When asked during his interview with Peter Mansbridge about this, Mulcair only said that Hyer did not want to vote with his colleagues.
In an email to HuffPost, however, Hyer called Mulcair's statements "a total fabrication." "I always supported 95 per cent of the NDP party platform. I still support much of it! But I feel very strongly that my primary role is as the representative of my constituents," Hyer wrote.
"On some issues, an MP's responsibility is to put … constituents ahead of the party line. It is interesting that Mulcair immediately contradicted himself and said that I was 'someone who walked away from the party on a single issue.' Again and again, I see and hear a man who in his pursuit of power will contradict himself."In fact as early as 2013, the Globe and Mail had already noticed the trend.
Much attention has been given to Conservative backbenchers who push socially conservative issues and are later overruled by cabinet. What is not well known is that Conservative MPs are far more likely to support motions from other parties – all of which are to the political left of the governing party. In contrast, the voting record of the official opposition under NDP leader Thomas Mulcair shows ironclad discipline. Not a single vote has been cast that is out of step.This certainly lends credence to Hyer's comments. One of Mulcair's nicknames when he was in the Quebec legislature was objet immobile or immovable object. He was very obstinate. Recent analysis of voting patterns have shown that the NDP vote with their leader 100% of the time, while the Conservatives only 76%. So who's the dictator now?
During the 2004 election campaign, many Canadians were concerned with Stephen Harper's views on the Constitution, and fears that his platform would result in many court challenges. It has. But how is that any different from Mulcair's platform? He is also threatening the Constitution with his promise to abolish the Senate.
Harper was also antagonistic toward the Supreme Court, suggesting that they had too much power. As a populist, he believed that all the power should rest in the hands of elected MPs. Is this not exactly what Thomas Mulcair is suggesting today?
He claims that if elected the Senate will have to answer to him. I find that rather frightening. Yes, the Senate is wounded but it is not broken, and is a vital part of our democracy. They are supposed to the sober second thought, that would protect us from leaders like Mulcair and Harper, who believe in an autocratic style of government.
Sadly, they have become little more than a partisan cesspool, but that is where we need change. Senators should not belong to any party. If they are caught campaigning for, or against, any political party, they can no longer be a senator. We need them to represent us. We are the ones paying the bills.
Both Harper and Mulcair want the Constitution reopened to push their own agendas. It won't happen because both Quebec and Ontario, have already said that they are not prepared to do that.
I have been accused recently of not being progressive because of my opposition to Thomas Mulcair. However, it is as a progressive, that I am sounding the alarm.
In November of 2009, Linda McQuaig wrote in the Toronto Star
If, as polls suggest, Stephen Harper is poised to win a majority, it's largely due to the media notion that his past reputation for extremism no longer holds. In fact, apart from his reluctant embrace of economic stimulus, Harper has shown little of the "moderation" that supposedly now puts his government comfortably within the Canadian mainstream.I feel as McQuaig did then. The media is once again being blissfully ignorant, or intentionally misleading, by ignoring Mulcair's past. He was not an "extremist", but he was virulently right-wing. Most progressive journalists warned of Harper's devotion to the principles of Margaret Thatcher, yet most, including McQuaig, are now eerily silent on Mulcair's.
We can't make the same mistake twice. If Mulcair is re-elected it will be as a Member of Parliament. Depending on the outcome of the election, he could be prime minister, opposition leader, or leader of the third party.
But under no circumstances will he be elected supreme being. He will not dictate to the Senate. He will not unilaterally change our constitution and he will not simply repeal anything, without the support of both Houses.
We've had a decade of this kind of government, and Canadians are weary of it.
Including this progressive.