NDP Leadership Race #126

He didn't say, "we have to continue to renew." He said the NDP has "never" renewed itself.

Dear Fellow New Democrats, You’ve surely gotten a lot of emails from New Democrat leadership candidates lately, so I promise you this is the only email my campaign is going to send to the full membership list. (If you want more emails from me, you can sign up for my email list at www.martinsingh.ca! :-) My name is Martin Singh, and I’m running to be the next New Democrat leader and Prime Minister. I’m a bilingual pharmacist from Musquodoboit Harbour, Nova Scotia, a husband, father of three wonderful children, a Canadian Forces reservist, and an environmentalist. In my fifteen years as a grassroots activist for our party, I’ve been a riding President, Financial Agent, and Chair of the party’s Faith and Social Justice Commission. You’re probably wondering why a pharmacist from a little village on Nova Scotia’s Eastern Shore is running. I’m in it to win, because I truly believe I can make a difference for our party and our country. Has someone in your life ever been affected by cancer, or another disease with high drug costs? If so, you may understand my passion for building a national pharmacare program. As a pharmacist, I personally live the struggles too many Canadians have to go through to pay for medicine. Since you’re a New Democrat, you probably agree with me that, to build a national pharmacare program, we need to elect a New Democrat government in Ottawa. To do that, I think we need to earn Canadians’ trust on the economy. With my business experience, I can build our party’s credibility on economic issues and the trust we need to form government. I’m writing today to ask for your help. You see, the party’s Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) has just fined my campaign because of something that happened at the French-language debate in Montreal on March 4, and I need your help to pay the fine. Let me give you both sides of the issue, because afterwards I’m hoping you will decide tomake a small donationto my campaign to help me pay this unfair fine. My side is this: during the February 12 French-language debate, I asked Brian Topp a question about his tax policy. Mr. Topp did not tell the truth in his answer. Specifically, he said that his tax policy document does not propose to take away the capital gains tax exemption from charities. In fact, it does. (There is a link to Mr. Topp’s policy document at the bottom of this email. He proposes to take away the capital gain exemption from everything but the sale of homes, farms and small businesses – see page 7.) At the next French debate, in Montreal on March 4, I asked Mr. Topp why he lied the first time. Perhaps this was a harsh choice of words. It certainly upset Mr. Topp, because afterwards his campaign complained to the CEO about me using “unparliamentary language”. Five days later, on March 9, the CEO sent a ruling to all the campaigns saying that, going forward, we must not use unparliamentary language. I will follow this rule from now on, but the CEO went a step further and told my campaign that I would have to publicly apologize to Mr. Topp or be fined. I do not think it is fair to punish me for breaking a rule that did not exist yet. If that rule had existed on March 4, I would have said “Mr. Topp, why didn’t you tell the truth?” (whichI understand would be acceptable in Parliament) instead of “Mr. Topp. why did you lie?” Here is the CEO’s side: he says I should have known not to use the word I used, and that this justifies fining my campaign $1100 unless I apologize. I have great respect for the CEO, who has served our party in the past as a member of Jack Layton’s staff team, but I do not think his decision here is fair. I am a principled person and my honour is very important to me, so I am not willing to apologize for breaking a rule that did not exist yet while telling the truth about what Mr. Topp said on February 12. This $1100 fine will seriously hurt my campaign. My campaign is more grassroots than most, and this fine will have a serious impact on our ability to contact our supporters and remind them to vote. That’s why I’m asking for your help. If you think it’s unfair for me to be fined for breaking a rule that did not exist yet, for telling the truth and holding Brian Topp accountable for his statement on February 12, please donate $10, $20, $50 or whatever you can afford to my campaign to help pay the fine . If you think it’s important for the New Democrats to have strong policies on the environment, entrepreneurship and a national pharmacare program, please vote for me in this leadership election. If you’re not sure, I invite you to read my three policy papers at www.martinsingh.ca before making up your mind on how to vote. Regardless of the outcome on March 24, I look forward to working with you on these issues in the future. Sincerely Martin Singh Musquodoboit Harbour, NS

TheArchitect wrote:

It amazes me to see Mulcair supporters continuing to deny that there's any reason for concern about Mulcair.

If Ed Broadbent didn't think there were serious reasons for concern, he wouldn't have made these comments.  While the fact Ed isn't a fan of Mulcair shouldn't rule Mulcair out in this contest, I don't think there can be any question that Ed has the party's best interests at heart, and he wouldn't make such harsh comments about someone who might well be elected leader of the party in less than ten days if he didn't believe strongly that a Mulcair leadership would be very dangerous to the party.

So, Mulcair supporters, let me ask the question: If Ed doesn't have a reason to think Mulcair would do harm to the party, then why is he saying what he's saying?

Is Ed a dictator? Does Ed get to make up my mind for me? Sorry, Ed is a great guy and he gets one vote. Just like me.

Howard wrote:

TheArchitect wrote:

It amazes me to see Mulcair supporters continuing to deny that there's any reason for concern about Mulcair.

If Ed Broadbent didn't think there were serious reasons for concern, he wouldn't have made these comments.  While the fact Ed isn't a fan of Mulcair shouldn't rule Mulcair out in this contest, I don't think there can be any question that Ed has the party's best interests at heart, and he wouldn't make such harsh comments about someone who might well be elected leader of the party in less than ten days if he didn't believe strongly that a Mulcair leadership would be very dangerous to the party.

So, Mulcair supporters, let me ask the question: If Ed doesn't have a reason to think Mulcair would do harm to the party, then why is he saying what he's saying?

Is Ed a dictator? Does Ed get to make up my mind for me? Sorry, Ed is a great guy and he gets one vote. Just like me.

Of course Ed doesn't get up to make up your mind for you.  I'm not saying that we should all follow Ed.  What I'm saying is that we should take Ed's comments into account when evaluating Mulcair.  And Ed's comments are just one more piece of evidence that Thomas Mulcair will move the party to the right.

If you think that Thomas Mulcair is the best person to lead the party in spite of that fact, then go right ahead and vote for him.  What bothers me isn't people supporting Mulcair, it's people trying to deny that there's any reason to think Mulcair would represent a move to the right, and behaving dismissively toward people who raise the issue.

I am totally appalled by Ed Broadbent's comments which are the most devisive of any former NDP leader since I began supporting  NDP. What is it about these pitiful little people that don't realize their kick at the can is long gone. It almost sounds as if Eddie is sore that Jack bested his record, of course, with the able assitance of Tom.

This has got to be the dumbest thing Broadbent has done since he retired. Talk about a sore loser. Shame on him!

As a New Democrat since 1990... as someone who that was active in the youth wing... President of my provincial and federal riding associations... sat on election platform committees... ran for a nomination... none of that is an attack on me or the party. And I applaud each of those statements.