A number of times this year I've gone looking for the federal NDP constitution on-line, with no success. During or before the last federal election the party pulled the constitution document from its website - perhaps it was never there.

The most recent copy of the document I've been able to locate dates back from the constitution as it was amended at the NDP Convention held in Winnipeg ten years ago.

Call me a geek, but I read these documents, and so should anyone who votes and especially joins parties. When signing up for NDP membership you are asked to uphold the party's constitution without having the possibility to read it first. How "democratic" is that?

Come on Jack, you are way late to the party on this. Please get the party's constitution and bylaws up on line like all the provincial NDP parties and all of the other federal parties long have done.

Attached to this document is the aforementioned out of date constitution. It'll have to do, for now.

I'm seeing some pundits take Jack Layton to task for claiming his NDP opposition caucus at 103 members is the "largest ... opposition in 31 years". Notwithstanding insinuations to the contrary by self-appointed fact-checkers, Layton is quite correct. His opposition caucus in the 41st Parliament is in fact the largest in decades.

Those who dispute Layton's claim hold up as evidence the 103 Liberal members elected by the 39th federal general election on January 23, 2006. 103 Liberals elected in 2006, 103 New Democrats elected in 2011. A tie? No.

The tie-breaker? David Emerson.

Elected as a sitting Liberal cabinet minister on January 23, 2006, Emerson did not sit even a single day in opposition during the 39th Parliament. Rather than fulfill his election-night commitment to constituents Emerson instead became engaged in secret negotiations with Stephen Harper less than 24 hours after ballots were counted.

Two weeks later on February 6th 2006 Emerson stepped out of a limo and entered Rideau Hall to be sworn in as a member of Stephen Harper's Conservative minority government cabinet.

The 39th Parliament itself would not reconvene until April 6 of that year, and when it did reconvene, the Liberal caucus -- now missing Emerson -- stood at 102 members. The Liberal caucus in 2007 briefly dropped to 101 members after MP Wajid Khan crossed the floor to Harper's Conservative benches, but soon added former Conservative Garth Turner turned Independent when he joined the caucus in February of that year.

The Liberal opposition never -- not even for a technical split second of a moment -- had more than 102 members during the 39th Parliament.

Jack Layton is not relying on a technical quibble to back up his claim. David Emerson never sat in opposition during the 39th Parliament thus Layton is quite right in asserting that his 103-member opposition caucus is the largest in thirty one years -- don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

(Whether or not Mr. Layton can put his large caucus to effective use won't likely be fully known until the conclusion of the next federal general election.)

Wow!

The NDP take the lead in Quebec (en francais):

Jack Layton's NDP troops have gathered 36% of voter intentions compared to 31% for the Bloc, and 17% for the Conservatives according to a new survey done by CROP. The Liberals, the once dominant federalist party now but a shadow of its former self, scores a paltry 13% of voter support.

EKOS also released new poll results overnight showing the NDP jumped into first place in the province with 31% of decided voters as compared to 23.7% for the Bloc, 20.6% for the Liberals and 16.9% for the Conservatives. What is stunning is the drop in Bloc support - almost a 20 point decline since the start of Election 2011.

Conservative support is also near the lowest levels seen during the campaign.

There isn't much good news in this for the Liberal party although voter intentions according to EKOS are off the lows of last week.

Abacus Data released a poll on party leadership earlier in the day showing a strong jump in Jack Layton's favourability rating (almost 60%) among Canadians - no doubt strongly influenced by the movement in his support in Quebec - Harper stuck going nowhere, and Ignatieff gaining 8 points to stand at 32% which indicates his get-out-there approach is working to some degree.

I think these results say as much about Quebeckers' support for a progressive message from Jack Layton and his team there, as it affirms that Quebeckers are just fine with coalitions. Stephen Harper's demonizing of the coalition - of working together - has utterly backfired in Quebec.

They're willing to put up an NDP sign because we're seen as neutral. Thomas Mulcair

Expect the scary coalition talk in the rest of Canada to be jacked up several notches by Harper. Yawn.

Maybe, if we are all lucky, people in the rest of Canada will prove to be as smart as Quebeckers and reward Stephen Harper with a back bench seat opposite the government benches for his efforts.

There remains just over a week and a half in this campaign; in that space of time, anything can happen.

Here is a stacked bar chart showing voter intentions and election dates (with some editorial comments) since 1978.

Click here for a full size version.

I have to imagine Jean Chretien would be the first to credit a deeply divided conservative opposition as an important contributor to his party's success in elections from 1993 through 2000.

Stephen Harper now enjoys the same benefit.

Based on Wednesday's news cycle, it appears that many professional and armchair pundits alike have concluded that there's no water in the merger talk bucket. I beg to differ. Bear with me to the end of this piece to learn why.

Let's indulge ourselves in a bit of denial first.

On Tuesday Warren Kinsella in an interview on CBC's The National had stated that serious people from the parties concerned were having "serious" discussions.

These are not people whose name one can wrap up into a false rumour of a merger or some other "serious" realignment of Canadian political parties. Something is happening.

This led to twin denials from the leaders of both the Liberals and NDP on Wednesday. Following a pre-Question Period caucus meeting, Michael Ignatieff - physically flanked by potential leadership rivals Bob Rae and Dominic LeBlanc - actually sounded honestly forceful in his denial. Jack Layton merely commented that it was his view the talk was all about and between Liberals. Both camps declared that they'd authorized no such discussions.

• Despite denials, merger debate continues in restive Liberal ranks - The Globe and Mail)
• John Ivison: Ignatieff tries to outlast merger rumours | Full Comment | National Post

That seemed to put the story to bed for a while on Wednesday, until Warren Kinsella let it be known there would be further information forthcoming on CBC's late afternoon Power and Politics show. This turned out to be a sworn affidavit Kinsella provided to the CBC wherein he asserts that Liberal Party president Alfred Apps stated "there is a lot of interest in merger in the NDP. There have been many discussions at a high level... involving the NDP saints [whom he described as Broadbent, Romanow]." Apps is also said to have stated that a pre-election coalition would not work, only a merger would be viable as a pre-election party configuration.

• MergerWatch: The affidavits of Warren Kinsella and John Mraz
• Liberal president talked merger: affidavits - Apps denies 'serious' merger talks

Then, in real time during the Power & Politics show, Apps contacted the CBC to deny the assertions made in Kinsella's affidavit.

No matter what one believes about Kinsella or Apps, a he-said, he-said match is always less than satisfactory when the stakes are high. Fortunately circumstances did not disappoint and before the Power & Politics show concluded, another affidavit was submitted to the CBC, this time from Liberal consultant John Mraz.

Mraz had recently met with Alfred Apps in preparation for an article or op-ed piece he was submitting to the National Post for publication. The potential for coalition is a topic Mraz has written on in the recent and more distant past, including covering the tense days in 2008 prior to Harper proroguing Parliament.

• John Mraz: The Liberal-NDP coalition's mission - National Post, December 1 2008
• Just ask Stephen Harper - National Post, June 9 2010

Mraz was the Ontario director of Bob Rae's bid for the leadership of the Liberal Party. Mr. Rae is said to have the support of Jean Chretien, and very clearly Warren Kinsella is very supportive of Jean Chretien.

Yet I do not believe that what is going on is simply an attempt to mirror the Tories "Dump Dief" campaign of decades ago, rebranded Liberal red and labelled "Toss ignaTief". There seems to be much more at play.

Consider Mraz's affidavit and take it at face value. In it he states that Apps exclaimed to him, perhaps in a fit of exasperation or self-important fact-dropping, that "you don't know the half of it. You've got no idea what you're talking about. I've been involved in those discussions, and they not only include Broadbent and Chretien, but Romanow, Clark, and McMurtry."

Joe Clark? A once Progressive Conservative Prime Minister and second to last leader of that now extinct party? And Roy McMurtry? A close friend of a former P.C. premier of Ontario, Bill Davis? These "conservatives" are sitting down with elders from the Liberals and NDP?

McMurtry might not be a household name but in political circles the name not only resonates, his inclusion in these talks makes sense.

McMurtry's history with the federal and Ontario provincial Tories dates back many decades. He is, I believe he would agree, a "Red Tory". As Chief Justice of Ontario when he retired he could look back on his career on the bench with the satisfaction of knowing he and his panel of judges paved the way for same-sex marriages in that province, and thus setting a precedent for the rest of the country.

Roy McMurtry was also one of the political elders engaged in federal-provincial negotiations of the repatriation of our constitution and the creation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Around a kitchen table McMurtry worked with none other than Jean Chretien and Roy Romanow to break through a frustrating impasse in negotiations, coming up with the kitchen accord that helped lead to all provinces, save Quebec, signing on to our Canadian constitution and the often hated by Conservatives Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Joe Clark. Jean Chretien. Roy McMurtry. Roy Romanow. Ed Broadbent. These are indeed very serious people, broadly trusted people, all arguably are progressive politicians in their own right with decades of experience behind them. In their day some truly big, great, advances were made in Canada, for Canadians and indeed because of some of the things done in those days we broadcast a better reflection of ourselves to the world. The Economist once then declared "Canada is cool". We stood on our own two feet and did stuff.

Thinking about the life and times of these leaders, I can't help but draw a comparison to Stephen Harper. What, really, has Harper done - started and finished of his own accord - that has made Canada a better place? I don't think you can name much save for election trinkets and minor tinkering.

Based on the names named so far, I have to take both Kinsella and Mraz at face value. These are not people whose name one can wrap up into a false rumour of a merger or some other "serious" realignment of Canadian political parties. Something is happening.

I'd like to take a guess: these elders are working on principles which a merged party, or a totally new organization if need be, can be formed.

If you have people like Romanow, Broadbent, McMurtry, Clark and Chretien talking together at the kitchen table again, I'm interested, and once the story truly breaks out into the open, I'd bet that many Canadians will be likewise intrigued, and perhaps even excited, by what they see.

Layton says merger talk is nothing more than Liberals talking to Liberals. Just now Ignatieff, in a press scrum outside today's caucus meeting: "I have no relationship with Kinsella". Warren Kinsella has been a visible figure in press reports of potential merger discussions of late.

Are merger/coalition discussions happening? Or is this a resurfacing of the Martin-Chretien war?

With such a blanket repudiation of merger discussions by Iggy, with leadership contenders standing behind him, joined in the chorus by Layton, I can only think of... Peter "I am not the merger candidate" MacKay, who would soon (talks held over the summer... coincidence?) announce a merger.

Regardless of the veracity of merger discussions, the base problem - a fractured centre / centre-left support in the country, with insufficient critical mass to challenge Harper's Conservatives in large swaths of the country - remains very real.

If the current opposition parties stick to status quo, then how about a much more radical plan: ditch all the cliques in the opposition parties and start an entirely new organization not beholding to either the NDP or the Liberals as they stand today, backed by well recognized and trusted names, and invite Canadians to join. Give Canadians the option they want, but no party leader seems willing to deliver upon.

In other words, follow the "Reform" route, only faster. Cut off the other two at the knees. And then fold the remains of the hold-outs back into the new party at a future point in time.

Where can Canadians sign up?

This evening CBC News reports Liberal, NDP insiders talk merger, quoting Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella "Serious people are involved in discussions at a serious level."

Having lived through the Progressive Conservative Party's morphing into the Conservative Party, I have a perspective on mergers that might be different than those of the average NDP or Liberal member.

As one can probably tell from the title and pull quote in this article, I'm all in favour of what Mr. Chretien says.

I know it won't be easy, and that there'll be plenty of naysayers on both sides of this discussion. There has been plenty of scorched earth left between the two parties and there are elements in each party which have a visceral hatred of the other.

If it is doable, lets do it! Former P.M. Jean Chretien

This is a situation exactly like that which faced the Reform / Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties. Yet the vast majority of members in each, after they had time to consider what the merger meant, voted in favour of the merger.

I wasn't in favour of that merger. I'd spent a great deal of time volunteering with the PC Party specifically because I wanted to help ensure that the Reform/CA did not rise to power, and when Harper returned to the CA, I had an even greater reason to continue to fight for the resurgence of the PC Party.

That of course would never happen. Why that is so is the subject of another post some day, but the bottom line is that regional divisions within the country that had been growing for years would prevent the PC Party from ever regaining the critical mass a party needs to be viable on a national, winning, basis.

Winning might not be everything, all the time, but it isn't a concept politicos should be shy about desiring. You've got to be able to win to prevent others from winning, and winning remains the single best approach for effecting real change for the country.

While I wasn't in favour of the CA-PC merger, I did help man the phone banks that were set up to communicate to members, in order to make the merger happen. Why? Because it was clear from the start that most members wanted it to happen, and indeed on voting day for the merger ratification, members who had not participated in many years had come out of the woodwork to make their voices heard.

Don't dismiss the possibility out of hand. The CA-PC merger proved that it can be done, and that the result can achieve results.

Consider this as well: unless bold action is taken by Canada's centre and left, Harper will win a majority. I have no doubt at all about this. Those who believe he is stuck at a permanent minority have learned nothing about him, or how ruthlessly efficient a political machine they have built. No other party on its own could build an effective counter to what Harper and his minions can do when they grab a majority.

Canadians, the regular kind that are not party activists, don't give a crap about what we insiders care about when it comes to our beloved party creatures. They want to see a strong, united, opposition to whoever is in power, and I happen to believe that most Canadians, like me, oppose Stephen Harper.

Yeah, I was one of those "red Tories" but even within that bunch the political compass spins wildly. I might be too conservative for some hard core NDP activists, or too progressive for some Liberals, but chances are we would agree on a great many things. I'd like to see the Greens join this party because I find myself agreeing with David Suzuki - we need our big national parties to all be green, green or out of power.

I support a union of the Liberal-NDP parties because I believe that is what their members would like to see, and what's more, I will jump in to help if it stands a chance of happening.

Let's do it!

Where a non-partisan but cynical pundit doles out kudos to a politician, making me a what?

When it comes to politics I realize that often there is not much good to say, and I am certainly as guilty as the next person if not more so in this regard. Today I write to praise, not criticize, and I dare say that is definitely the exception rather than the rule around here.

Don Davies, member of parliament for Vancouver--Kingsway, impresses me. No, he hasn't cured the common cold or managed to squeeze blood from a rock but I like the gravitas this fellow exudes.

Recently Mr. Davies introduced Bill C-446, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, which would effectively ban self-serving or gratuitous party jumping within a parliamentary session. Various MPs have attempted to introduce this type of legislation in the past, and indeed many "conservative" MPs have also endorsed such a prohibition in the past. It is good legislation that deserves to be passed in this session and I would hope that independent thinking Conservatives and Liberals would get in line behind Mr. Davies and support this bill.

Another thing that impresses me is the communications coming out from Mr. Davies back to the people at home. Rather than using his 10-percenters to slag the government or other opposition parties, what I see coming from Davies' office is actually informative.

In one mailing we received a copy of the bill he presented--I've never seen any MP for this riding in the past fifteen years do that. Recently a nicely organized fold-out brochure entitled "An Update from Ottawa" informs us on what our MP is actually doing on our behalf, including how Davies' voted on twenty key issues.

Of course Mr. Davies couldn't hit every ball square on--he did completely miss the mark in one area. Missing was the usual sort of pathetic and formulaic propaganda I've seen come from so many Conservative MPs, and not only a few Liberals too.

Good on you Don for rising above the business-as-usual politics that Canadians have been tortured with for too long.

On February 6 2006 David Emerson, elected a mere two weeks earlier as a Liberal, walked into Rideau Hall to be sworn in as a Conservative cabinet minister in Stephen Harper's government. Adding insult to infamy the country quickly discovered that Emerson, forever a parachute candidate in Vancouver-Kingsway, had been in secret negotiations with the newly elected Harper government to switch parties less than 24 hours after the last votes were counted.

Citizens of all political stripes turned out into Vancouver's streets in anger and protest. Canadians from across the country voiced their opposition to what Emerson and Harper had done. We rightly felt as if our votes, indeed the votes of all Canadians, had been disrespected and devalued.

There ought to be a law.

Yesterday Don Davies, Member of Parliament for Vancouver--Kingsway stood in the House of Commons and introduced a bill to that end. Bill C-446 (2nd Session, 40th Parliament) would have forced David Emerson to run in a by-election and earn the right to represent our riding as a Conservative.

Of note:

27.1 (1) Any person holding a seat in the House of Commons who becomes a member of a registered party as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Canada Elections Act is deemed to have vacated the seat and ceases to be a member of the House if, in the last election, the person was endorsed by another registered party or was not endorsed by a registered party.

I like this bill. It effectively prohibits floor crossing, which is one key measure we had sought during the Campaign to De-Elect David Emerson. If a candidate runs and wins under one party banner, or as an independent, and then switches to another registered party, the MP should lose their seat and be forced to go to the electorate to try to earn a fresh mandate.

Minutes of Mr. Davies' appeal to the House from Hansard:

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-446, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (members who cross the floor).

He said: Mr. Speaker, three years ago, in Vancouver Kingsway, a member of Parliament was elected as a Liberal and crossed the floor to sit as a Conservative two weeks after that election.

Our citizens were outraged. They regarded this as an act of democratic betrayal. It rendered their votes meaningless. People from every political persuasion joined together to demand the restoration of their democratic rights. People like Mike Watkins, Jurgen Claudepierre and Shannon Steele worked tirelessly for this noble goal.

I am honoured to rise today to introduce a piece of legislation that serves to restore respect for democracy in our country.

This bill would require any member who crosses the floor to resign and run in a byelection. It would put the actions of a floor-crossing member to the test of the will of the voters of his or her constituency, where it properly belongs. In a time when voters are increasingly cynical, I believe this would go some way towards restoring confidence in our political system.

I hope that all members of this House put their partisan interests aside and support this law. It is good for our democracy. It is good for our country.

See: Bill C-446

Bravo Don.

Yes, its true, Nude Election '08 has claimed yet another NDP candidate: Skinny-dipper Julian West (Saanich-Gulf Islands) has gone beyond making apologies for his past lack of common sense and has resigned, making him the third in a week to quit the NDP campaign. One can't help but wonder about the man's sense of morality, given he asked minor girls to use their face paints on his nude form, "all over".

This resignation brings an interesting dynamic to the Saanich-Gulf Islands race where the incumbent, Conservative MP and Natural Resources minister Gary Lunn, faces off against Liberal candidate Briony Penn, well known to the area as an environmental activist and former Green Party supporter. The NDP vacuum might allow a real race against Lunn, an outcome I would welcome, although it does seem likely that vote splitting between the Green and Liberal candidate is likely to ensure an anti-environment Lunn is re-elected.

Lady Godiva

Although her moral compass is not in question, Penn is no stranger to public nudity herself, having taken on the starring role as Lady Godiva for a protest against Vancouver-based corporate logging interests. No minors nor horses were harmed in the event.

Of greater importance than the forgettable Mr. West's political future, for those who have not followed Conservative MP Gary Lunn's career, know that he is in favour of opening up B.C.'s west coast for oil and gas exploration and has been consistently opposed to progressive environmental measures and the fight against climate change.

Priddle Panel: Not Found

The last significant read of the public apettite for off-shore drilling was done by a NRCan (Natural Resources Canada) Public Review Panel - the "Priddle Panel" - in 2004 under the direction of then minister (Liberal) John Efford.

Panel Chair Ron Priddle was at the time a director of Talisman Energy, while another panel member, Don Scott, was a former mayor of Prince Rupert who had lobbied to have the moratorium lifted. The third member of the panel, Diane Valiela, is a lawyer currently working for B.C. firm Lawson Lundell in areas including energy law. Valiela had been a member of the National Energy Board, a tribunal principally concerned with approving requests from industry.

In short, this was not an unbiased panel but a panel with a mission, one which the Gorden Campbell-led provincial government happened to share: lift the moratorium.

Despite the obvious pro-exploration bias of the panel the report was forced to note that the public at large was not behind them. Public support strongly favoured (75%) retaining a continued moratorium or ban on offshore drilling. I'd like to link directly to the NRCan website to provide a copy of the panel report but, tellingly, since Lunn took over the NRCan ministry that link no longer works. Interestingly, there is a still-working link to the table of contents of the report, but no working link to the panel report itself.

One well-established rule of publishing on the internet - particularly for public bodies such as government - is that links should remain viable forever. This tenet doesn't trouble Stephen Harper's version of democracy, because transparency is clearly not a Conservative Party virtue.

Yet its worse than that. Not only does the link fail to function but the NRCan web site search facility fails to turn up any reference to the Priddle Panel, which is odd since almost 4,000 submissions were made to the panel; the process took months to complete; and the cost involved real taxpayer dollars. Question: Has Lunn or any of his staff ordered that the document be taken off-line or otherwise hidden from view? If so, when was this order made and why?

Search results for "priddle"

Frankly I'm surprised at how difficult it was to locate a copy of this report. Here permanently attached to this post for posterity is the report as well as a first nations specific study and a 2004 review of moratoria status. Interesting reading: