Earlier this morning, Brian was interviewed by CBC's Evan Solomon on "The House" on CBC Radio.

Here's the transcript. It's worth a read.

Evan Soloman: Welcome to the House.

Brian Topp: Thanks for having me.

ES: You have defined your candidacy around tax.  Explain exactly who would pay more tax if Brian Topp was the leader?

BT: I have defined my candidacy around the idea that we have to undo the damage the Conservatives have done to the public interest and to government in Canada. 

So the choice they made was to spend billions of dollars on tax benefits for people who don’t need the help.  And what I am saying is, there are more important things to do with that money.  So that people who are at the top one per cent of the income scale should be paying progressive income tax instead of flat tax, which is essentially what they are paying now.

And we shouldn’t be providing 50 per cent discounts for people who earn their money speculating in the stock market.

ES: All right, so you are saying you would raise tax on people who are making over $250,000 to 35 per cent and then corporate income tax:  Where would you have that? Where would you peg that?

BT:  What I favour is going back to where things were on the day that Stephen Harper became Prime Minister of Canada.  So we were at about the mid-range of the world around then, about 22 per cent and that’s where it should be and we don’t need to have the lowest corporate taxes in the world when all that happens to the money is that it is being put in the bank.  There is no evidence that these corporate tax cuts have produced a single job.

You know tax cuts are nice.  It’s nice to cut taxes when you can, but in the circumstances we are in now there are more important things to do.  And the main point is that Conservatives who were just following on Liberal policy, to be clear, set out to do these tax cuts to do two things:  first of all to cripple the government and secondly to help people who don’t need help because that’s what they are all about.

ES: What do you say to someone like David Dodge, the former Governor of the Bank of Canada, who was on this program a number of weeks ago, who said, “look, if you want to raise corporate income taxes back up to say to 22 per cent that sends a signal…he said you know when you’re taxing about 16, 17, 18, 19 per cent…but when you are going back up into the 20 per cent range, he said it might have a negative impact on certain sectors.”?

BT:  I don’t doubt that’s what he said, but I think he’s wrong.  I mean we had a functioning economy before Mr. Harper brought in these tax cuts, which were only brought in a few years ago.  And so we can go back to the mid-range of industrial economies without gross ill-effect and spend the money on more important things like job creation in the small business sector, like a stronger pension system, like child care, like a better health care system, that by the way translate directly into jobs and employment which these tax cuts did not do.

ES:  What about the HST?  Would you bring in back from 5 per cent to 7 per cent?

BT: I don’t think now is the time to review the HST.  A big bump in consumption tax hurts ordinary folks and that’s not what we should be doing in uncertain economic times.  I think the first place to go is for tax giveaways to people who didn’t need the help.

ES: Jim Flaherty will table a budget in the near future.  We don’t have the exact date.  Sometime in March we think.  A budget will contain between 4 and 8 billion dollars in cuts.  He says it needs to be done to balance the budget.  What would you cut?

BT: Well, I think a good place to start is with some of the commitments that the Tories have made to war toys that we don’t need.  I am not sure that we need to commit to a massive purchase of F-35s for the Canadian Forces, when it’s hotly debated, even in Washington, whether it’s a smart place to spend the money.  But the big money in the Tory budgets is the money that they are spending on tax giveaways.  So when he (Jim Flaherty) tries to draw us into a debate about program spending he is seeking to avoid the debate which is the billions of dollars he’s spending on giveaways to people who don’t need the help.

ES:  All right, let’s get into some of the race elements here.  You were one of the key backroom figures behind the attempt at a coalition between the NDP and the Liberals back in 2008.  You wrote a book about that.  Has your vision for the relationship between the two parties changed since then?  Do you still see that a merger would be beneficial?

BT: Well, I have never argued in favour of a merger.  What I’ve said, and I repeat to you today, is that in a minority Parliament what we owe the people of Canada is being willing to work with others to get things done.  So I favour working with other parties to rid Canada of the Tory government and to replace it with a better one in a minority Parliament.

ES:  Could you still work together with the Liberals in a majority situation?  What’s different?

BT: Well, what’s different is that in a minority Parliament, no one party has a majority and so you are driven to work together.  And I think what we tried to do in 2008 which was to team up with other parties from the opposition bench to rid Canada of the Conservative government and to replace it with a progressive one was a good idea.  Most of the world is governed through coalition governments.  There is nothing wrong with them.  They are a valid tool in that situation.  But I don’t favour a merger with the Liberals or not running candidates in the election.  I think these are two different things.  So when Nathan Cullen, for example, proposes that we make accomodations with the Liberals in which we stand down in ridings and support Liberals in ridings, I don’t think we should do that.  I think every New Democrat should have the right to vote for a New Democrat in Canada.

ES: You talk about Nathan Cullen.  That’s one issue that defines Nathan Cullen.  So let’s get to some of what defines the candidates.  What makes you a better leader, or would make you a better leader than say, Thomas Mulcair?

BT:  Well I respect Tom, he has been a good colleague and done some great work with our team in the province of Quebec, but in my view he needs to spend a little more time with our party before he leads it.  And I don’t agree with the basic direction that he wants to take us which is -- he was quite clear about when he launched his campaign -- he believes we should become a much more, quote, unquote centrist party.   So I think there are no shortcuts and no gadgets in front of us.  We can, and we will win as the NDP.  What we need to do is build on the hopeful and optimistic approach that Jack Layton gave us and then dig deep into our own governing traditions, our own NDP governing traditions of good government and then we will not only be speaking to the principles that I think Canadians agree with, but also showing them that we are the most competent alternative to run the government of Canada.

ES: But when you say a real one…are you suggesting he doesn’t have deep enough roots in the Party?

BT: Well, Tom was an important part of a very big team that has been working to breakthrough in Quebec for a very long time.  And Jack Layton was the head of that team.  My campaign manager, Raymond Guardia, managed that campaign.  Tom was our spokesperson in the media.  Lots of people worked very hard in that campaign.  I celebrate his service as I do everybody else’s.  Tom is a good colleague.  He is relatively new to our party and the direction that he wants to take us in I don’t agree with.  I don’t think that the New Democrats can win, by quote, unquote, moving to the center.  I think that blurs the distinction between us and the Liberal Party to the point where the public won’t be able to tell the difference, and in that circumstance they will vote for the real Liberal Party instead of a pretend Liberal Party.

ES:  What about Paul Dewar?  Paul Dewar has also questioned the fact that you have never run publically for office and therefore don’t have the experience to do it, whereas he does.

BT: Well, I guess there are two pieces to that puzzle. So the first one is experience.  And I think the members are going to have to make up their minds about what they know about the experience of the candidates who are before them.  I am the only candidate who has actually got experience in an NDP government, which is what we are seeking to elect federally.  And Paul has been a great MP but doesn’t have experience either as a leader in the private sector or in the public sector and has never spent any time in government.  So, in terms of experience, the members will have to weigh those two alternatives.

Another key thing and there is a bit of a disagreement here with Paul.  I take the view, especially when you have elected 59 Quebec seats, and that your whole case for why you should be the government of Canada, is that you have had a remarkable breakthrough in French-speaking Canada, who are now ready to work with the rest of the country in a progressive government…you have to be able to speak to French-speaking Canadians.  And I say this with regret, but if you look at the debate we just had in Quebec City, Paul struggles to speak in French.  And, frankly, I think that is a pre-requisite to being a leader of our party at the moment.

ES: Peggy Nash, she has got political experience.  She has got private sector experience and she speaks French.  Why are you better than Peggy Nash?

BT: Well, Peggy is my MP and my predecessor as Party President.  I have a lot of respect for Peggy.  Again, we are back to what I was saying before which is that her experience is three years in the House of Commons as an opposition MP.  She’s a very good one.  I spent time in an NDP government in the 90s that was financially responsible, and economically literate, and socially progressive and elected an re-elected four times.  And so, when people are judging people’s background, they need to look at your experience in government, your experience in opposition and ask what is it we are trying to do in the next three years.  If what we are trying to do is elect a government than maybe it’s not a bad thing to have a leader who has got some experience in government.

ES:  When will you run to be an MP?  Where will you run? 

BT:  In these circumstances where we are the Official Opposition I intend to get into the House quickly if I am elected leader and I would like to run for seat in Quebec.

ES:  Brian Topp, I will have to leave it there.  Very good to have you on The House this morning.

BT:  Thanks for having me.