Interview with NDP Leader, Jack Layton

[M.Dancer]

Dear Jack,

While you and your wife were elected Toronto Politicians collecting large generous salaries from the puplic purse, you and your wife resided in subsidized public housing reserved for low income earners. You continued to live there until the fact became known and it became a political hot potato.

Can Canadians trust you not to abuse the federal system as you abused the system in Toronto?

[M.Dancer]

Dear Jack,

You have said that Canada should withdraw immediately from Afghanistan and that we should be negotiating with the Taliban. Are you willing to go to Afghanistan and negotiate personally with the Taliban?

If you were kidnapped or taken hostage by the Taliban, would you want Canadian soldiers to risk their lives to liberate you?

[M.Dancer]

Dear Jack,

In the past the NDP has expressed support for Hezbollah and Hamas.

Are there any other terrorist organizations that the NDP support?

[Black Dog]

While you and your wife were elected Toronto Politicians collecting large generous salaries from the puplic purse, you and your wife resided in subsidized public housing reserved for low income earners. You continued to live there until the fact became known and it became a political hot potato.

Can Canadians trust you not to abuse the federal system as you abused the system in Toronto?

I didn't know we were allowed to ask questions about made up situations. The "the Laytons lived in subsidized housing" chestnut is as old as the hills. It's also wrong: Layton and Chow lived in a housing co-op and recieved no government subsidies.

[Higgly]

Jack and Olivia own their own home, I believe.

[Moxie]

I asked a negative question here's a postive thought. Peter Stoffer is an amazing MP, he stands behind the military in his riding (it use to mine-Shearwater Eastern Passage) as well as the lad from NFL who is a labour lawyer and represents the downtrodden. Sorry I can't remember his name but I think it ends with Harris? They both are fine and noble MPs who represent the NDP. Why are their profiles contained to Provincial Politics when they both have a huge loyal following and could do so much good Federally Sir?

[capricorn]

I didn't know we were allowed to ask questions about made up situations. The "the Laytons lived in subsidized housing" chestnut is as old as the hills. It's also wrong: Layton and Chow lived in a housing co-op and recieved no government subsidies.

I know that Jack and Olivia were paying market rent for their unit. But still, had they not occupied that unit, a family with a much smaller income than they could have benefited from the lower rent in that co-op. When you're championing the rights of the downtrodden you gotta walk the talk.

I hope Higgly is right and that they finally bought their own house. It's a dream come true for Canadians.

[M.Dancer]

I didn't know we were allowed to ask questions about made up situations. The "the Laytons lived in subsidized housing" chestnut is as old as the hills. It's also wrong: Layton and Chow lived in a housing co-op and recieved no government subsidies.

Bullcrap. 30% of the units wer set aside for the poor and their rent was $800.00 for a downtown 3 bedroom townhouse when the average for the neighbourhood was neared $1200. They didn't receive a direct subsidy as all the rent was subsidized.

[Melanie_]

Mr. Layton,

Your party is in support of an international effort to aid the peace process in Darfur. Alexa McDonough, quoted below, has stated that Canada must be committed to halting the violence - what do you see as Canada's role in this process? Since there is no peace to keep at this point, are you in favour of an active military role for Canadian soldiers in Darfur?

Today NDP MPs Alexa McDonough (Halifax) and Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre) welcomed a United Nations Security Council resolution to send 26,000 peacekeepers to protect civilians in the war-ravaged Darfur region of Sudan.

“This U.N. resolution is a long-overdue opportunity for the international community to protect millions threatened by the severe humanitarian emergency in Darfur,” said NDP Foreign Affairs Critic Alexa McDonough. “The government of Canada must show its commitment to halting the devastating violence gripping the lives of Sudanese civilians by supporting this vital mission.”

NDP Website

[Black Dog]

Bullcrap. 30% of the units wer set aside for the poor and their rent was $800.00 for a downtown 3 bedroom townhouse when the average for the neighbourhood was neared $1200. They didn't receive a direct subsidy as all the rent was subsidized

Wrong.

Layton and Chow had both lived in the Hazelburn Co-op since 1985, and lived together in an $800 per month three-bedroom apartment after their marriage in 1988. By 1990, their combined annual income was $120,000, and in March of that year they began voluntarily paying an additional $325 per month to offset their share of the co-op's Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation subsidy, the only members of the co-op to do so. In response to the article, the co-op's board argued that having mixed-income tenants was crucial to the success of co-ops, and that the laws deliberately set aside apartments for those willing to pay market rates, such as Layton and Chow.[18] During the late 1980s and early 1990s they maintained approximately 30% of their units as low income units and provided the rest at what they considered market rent. In June 1990, the city's solicitor cleared the couple of any wrong-doing

[M.Dancer]

They weren't paying market rates. No one paying $800. for a 3 B.room in downtown Toronto was paying market rate.....

....and given that was back when rent control kept rents artificially low, there is hardly anything more disingenous that claiming two politicians (with insder connections) paid market rates.....and that's why they topped up their rent (after the got caught) to the real market rate.

And that in a nutshell was why the story was so big when the Star broke it.....people wwere simply shocked to hear there were 3 B.room townhouses our there for $800.00 when everyone else was paying %50 more.

So I guess an additional Questiuon to Jack would be.....if you got caught abusing the system again, would you try and weasle out of it like you did back then?

[CLRV]

Mr Layton:

When you are badgered by people whose best shot across your bow is a non-issue about a rental unit you held 20 years ago, as opposed to real issues taking place today, do you hold them in as much amused contempt as I do?

[M.Dancer]

Dear Jack,

Is it true you took a $50,000 severance package when you decided to quit Toronto politics and become a federal party leader?

Do you have a similar package with the Federal NDP?

[Black Dog]

They weren't paying market rates. No one paying $800. for a 3 B.room in downtown Toronto was paying market rate.....

In 1989? Prove it.

....and given that was back when rent control kept rents artificially low, there is hardly anything more disingenous that claiming two politicians (with insder connections) paid market rates.....and that's why they topped up their rent (after the got caught) to the real market rate.

So wait: rent control meant rents were kept articficially low, but $800/month was too low?

And that in a nutshell was why the story was so big when the Star broke it.....people wwere simply shocked to hear there were 3 B.room townhouses our there for $800.00 when everyone else was paying %50 more.

yeah it had nothing to do with the fact the story was spun pretty much the way your spinning it now.

[M.Dancer]

In 1989? Prove it.

I lived in Toronto in 1989....mind you, not where they lived, I couldn't afford those rates....unless I was luckiy enough to know someone who could have got me into a co-op.....

In 1989 I lived in two places, a 1 bedroon on Walmer in the Annex which was $750 then a one bedroom on Bedford for $1000.

So wait: rent control meant rents were kept articficially low, but $800/month was too low?

Don't pull a muscle trying to figure this out......$800 was a subsidized rent...end of story.....

Layton and Chow were also the subject of some dispute when a June 14, 1990 Toronto Star article by Tom Kerr accused them of unfairly living in a housing cooperative subsidized by the federal government, despite their high income.[17] Layton and Chow had both lived in the Hazelburn Co-op since 1985, and lived together in an $800 per month three-bedroom apartment after their marriage in 1988. By 1990, their combined annual income was $120,000, and in March of that year they began voluntarily paying an additional $325 per month to offset their share of the co-op's Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation subsidy, the only members of the co-op to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Layton

And that's the facts......5 years of abusing a system design to aid for the working poor by a man who claims to champion the working poor......

[M.Dancer]

Don't take my word for, the coop says it best.......

About Co-ops

Hazelburn is a federally-funded non-profit corporation.

*snip*

As a result, all our members enjoy a significantly lower housing cost and a sense of ownership that results in a cleaner, better-maintained building environment and a more secure building where everyone knows their neighbours.

http://www.hazelburn.org/guest/coops.php

[Black Dog]

So your beef is that $800 isn’t market rent, despite the fact that you concede “market rent†in co-op terms can be less than actual market rent. Okay then.

Also: from your wiki link:

In response to the article, the co-op's board argued that having mixed-income tenants was crucial to the success of co-ops, and that the laws deliberately set aside apartments for those willing to pay market rates, such as Layton and Chow.[18] During the late 1980s and early 1990s they maintained approximately 30% of their units as low income units and provided the rest at what they considered market rent. In June 1990, the city's solicitor cleared the couple of any wrong-doing[19],

See, you're full of crap not because your facts are wrong, necessarily, but because of the conclusions you draw from them. So far you've claimed Layton:

a) used his connections to get into the co-op (no proof)

took up space reserved for low income earners (despite conceding that only 30 per cent of the units in the co-op in question were designated as such, and despite evidence form the co-op board that Layton and Chow didn’t occupy a low-income designated unit)

c) inappropriately took advantage of government subsidies (despite paying the subsidies)

That's the nut of it, innit? Frankly, "OMG they lived in a co-op!!!1!" isn’t very compelling by itself, but since you’ve offered no proof of your claims above, that’s what your argument boils down to. Would you feel better if they had lived in a mansion (at which point you’d probably be foaming about “champagne socialistsâ€)?

[Black Dog]

Oh looky!

Change in Average Rents for Private Rental Compared to InflationToronto (formerly Metropolitan Toronto), 1989-1998

I draw your attention to Table 8.8.3 which indicates the average monthly rent for a three-bedroom in T.O in October 1989 was...$782.

[M.Dancer]

Oh looky!

Change in Average Rents for Private Rental Compared to InflationToronto (formerly Metropolitan Toronto), 1989-1998

I draw your attention to Table 8.8.3 which indicates the average monthly rent for a three-bedroom in T.O in October 1989 was...$782.

Oh looky Metro Toronto.....which includes the suburbs, the sub suburbs Scarberia, North York, Jane Finch.....and the 99% that isn't DOWNTOWN TORONTO

Get bacl when you have a grasp of the topic....

[M.Dancer]

See, you're full of crap not because your facts are wrong,

\

Is it basic english you are having difficulty with or that fact that Layton is less than honest and he used and abused the tax payers then and recently with hefty severence ? Given the cash crunch Toronto has seen, you would think an ethical politician might be inclined to reimburse the city .....But no.....not Layton...

I will post it one more .....

By 1990, their combined annual income was $120,000, and in March of that year they began voluntarily paying an additional $325 per month to offset

their share of the co-op's Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation subsidy

, the only members of the co-op to do so.

Edited October 16, 2007 by M.Dancer

[noahbody]

Dear Jack,

If you were to visit Kandahar and a girl approached and thanked you because you're Canadian, would you say "you're welcome" or would you come clean and tell her you didn't think her freedom was worth the sacrifice?

[RB]

Mr Layton

Windsor, Ontario has an unemployment rate of about 10% and unofficially it is much higher. Please let us know what is your party involvement to help the people of Windsor, and also does your government have contingencies in place to resolve such big issues as to when sectors of companies are going out of business should not have such adverse effect on an entire city.

[Black Dog]

Oh looky Metro Toronto.....which includes the suburbs, the sub suburbs Scarberia, North York, Jane Finch.....and the 99% that isn't DOWNTOWN TORONTO

Get bacl when you have a grasp of the topic....

How how about you provide some evidence of your own that's not anecdotal? That would a refreshing change of pace.

Is it basic english you are having difficulty with or that fact that Layton is less than honest and he used and abused the tax payers then and recently with hefty severence ? Given the cash crunch Toronto has seen, you would think an ethical politician might be inclined to reimburse the city .....But no.....not Layton...

Again, I wouldn't think a little evidence of your claims (which I listed above) would be too much to ask, but maybe I expect too much from you...

I will post it one more .....

By 1990, their combined annual income was $120,000, and in March of that year they began voluntarily paying an additional $325 per month to offset their share of the co-op's Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation subsidy, the only members of the co-op to do so.

Again: where's the wrongdoing? It's worth noting too that this quote actualy undermines one of your earlier claims: that they only "topped up" their rents after they were "found out." But the above citation says they began doing so in March. the Star didn't "out" them as co-op dwellers until June.

Edited October 17, 2007 by Black Dog

[Canuck E Stan]

How how about you provide some evidence of your own that's not anecdotal? That would a refreshing change of pace.

Again, I wouldn't think a little evidence of your claims (which I listed above) would be too much to ask, but maybe I expect too much from you...

Again: where's the wrongdoing? It's worth noting too that this quote actualy undermines one of your earlier claims: that they only "topped up" their rents after they were "found out." But the above citation says they began doing so in March. the Star didn't "out" them as co-op dwellers until June.

What business did Jack have living there in the first place? Especially if money was not an issue?

His selfishness prevented the next worthy family on the list from having a decent place to live.

All the while, Jack could easily have purchased a place or afforded to pay rent outside of the subsidized housing project and still have maintained a residence within the area.

That is the "ethical wrongdoing" that people question.