now, previously, the OPC had tried to pass a bill prohibiting BDS, which was opposed by both the ONDP and the OLibs.  This time, they put forward a motion expressing opposition to BDS, which both the ONDP and OLibs supported.  But, Singh felt it was hypocritical to oppose an anti-BDS bill but be in favour of an anti-BDS motion (if you oppose the bill, then you should also oppose the motion).  Whether it's law or a motion, the sentiment should be the same.  So, alone, he gave a speech on why he opposed the Conservative motion (note that no one else is around him in the video).  True integrity, IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a2eZEoR9Ic

Rev Pesky

He could have said what he needed to say in about four sentences. The rest is just claptrap.

Rev Pesky

From mark_alfred:

However, regarding the Saudi Arms deal, Mulcair's (and the NDP's) position, as I understood it, was that a contract had been signed (by a private contractor rather than government), and legally there was no basis for government to interfere in that contract.

Which, as it happens, is precisely the same position the Liberals took, for which Singh is now condemning them.

Further from mark_alfred:

Anyway, I think Singh has every foundation from the NDP and the NDP membership to demand better of the government when it comes to arms deals, despite your bizarre protestations against Singh raising these issues.

He can raise the issue all he wants. He will have to explain the NDP had precisely the same policy during the election, and the government that signed the deal was not the Liberals, but the Conservatives.

And really, is it bizarre to ask for consistency of policy from a political party? I didn't think so, but perhaps from the NDP it is.

mark_alfred

Rev, feel free to read my answer rather than just skimming it.

voice of the damned

Mighty Middle wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

​Maybe Singh needs a history lesson about his own party.

 

Different leader, different policy. For instance Jagmeet Singh said he doesn't oppose running deficits.

"DLDP" might work if we're talking about, say, Lester Pearson purging gays from the civil service, vs. Justin Trudeau apologizing for purging gays from the civil service. It's a little bit trickier when we're talking about a difference between the current leader and the one who came immediately before him, over an issue that is still ongoing.

That said, I think voters have a tendency to compartmentalize foreign-policy apart from everything else, and it's gonna be a challenge to get Canadians to care about the Saudi arms deal either way.

brookmere

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Well, I'm not sure whether supporting the economy or supporting social programs is a "severe economic downturn" or a "national security emergency".

I just wanted us to remember that this is an NDP policy, not Mulcair making it up as he went along.

But the NDP policy is not what Mulcair said during the campaign. He said no deficits under any circumstances. He also said no personal income tax increases for anyone. Both of which were making it up as he went along. And together these would have meant austerity during economic downturns.

brookmere

mark_alfred wrote:
as Mulcair was talking about the great tradition of Tommy Douglas and western CCF/NDP governments not running deficits

All of the western NDP governments as well as Douglas' CCF government ran deficits from time to time. The idea that never running a deficit is some sort of NDP tradition is nonsense.

Mighty Middle

Again Paul Dewer said (during the 2015 election) an NDP Government would terminiate the agreement if there was any evidence of Human Rights abuses from the Saudi's. He made that perfectly clear during the election.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/powerandpolitics/canada-s-relationship-w...

mark_alfred

Mighty Middle wrote:

Again Paul Dewer said (during the 2015 election) an NDP Government would terminiate the agreement if there was any evidence of Human Rights abuses from the Saudi's. He made that perfectly clear during the election.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/powerandpolitics/canada-s-relationship-w...

Exactly.  And Singh has been consistent with that.  I believe Singh first raised this when this story emerged:  New video purports to show Canadian-made LAVs being used in Saudi crackdown

Rev Pesky

Actually in that Power and Politics segment Paul Dewer takes the same stance as Mulcair did, that is, that the deal was signed and therefore nothing could be done about it. The 'deal' he was talking about terminating was some hypothetical future deal.

Rev Pesky

From VOTD:

That said, I think voters have a tendency to compartmentalize foreign-policy apart from everything else, and it's gonna be a challenge to get Canadians to care about the Saudi arms deal either way.

I agree that voter do compartmentalise. At the same time, I think voters imagine a government will have a foreign policy, and that is one of the things that has held the NDP back over the years. They have never had a clearly articulated foreign policy. 

Mighty Middle

Rev Pesky wrote:

Actually in that Power and Politics segment Paul Dewer takes the same stance as Mulcair did, that is, that the deal was signed and therefore nothing could be done about it. The 'deal' he was talking about terminating was some hypothetical future deal.

From the interview

Question - If you had the option to cancel them would you?

Paul Dewar - After doing an assessment, absolutely, which the government has not done.

brookmere

mark_alfred wrote:
I quoted the exact policy from the NDP, which states, "supporting peaceful co-existence in viable, independent states with agreed-upon borders"
That implies recognition of Palestinian statehood would be contingent on agreement with Israel, which isn't going to happen any time soon. I think the question at hand was about whether the NDP would support recognizing Palestinian statehood unconditionally.

mark_alfred

I think Singh is bound by party policy.  However, for some of Singh's own reflections upon Palestine, here's a series of tweets he released, one stating, "I stand for Palestinians’ right to freely determine their political status & pursue their economic, social & cultural development."  He has travelled to Palestine.

https://twitter.com/theJagmeetSingh/status/886768317222055936

mark_alfred

Here's a video of an interview of Jagmeet Singh by Evan Solomon on CTV:  'I have to earn the respect of Canadians': Singh on NDP's byelection losses

Rev Pesky

From Power and Politics, as posted by Mighty Middle:

From the interview

Question - If you had the option to cancel them would you?

Paul Dewar - After doing an assessment, absolutely, which the government has not done.

I'll just point out that at 3:09 of the interview, Dewar is asked by the interviewer

"But would you cancel this deal" to which he replies

​"They've already signed the deal, that's the problem."

Which was Mulcair's response. The deal was signed, so it had to be honoured (sorry for the use of the word 'honour' in this context).

Both the Liberal and NDP representatives in this interview said basically the same thing. They would not have done the deal in the first place, and they wouldn't do such a deal in the future, but this specific deal was already done.

mark_alfred

Quote:

The NDP, which has governed provincially but not federally, is a party member of Socialist International, and Singh’s platform evokes shades of Bernie Sanders. He wants to raise the corporate tax rate to 19.5 per cent from 15 per cent, expand Canada’s universal healthcare system and block Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain expansion, the country’s only major proposed domestic oil pipeline. He also wants to create new tax brackets for high earners, raise levies on stock options and tax 75 per cent of capital gains, up from 50 per cent.

“The first thing I would do would be an expanded social program and electoral reform,” he said, listing options such as paying for pharmaceuticals and dental care, big-ticket items not covered in Canada’s public system. Pharmacare alone would cost almost C$20 billion ($15.5 billion) annually, adding about 16 per cent to federal spending.

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/jagmeet-singh-picks-up-justin-trud...

Mighty Middle

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Power and Politics, as posted by Mighty Middle:

From the interview

Question - If you had the option to cancel them would you?

Paul Dewar - After doing an assessment, absolutely, which the government has not done.

I'll just point out that at 3:09 of the interview, Dewar is asked by the interviewer

"But would you cancel this deal" to which he replies

​"They've already signed the deal, that's the problem."

What Paul Dewer said was

The deal's done. But for vehicles that haven't been built, an NDP Gov would review. And if Human Rights violated they would cancel deal.

Mighty Middle

Paul Dewar op-ed "Should we sell Arms to Saudi Arabia?"

What is Canada’s position on the Iranian Nuclear agreement?

Recently these questions have dominated the foreign policy debate in Canada and the United Kingdom. While these are important questions the debate itself reveals something is profoundly lacking.Plaining put what is our foreign policy on arms control both conventional and unconventional? As a country that prided itself on the Ottawa Treaty to Ban Land Mines and leaders in Nuclear Non Proliferation recently we have been missing in action. After a decade of despair in diplomacy particularly in arms control it’s time to put on our skates and get back on the ice. There is incredible opportunity for Canada to make a real difference and now is the time

So where to begin?

Conventional Weapons. Whether it’s the Middle East or North Africa many regions have become awash with small and medium sized weapons which has enabled extremists groups like ISIL, Boco Haram instability and support. Remember what happened in Libya after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011? The weapons stockpiled by Gaddafi were quickly spirited over the border via the black market and were used in Mali and Iraq.

The most obvious way to impact the threat of illegal arms sales is to sign and ratify the UN Arms Trade Treaty. While we may be late to the party we can still be a champion to this important treaty which would help repair the damage of the previous government bizarre reluctance to sign the treaty.

The new Liberal government has committed to sign the Arms Trade Treaty which is a good start but we will need to ratify the treaty as soon as possible to make up for lost time. In fact 130 Countries have signed the agreement and 80 Countries have ratified, this May states who have signed and ratified the agreement will be filing their annual reports, but not Canada, so we need to catch up.

The importance of this UN treaty cannot be overstated it requires countries to adopt reports of exports and end use, national control lists and other regulations and measures.

The treaty lays out various reporting and accountability measures involving government and industry, there is also a role for civil society and our Parliament.

In the case of our Parliament Canada should adopt the UK Parliament’s structure of their House of Commons Committee for Arms Exports and Controls. The UK committee consists of members from the standing committees of Defence, Foreign Affairs, International Development and Business and Skills Development we could assemble a similar committee in our Parliament. This committee could monitor our compliance with the Arms Trade Treaty and provide a forum for industry and civil society to be heard. As we have seen with the Saudi deal once an export is approved it becomes difficult to monitor use and hold end users to account.

Along with signing and implementing the ATT we should become vigorous champions of the treaty and promote its implementation by other countries similar to Canada’s support of the Ottawa Land Mines Treaty.

Nuclear Weapons Along with conventional arms control Canada must contribute to nuclear non-proliferation. Recently The Doomsday Clock, the symbolic countdown to humanity’s end due to the threat of nuclear weapons, was calculated at three minutes to midnight, this should be a wakeup call. Historically Canada has a proud tradition of limiting the proliferation, testing and use of nuclear weapons. However in recent years we have impeded progress on nuclear weapon controls. At a time when we see new states seeking to proliferate and old ones looking to refurbish there nuclear stockpiles Canada is on the sidelines. For example the previous government refused to support the P5 plus one negotiation with Iran and most recently we refused to sign the 2014 Vienna Protocol on Nuclear Weapons.

Despite Canada’s anemic response there has been some positive moves on the nuclear non-proliferation front; in 2009 UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s challenged the world to get behind his five point plan proposal to curb and eventually eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons in this was followed by a unanimous motion in both the Canadian Senate and House of Commons in 2010 calling our government to support t Ban Ki-moon’s initiative. Indeed Canada can play a constructive role; we can support the recently negotiated Iran deal by offering financial and human resources to monitor the agreement. We should sign the Vienna Protocol on Humanitarian Effects of Nuclear Weapons

But we can go further we should pursue a global treaty on nuclear weapons. Canada has a unique credibility in taking a leading role in such efforts. At the height of the Cold War, Canada chose not to develop nuclear arms. As a country, we have always known the dangers of nuclear weapons. But we need to engage and inspire a younger generation of people who may not have the intuitive understanding of nuclear weapons that came with life during the Cold War. This September 26th the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons we should host a conference for an eventual Nuclear Weapons treaty.

Canada is a significant world power, we have the experience the trust and self-interest to and lean into the major issues that face our globe, instead of ambiguity and chasten responses let’s with clear vision, clear objectives and the will to follow through. We can achieve more on Arms Control to make the world a safer place and have our country take its rightful place on the global stage.

https://www.facebook.com/pauldewarcanada/posts/10154209664159433:0

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The deal was signed, so it had to be honoured (sorry for the use of the word 'honour' in this context).

If you think the word "honoured" brings too much honour, there's always "discharged".  But anyway, a Lannister always pays his debts.

WWWTT

Here's the title of the article posted by mark_alfred above.

Jagmeet Singh picks up Justin Trudeau's playbook in next battle for hearts of Canada's left

This title is false. Giving too much credit to Justin's so called "left wing politics". But in a way really not. But only not if you believe that "left wing" does not necessarily translate to socialist values. To me, "left wing" has become a lose term used too often and has almost become to mean nothing really.

Sorry, but this is a typical comment that I make. Typical WWWTT arguing with himself and developing my comment as I write it without editing. Who is the left in Canada anyways? Who are socialists? Is the term "left" a form of soft socialist? Is it a border between socialist and capitalist that people can identify themeselves with whenever it's convenient, depending on how much the corporate media gains traction in demonizing socialisim or dare I even use the term communist?

Ok here's how I'm going to finish my comment. I now believe the "left" is a border between socialism and capitalism. Making up of two types of poeple's who politically identify themeselves as. The first group are capitalists who are starting to get it. Starting to see that capitalism isn't going to improve the lives of the masses and in fact causes harm to society. But this group isn't ready yet to commit themselves to supporting what really needs to be done in government. Then there's the rest of us, true socialists! Those who believe in or in the most part agree with Jagmeet's evolving socialist values that he stands for as posted by mark_alfred. To me it seems that since this article is from a right wing corporate news outlet, their intent would be to divide the liberal support and send it back to the NDP helping Scheer gain in vote splitting.

Pages