Can Thomas Mulcair and the NDP agree? An open letter to the NDP leader

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      Editor's note: John Harnad, a professor in the Department of Mathematics and Statistics at Concordia University, sent us this open letter addressed to NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair:

      Dear Mr. Mulcair,

      Here is a list of some of the well-known views you have expressed as NDP leader.

      1) You are a federalist, dedicated to Canadian unity.

      2) You are in favour of open parliamentary debate and honest government.

      3) You believe the Federal Budget needs to be balanced.

      4) You believe that small business investment needs to be sustained and encouraged.

      5) You believe that environmental impact should be given prominent importance in decisions about industrial development, energy resources and fuel transport.

      6) You believe the Senate should be abolished (but you do not know of any clear constitutional mechanism for doing so).

      7) You oppose increased internal security scrutiny that infringes excessively on personal freedom, or privacy rights, or lacks adequate public accountability.

      8) You oppose overseas military involvement, unless Canada's essential interests are at stake.

      9) You believe that Hamas is a terrorist organization, and Israel is a democratic state that has the right to defend itself against terrorist attacks.

      10) You believe that:

      a) Taxation revenues should be adequately balanced between corporate and individual sources, in line with other G7 countries.

      b) The minimal wage should be increased to 15$ p.h.

      c) Universal daycare should be made available at $15 p.d.

      d) Joint federal tax returns by couples should be abolished

      These positions are all consistent with the outlook of a progressive, clear-thinking, free-market liberal, tempered by a certain caution on fiscal policy. In fact, they are not far from the positions taken by the federal Liberal Party, except for the greater emphasis on budget-balancing. More importantly, they are in line with Canada's traditions, history and values.

      However, much of it does not seem in line with the positions held by the majority of members of the party you lead. To begin with, item 1) seems in rather overt conflict with the fact that a majority of NDP supporters come from the former Bloc Quebecois camp. In fact, your expression of doubts about the justifiability of the Clarity Act in the first leadership debate raises questions about the depth of your dedication to Canadian unity. Furthermore, it is not clear that the NDP's traditional base of support, amongst the trade unions, the farming sector or the working poor is in line with the rather austere fiscal policy you advocate, that prioritizes balancing the federal budget over social benefits spending.

      Moreover, it is fair to assume that item 9) does not sit well with many of the NDP rank-and-file members, some trade union supporters and some rival contenders for leadership. Your vocal Deputy Leader, Libby Davies, together with many individual members, and union endorsers, such as CUPE, are dedicated supporters of the Palestinian based, anti-Israeli "DBS" movement, which advocates disbursement of all investments and commercial dealings with Israel, boycott of Israeli products and representatives and imposition of economic and political sanctions against Israel.

      So the question arises: who will really be setting the agenda if the NDP form the next government?

      Will you, by virtue of your broader base of popularity and support, and more tempered views on Canadian values and priorities, be able to cajole the NDP into becoming a more credible, serious-minded, progressive party that shares the values of most Canadians and supports the policies you advocate? Or will it be the opposite: that the less sober elements of your party, with their ill-considered forms of radicalism, which have kept the NDP out of federal government for decades, will eventually win out over your position, and succeed in reverting the party to the position it held over the past few decades?

      Some convincing evidence for believing that the former scenario is to be expected if you were to win in October, rather than the latter, would go a long way towards reassuring what I suspect are a rather large number of Canadians with doubts similar to my own.

      J. Harnad

      Comments

      17 Comments

      John-Albert Eadie

      Aug 28, 2015 at 2:39pm

      One hopes that i) Mulcair gets into office ii) he gets all the NDP on board. The Liberals will only continue Harper's evil work. I must say though, that I hope so strongly for Mr. Mulcair to win and be a real NDP leader - so that my Greens can provide the voices of reason in a new parliament.

      Jason Peil

      Aug 28, 2015 at 2:43pm

      I think it's worth correcting a false assertion. Professor Harnard says the majority of NDP supporters are former BQistes. False. 3/4 of the NDP financial support comes from BC and Saskatchewan. The NDP lead Canada in voter support in EVERY region - not just Quebec. The NDP has former separatists now working in a federalist party. That's a good thing. The NDP has done what no other party tried: respect Quebec and offer inclusion in the national party that is more substantial than lip service. The NDP has a long tradition of fiscal prudence which is empirically proven. The party has balanced budgets twice as often as the closest rival and 100% better than the federal Cons. If you're looking for assurance - look at history. It's a prologue for the present.

      0 0Rating: 0

      Tom Orange Lipstick

      Aug 28, 2015 at 2:48pm

      The author should note that everything NDP members and various advocates have supported and vote for over the years has no meaning. The entire policy book has been removed from the NDP website.. NDP top-brass note that the various votes and policies are not a platform and that they are not binding in any way.

      0 0Rating: 0

      JR Whiteha

      Aug 28, 2015 at 4:35pm

      Never a shortage of Liberals and non-New Democrats criticizing New Democrats over the internal workings of their own party, based on misunderstandings, false assumptions and straw man arguments.

      You can always tell its election season because the Straight digs them up ad nauseam.

      John Manley? Check. Harold Steves? Check. Bob Williams? Check. If you have no contact or role with the current NDP, and have not for years, but you know someone, the Straight wants you to give us the inside dirt.

      Do you not have better thing to do that attempt to sow derision among the NDP ranks from ; I assure you, Tom Mulcair has our support, and we are going to go out there and take out Harper.

      You can keep fighting the internal party fights that once were, if you really think that is the better way to take out Harper

      0 0Rating: 0

      Fiona McMurran

      Aug 28, 2015 at 6:44pm

      Where does this statistician get his stats, I wonder, to say that " a majority of NDP supporters come from the former Bloc Quebecois camp". And where he gets the idea that "the farming sector" votes NDP is quite beyond me, since the Conservatives always have strong support in rural areas. As for trade unions -- union leaders may often support the NDP, but the same cannot be said of their members. Even "the working poor" often vote Conservative. Canada is a very diverse country, and NDP support comes from all sorts of people in all sorts of occupations. Nor has Mulcair said that he'd prioritize balancing the budget over "social benefit spending". The details have yet to come out. One thing is certain: the NDP membership elected Tom Mulcair as leader. And Mulcair is making it very clear that he's going to listen to Canadians—all Canadians.

      Sean Sean

      Aug 28, 2015 at 9:08pm

      Beware of the use of the word 'radicalism'. The main example being, support for the Palestinian cause is radicalism. Unless you're in the 'Israel can do no wrong' camp, support for Palestinian rights is merely a human rights issue. It burns me to see the so-called academics using the jargon of the oppressors...

      0 0Rating: 0

      James G

      Aug 29, 2015 at 12:05am

      @ JR Whiteha

      Very well said, although it was Jim Manly. John Manley was the Liberal deputy P.M. most remembered for his appeals to the taxpayer to cover the differentiation between Canadian and U.S. currency so that hockey team owning billionaires would have less trouble paying hockey playing millionaires.

      Dave Henderson

      Aug 29, 2015 at 6:41am

      So the letter writer lists 9 points but apperently only has issues with 2 of the points so what is the point of listing the other 7. Are we supposed to be assuming that there are issues with those other points as well? Why not raise them then?
      I think the clue is in the term "union endorsers" The CPC digital influencers throw out terms like Unionist and Leftist lumped together with Communist when they really want to get the right wing base frothing at the mouth. This "open letter" reads like CPC propaganda that's supposed to get progressives wondering about Mr. Mulcair.
      As far as the points go I agree with the previous poster that bringing seperatists into a federalist party should be celebrated. I don't think anyone who joined the NDP thought they were joining a seperatist party. The NDP is a party from coast to coast so I don't think Quebec party members imagine they can turn the NDP separatist I think they have abandoned separatism and been inspired by the NDP.
      I'm sure many people who support the NDP will disagree with the party on issues and Isreal and Hamas will be included in that. I am far more suspicious of the CPC who's members are in such unanamous "agreement" that they speak the same sentences over and over again in public.

      J. Harnad

      Aug 29, 2015 at 7:52am

      JR Whiteha: You make presumptions that have no basis in facts. The questions posed need answering, not evasion or blind "sparring".

      Wonhung Lo

      Aug 29, 2015 at 8:49am

      Yes the two main issues the prof is most worried about deserve answers...but not the two priority ones that will make or break my decision.