Canada, What's Left?: A New Social Contract, Pro and Con

Agar Adamson is the author of Letters of Agar Adamson, 1914–19 and former chair of the Department of Political Science at Acadia University in Nova Scotia.

Political parties, particularly those who do not enjoy electoral success, frequently “navel gaze” hoping to find the road to victory. This is especially true of those parties which are on the left of the political spectrum. Canada, What’s Left? is an attempt by certain members of the New Democratic Party (NDP) in Western Canada, led by the late Grant Notley and Allan Blakeney, to forge a “social contract” between organized labour and government.

The work is based upon a conference held at the University of Alberta in May 1984. The genesis for the conference was the split between the national NDP and those in Western Canada over the 1982 constitutional reform package. It was hoped that this conference would help to heal the wounds of 1982.

You do not have to agree with the writers in order to benefit from reading this work. For examplc, you may not agree with Leo Panitch’s argument against an incomes policy, but you will find his argument stimulating. Similarly, you may not accept Garth Stevenson’s views on democratic centralism, but it is a concept worthy of examination.

This book is also useful, for it gives us an insight into the political philosophy of the late Grant Notley, the man who built the NDP in Alberta.

The editors are to be commended for including portions of the post-paper presentation discussion in the text. All too often this important aspect of any conference is not included in the published proceedings.

Allan Blakeney has, perhaps, summarized the book when he stated: “It’s easier of course to state the problem than to propose the cure. We have all been hammered by so many gods that have failed that we are a little jaded” (p. 37). It is true that the NDP rejected the concept of a “social contract.” Perhaps this was a case of political expediency winning over political theory? Nevertheless, despite its rejection, the arguments put forth in this book by people like Blakeney, Elwood Cowley, Arthur Kube, Panitch, John Richards Stevenson, and Notley should be studied, for undoubtedly the issue will arise again in the future.