Trash talk with Thomas Mulcair

Thinking that the following might have appeal to the NDP Party, I called Thomas Mulcair, the Deputy Leader and Finance Critic:

“Thomas: I have something very constructive to offer to your Party and ALL Canadians, in the form of a rare win-win-win face saving solution that will generate about $6 billion in ANNUAL new tax revenue from people desperate to pay it to Revenue Canada. This will be even better than when Jack Layton got Paul Martin to roll back those corporate tax cuts [back in 2005].”

I began our conversation by describing the Marshall Plan to Thomas Mulcair,, and its win win win outcome in resolving the income trust matter and how the Marshall Plan would convert $6 billion of deferred taxes (the source of the NDP’s erroneous tax leakage assumption) into cash taxes in order to transform them into $6 billion of hard annual cash currency for the government to fund much needed social programs and to help address Canada’s deficit.

Thereupon, Thomas dealt with this serious proposal by saying that:

(1) BFI should never have been an income trust, as they are North America’s largest waste management companies......huh? I told him that this was a "garbarge" argument.

(2) The NDP never lied to us about the taxation of trusts, whereas Harper did. As if that has anything to do with the Marshall Plan?

It is for reason number (2) that I feel compelled to write this email, to share with you my response to Thomas Mulcair which was to tell him that he is seeking to buy absolution for his party’s sins and omissions by blaming Harper for his breaking of his 2006 election promise. This narrow definition of the issue might work for Thomas Mulcair but it has no value to me as an argument, since the broken promise might be an issue in his mind, but not mine, since I have been focused almost EXCLUSIVELY on the fact that the premise that Harper used to justify the flip flop was the bogus tax leakage argument. Something that the NDP are as enjoined in as the CONs themselves, since those two parties seem to share the same love for democratic due process and blacked out documents as the other.

I also challenged Thomas to tell me where in the 5 provisions of the Ways and Means motion did it mention the concept that he was referring to in (1) above. He was unable to say, but said it doesn’t matter because that was his party’s reasons for voting for this trust. Ergo, the fact that all 5 of the 5 provisons of the Ways and Means motion are false, apparently doesn’t matter. Okay?

That was quite the call I had. Not only did I learn that the NDP try to slough off their enjoinment on this issue to the CONs, but they seem to want to forget that the whole tax plan was advanced by concepts that to date the government and the NDP have never proved, but the most appalling thing I learned about the NDP’s modus operandi, is that they are willing to openly admit that they are happy to pass legislation for reasons that have nothing to do whatsoever with the provisions of the Ways and Means motion, which is the instrument of Parliament that empowers legislation to be drafted and voted on in the first place.

So now we have the situation where not only are lies like tax leakage enshrined in legislation, so too apparently are hidden agendas and ulterior motives, which is exactly the point that I made in an Op Ed that appeared in the London Free Press in November 2006, except in that Op Ed I was simply speculating about that possibility, whereas now I have the proof.

The NDP cares not a wit about democratic due process. Is it any co-incidence that both Jim Flaherty and Thomas Mulcair are lawyers? Practiced in the craft of being opaque and unaccountable for their actions.