Do you support cooperating with the NDP and Greens before the next election to defeat Stephen Harper’s government? If so, how? If no, why?

During this campaign, I have heard from many Canadians of their desire for a more civil dialogue and more constructive teamwork in national politics, especially in Parliament. I share this desire, and I have made a number of proposals that would reduce the power of the Prime Minister’s Office, empower individual members of parliament, and allow them to work together on issues of common interest in service of the Canadian people.

I have said clearly in this campaign that the Liberal Party needs to stand for something clear and distinctive in the minds of Canadians once more. I want us to be the party of One Canada, of bold national leadership. A Canada where we can access the same quality of health care in St. John’s as we can in Toronto. Where our abundant natural resources are developed sustainably based on the best science and the most advanced environmental standards, and we tackle boldly the critical infrastructure deficit in our towns and cities. Where skilled citizens can go where the jobs are and take their certifications with them.

I stand ready and willing to work with anyone who shares this vision of Canada, whether it is in Parliament, or in our communities, because it is going to take all of us working together to address the challenges our nation is facing. Canadians are sending us a clear message – that they want straight talk, clear goals, and reasonable, principled compromises.

Let us be clear, though – cooperation to promote a shared vision of Canada should not be confused with non-compete clauses, joint nominations or other tactical political schemes designed to bend the will of the electorate. These are two separate issues. Cooperation must be based on principle – not short-term considerations of power above all else.

Immediate political gain is an alluring temptation. But the risk is that we compromise our vision of Canada, which is our raison d’être.

We can, and must, work constructively across party lines and other divides, but always remembering that what we uniquely bring to the table is the Liberal vision of One Canada. Constructive engagement means civility and respect for the other. Pandering and petty partisanship should have no place in national politics.

I understand the attraction of a scheme that might lead to the defeat of specific Conservative candidates and, above all, the end of Stephen Harper’s reign. The end goal is right – but the proposed road to get there just will not work. For example, who would vote in a run-off election to choose a single candidate to oppose the Conservative? Members of the participating parties restricting the choices of Canadians would be undemocratic and lead to charges of opportunism by even sympathetic Canadians who strongly dislike Mr. Harper, but do not share a pathological determination to defeat him. And it is certainly not as easy as adding votes together – without a Liberal candidate, some voters may choose to vote Conservative, strengthening the Harper majority.

As long as Liberals look for short cuts, we are doomed to wander in the wilderness. Our seat count and support has not eroded in successive elections because the progressive vote is divided. We are the third place party today because, in constantly looking for the easy answer, Canadians have lost sense of just what we stand for, of what we bring to the table that is distinct from any other party.

I believe that the way to defeat the Conservatives and elect a truly progressive government is to rebuild the Liberal Party of Canada as the distinctive, clear and principled voice of One Canada. I recognize this is not the easy road. But it is the right one. The only way forward is through hard work.

Do you support changing the voting system? If so, to what? If not, why?

We are suffering from a serious democratic deficit, and meaningful electoral reform is absolutely essential if we hope to re-engage Canadians in national affairs.

My personal belief is that the clearest path forward is some form of proportional representation (PR), including the Single Transferable Vote, or a system of preferential balloting such as Alternative Vote (AV).

As the leader of a Liberal government, I will ask a Parliamentary Committee to launch meaningful consultations with Canadians on this important issue, and develop an option for electoral reform that will be put to Canadians in a national referendum as quickly as possible after the next general election.

You can find more information about my electoral reform plans at Better Balloting

Climate Change. What are your positions on (a) continuing expansion of the oil sands? (b) reducing CO2 emissions below 1990 levels as previously agreed under the Kyoto Protocol? (c) federal subsidies for fossil fuel companies?

(a) The expansion of extraction of oil from the oil sands should continue only if independent science and the most-advanced environmental standards confirm that, on a project-by-project basis, we are not undertaking risks that we cannot mitigate, and we implement a cradle-to-grave approach to managing and protecting Canada’s resources that ensures that regulations and legislation oversee the life, completion, and legacy of resource development and projects. By mandating that companies finance legacy projects up front, Ottawa can enhance its role, in collaboration with industry, as a responsible steward of our land, seas and skies for future generations of Canadians.

(b) We should establish a national carbon price and aim to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% by 2040. Setting a realistic national price for carbon means creating a national carbon tax that is efficient and fair, that applies to all producers and consumers, and that yields substantial revenues to reduce other taxes or fund energy-related technologies. In effect, the carbon tax is a consumption tax imposed on all fuels used in Canada in proportion to their carbon content. Any national carbon pricing system has to be fully coordinated with provincial programs like those already in place in B.C. and Quebec. Like the GST, the tax would have a single structure and single rate. The revenue raised should remain in the province in which it is generated, to be used for a purpose to be chosen by the province, such as assistance to vulnerable consumers and industries.

(c) We should phase out federal subsidies for fossil fuel companies as part of a greater tax reform effort to return the tax system back to basics: financing good public services for all Canadians, helping the most vulnerable to achieve more fulfilling lives, and operating with fairness and transparency. [See Paying Our Fair Share].

More generally, please see my two papers: Climate Change – It’s a Scientific Factand Energy Policy and Sustainable Development.

Allow me to add that, if Canada is to meet the challenges of climate change and sustainable development, we will need to build up our scientific capacity, especially with respect to energy science and clean energy technologies. Science and scientific research should not be influenced by partisan considerations, nor should they be subject to across-the-board austerity measures.

We need substantial and unfettered federal support for basic research in science, engineering, and medicine, which helps attract the best and the brightest to our universities. The national government should also play a much greater role in sponsoring and coordinating research and development. Indeed, supporting science is so critical to Canada’s long-term progress and economic development that the federal government must reinstate the senior science advisor to the government, and establish and fund an independent National Academy of Sciences with a multi-stakeholder board of governors. The Academy would be responsible to Parliament but its independence would insulate its ongoing operations from inappropriate and partisan intervention. Among other things, lawmakers would have direct access to the objective science on medicine, energy, the environment and more. (This would build on the Council of Canadian Academies).

Inequality: What is your plan to close the growing income inequality gap and what steps will you take to reduce poverty in Canada?

Effectively addressing issues of poverty and inequality is a critical component of the mission of Liberals to create a fairer compassionate society in which we all have access to equal opportunities and we all share in the hard work to make that vision a reality. It will involve coordinated and collaborative action by all levels of government – federal, provincial and territorial, municipal and aboriginal. To make this possible, I have proposed a Council of Canadian Governments as an effective way for all levels of government to collaborate in specific areas to the benefit of all Canadians.

It would be great if eliminating poverty were as easy as introducing something like a new streamlined cash payment: unfortunately, it is not that simple. Overcoming poverty requires a multi-pronged approach that addresses all the sources of poverty in addition to low income, such as a lack of affordable housing and childcare and the need for accommodations for a disability. And we have not done a good job to date in ensuring a mechanism to establish realistic minimum payment levels for the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), the National Child Benefit (NTB), and the Working Income Tax Benefit (WITB) – a floor below which no Canadian should fall, which is adjusted upward in a timely manner for inflation.

Take, for example, theWorking Income Tax Benefit.  The WITB is supposed to help Canadians in low-paying jobs keep more of their employment income. But even with the recent doubling of the WITB, a single person working at a fast-food outlet for minimum wage and making $300 a week, or $16,000 a year, earns too much to be eligible for the WITB. But if she reduces her hours by half, she not only gets the WITB but also retains provincial benefits for the working poor such as prescription drug coverage. The national government should systematically remove disincentives to employment from the tax system, and it should work with the provinces to get rid of counterproductive rules in the welfare system that discourage recipients from making the transition to employment. And any federal efforts should be coordinated with provincial efforts to consolidate a hodge-podge of tax credits – sales, property, energy – into a more effective monthly payment. Ontario’s Trillium Benefit and Québec’s Solidarity Tax Credit provide the model that other provinces should be encouraged to follow.

We must also develop better coherence and comparability in income support and social services across the country, which would mean reaching a broad agreement on the specific purposes to be served by billion of dollars transferred under the Canada Social Transfer (CST) to ensure that all Canadians can meet their basic needs and develop their potential.

Finally, any serious discussion of a national strategy to mitigate poverty and inequality across the country must discuss federal fiscal transfers to provinces. Every year, Ottawa channels billions of dollars to the provinces and territories to reduce inequities among Canadians. This goal is so fundamental to our way of life that equalization is entrenched in the Constitution. But it has become increasingly difficult to measure whether federal transfers fulfill their purpose of promoting national objectives efficiently and fairly. Governments too often create short-term ad hoc deals that make calculation of what’s working and what’s not, next to impossible.

The lack of meaningful scrutiny of intergovernmental transfers by the House of Commons is a serious failure of accountability and transparency. But if we look at our progress toward clear objectives, such as ensuring affordable housing and child care, or eliminating the shameful living conditions among Aboriginal Canadians, it is apparent that the collective impact of all this spending falls well short. A permanent, non-partisan independent advisory commission, similar to Australia’s Commonwealth Grants Commission, could scrutinize and manage fiscal federalism. This Canadian Commission on Fiscal Transfers would examine each province’s standing based on a thorough balance sheet taking into account all revenue sources, measuring the effectiveness of programs and charting improvements in equity. The current equalization formula would be replaced.