The CAW, government and strategic voting

Peter3 wrote:

The disaffiliation of the CAW from the NDP in favour of support for strategic voting...

Your premise is mistaken. The CAW was preaching strategic voting, first in Ontario and then federally, long before they disaffiliated. The disaffiliation was a response to the expulsion of Buzz Hargrove by the ONDP. The CAW, both nationally and locally, both federally and provincially, has continued to support NDP candidates where their policy deems those constituencies winnable - and that includes high-profile CAW members running for and winning elections under the NDP banner. The CAW, in my observation, had stopped giving blanket support to the NDP long before - certainly in Ontario, but later federally.

Quote:

From the outside looking in, it sure seems like somebody has to be wondering whether supporting Liberals really adds up to a strategy for anything but betrayal.

The CAW never adopted any "support Liberals" policy, as mentioned above. As for Quebec, they uniformly supported the Bloc. In the last provincial election here, the CAW supported the PQ (unfortunately IMO), and blasted the FTQ for remaining officially neutral.

As for a strategy for "betrayal", perhaps you didn't notice the strategy adopted by Dion, Layton, and Duceppe last December - if that wasn't "strategic voting" raised to a pinnacle, I have no idea what else it might have been.

I can't speak for Ontario, but here, CAW members and local reps would be shocked to hear that they are "supporting Liberals" - even those who supported last year's coalition, which is virtually all of them (and many non-CAWers too).

ottawaobserver wrote:

Oh, and I completely disagree that a negotiated coalition post-election is the same as strategic voting push during an election.  They are two different approaches, albeit designed to try and accomplish somewhat similar outcomes.

I never said they were "the same" - didn't mean to leave that impression - just wanted to dampen Peter3's blanket statements a bit. For example, I supported the coalition attempt, but not the CAW's "strategic voting" notion. Aside from that, I generally agree with all your observations.

[url=http://www.lindamcquaig.com/Columns/ViewColumn.cfm?REF=99]Corporations blame unions for economic meltdown[/url]

Quote:

By any logic, advocates of unfettered capitalism should be seeking cover from public wrath these days, as the deregulated capitalism they foisted on us continues to self-destruct, bringing calamity into the lives of millions.

Yet I've heard barely a whisper of mea culpa from members of this corporate crowd.

On the contrary, they seem to see the economic meltdown as an opportunity to finally do in their old foes in the labour movement.

 

German and Japanese auto companies are being bailed out too, but their government are not demanding wage rollbacks from auto workers.

After years of demonizing unions and undermining workers' rights, they're now taking advantage of the unpopularity of the auto bail-outs to try to take away gains that the Canadian Auto Workers spent decades achieving, and that set a standard for the labour movement.

In demanding wage concessions of up to $19 an hour, auto company executives and the Harper government are hoping to deflect public anger for the economic meltdown onto those who assemble cars. (If only GM workers hadn't frittered away their time on the assembly line bundling together those Credit Derivative Swaps.)

70 some-odd confidence votes for the ReformaTories later... If auto workers voted Liberal or Tory, they have nothing to complain about.

Courageous pay cuts?

Maybe this is what we should be supporting:

Jack Layton wrote:

Victoria Day honours Queen Victoria, first sovereign of confederated Canada, and celebrates the birthday of Canada’s current monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. Today reminds us of Canada’s place in the Commonwealth and our roots in Europe. Above all, it is a reminder of history and the tragedies and triumphs that were a part of forging our nation.

Many Canadians will be taking the opportunity of a long weekend to take a break from busy lives, see family or spend time away from home. On behalf of New Democrats across Canada, I offer my very best wishes for Victoria Day.

Well, at least it will resonate with Aboriginal people, Quebeckers, immigrants, the poor, the unemployed...

Unionist wrote:

Peter3 wrote:

The CAW has publicly advocated a federal vote for Liberal candidates where they can defeat Conservatives.

Look, this issue was discussed here endlessly before you joined, and I don't want to go back there because life has changed. Your statement is misleading and erroneous, and it doesn't give credit to the many CAW delegates that voted for this (IMO erroneous) policy. The stated policy was to support NDP candidates [b]except[/b] in ridings where they had no reasonable chances of winning - in which case, the policy was to support whoever had the best chance of defeating the Conservatives. In many ridings, that meant supporting Liberals. In Québec, it meant opposing Liberals. And Buzz Hargrove's personal antics were not identical to the CAW's policy.

Quote:

I think betrayal accurately describes the current conduct of the Ontario government toward autoworkers. The question I posed is whether the CAW electoral strategy makes sense given the role of the Ontario Liberal government, and whether a rethink that might bring a rapprochement with the NDP is likely.

Why... what position has the ONDP taken on the current situation facing auto workers?

 

Can't rewrite history though. I was at the NDP rally when jack was here. Buzz was busy at that very moment in the same riding handing our a jacket to prodigal son Martin on his visit in windsor where the cons have until last election always been 3rd or worse. This is in complete opposition to the stated policy as the NDP was leading in the polls.

Buzz and paul blow in to town for a photo op telling windsorites to vote liberal. Luckily most of us have a hard time decided who is worse basil or paul.

I agree with Unionist that this has been MUCH discussed before, and that in the main 'life has moved on'. It would be hard to see anything productive in those earlier discussions.

I will offer a summary comment that i think might bridge a lot of the differences in what people are saying.

First of all its a mistake to ascribe any consistent position to what the CAW did. Resolutions passed were only part of it. Facts on the ground, there were moves in a variety of directions- and I'm talking from the national leadership, let alone that locals went their own ways.

And as pointed out, in practice, Buzz absolutely pushed a support the Liberals line. He never failed to parrot the offial strategic voting line when asked, but what Buzz Hargrove did in his last few years was unfailingly support Liberals, and he offered himself specifically as a tool for the Liberals against the NDP. Little wonder he was expelled.

Even at the time it was going on, there was never any evidence that Buzz acted on behalf of anyone but himself. And the unfolding of events since, confirms that. That said, I also don't see any evidence that their was general displeasure with Buzz's choice of blanket support for Liberals.

Much as Lewenza was Buzz's choice to succeed him- he takes a pretty different approach to leadership. And I say that knowing nothing about what steps he has taken in electoral politics that OO referred to. Yes, Peggy Nash returing might have a lot to do with some warmer relations with the NDP. But I'm guessing its mostly that Buzz is gone, and that Ken Lewenza is Ken Lewenza.

The NSNDP has always by the way had strong relations with the national CAW. That did not change during Buzz being expelled, etc.

The CAW is just a more complex animal than other unions. Its more complex in its internal politics. Big surprise that makes the way it relates to the NDP harder to read. Its a hurly burly place, and you never know whats going to come out of the end of the pipe.

I was wondering what became of McGuinty's tripartite commission thingie for Ontario manufacturing.

Buzz was so enthusiastic for it that Jim Stanford was warming a Co-chair seat on it until after Buzz was out of office.

Never heard anything about it. events overwhelm it?

For that matter haven't heard what Buzz is actually doing.

The tripartite commission thingie likely has fizzled for larger reasons, but the betrayal that Buzz should have expected leaves that as a non-starter for him.

Anyway, good riddance to the distraction of the stillborn thingie [if it is dead].

My question was, what position has the ONDP taken on the situation facing auto workers? Anyone know?

To answer Unionist's question: I don't know, but would be surprised if the ONDP has done any more than express regrets and sympathy.

To be fair- everyone is reeling on this. As soon as you think you might be making some sense of ordering ones general thoughts on it [let alone grappling with what could be done], things get even worse and stranger than you could have ever guessed they would.

I'm hoping that Peggy Nash being back at the CAW, and if she is left time to work on such a 'luxury,' might ultimately lead to some interesting proposals from the federal NDP. But neither the union or the NDP wants to come out with half baked concrete proposals. And lord knows when people can catch their breath enough.

I know nothing about the workings of the ONDP caucus. But they just don't have the research chops of the federal caucus. Though it would seem there is an opportunity there with Andrea's leadership if the CAW was willing to second Peggy Nash. Aside from the fact such a possibility is pure blue skying... I can see that the CAW would be gun shy about stirring the hornets nest by doing something like that. They need more than ever to get whatever is possible out of the provincial government- whatever they think of them. Working with the federal NDP would not have those risks.

"

Jack Layton wrote:
Victoria Day honours Queen Victoria, first sovereign of confederated Canada, and celebrates the birthday of Canada’s current monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. Today reminds us of Canada’s place in the Commonwealth and our roots in Europe. Above all, it is a reminder of history and the tragedies and triumphs that were a part of forging our nation.

Many Canadians will be taking the opportunity of a long weekend to take a break from busy lives, see family or spend time away from home. On behalf of New Democrats across Canada, I offer my very best wishes for Victoria Day.

Well, at least it will resonate with Aboriginal people, Quebeckers, immigrants, the poor, the unemployed..."

So, what's your point? In a month it will be St. Jean Baptiste Day, and you can be sure that the NDP will put out a press release celebrating that day and what it means for Quebec and for canadians of French descent - and I suppose that it will not "resonate" with most Ontario WASPs - tough. I've seen NDP press releases on Christmas (which exclude non-Christians), Passover, Eid, Diwali (which exclude all kinds of other people).

Since the issue is being rehashed here, perhaps someone would care to comment on the complete and utter failure of the CAW's strategic voting efforts, which resulted in Conservative sweeps both provincially and federally in Oakville and Oshawa.

Fidel pointed out the irony of this elsewhere, earlier in the week.

What Miller demanded mirrors what the CAW was publically pushing the govt use its clout for.

From an e-mail that I received

This week, Andrea Horwath, Ontario NDP Leader pushed the McGuinty Liberals on the need for caps on executive compensation, following the introduction of her Private Member's Bill on the issue.

Read Andrea Horwath's questions from this week's Question Period here, or the full hansard below:
May 14, to Finance Minister Dwight Duncan - http://hansardindex.ontla.on.ca/hansardETITLE/39-1/L151-34.html#BeginOfTitle

May 13, to Premier Dalton McGuinty - http://hansardindex.ontla.on.ca/hansardETITLE/39-1/L150-33.html#BeginOfTitle

Read Andrea Horwath's Bill 180, Capping Executive Compensation Act, 2009, here: http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=2190

For more information, please e-mail: [email protected]
---

Ontario Hansard - 14-May2009
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, the Premier made crystal clear his opposition to my bill calling for a cap on executive compensation. This morning, we may be finding out why he was so opposed. It may have something to do with the company he keeps.

My question is simple: Has the government sought advice on the issue of capping executive compensation, and if so, from whom?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The one thing that our government is intent on doing is protecting the footprint of the auto industry in Ontario. The member opposite wants to pretend that there's an easy way out of this. The member opposite wants to pretend that there haven't been more jobs lost in Michigan, Indiana and Indianapolis.

In terms of executive compensation, a number of parts of the arrangements in the Chrysler situation-and the General Motors deal, if we're able to come to one-will address those kinds of questions as well.

But let's all understand the enormous difficulty that this major employer and major contributor to our GDP is going through. Let's all resolve to work together to get a deal with GM, to protect the jobs and pensions of the workers here in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, this morning's Globe and Mail paints a picture of how this government comes up with its economic policy. It would appear that the person really calling the shots at the finance ministry doesn't even sit in this House. No, he works at TD Bank, and he reports directly to a CEO who raked in more than $22 million in pay over the last two years.

Why is this government putting the interests of corporate executives ahead of the interests of everyone else?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We have a group of 12 economists who regularly provide advice to the government, including Jim Stanford from the CAW, who has provided a lot of very good advice to me individually, and with whom I communicate regularly.

Unlike New Democrats, I don't have all the answers. We reach for advice from all kinds of people, from CAW economists to bank economists, from the director of the food bank to the directors of some of our largest companies.

To the member opposite, I'll continue to seek their advice, and I will continue to seek the advice-

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: We shouldn't be surprised by any of this. Executives responsible for the poor decisions that have left large companies on the brink will continue to be handsomely compensated through the public purse while hard-working Ontarians are left to worry about the everyday essentials, worry about disappearing pensions, worry about getting slapped with an 8% tax increase that's going to cost them more every single day, all because well-heeled executives say so.

What will it take before this government finally says no to self-serving corporate executives and yes to the other 99% of Ontarians?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: That is sad. Let me say this: I don't believe Don Drummond is self-serving. I think Don Drummond provides good advice, some of which we take and some of which we don't.

We offered that member a full briefing from our ministry on the state of the economy prior to the budget, and she said no. She refused to take it. To the leader of the third party, I will continue to take advice from Mr. Drummond. By the way, the Canadian banks are not losing money; in fact, they're a symbol of success at a time when world banks are collapsing.

I ask our members in Toronto-more than 300,000 new jobs have been created in financial services in the last five years. No, no, to the leader of the NDP- 

---
Ontario Hansard - 13-May2009
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question's to the Premier. As this government asks auto workers to make unprecedented sacrifices to keep companies like GM and Chrysler alive, as this government asks taxpayers to fork over their hard-earned tax dollars to prop up some of the world's largest corporations, New Democrats believe that the senior executives at these corporations must be required to make some sacrifices as well. That's why I introduced yesterday the Capping Executive Compensation Act, a bill that would place a ceiling of $400,000 on compensation packages for senior executives at large corporations receiving government bailouts. My question is a simple one: Will this government support my bill?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the effort made by my honourable colleague and the sentiment that informs the bill that she's presented. But, no, I can't support it, and I'll tell you why. I think, ultimately, our responsibility is to find ways to enter into partnerships with businesses that serve the public interest-a partnership that serves the public interest. What we want to do is find ways, through these partnerships, to strengthen the economy and create jobs. If we are achieving that aim, if our partnerships strengthen the economy, if it creates more jobs, then we are satisfied. I'm not looking for a kind of incidental or collateral benefit, so to speak, to reach in and interfere with salaries awarded to executives.

Again, our objective is to achieve more jobs in a stronger economy, and if the partnerships achieve that, I think that's what the public wants us to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I'm trying to understand the choices that this Premier is making. He introduces legislation that removes its obligation to the pension benefits guarantee fund, he forces auto workers to reopen their collective agreements as a condition of their employers receiving provincial aid, and he asks taxpayers to fork over billions of dollars to some of the world's largest corporations. When will he realize that high-flying executives at corporations on the public dole also have a role to play, and it starts with a limitation on their pay and on their perks?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I do agree that executives have a responsibility to lead by example, but I don't enthusiastically, on the part of our government, embrace interference in the private sector through our partnerships. What I do embrace and what I sense the responsibility to do is to find ways to enter into partnerships that serve the public interest. Again, that's all about creating jobs. It's about finding ways to strengthen the economy. It's about giving our families more reasons to be hopeful for themselves and their children. Those are the criteria that we apply, and I think that's what families want us to continue to do, and that's what we will do.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The public interest is served when everyone shares in the pain, I would submit to this Premier. In fact, President Obama recognized that with his financial services bailout, where he capped corporations' executive salaries at $500,000. It's something this Premier could do as well. Plain and simple, it's about fairness. Hundreds of thousands of workers have lost their jobs, and the pensions of tens of thousands more are in danger. These workers and pensioners are making tremendous sacrifices. Corporate executives must start making sacrifices too, with a cap on their pay and with a cap on their perks. Why doesn't this Premier agree?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, we will do what is necessary to ensure that when we do enter into these partnerships, they serve the public interest, create jobs, strengthen the economy, give our families reason to be hopeful.

There will be some cases where it's appropriate for us to introduce the kind of capping that my honourable colleague talks about. In fact, we did that in the Chrysler deal. There is a cap in place on executive pay. In some cases, it will be appropriate and it will be possible; in others, it will not. But we will not be motivated by a sense of some kind of class warfare that sometimes inspires my colleagues opposite in the New Democratic Party. We will try to be fair to people on all sides, regardless of their income levels.

Peter3 wrote:

 

Whether any of that matters from an auto worker's perspective would be something you would be better positioned to answer. 

 

Not being an auto worker, I don't understand your comment. So let's get back to basics, shall we?

You opened this thread, indeed, you named it. Your opening post quoted Lewenza condemning both the federal Conservatives and the provincial Liberals for "seeking deeper cuts" from GM auto workers than they gave to Chrysler.

You then asked whether this calls into question "anti-Conservative strategic voting".

So I asked whether the ONDP is any different [b]ON THIS VERY ISSUE[/b] from the other two parties. Because if not, then the auto crisis would not impact on anyone's vote, would it?

So far, we have seen Layton praising workers' courage for taking wage cuts so that others can keep their jobs, and we have heard Paul Miller warning McGuinty to squeeze GM and Chrysler harder before giving them a single taxpayers' dollar.

And so, I ask once more - is the ONDP's position on stripping auto workers' hard-won rights any different from McGuinty and Clement? The silence here is rather overwhelming.

So, Peter3, I see you get very weary when people ask questions in response to the discussion you opened. Superiority must be such a dreadful burden. But if you happen to notice any comments by the NDP on the current attack on the CAW and GM and Chrysler workers, maybe have one of your people just post a little something here.

Thanks for your time.

You are badgering Unionist.

Peter3 posed some questions. You asked him some questions that are really a point made, and demanded replies.

He didn't feel in a position.

Let alone that is a prerogative prople had, you got answers to your questions from me.

That counts for nothing?

Stockholm wrote:

So, what's your point? In a month it will be St. Jean Baptiste Day, and you can be sure that the NDP will put out a press release celebrating that day and what it means for Quebec and for canadians of French descent

My point, Stockholm, is this horrendous statement:

Quote:

Today reminds us of Canada’s place in the Commonwealth and [size=20]our roots in Europe[/size].

Just thought I'd highlight that in case you still don't get it.

One of the things that is interesting is despite the turmoil in Oshawa in recent years, the riding has stayed Conservative.

Now since the last election in October when the Conservatives got re-elected in Oshawa again, things have deteriorated even further.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the riding in the next election, but I think if the NDP can't win it back after all this, it may mean that it will never recover that ground.

But Ed Broadbent was able to hold Oshawa for 20 years - from the late 60's to the late 80's.  His successor briefly held onto it and then it went Liberal during the Chretien years and then went Conservative in the last several elections.

Why is it so difficult to knock Colin Carrie out of there?

"Today reminds us of Canada’s place in the Commonwealth and our roots in Europe."

Yeah, so what. Canada does have roots in Europe. We were a French and then British colony for much of our history and we still have the Queen of England as our head of state. If you don't like - start a republican movement.

[url=http://http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/gindin150706.html]Sam Gindin on the CAW-NDP split[/url]

Quote:

The ostensible reason for leaving the Ontario NDP was that the party had unfairly expelled the union leader, Buzz Hargrove, for supporting Liberals during the election.  The NDP did indeed act inconsistently; numerous other party members had also supported Liberal candidates without sanctions.  Yet, did it make sense to let a particular spat lead to a reversal of an historic commitment to social democracy?  If the debate was only over some tactic, then why not, for example, protest the NDP's decision by withholding dues or by mobilizing to reverse the rather intemperate and daft decision the party had made?  The point of course is that something larger was in fact going on: the CAW leadership was clearly moving away from the NDP before the ouster of Hargrove, and the NDP conveniently gave the CAW president the incident to formalize the rupture.

The union did subsequently explain its position in broader terms.  It suggested that it had shifted from support for a tepid social democracy and narrow electoralism, toward a more explicit "movement politics."  But the most visible signs of CAW involvement in the election had little to do with education of the members and movement building; rather, the election will be remembered for the presence of Paul Martin at the CAW convention, the smiles and hugs as the CAW president bestowed Martin with a CAW jacket, and the extent to which this left the membership confused, divided, and cynical.  In the eyes of many activists -- both inside and outside the CAW -- the union's politics are increasingly driven by pragmatism, not an expansive vision.  In the auto industry in particular, where the union put its main energy into lobbying for money for the Big Three, the union seems to have gotten uncomfortably close to both the corporations and the Liberals.

In defending his electoral role during the 2006 Federal election, CAW President Buzz Hargrove has been able to call on a resolution passed by national delegates to the CAW Canadian Council.  The NDP's response, Hargrove argued, was therefore not just an attack on him personally, but a direct challenge to the overall union and its democratic autonomy.  It is interesting to note, however, that while the actual resolution explicitly called on delegates to "endorse sitting NDP members" as well as NDP candidates in "winnable ridings," it stated that in other ridings, "the CAW will not endorse any specific candidates."  In this context, the support given to Liberal candidates Belinda Stronach of Magna and a Toyota executive -- both representatives of notoriously anti-union companies -- was not only politically questionable in terms of the union's long-standing challenge to anti-union employers, but debatable even in terms of the wording and intent of the resolution.

The CAW leadership nevertheless insisted that it was in fact moving to the left and pointed to its new internal structures -- Union in Politics Committees or UPCs -- as the basis for "a new way of doing politics."  But the UPCs had in fact been established back in September 2004 (a further reminder that the tensions with the NDP were not new).  In the more than two years since, they have been disappointingly dormant.  To be fair, there have been a number of well-received training sessions for these committees; the CAW's commitment to membership education remains unparalleled, and local CAW activists continue to play impressive roles in specific campaigns such as those around health care.  Yet, without a larger overall commitment to challenging the status quo and a clear turn away from elite-oriented politics, the stagnation of the UPCs is virtually inevitable (the staff member assigned to act as a catalyst for the mobilization from below tellingly ended up concentrating his efforts on acting as the union lobbyist in Ottawa).

A "new politics" would have meant more than rejecting the NDP and replacing it with new but lifeless structures.  It would have included:

• Actively engaging its members in the process of developing an alternative (anti-capitalist) vision.
• Overcoming the CAW's isolation from the rest of the labour movement, without whom any new politics is fundamentally limited.
• Asking what it means to link up with "other movements."  Are they simply "others" or do they speak to other dimensions of our own member's lives, such as health, the environment, war?
• Putting union organizing into the broader context of building the working class as a whole and addressing how to "organize" the members who are already unionized.
• Moving to a platform that included coping with our relationship to the U.S. -- an issue that can't be ignored in any serious reorientation of Canadian society.  This would overlap international political issues (the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Canada's role in Afghanistan, challenging the U.S.-supported Israeli denial of Palestinian national rights); domestic "economic" issues (free trade, democratic control over investment, Canadian energy policy) and domestic human rights issues (immigration and civil rights in the context of the extension into Canada -- with the support of the Canadian government -- of the U.S. "security" state).

In short, the possibility of a new politics cannot be raised without rethinking the place of unions within today's local and global struggle against neoliberalism.  And rethinking that also means addressing (a) how unions think about their members and their members' role in the organization and (b) the adequacy of unions' structures -- including structures for democratic debate and participation -- to the challenges currently confronting unions and working people.

It is true enough that the NDP had moved to the center.  The irony is that, in leaving the NDP, the CAW leadership was hardly breaking new ground on the left, but rather also moving, in its own way, to the center.

Quote:
"In short, the possibility of a new politics cannot be raised without rethinking the place of unions within today's local and global struggle against neoliberalism.  And rethinking that also means addressing (a) how unions think about their members and their members' role in the organization and (b) the adequacy of unions' structures -- including structures for democratic debate and participation -- to the challenges currently confronting unions and working people."
 
I cannot agree anymore with this entire article, and feel something needs to come from the people! To give a choice/voice that is fair for all with dignity and respect!!! 
 
Barak Obama has started to show people that change is possible... Hopefully more Canadians will start thinking out side the capitalist box that so many feel stuck with in...
 
To quote Barack Obama:
"One voice can change a room, and if one voice can change a room, then it can change a city, and if it can change a city, it can change a state, and if it change a state, it can change a nation, and if it can change a nation, it can change the world. Your voice can change the world." -Barack Obama

Stockholm wrote:

"Today reminds us of Canada’s place in the Commonwealth and our roots in Europe."

Yeah, so what. Canada does have roots in Europe. We were a French and then British colony for much of our history and we still have the Queen of England as our head of state. If you don't like - start a republican movement.

You think it's appropriate to say "[b]our[/b] roots" as if the leader of the NDP isn't also speaking for the Indigenous people and the vast numbers of Canadians with roots in Asia, Africa, and Latin America?

Can you see Layton saying, "our ancestors had their lands stolen by the European colonizers"?

Why am I bothering explaining this to you?