Paul Dewar answers your questions on his candidacy for NDP leader
Rebecca West: Good evening all. I'd like to introduce Paul
Dewar, MP for Ottawa Centre and leadership candidate for the federal
NDP. Hello Paul!
Paul Dewar: Hello everyone. Thank you for inviting me to Babble tonight.
As you know, I'm the MP for Ottawa Centre and I'm running to lead our
party. I'm offering our members the combination of my experiences at
the grassroots of our party, on the national stage and the international
stage. Before politics, I was a teacher, my union's vice president and a
volunteer aid worker. I've always been close to people and that's what
motivates my politics.
I'm a proud New Democrat. I'm a proud social democrat. These are the
values that guide my work and will guide my leadership as we stand up to
Stephen Harper's agenda. I have the experience, the energy and the
passion to mobilize our grassroots and form Canada's first social
democratic government.
I look forward to our discussion tonight.
RW: Okay, here's our first question: From Unionist:
Mr. Dewar,
On April 27, 2010, the Speaker of the House held the Harper
government in contempt of Parliament for refusing to hand over all the
Afghan detainee documents.
As in the case of many other such scandalous actions, Harper emerged unscathed, and the issue disappeared from the radar.
What is at stake is Canada's possible complicity in torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Are you prepared to demand that all the documents be released
to Parliament now -- failing which, that you will publish them
immediately when the NDP forms the government?
PD: Thank you for the question Unionist.
I was at the centre of that fight with Harper. Working with Amir
Attaran and Paul Champ, we were persistent in seeking answers to what
the government knew about torture in Afghanistan and when they knew it.
We made some major progress: my motion at the Afghanistan committee
secured the opportunity for Mr. Colvin to give his explosive testimony.
We found documentation on the evidence of torture in Afghan prisons. We
fought Harper at committee and then in the House.
Let me say why the issue was so important to us.
First of all, it was about protecting human rights. Torture is
dehumanizing. It's a reprehensible violation of human rights and it must
be eradicated. I didn't want Canada associated with complicity with
torture.
Secondly, it's my deep belief that we should avoid and prevent
military conflicts. But if our country is ever engaged in a war, it's
the responsibility of the civilian leadership to ensure that the orders
we issue to our troops are beyond reproach. In this case, the government
was shrugging off its duty, while exposing our troops to the risk of
violating international law.
Finally, it was about accountability to Canadians. Harper and company
came to power to clean up the Liberal mess. Look at them now.
What did Harper do when he was under pressure from us? He pulled the fire alarm and ran away. He prorogued the House.
Then, Harper was aided and abetted by the Liberals and the Bloc to
avoid accountability to parliament. You're right that the issue's
prominence went away, but a lot of Canadians who wanted accountability
were disappointed with those other parties and came to us in the May
election.
We still need accountability on this file. More than that, we need to
review our whole engagement in the Afghan war. There are lots of
unanswered questions that need to be discussed so that we don't repeat
the same mistakes.
And while we're on this issue, let me just say that as leader of our
party, you can expect the same persistent opposition from me that I
showed on the detainee file. I've watched Harper for years, I've battled
against him, and I've won on issues like securing Abousfian
Abdelrazik's return to Canada. It takes persistence and hard work to
beat Harper. We're up for it.
RW: Our next question is from Howard:
Given that you joined the NDP caucus in supporting the Libya
mission, what do you see as the role for the Canadian military,
particularly in Canada's foreign affairs?
PD: Thank you Howard.
You raise an important question. Canadian military should be
defending Canadians and Canadian interest. That's why I believe we
should strengthen our search and rescue capacity -- not waste money on
fighter jets that won't work in Canada's North.
There's also a peacekeeping/peace-building role that our military can
play. I've been on the ground in places like the Congo where the UN
peacekeeping operations lack the kind of leadership that Canada could
bring to the field to ensure rights are protected.
One of the people who has supported my foreign policy announcement in
this race is Carolyn McAskie. She was the first UN commissioner for
Peacebuilding. I think we need to listen to people like her about the
important role that Canada must play in mitigating rather than
militarizing conflicts.
A concrete proposal I've put forward is to create a Centre for
Peacebuilding and Human Security with a dedicated team of experts to
deliver practical and interdisciplinary responses to human security
threats like conflict, humanitarian disasters, large-scale human rights
violations, and environmental degradation. I'd like to see Ottawa as the
centre of diplomatic activities that save lives and create a better,
more peaceful and more sustainable world.
RW: Question 3 is from Murray Dobbin:
The NDP rightly gets credit for medicare and other social
programs and on your agenda are things like child care, pharmacare and
home care. The NDP has called for decreases in tuition fees and you have
called for a permanent infrastructure fund. Yet you have said almost
nothing about where you will find the revenue for these things and the
Harper government has gutted federal revenue though massive tax cuts.
Will you increase taxes on wealthy Canadians and restore corporate taxes
to more reasonable level?
PD: Thank you Murray.
Yes, I've been clear and consistent on this issue: I will restore
Canada's corporate income tax rate to 19.5 per cent. That would be a
saving of almost $10 billion per year to invest in a better place, like
fighting poverty, building affordable housing, delivering better health
care and protecting people's retirement.
Under my government, Canadians would get value for their money. I'll
end the wasteful culture of this government: no more Tony Clement
showering his backyard with our money, no more mega-prison projects, no
more helicopter joy rides for Peter MacKay!
I've also said that by creating more jobs, we will have more revenue
for government. Today there are more than 1.3 million unemployed
Canadians -- that's 300,000 more than when Stephen Harper first took
office. At the average industrial wage those additional Canadians
without work represent more than $10 billion per year in lost wages for
families and lost spending in the economy.
As for ensuring that wealthier individuals pay their fair share, I
will crack down on tax havens. Billions have been stashed away in these
offshore accounts. We don't have tax justice when ordinary Canadians are
paying their fair share and some of the richest individuals and
corporations get to hide their money in offshore accounts. So cracking
down on tax havens is a priority for me. Obviously it's not a priority
for Harper -- he cut Revenue Canada resources to do this job. I think we
all know whose side he's on.
I will end subsidies to fossil fuel sector and introduce a cap and
trade mechanism for green house gas emissions. We will reinvest these
funds in greening the economy.
I've also made a commitment to work with other countries in
establishing an international FTT (Financial Transactions Tax) to raise
funds for some of the global challenges we have to address collectively
and also reduce the kind of speculative activities in the market that
undermine the real economy. This is something I worked on long before
our leadership race. I believe we need to take international leadership
in addressing global poverty, climate change, and global health.
Lara34: Good to see you here Paul! The Afghan mission was
large part justified by the idea that we need to "save" the women. I'm
very worried that we're starting to see this same kind of rhetoric
around Iran. Can you speak to your position on entering into war or
sanctions with Iran?
PD: Good point Lara.
I've always said that as feminist allies, we should not talk about
"saving" or "protecting" women, we should be genuinely working on
empowering women. You're right in Afghanistan that women's empowerment
was used for rhetorical arguments as opposed to a meaningful engagement.
My position on Iran is clear: no to war, yes to diplomatic
engagement. As New Democrats we're opposed to nuclear proliferation --
everywhere. And we stand in solidarity with people who are fighting for
their rights and freedoms. But we will not allow these values to be
abused for rhetorical arguments in favour of a war.
RW: Question 4 is from Algomafalcon:
Should representation in the House of Commons reflect the
principle of "one person, one vote" as embodied by representation by
population? (Currently seven provinces are over-represented, and three
are under-represented.)
PD: Thanks for the question Algomafalcon.
When it comes to regional representation, our federation's uniqueness
requires us to find ways of balancing representation between different
regions. For instance, PEI's population is roughly the same as some
urban ridings but since it's a province, it is entitled to four seats in
the House. Some rural ridings have very small populations, but
represent large parts of our country with diverse communities and unique
needs. And I believe we need to secure Quebec's voice in the House of
Commons. At the same time, we have to recognize the demographic growth
in Western Canada. It's all about working together to find the right
balance, not about pitting regions against each other.
The real unbalance in our voting system is the lack of
proportionality. The whole concept of one person, one vote is really
thrown out of the door when a party with less than 40 per cent of the
vote can secure 100 per cent of power. It's unjust. It creates phoney
regional divisions in our country. 32 per cent of the voters in
Saskatchewan voted NDP. That's about the same portion of voters in B.C.
who voted NDP. Why should the electoral map suggest that there's a total
domination of Saskatchewan by the Conservatives?
So, one of my commitments as leader will be to campaign at the
grassroots on the idea of introducing proportionality into our system. I
personally prefer a system similar to New Zealand, where a mixed-member
proportional representation ensures that we can maintain the connection
of MPs to their ridings, and at the same time balance out the results
of a first-past-the-post election. We must implement this important
reform and you can count on me to do that.
Unionist: Follow-up on Iran -- I believe you've supported
sanctions against Iran (correct me if I'm wrong). How do we justify
sanctions against a country that does not have nuclear weapons, while we
exert no pressure against one in the region which does (Israel)?
PD: Thanks Unionist. Yes, I've supported targeted
sanctions against some Iranian authorities and also to reduce Iran's
access to technologies it used to crack down on protesters. For
instance, I heard from a lot of Iranian activists that Siemens had sold
Iran the technology to crack into activist cell phones and track their
movements. (Don't give Vic ideas!) So, I do support targeted sanctions
that stop this kind of activity -- not the blanket sanctions that would
hurt ordinary people.
On Israel -- Jack and I co-authored a letter calling for a Nuclear Free Zone in Middle East.
Unionist: Merci!
Boom Boom: Awesome! Either I had forgotten, or didn't know this at all.
RW: Our next question is from dacckon:
As we look to Europe, some are questioning the lack of
involvement of the central bank there. Tommy Douglas once stated that
Canada used the Bank of Canada to fight against Nazi Tyranny in his
final speech as party leader. He was also famous for doing whatever it
took to balance the books in Saskatchewan. In short, how do you describe
yourself economically? Keynesian? New Keynesian?
PD: Thanks for the question dacckon.
Keynesian -- I also have a lot of respect for the analysis of Paul
Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, for instance, on the issue of FTT.
The 2008 financial crisis has really shown us that governments need
to take leadership on behalf of their people to secure the public good.
It's interesting that the bankers and financiers who had a central role
in creating the financial crisis were perfectly happy with governments
taking action to bail them out. But now that they've secured their own
jobs, they want to go back to business as usual.
Your question touches on another important point too. Everything we
do these days is in a global context. That's why we need leadership that
understands the world and has the knowledge and experience to project
and protect our social democratic values on the global stage. When we
talk about FTT, when we talk about cracking down on tax havens, when we
talk about responsible trade -- these are all issues that require a
leader who can work with others on the world stage.
RW: And again from Murray Dobbin:
Economic policy will dominate the political debate in the
next few years at least. You have said you want to train people for the
jobs of tomorrow but the private sector is sitting on over $700 billion
in cash and not investing any of it. So the questions arises - what are
the jobs of tomorrow and where will they come from -- the private sector
or the public sector?
PD: Thank you Murray.
We need public leadership in order to kick-start the job creation. We
have great untapped potentials in the green energy economy in our
country. But Harper's policies are locking us into an unsustainable
future. Not only we lack public sector jobs in the green energy sector,
Harper is killing incentives for private sector growth in this area as
well. Just look at his decision to kill the retrofit program -- again!
I announced my ideas for promoting a green energy future in Alberta. I
chose Alberta because over the course of the campaign and prior to
that, I've talked to so many Albertans who are thinking about the future
in much longer-term perspective than Harper. They don't want an economy
locked into a fossil fuel future. They don't want our raw resources
sold out. They don't want long-term environmental damage. They want to
see leadership that invests in our future.
We can retrofit our buildings, create jobs and improve energy
efficiency. We can make targeted investments in greening the grid. We
can be on fully renewable electricity within the next couple of decades
if we made the right decisions now. Again, that would create jobs and
would mean public investments at federal and provincial levels. We can
make breakthroughs in technologies for producing renewable energy if we
had the right research and development policies in place -- not the
current policies which get abused by some companies as a tax loophole.
To take these steps we need public leadership, we need a social
democratic government that takes action. I'm convinced when we put the
right policies in place, create the incentives and direct our economy in
a more sustainable direction, the private sector will follow.
KKinVan: Paul, you're a dad. And you used to be a teacher.
How do those parts of your life affect the kind of leader you are now?
PD: Hi KKinVan,
Both of these experiences keep me connected to the realities of
everyday people. I was a stay-home dad for a year and it was really an
amazing experience. I also learned a lot about the importance of having
support for families and for children.
As a teacher, I learned firsthand the challenges that new Canadian
families face and the impact of poverty on children. I also learned the
art of teaching and convincing people -- you can lose the control over
your classroom very quickly if you're not engaging the students in a
meaningful way. And young people demand clarity and honesty. These
experiences have shaped my approach to politics.
Catchfire: Paul, I'm interested in your education background
as well. Currently, almost every post-secondary student in Quebec is on
strike opposing tuition raises. Two of the top three English-speaking
universities face looming TA strikes. Do you have a plan to fix the
neo-liberal assault on higher educations which increasingly take it out
of the hands of all and into the hands of a privileged few? What will
you do to protect education as a right to be enjoyed by all Canadians?
PD: Hi Catchfire.
I'm so impressed with students in Quebec. They're standing up for
their rights. Yes, we need a PSE act, we need federal support to reduce
tuition fees, we need targeted grants for low-income students, and I
have put forward a new idea: Your Canada Year. Let's give young
Canadians the opportunity to spend a year doing volunteer work and let's
reward that with a year of tuition coverage. My personal experience of
working as a volunteer in Nicaragua shaped who I am. I want the same
opportunities available to every young Canadian.
Catchfire: Thanks, Paul. "Your Canada Year" is definitely
some food for thought. I do worry about dropping young people in
countries and communities with compromised economic and social
situations, but I'm sure with a strong ethical, anti-colonial backbone
and proper training it could show some promise. Thanks!
RW: From terra1st:
In the wake of the robo-call scandal, in a time of increased
use of closure and 'in camera' meetings, my questions for you are: Will
we see a policy plank in your campaign directed at making our democratic
system more democratic? Will you provide stronger oversight mechanisms?
Will you shift power from the PMO and give it back to cabinet ministers
and backbenchers? How? What will you do to encourage more grassroots
democracy? What will they do to move power away from party offices, and
into the hands of party activists and ordinary Canadians? Will you
advance the policies of Open Source Governance?
PD: terra1st:
It's shameful that Conservatives are engaged in these kinds of
tactics to suppress voter participation. My whole campaign is about
engaging people and turning them on to politics.
When I first got elected, Jack appointed me as the critic for
democratic reform. I was on the committee that worked on the
Accountability Act and the Elections Canada Act. I moved motion and
motion to amend and ensure we can have better accountability. But the
Conservatives and the Liberals voted them down. We must end this culture
of centralization of power which leads to abuse of power and undermines
our democracy.
I'm all about empowering the grassroots -- in our party and in our democratic process.
Mike Gifford: I'd be interested in hearing your views on
building Gov 2.0. It's definitely a buzzword, but I'd like to see ideas
on how you as leader of the NDP might be able to make our public service
something that all Canadian's are proud of. There's a lot of bashing of
the bureaucracy and everyone in Ottawa knows a few folks with lots of
stories about problems on the front line.
The Harper government is again showing us how not to work
with our civil service, but I'd like to hear your ideas on how to
revitalize the public sector. It needs to be an area where collaboration
& innovation are commonplace. Federal departments need to work
better together, collaborate more with other government agencies at all
levels and also reach out to the public that they ultimately serve.
PD: Mike! Thanks for the question.
I always want to consult people who do this work and know how to
innovate instead of making top-down decisions by people like Tony
Clement. I believe in open source, I believe we make better decisions
when we collect and share data. So yes, let's engage with people who do
this work and update the way we run our government.
RW: I'm afraid we're all out of time. Paul Dewar, thank you so much for joining us today!
PD: Well, folks, thank you for a great conversation.
