The NDP leadership campaign has been going on officially for nearly four months now.
That seems like a long time, and yet we still have another three months to go.
New Democrats will not choose their leader until March 29, 2026, at a party convention in Winnipeg.
A lot could happen in the world and in Canadian politics between now and then. For instance, we could be in a federal election campaign in late March 2026. Who knows?
Mainstream media coverage of the NDP campaign has been sparse – not that there has been all that much to cover.
In October, the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) sponsored an early-in-the-campaign event at which CLC president Bea Bruske interviewed each candidate, one after the other. For many current and potential New Democratic supporters that was their first look at the candidates.
No fireworks happened at the well-mannered CLC event, and the candidates mostly answered banal and general questions, more focused on their biographies than on what they’d do for the Canadian people.
Subsequently, at the end of November in Montreal, there was the only official, party-organized debate we’ve had so far.
There is only one candid and honest way to describe that debate: an unmitigated disaster.
The Party had billed it as primarily a French-language debate, but none of the candidates spoke French well enough to make that possible. Their feeble efforts were mostly cringe-worthy.
Avi Lewis was the best of the lot but he had little competition. Lewis saved the event from being even more catastrophic than it was.
Five candidates, only one elected MP
Observers wondered why the party had scheduled such an event when it only served to underscore the huge gap in most of the candidates’ ability to communicate with more than a fifth of Canadians in their own language.
Maybe, given that Party rules require at least one French debate, NDP apparatchiks simply wanted to get it over with at a time when it would cause the least damage.
Mercifully for New Democrats, and all who wish them well, the Montreal debate did not attract much of an audience. It was an online-only affair that required viewers to register in advance. Very few did. It seems that was Party officials’ hoped-for outcome.
The candidates and the Party have now moved on from the Montreal fiasco, and they hope the rest of us have completely erased it from our memories.
In case, you’re just now starting to pay attention to this race, the five official candidates (as most rabble readers no doubt know) are:
Heather McPherson, an expert on international development, who has been the MP for Edmonton Strathcona since 2019, the only elected MP in the race.
Rob Ashton, leader of the Vancouver-based International Longshore Workers Union.
Avi Lewis, a filmmaker and activist, scion of a legendary NDP family, who ran for the NDP twice, in two different British Columbia ridings, losing both times.
Tanille Johnston, also a former federal candidate, a social worker, and member of the We Wai Kai First Nation on Vancouver Island.
Ontario organic farmer Tony McQuail, who has run multiple times both federally and provincially in the Huronia region of Ontario, but never tasted victory.
Early in December, the Party rejected one candidate, Montreal activist Yves Engler, on multiple grounds, including promoting antisemitic and pro-Putin views.
In the days following this decision there was some push-back, even from supporters of other candidates. That seems to have died down now.
Aside from his ideas, many object to Engler’s habit of aggressively confronting public figures in a way that can be threatening and intimidating. The Montreal activist has a take-no-prisoners, street-fighter approach to politics. The words civility and respect seem to be absent from his personal lexicon.
Still, some suggest it would be better to have Engler inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in. Others counter: What if we had him inside the tent but he kept on pissing in?
Avi Lewis stands out on policy
As for the other, official candidates, the one who has portrayed himself most consistently as an advocate for bold and unabashedly progressive policies is Avi Lewis.
This writer has pointed this out in the past, but it bears repeating. Mark Carney’s unabashedly rightward ideological thrust, which becomes clearer each day, invites a clear, progressive response.
To start: Progressives have to fully recognize that Canada is in an unprecedented economic crisis mode, caused by Donald Trump’s unambiguous challenge to our very existence as a sovereign and free country.
Carney’s response has been, on one front, to endeavour to rationally negotiate with the U.S. His goal is to at least hold back the aggressivity of the Trump regime, for as long as possible.
At the same time, the Prime Minister has elaborated a plan to, in his words, build Canada – to make our economy more independent and resilient. It is a tall order, considering we are an exporting nation and 70 per cent of our exports go to the U.S.
Carney’s second front involves a deep partnership with the corporate, private sector. The PM sees the government’s role here as catalyst to and enabler of private investment – not the principal economic actor.
The government’s tools are tax credits, direct subsidies, and relaxed and streamlined regulations.
The purpose of such new Carney-created entities as the Major Projects Office and the Defence Investment Agency is not to build, own and operate factories, refineries, mines or pipelines. It is to provide incentive for the (notionally) Canadian private sector to up its game and make what Carney calls unprecedented investments in Canada.
Carney is not appealing to Canadian businesses’ sense of duty and patriotism at this fraught moment. He is appealing to what most motivates them: the pursuit of profit.
The current government does not seem to have learned any lessons from the way corporations such as Stellantis and General Motors have backed away from job-creating pledges, and laid off workers, despite the Canadian and Ontario governments’ generous financial support.
Carney does not even propose that the Canadian government take any sort of equity position in exchange for his proposed largess to the corporate world.
The government seeks only to reduce risks for the private sector, without any attempt to hedge against big businesses’ failing to uphold their side of the bargain.
Lots of space for a well-documented alternative to Carney’s approach
That’s why we need a comprehensive, alternative and progressive approach to building Canada’s economic independence. Such an approach would envisage a far bigger role for the public sector.
What Avi Lewis proposes is a step in the right direction. Lewis foresees a big role for the public sector not merely as a cheerleader of private industry, but as an active player.
He has proposed federal public entities for housing, telecommunications, banking (through the Post Office), wholesale food, and pharmaceuticals.
That’s a good start. It helps break the prevailing ideological bias that tends to denigrate the competence and capacity for innovation of the public sector.
However, Lewis does not, as yet, offer any sort of vigorous public-sector-focused alternative to Mark Carney’s approach to encouraging investment in such key fields as mining and forestry.
The bottom line is that NDPers must start to figure out what kind of solutions they have to offer Canadians in response to the current threat to our country’s very existence.
We know where Carney puts all of his emphasis.
For now, with the left weakened and marginalised, all of the policy pressure on Carney comes from the other side, from the well-funded and articulate voices for big business, such as Goldie Hyder of the Business Council of Canada.
In the wake of the November federal budget, Hyder and his colleague at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Candace Laing, signed an opinion piece praising Carney for what they called “a good start”.
But they warned the government that businesses will continue to sit on their hands until they get more generous incentives, and, more important, assurances of a favourable tax and regulatory environment for the long term.
You can be sure they, and others like them, have the Prime Minister’s ear. The voices on the other side, speaking for the public interest, are, so far, feeble and faint.
There’s a challenge for those seeking the leadership of Canada’s traditional party of the progressive Left.
Support rabble today!
We’re so glad you stopped by! Thanks for consuming rabble content this year.
rabble.ca is 100% reader and donor funded, so as an avid reader of our content, we hope you will consider gifting rabble with a donation during our summer fundraiser today.
Whether it be a one-time donation or a small monthly contribution, your support is critical to keep rabble writers producing the work you’ve come to rely on as a part of a healthy media diet.
Become a rabble rouser — donate to rabble.ca today.
Nick Seebruch, editor
