BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

NDP MARGINALIZED AND LOST IN A SEA OF CONFUSION

The federal NDP was devastated in the November 2000 federal election when only 13 MPs were elected - down from 21 MPs in the 1997 federal election. As a result, the federal party has wandered off into the margins of the political scene in Canada, wondering what it should do to bolster its support. Unfortunately for the NDP, no one seems to have a clear solution to its problems. This has led to the party becoming mired in a sea of confusion.

Party leader, Alexis McDonough, had suggested that the party should move from the left to a more central position in its policies. In this, she was attempting to follow in the successful footsteps of British Labour Leader, Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Manitoba's NDP Premier, Gary Doer. Both dropped their hard-line leftist, pro-labour stance, and have adapted their respective party's policies to assume middle-of-the-road positions more acceptable to the public. However, her colleagues, especially two BC MPs, Svend Robinson (Burnaby Kingsway) and Libby Davies (Vancouver East) and Judy Rebick, the former President of NAC and itinerant CBC journalist, have come up with what they call the New Politics Initiative which would move the party considerably left on the political spectrum. The latter believe support can be obtained from activists such as those participating in the recent anti-globalization riots, like the one held in Seattle in January, 2001, or at the APEC Conference in Vancouver in 1997. As a result of this proposition, NDP MPs, to show their solidarity with "youth," decided to join the young anarchists at the Summit of the Americas held in April 2001 in Quebec City. However, apart from MP Svend Robinson ruining his trousers and demanding compensation from the riot police, the NDP demonstrations did not appear to have had any effect. In fact, the sight of NDP MPs joining the demonstrators in Quebec City didn't do much to reassure the public as to the party's sanity.

NDP on Parliament Hill

Meanwhile, on Parliament Hill, MPs Svend Robinson and Libby Davies appear to behave like an old-time vaudeville comedy and dance team, with their well-synchronized patter and fancy footwork. The two have raised a few eyebrows in Parliament, with the following.

(a) Terrorism

While most of the world, including the former arch enemies of the US - Russia and China - stood solidly behind US President, George Bush, in the war on terrorism, these two MPs severely criticized Prime Minister Chrétien for his failure to respect international law by allowing the Canadian military to support to the US efforts in Afghanistan. The NDP party itself, by the way, is of the opinion that the UN should take over the problem of terrorism (perhaps like in Rwanda where hundreds of thousands died because of the UN's ineptitude). In the debate on terrorism in the House of Commons (Hansard, October 17, 2001, p. 5405), Mr. Robinson stated that he listened to US President Bush's speech to the American Congress [on September 20, 2001] "with a sense of foreboding and almost despair." He went on to say:

… I believe from the bottom of my heart that the United States is embarking upon a course which is profoundly dangerous, which will cause the loss of many more innocent lives which will take this planet into territory that is dangerous and destructive.

His comrade in arms, NDP MP, Libby Davies, during the debate, echoed his sentiments in opposing Canada's support of the US-led military action stating (Hansard, p. 6290):

… We have also been clear in opposing the federal government's decision to commit Canadian military support to the US led military action, particularly given that the US has indicated that it may be prepared to expand its attacks to other countries beyond Afghanistan.

(b) Same-sex Marriage

MP Svend Robinson, a strong supporter of same-sex marriage, tabled a private members bill in support of same-sex marriage calling his bill the Marriage Capacity Act. The bill came up for second reading on October 29, 2001. MP Libby Davies seconded his bill. In his opening remarks on the bill, Mr. Robinson thanked the homosexual MPs from the other parties for their support of the bill.

These included Réal Ménard, (Hochelaga - Maisonneuve) BQ, Scott Brisson, Kings-Hants (PC Representative Caucus), Bill Graham, Liberal (Toronto Centre - Rosedale) (Mr. Graham, recently appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs, is an openly acknowledged homosexual - although possibly a bi-sexual, since he also has a wife and two grown children. The homosexual newspaper, Capital Xtra, on February 8, 2002, was ecstatic about his appointment.) Robinson also referred to the fact that his NDP party was the only national party to support same-sex marriage. According to Mr. Robinson (Hansard, p. 6636):

… Excluding gay and lesbian people from the institution of marriage sends a clear message that our relationships, the relationships of same-sex couples, are somehow not as worthy of recognition and affirmation.

The bill was defeated by the combined votes of the Liberals, Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Democratic Representative MPs. The BQ members present mainly supported the bill.

During the debate on this same-sex marriage bill, Mr. Robinson's ally, MP Libby Davies, in her enthusiasm, disclosed that she is currently living in a lesbian relationship. Her partner is a 33-year-old student at Ottawa's Carleton University, who is listed as Ms. Davies official travel companion with the federal government. This allows her up to 20 flights across Canada each year at taxpayers' expense. Ms. Davies lives in Vancouver.

(c) Spanking of Children

This time it was the turn of MP Libby Davies to table a private members bill to repeal S.43 of the Criminal Code which now permits parents to discipline their children by spanking them if it is reasonable under the circumstances. The debate on Ms. Davies' bill took place on November 9, 2001. Ms. Davies argued (Hansard, p. 7223:

… I believe that it [spanking] is contrary to basic human rights. I believe it is contrary to the rights of children that Canada is a signatory to through international convention.

… When we see that the section creates an environment of sanctioning violence rather than prohibiting it, then hopefully we will begin to see why the section must be removed.

In response, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General, MP Lynn Myers (Waterloo - Wellington, Ontario), stated at p. 7225:

… The government is defending section 43 based on its belief that this section can be interpreted and applied in a constitutional manner which balances the interests of children, parents and Canadian society. Loving, well intentioned Canadian parents who engage in normative disciplinary conduct that is undertaken in a reasonable way and takes into account the needs and best interests of children should not be criminally charged for such conduct. Absent section 43, this would be precisely the result.

Excellent comments on this issue were also made by other MPs, such as Larry Spencer (Regina, Lumsden - Lake Centre) Canadian Alliance, at p. 7226:

… It is not for the government to interfere with the exercise of parental rights or responsibilities. Guidelines may be given. That has been done in section 43 of the Criminal Code. To remove that section would be to revoke the God given right parents have to carry out the proper training and disciplining they desire.

… Many people today are neglecting and abusing their children by failing to correct, discipline, teach and train them properly. Some are afraid to take up the challenge for fear of damaging the poor child's self esteem. Many are afraid of being accused of abuse and seeing their child whisked away by some bleeding heart social worker.

… Children cannot be left to themselves. They are not capable of making the proper decisions on their own. They must be taught and directed to understand and know the right choices. They must be taught honesty, work, kindness, respect and responsibility.

… What child has real self-esteem if he has never experienced the loving correction of a parent? …

MP Gerald Kennedy (Nova Scotia - South Shore - PC/DR Caucus) also made very valid comments during the debate. He stated at p. 7227 of Hansard:

… Section 43 enables parents to do the best job possible of raising their children and gives them an option. It is not an option that most parents choose to take. It is not an option that is abused on a continual basis. The law very clearly prevents that abuse. Parents can be charged. They can be taken to court and their children can be taken away from them.

It protects the rights of parents in accordance with their particular moral and religious beliefs. It reflects their personal knowledge of the unique characteristics of their own children, of how to discipline their children, through knowledge gained from their parents and their own experiences during childhood.

MP Libby Davies and her party are clearly out of touch on the spanking issue. For example, a Leger Marketing survey, published this month indicated that 70% of Canadian parents believe they should have the right to reasonably discipline their children by spanking them without interference from the state. (See article "Another Win in the Spanking Case," page 8.)

NDP National Party Convention - Winnipeg, November 24 - 25, 2001

The NDP held a stormy national convention in Winnipeg, the last weekend of November. At this meeting, Ms. McDonough was re-elected party leader (there wasn't exactly much competition for this position) and was given a mandate to press on with a campaign to rejuvenate the party. The New Politics Initiative was defeated at the convention, however. Left undecided was whether the party should reconsider its traditional strong ties to trade unions. This issue arose over a resolution to adopt a more democratic one-member one-vote system for leadership conventions. The Convention ended up endorsing a compromise that would give out 25% of the vote to trade union delegates, while the rest of the party would use the one-member, one-vote system. The core question in regard to the trade unions, however, is whether the party and union movement should remain closely tied. Although the unions give the party money received (through its mandatory union dues), political support and ideas, they clearly are not providing the NDP with any votes at elections. As a result, NDP pragmatists have concluded that the union connection is a millstone around the party's neck, preventing it from thinking afresh about old problems and scaring off mainstream voters. The question of union ties is also left to be decided at a later date.

The future of the NDP remains dark. This is probably just as well.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS