The Paikin Podcast - Everything Political: Does Canada Need the NDP Anymore?

Episode Date: August 28, 2025

Interim leader of the NDP Don Davies joins the Everything Political panel to discuss the NDP’s worst election in its entire history, if they should dismantle the party, if they leaned too heavily into identity politics, how the NDP needs to “reclaim their roots,” and where they go from here. Davies is joined by Everything Political panelists: former Conservative Party MP Tony Clement and former Liberal MP Martha Hall Findlay. Follow The Paikin Podcast: TWITTERx.com/ThePaikinPodINSTAGRAMinstagram.com/thepaikinpodcastBLUESKYbsky.app/profile/thepaikinpodcast.bsky.social

Okay, Tony, I got to ask, have you been in touch with Pierre Polyev since he won his seat back into the House of Commons? Yes, I did send him a note of congratulations. Do you hear back from him? Yes, he said he is focused and energized. Do we believe this? Yes. Martha, what did you think? From Alberta, happy to have Pierre Polyev back in the House representing Alberta this time?

He's still going to suffer from the fact that he chose the safest seat in the entire country, but feels a little easy. I think doesn't he hold the record, Steve, of defeating the most candidates ever? in Canada, 213 other candidates were defeated. He got 80% of the vote when he did it. Yeah, that is true. You find your wins wherever you can find him. Turning an Elections Canada challenge into a positive. Well done, Tony.

That's what you got to do. Pull that one out of a hat. And I was going to say, Tony, your task now is to name all the other 211 candidates that he defeated. Go ahead. Let's hear them all. There's the one lady, Bonnie, and the rest I don't know. Okay. All right. That's good enough. That's good enough. Well, okay, we've talked about the conservative party here.

We're actually now going to talk about the NDP because you may have heard they didn't do so well in the last federal election. So here comes another episode of Everything Political. delighted to welcome back former members of parliament tony clement and martha hall finley and this week don davies who is the leader of the new democratic party of canada right now don it's great to have you on the line for british columbia where you represent a seat there and i want to start i'll start with you and then we'll get our your your former friends from parliament to weigh it on this as well what do we need the ndp for these days in canada well first of all it's great to be with you Steve. Hi, Tony. Hi, Martha. It's wonderful to see you again. Well, that's actually, I think,

one of the core existential questions that our party is facing right now. I think that progressives across the country are going to be talking to each other about. And frankly, I think probably people in other parties as well. What I would say is this is, I think one of the first core questions is, do we want Canada to be a two-party U.S. style system? or not. We did in the last election, apparently. Well, that was the result. Yeah, I'm not sure, though, that that was the intended result.

I mean, that was often people vote, you know, on the ballot question of the day. And then the day after the election, we see what the result is. I actually have a bit of a different view, Steve. I think Canadians actually like the diversity of options they have at the federal level. I think it's one of the strengths of Canadian democracy is that we have a multiplicative. city of parties, in fact, five national parties, including the block, I guess. And I think that that, you know, that range of ideas contributes to Canadian democracy in a way that the American or the British system doesn't. So, but we'll see what Canadians think about that.

The other thing I would say is this, is that I do this little, I guess, imagining game with some of my colleagues. What would happen if the NDP folded up today? And everybody in the NDP just moved over to one of the other two parties. What would that feel like? What would that do to the Canadian political system? And it doesn't feel quite right, I don't think. And that's because the other two parties, I think, are essentially brokerage parties. They're corporate as parties. I think they welcome working people for sure. And they have very good pitches to towards working people, but they're not fundamentally working people's parties. So they also focus on policies for the corporate sector and for the wealthy. And workers are kind of part of that

matrix. The NDP was formed in 1961 by workers, for workers, and at its essence, is supposed to be a party on the federal level that is the voice of working people across this country. So I think that if that's what new Democrats believe is needed at the federal level, then we can reimagine a strong progressive federal option that is predominantly a party that brings the voices of working people and marginalized Canadians to parliament. And I think that's the role that new Democrats can play that and a niche we can fill that's different than the liberals and conservatives. Let me get Martha Hall-Finley to weigh in on that because, and I'll just remind everybody, Martha, before you weigh in, the NDP got six and a half

percent of the total vote in the last election held earlier this year, that was good for seven seats. That's an historically bad showing by the NDP. And Martha, I will ask you the same question. What do we need the NDP for in Canada these days? Because obviously in the last election, only six and a half voters out of a hundred thought we needed them for whatever reason. Well, first, I want to say, hi, Dawn. It's great to have you and to see you. And I will echo, I think the American system does suffer from only having the two options. And we've seen a couple of times in the past where, you know, Ross Perot tried to do something differently. Good heavens. We're going to see what happens with Elon Musk creating his own party. But, but I think

it's just it's a two-party system. And that affects not just the fundamental vote, but how you actually, how the Americans choose who they are going to have to run as their options, right? with the primaries, et cetera. And so it makes it very difficult. So, one, I don't disagree that the three-party or multiple-party system is of value. And I think it has actually been pretty good for Canada over our history. But I would take exception to the, you know, the parties that are focused on economic issues are not necessarily not working for the

workers' interests. You know, I think in the last election, an awful lot of people, were worried about their jobs. They were worried about whether their jobs were actually going to stick around. They were worried about what was going to happen with the Americans, with the tariffs, what's going to do with my job. And so I think an awful lot of people voted, however they felt the conservatives or the liberals would do better at it.

But my sense was that there was a real, these were working people who were actually voting for the options that they thought would best represent their interests. why they felt in historically that the NDP was more of a representative of the workers' interests and not this time. I think that's a bigger question for the party in its strategy. Which they will get to, no doubt. Tony, how about you? What do we need the NDP for these days?

Well, I think that historically they have been a place for those dissatisfied with liberal centrism. Let's put it that way. If the liberals got too far to the center or. center right, there was always a place for center left or what we call now in our modern parliaments, progressives to vote. I kind of mourned the NDP showing not because it created problems for conservatives, although it did. And I will amend that by saying we did actually win some seats because the NDP did so poorly in certain areas. But I'm kind of of the school. I'm of a

certain age where I remember the NDP, as Don elucidated, they focused on class-based politics, if I can put it that way. Oh, Martha, you're, something just fell. I think I just lost that Canadian flag. That is definitely not a good sign. Oh, my goodness. What does that say about where the country is going? That's a terrible omen, Martha. Let's see if we can pull this together here. So, Tony, no, so Tony, I think the point you're making is you, you were starting to say you're old enough to remember that, go ahead. That the NDP represented and focused on class-based politics. I know that's a kind of a way to put it that is very harsh, if I can put it that way. But I think that was basically what the NDP was for to say, as, as Don said, the working class or the, you know, the labor

people who are laboring with their hands, that kind of thing. And if I may be so bold, Don, I think things kind of veered off a ledge when the NDP seemed to focus on identity politics, not class politics. It allowed Pierre Palliev an entree to say, we are actually for the working people. Those guys on the NDP, they're talking about DEI or who knows what they're talking about, but it ain't working people and their wages. And that was, I think, part of the demise as well.

So I'm actually pleased to hear, if I were an NDP partisan, I'd be pleased to hear what Don was just saying. Getting back into class politics may be a way to salvage the NDP. Don, can I just get you to weigh in on the issue of? I mean, it's pretty clear the NDP has sort of tried to straddle this difficult divide about whether we're the party most identified with. Tony called it identity politics or social justice issues, call it what you will, versus representing workers. And for whatever reason, the conservatives and the liberals are now eating your lunch as it relates to representing working people. And the social justice vote was obviously not big enough in the last election to win you more seats.

How does the NDP see itself resolving that conundrum? Well, that's one of the core questions I think that we're asking ourselves now. You know, there's no sugar-coating it. We had the worst result in the history of our party going back to the CCF. And one of the few advantages of being burnt to the ground is that you get to recreate your foundation. So there is a real opportunity, I think, here, Steve, to ask those fundamental questions about not just what were the externalities that affected us, which I think are pretty simple, right? You had the specter of Donald Trump, you know, that overhung our election. the liberals did a good switch with Mark Carney.

The ballot question shifted. Pierre Pahliav looked a little bit too much like Trump. A lot of progressives, I can tell you, a lot of new Democrat voters moved over to the Liberal Party, basically to stop Pierre Paulyev was what I heard on the doorstep and what my colleagues heard on the doorstep a lot. And I think it's the good news for us is that I don't think that's a rejection of NDP values

or NDP policies or principles necessarily. It was almost a lending of the vote. And Jack Layton did that successfully towards the liberals, I think, a couple of elections. Oh, yeah. He said, lend me your vote. That's right. Oh, I am no longer politics, thanks to that strategy.

Well, if there's been some revenge taking here, Martha, in this one here. So to your question, though, we have to look at our role in things, Steve. it's not just the externalities is because not only did we have a bad campaign and I think we ran one of the worst campaigns I've seen, but we've been in a secular slide since 2011, if we're honest, you know, 103 seats, 44, 24, 24, 25, 7. So we can't blame it all in the last election. It's been a, you know, a 14 year slide. So we have to ask ourselves those questions, what is it

about us where we were unable to resonate? We were unable to connect as, as Tony and Martha pointed out, and you did about with working people. And I think one of the questions is, have we veered too much from our sort of class-based analysis to identity politics? My own view, this is just me speaking, is that we have. And, you know, if, and it's not that those intersectional issues aren't important. They are.

It's just a question of the right balance. And I think the NDPs at our best, as Tony may have intimated, when we are bringing a perspective to Parliament that is coming from working people and a good example would be the Air Canada flight attendant strike. I think as a micro example here where we're an inveterate supporter of union rights where the people who will always stand up

for free collective bargaining and that's the pressure we put on the federal system. The liberals and conservatives have to think about broader issues when you govern. Well, hang on. Let me jump in there for a second because, yeah, Tony was going to go there, too. I mean, the conservatives, you always expected them in the past to be anti-union and to take the position of the company on these disputes. And in fact, Pierre Poliev came right out and took the side of the working people in this one. So if the liberals are on their side and the conservatives are on their side and you're on their side, what exactly distinguishes all of you anymore?

And couldn't working people just as easily say, I got two mainstream parties that are backing me. right now. So what exactly what we need these guys for? Well, you're right. And here's the beauty of Canadian politics. We don't operate in a vacuum. I mean, everybody's competing for the same voters, including the very large working class in this country. And I'll give it to the conservatives. They've done a pretty good job, I think, in the last few years, in appealing to blue-collar workers in particular. So there's a battle going on there. I mean, what I would argue is if you look at the broad voting record and on the wide variety of issues that affect working people in unions in the union sector, you know, the NDP has, of course, I would argue, the most

consistent record of supporting those rights. But if you look at, take a look at the anti-scab legislation we brought in last parliament. We got the liberals and conservatives voted for it. That's the first time they've done it. But the issue wouldn't have been brought to Parliament if the NDP hadn't pushed it onto the agenda, I don't think. So it is a contest, and I think what the NDP has to do is do a really good naval gazing. We have to do a route to branch, honest inventory, look inward, and find out, are we talking about the right issues that are affecting kitchen tables in Oshua or Travier or Camloops? Are we really understanding what working people are going through?

And I think you're right, when we're talking about, say, you know, drag reading in libraries or trans women in sports, those issues may have their own, you know, their own impact or import. I don't think we're talking about the real issues that most working people are struggling with. Can they pay their rent? Can they buy a house? Can they buy groceries?

Do their kids have enough money for their hockey lessons? Can they take a vacation? Those are the issues that I think most working people, people are doing, are spending their time on. And what I'll stop is saying that, you know, this intersectional approach with a class approach is, I think, part of what the NDP brings to parliament. But I think, again, I think we've maybe got that balance wrong. And I'm looking forward to the discussion in our party to see if we can reorient ourselves. So we can tell workers, we get you. We've got policies that will make your lives better. But also recognizing

that we do live in a post-colonial world. We do have, patriarchal uh aspects in our society issues that face uh white straight male workers is not the same are not the same as might affect a you know a lesbian woman of color worker so how we can um reflect all of those interests in an effective honest way is the challenge i think facing the ndp well we got some advice for you here because martha hall finley will tell you since she ran for the leadership once upon a time a couple times actually that the liberal part party of Canada went through the same thing, right? Paul Martin was prime minister, and then they lost in 2006, they got a worse result in 08, they got a worse result in 11, and it took a long time before

finally Justin Trudeau was able to bring them back in 2015. So Martha, as parties go through these kind of really deep dive internal investigations, what advice do you have for Don Davies and his NDP? Well, I would just qualify the Justin Trudeau win of the leadership and then his ultimate win of the country had more to do, as we often see in this country, a desire for change. I think after 10 years, people were tired of Stephen Harper. That happens. And there's no question Justin brought star power, celebrity power. Would Justin Bieber have done much worse, really? So I do think that there was a combination of a desire for change, which we saw this year. We saw the same thing, but in the other direction. And I, you know, I think there are an awful lot of people who were

very upset at the last 10 years of government because it was a promise unfulfilled, right? There was a sense of your party was supposed to actually do some real thinking about what you wanted to do, what was the right thing for the country. I think people fell into. the celebrity change plus celebrity more than having a liberal party that really stood up for some specific things. I would say it has always bothered me when we defer to the concept of class when we're talking about economic capacity or economic affluence, whatever you want to call it, because it's like, well, people want to identify them as middle class, but so who's higher

class, who's lower class? It sounds extraordinarily left over from the British class system. So I prefer to talk about economic capacity, income brackets, that kind of thing, because it really is tied to income. And that brings me to my piece of advice. I think your colleague, Wob Canoe, nailed it when a little while ago he said out front. It's the economic horse that pulls the social cart. And that I think is what Canadians want to hear of whatever economic capacity they have, wherever they are, whatever their income bracket. But I would say even more now, those who are worried about their jobs, they're worried about Donald Trump, they want to hear the NDP talking about the importance of economic prosperity as well. And so that I think is something

that would reassure a lot of people. Tony, what's your advice? Yeah, I mean, the founding of the CCF put together two very different groups that you had the academic intellectuals who were kind of Fabian socialists or what have you. But then you had the prairie socialist populists who had this strange idea that if you fell off your tractor and broke your arm, that there should be a socialized healthcare system there to help you fix your arm, right? You didn't have to sell your tractor that you fell off of just to save your arm. So it was kind of those common sense populist ideas that really, I think, are the legacy of the NDP rather than the professorial intellectuals, in my opinion. And the more you lean on that, I think that there's a, you know, here's my bold

prediction. I'm not the only one saying it, but just as we've had conservative populism over the last years. I think there's, in North America, I think there's going to be progressive populism is going to rise up. We're going to see it in America, and that could wash up into Canada as well. So I think if you have progressive, populist, common sense ideas, I think that there's a good market for you. What do you think of the advice, Don? It resonates. I think those are excellent points. And for our part, I think, I think Martha's right. We need a new vocabulary. Like, to be honest, I don't know if anybody really views themselves in terms of class anymore.

I don't know if people call themselves working class or middle class. So part of our job, I think, is to find a new vocabulary, a new diction that resonates. Because as we all know in politics, it's, it is about the ideas, but it's also about, it's about the communication of them. And it's about the marketing. and I don't think we've done a good job of that. I know last election we, Jekmeet, Singh, you know, spent a lot of time talking about sort of the ultra-rich

and setting up this class kind of component. I don't think it resonated. Well, the math would prove that, I think. So, but I think, and I think Tony's dead right about that there is, I think, a great opportunity for us from a policy basis to put forward, you know, as he said, common sense, populist ideas that will help the broad majority of people. So it's really those two things.

It's finding out what those issues are, and then it's packaging them in a way that people can see themselves benefiting from it. One example I'd use as dental care. I mean, you did, you know, Tony talked about falling off a horse and breaking your arm. Well, you know, in the last parliament, if you fell off that, you know, your bike and broke a tooth,

the NDP drove dental care, the idea that people should have access to dental care as a fundamental primary health care. We drove that on to the stage. Kind of speaks to your first question, Steve. You're a very first one, which is what are we there for? That would not have happened. I think it's fair to say.

Can I ask Don a question? Sorry, Don, go ahead. Don, what do you think the impact of the, you know, multi-year deal between the NDP and the Liberals was? I mean, one argument could be you had this deal with the Liberals. You prop them up over a series of budget. and confidence votes. And really, in a sense, you kind of cooked your own goose

because you couldn't attack them too much because you were the reason they were there for so long. It was that part of the problem, do you think? Because I think we're going to have to schedule a weekend, Tony, if we're going to explore that one. I'm reminded of True N-Ly's famous answer to the question of the assessment of the French Revolution. Too soon to tell.

Yeah. But it's a penetrating question, Tony, because, and I think we're still sort of processing that as well. Like in one sense, I do think that history will treat us better than the electorate maybe did in April. And I think, just like by the way, when Tommy Douglas brought in Medicare in Saskatchewan, I think they lost the next election, if I'm not mistaken. And I know in the 60s, Tommy lost his own seat and had to come to BC. So sometimes the cooperation, especially when you're the, you know, we all know the sort of political truism that the junior partner in any kind of small C coalition, and I'll just call it that tends to suffer because the, we tend to absorb all of the negativity of and dislike of the main government. and we don't really get the credit for the good things. The question of is, you know, should we have done it?

Would we do it over again? I think is a good one. I'm not sure that the signing of the CASA itself was responsible for our demise. It's the Confidence and Supply Agreement, CASA. That's right. Yeah. I think it was the way we ended it. I think it was the language that was used around the way we ended it.

I think there's a lot of other factors that go into it. But I think the idea of parties coming together and working together to bring in policies that advance the welfare of a lot of people is a good thing. And I'd like to see more of that in Canadian politics. Can I just put something on the table? Sure. One of the pieces of advice Martha Hall-Finley just gave you was that if you can find somebody out there who's a real superstar who can galvanize public attention, that's a good start.

That's clearly what Justin Trudeau did in 2000. well 15 for the election but even before that when he became the leader who's on and i'll invite anybody to jump on on this who's on the horizon right now who's identified with the new democratic party either federally or provincially who could capture that kind of lightning in a bottle for the party it's only one name i can come up with oh i'm looking beyond manitoba it's hard i said the premier manitoba is the only guy i can think of wab canoe don't who else well that's that's an awkward question for me because as as the interim leader I have to be kind of neutral so and I know who the potential candidates are they're all magnificent but you know it's funny I think it's a fair comment I've noticed this I don't know what Martha and Tony think but who the leader is of a party seems to have a disproportionate impact on Canadian politics you know we can say it should be the platforms it should be the policies but to be frank and in my my time observing it's who the leader is matters a lot.

And I think Mr. Carney was a classic example. I mean, you could stick a fork in the Liberal Party in November, last November. They were in a death spiral. Change the leader and I think the combination of people don't have particularly long attention spans now with social media and busy lives.

And you can change a narrative really quickly. I mean, they did that in Ontario with Patrick Brown and Doug Ford. Tony would know a lot more about this. So I think someone can emerge very quickly. So scanning the horizon and not seeing, you know, the next messiah, I'm not too worried about that. I also will say that great leaders are uncommon in politics. I would say the last great conservative leader was Stephen Harper.

The last great liberal leader may have been Jean Cattain. Ours was Jack Layton. And that's not to be uncharitable towards all the other leaders. But I think one or two out of ten leaders is great. three or four are very good and the bottom five are some mixture of adequate to problematic. So it's, I think all parties face this. So, you know, after Kretchen, you know, there was Stefan Dian, there was Michael Ignathe before you found Trudeau.

After Harper, you know, he went through O'Toole and Shear. So it takes a while to find that right person. So, and when Jack died in an untimely way, you know, it's almost like, you know, we had placed so much emphasis on Jack, it really threw us in a tailspin that I think we're still feeling and we're still emerging from. Shouldn't forget Rachel Knottley's name, actually, given that we have somebody representing Alberta in our grouping here. I asked her.

And what does she say? I think she, like Ron Ambrose, has recognized that politics, you know, it's hard to have a life, frankly, when you're involved in politics. And, you know, Ron is doing really, really well for herself. You know, Rachel's back practicing. But I will also say Rachel Notley as an NDP was not the same as a lot of the federal NDPs. And Don, you would know this, right, on some major, major issues.

So I don't know that you can transplant provincial to federal quite that easily as well. Especially with the NDP. Especially with the NDP. I've got another, one more burn in my saddle for our special guest. And, you know, what I noticed in Parliament was that the NDP took a special glee when they could hammer the conservatives on something. They loved going after, this is when we weren't in government. I'm not talking about when we were the Harper government. This is post Harper.

We were decimated. Trudeau was top of the top of the pops. and yet in the House and I spoke to Charlie Angus about this now I said Charlie why are you attacking we're not your enemy right now there may come a day and I know you love

NDPers love attacking conservatives I know that but it's really not it was crazy both ways though it was crazy both ways conservatives were attacking new Democrats which was a dumb thing to do because of course they need the NDP to steal liberal votes in order for you're talking about the election yeah yeah I get it made no sense both ways

Yeah, although we did win some seats from the NDP. But anyway, regardless of that, I take your point. But especially for the NDP, you know, the liberals can eat your lunch, you know, as they did. So why attack, I know it might feel good to attack a conservative, but you really should attack the guys who were in power for 80% of the time in this country. Just a thought. Well, I agree. I mean, I think that's another thing we need is we need to revisit our strategic vision. I don't think we've been particularly good at tactics or strategy for the last little while.

You know, we're really good at policy. You know, New Democrats love policy. You know, sometimes I think that politics is what you practice to win government and policy is what you get to implement if you're there. I think sometimes the NDP, we have it backwards. You know, we focus exclusively on the policy. I joke that we're the idea factory for the Liberal Party. But I'll match your bur for burr, Tony, because sort of,

of as Steve pointed out, in the last parliament, I think that Pierre Pauliev and the conservative has attacked Jugmeet and us so effectively that, and I think they may have misdirected their fire. Sell out singing, etc.

Sell out singing. That was tough. Yeah. Yeah. And it reminds me of, you know, I don't know if this is true, but one of the sort of the feces in Canadian politics is that Tom Moucair did such a great job bringing down Stephen Harper that we set the stage for Justin Trudeau and liberals who benefited from it.

So I don't, you know, I'm not taking away from the liberals and their skills in winning that election. But so I think that's true is, you know, maybe we were spending a time. And part of it was back to Steve's question, because of the confidence and supply agreement, we were tied to the liberals in a way that did impact us. And I think, by the way, I've said to some of the people in my writing, there's only two things I think politicians can't recover from. if you lose your credibility, or if you're ridiculed. I think you can make mistakes, you can be wrong, you can recover.

But the problem we got into was this issue of, well, you're showing, you have confidence in the government, but you're, you ripped up the conference agreement, but you're voting confidence. And your average Joe in the street that knows nothing about any of this can spot a contradiction like that a mile away. And I think that was the beginning of the end for Jug Meat, to be honest, because that was an impossible tightrope to walk. You rip it up in August of 2024 and you're voting confidence in October.

And that was a political difficult, it did not. Which allowed the liberals time to ditch their stinky leader and get a plan for another leader to lead them in the next election. If you would have voted confidence in them in November, this would have been a very different political dynamic in this country. wouldn't it? Well, conservatives would have a majority by it. Well, there's that. Which is why they didn't want to do it. That's why the NDP didn't want to do it. Let me throw something else on the table here if I can. And that is, let me hear Martha and Tony first and then Donnell get you to comment on their answers, which is why doesn't the NDP, and I don't mean this to be facetious, it's an option. Why doesn't the NDP essentially say, you know what,

we've achieved what we intended to achieve when we created this movement back in the early 1960s, we can go home now. We're done. We've got a liberal party, which we are able to influence in one particular way. The conservative party has clearly become a more worker-focused party under Pierre Polyev than it ever was in the past. We've achieved a lot of stuff here. Let's go home. Martha, what about that as an idea? Well, I think we have the opportunity to see if that is an idea that makes sense. I mean, when, when this election happened, there was a lot of talk about, you know, when the NDP had done so badly, the block had had collapsed significantly. There were a lot of, there was a lot of commentary. Oh, my goodness, you know, Mark Carney and the

liberals, they don't have a, they still don't have a majority. Who are they going to align with? Are they going to align with the, you know, three of the NDP? And even though they don't even have official party status anymore, are they going to align with the block who, you know, Canada is an accidental country. That might be the wrong quote, but, you know, that was the attitude of the leaders of the block. I mean, pretty offensive, let alone the whole separatist desire. My reaction to that was, well, for goodness sake, why would you ally yourself as liberals with those two when you ended up with a campaign with such focus on, and I go back to this, such focus on economic prosperity, such focus on jobs, that you ended up having the two leaders of the two leading parties actually talking about corridors.

They were talking about some of the similar things. My attitude after that was, for goodness sakes, you should collaborate with each other. The country needs collaboration. The country does not have a majority government. You need collaboration. Why doesn't the party that got voted in by pretty much half of the country collaborate with the party that the other half of the country voted for? and really tried to promote that, we'll see, Steve. If that, and I have, there has been some so far.

There has been some evidence of some collaboration. There's been an acknowledgement on Pierre Paulyev's part that, you know, maybe that's not a bad idea that Prime Minister Carney is proposing. But how long will it last? And if it doesn't last, then I think there will be an opportunity to say, oh, maybe this two-party thing, maybe this isn't working. Maybe it starts to look a little bit like some of the challenges that we're seeing in the United States. If we end up having a few years of continued, for the most part, reasonable collaboration to get things done in this country, I think that's, that'll be a much more valid question then.

Tony, what about this notion that new Democrats can say, look, we've made the conservative party former worker focused. We've made the Liberal Party far more sensitive to social justice issues. We can take our marbles and go home. No, I think, look, I live in the southern tip of Northern Ontario, as I keep saying, Steve. So, you know, Northern Ontario and Southwestern Ontario, for that matter, certain pockets of it, that's where I get my bearings on this. Hamilton's another one, where, you know, there, I'll say it, that the Liberal Party is, is an elite focused and centered party. It is a party of elites.

The NDP and the conservative party since 2003, at the very least, are not elite-based parties. They are outsiders to the elite of this country. And so the NDP don't really have a lot in common with the liberals in terms of political culture. They have actually more in common with a conservative party, I would argue. And I see that in Northern Ontario

where you have a liberal conservative switchers who would never, sorry, NDP conservative switchers who would never vote liberal if their life depended on it. Yeah. So, which made attacking each other in the last parliament even more inexplicable. Okay. I get the point. I've got, as we were talking about, those slings and arrows, I get it, I get it. But, but to me, the, what, what you're saying is, for most of of NDP, the, the argument would be just join the liberal party. Well, I don't think they'd be comfortable in the Liberal Party, quite frankly. And so I think that there is a role they can play as another non-elite party,

so long as you keep the professors in the background, and go after the sensible, populist, prairie socialism. I know that's 100 years ago now, but updated, as Don is talking about. I think there's a lot more that could happen there. And look, the liberals are in power now. They're going to screw things up. here, there, everywhere. I don't know. But it's not going to be an easy ride. Let's put it that way. So there's lots of, there's lots of bandwidth or room for the NDP to say, you know, these guys are

messing it up. And if you don't like Pierre Polyev, you know, here we are. And we've got some really interesting policies to help you. So I think there's actually an option there now. And who exemplifies, who in recent politics has exemplified that prairie socialism that you're talking about, Tony, then Rachel Notley and Wob Canoe. Interesting that it was their names that came up when we were talking about the future of the NDP. Now, I would not expect the interim leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada to agree with the notion that we've accomplished everything we need to.

We're going to pick up our marbles and go home. Having said that, OK, Don, what about the notion that there are some social justice new Democrats who might be at home in the Liberal Party and there are some pro-worker elements in the NDP that would be content to support the conservatives from time to time? How does that look as a path forward? Well, that's kind of the end of history argument, isn't it? That, you know, everything's been resolved now and the left can just pack up and go home. I don't, I absolutely don't believe that. I also, you know, with respect, don't agree with those assessments of the liberal and conservative parties. I don't think the conservative party, although they've taken some

I think shrewd and tactical positions appealing to workers, has become a workers party. And I don't believe that the liberal party, you know, has fundamentally transformed into a progressive version. In fact, I would argue Mark Carney is the most right-wing liberal prime minister since Paul Martin. And in fact, his record, if you look at what he's done as prime minister, it's just a litany of, he's just ripped things out of the conservative playbook. Canceled the carbon tax, canceled the capital gains inclusion rate, he's going to cap the public service. You know, after saying in the election that the days of closer economic and military

integration with the United States are over, and by the way, I believe he got elected on that kind of rhetoric, you know, is now negotiating the Golden Dome, has canceled the digital services tax, is, um, uh, You know, just withdrew unilateral tariffs. So the Liberal Party, I will grab them this. I think the Liberal Party's strength is that they respond to the vagaries of the moment. They don't really have an established principle or value base. They can tilt left and tilt right, depending on circumstances.

And I've talked to many liberal colleagues. They view that as the fundamental strength of liberal party, that flexibility. You know, can't argue with history. They've governed for 75% of our country's history. It's worked. But I don't think we can say that Liberal Party is solidly progressive. And I go back to the Air Canada flight attendants. The Liberals have ordered workers back to work using Section 107 eight times.

New Democrats would never do that. And I do think that, you know, the conservative record on using back-to-work legislation is equally on that side of the equation. So I think Canada needs an NDP. we bring a voice and a policy perspective to Parliament that no other party can be relied upon consistently to deliver, although at times there's episodic agreement. And the other thing I'd say is just in terms of policies. Like, you know, we have a housing crisis in this country. I'll throw this on liberals and conservatives, right?

They've been in power exclusively for the last 40 years. What's the solution for that? The conservatives would say let the market figure it out. the liberals claim to support government non-market housing but can't seem to build any that's where the new democrats have to be in parliament saying this is unacceptable in a g7 country everybody deserves a dignified safe affordable appropriate place to live and it's not happening and so let's do one more around here let me do one more round here don and you we'll get you to start it off this time and that is okay what now you're the interim leader of the party right

now take us through sort of what the next several months look like in terms of when you're going to have a permanent leader chosen and then you're not an official party in the House of Commons so what are the next few years until the next election look like for you well it's funny i don't mean to sound but i'll be one of those irritating hectoring new democrats we are an official party uh we're just not a recognized party but we're we're an official party for all yes we have the um just like elizabeth may she's recognized as the green party leader um what does it look like? Well, we have launched a review process and I think it's fundamental. We have to have an honest assessment of our role in things. I've been picking on the other parties and

circumstances. We have to look inward and find out what is it about our message that has failed to resonate because if we don't understand that, I don't think we'll be able to chart a path going forward. But we can't descend into a blame game crying over spilled milk. We have to turn those lessons into a bold vision of how we can have a reimagine strong progressive option. So that process is underway. Of course, we have our leadership that's going to start in September 2nd, and that will both be part of the review process and a little bit different as well. So I'm hoping that the three or four or five candidates can generate a really positive, constructive discussion in this country.

And then finally, what I'd say is, you know, although the numbers are changed significantly, the primary makeup of this parliament, Steve, hasn't changed. The NDP holds a balance of power in a G7 country's government. And I'm waiting for that to happen. I mean, you know, last parliament was very difficult for the liberals. The conservatives are very good at using the machinery of parliament to gum things up. And I think they will do that. The block, you know, we'll try to, you know, use their influence to get a

as much as can for Quebec, I think the Carney government is going to have to turn to the NDP at some point if it wants to survive. And so we play still an incredibly important role in this minority parliament. So I think it's going to be very interesting next, I guess, seven months until we get to the end of March when we choose our new leader and see what happens in the fall. Tony, what do you see on the road ahead? Yeah, I think Don is essentially correct on that and the time look there's not not going to be an election for three years you know at least so NDP has some time concertists have some time they're playing a waiting game there's no there's no possibility really of the government falling at least until the

NEP select a leader that would be ludicrous so there there's going to be time to reflect for the NDP but also charter path forward and also get a sense of the inevitable weaknesses of the Kearney government, which are ever so slightly starting to manifest themselves. But these are early days. But my bold prediction is there's going to be more opportunity to criticize in the future and also lay out a path, a different path. So I'm fairly optimistic about the NDP, actually.

Martha, the road ahead for the NDP in your view. I think Don, I think Don's plan is exactly what it should be. I mean, I'm not an NDPer, but I think if I were the interim leader of Barty, that's exactly the plan I would take. So that makes a huge amount of sense, Don. I'll go back to, I think Canadians are really, really worried about their jobs, about their economic prosperity. Our economy is not doing well.

Our productivity numbers are terrible. We're falling further and further behind the Americans and other, OECD countries and people are feeling that they're feeling that in their grocery bills. I will not put you on the spot in terms of supply management, although I would love to, but we could have that conversation somewhere else that just would be fared on, so I'm being nice. But people are worried about their grocery bills. They're worried about housing. And so some of the other issues that would traditionally have been, we want to protect, you know, the union, we want to protect those things. For a whole lot of other Canadians,

Canadians, that's not necessarily resonating. And so I just, I think your plan is absolutely what should be done for the party. I do think there is value in a third voice. I think the NDP has been very much a conscience for the leading parties a number of times on environmental issues. Look, I think the pendulum is swung too far and we're seeing it come back. But I agree with Tony. I think this was a bit of a moment in time where so many Canadians said,

I'm either going there or I'm going there because we have an existential threat to the South. We've also seen, in addition to, you know, Tony used saying some of the cracks might be starting to appear. I think we're also saying that Donald Trump is way less frightening than he was in the first couple of months. I mean, he can't even stick to his own plan. So, you know, I mean, he's right. But I think Canadians are starting to feel. a little bit, oh, but you know what, we really do need to look after our own house first, and that's where the focus will be on Canadians and Canadians' best interest.

Gotcha. All right. Let's finish up, as we always do, on everything political, by we spend the first part of the program looking at all the death and destruction that's going on in the political system of our country and around the world, and then we finish off with something we call good on you, because we'd like to give props where they are due to somebody in public life who may have done something that was worth noticing for all the positive reasons that we also wish we saw more of in politics. So Tony Clement, start us off. Who gets your good on you this week? Well, Steve, I hope this is in keeping with the tradition of good on you, which is my fourth episode. So my good on you goes out to the electors of Battle River Crowfoot, who elected

Pierre Pauliev in a crowded list of candidates, 214. They were able to scribble his name enough times that he got 80% of the vote, thereby giving the opposition an opportunity to hold the government to account with their party leader being an elected representative. So I think that that's good for parliamentary democracy. I think it's good for democracy. And I would like to extend my thanks to the electors of Battle River Profoot. And in fact, it was a pretty good showing as well. I mean, the turnout for most by-elections is pretty terrible. And I think, what, two-thirds of the people showed up to vote, something like that?

Yeah, really high. That's high for a general election. It is. Yeah. Yeah. Fair enough. Okay. Martha, who gets your good on you?

Well, I can say good on you to the voters for coming out in significant numbers, because that is a good sign of democracy. But I think part of the tradition also is shoutouts to people who aren't necessarily part of your own party, Tony. Mm-hmm. But I also, I spent last week in hiatus with grandchildren and didn't look at any headlines. It was hard. But I missed, you know.

And thank you to our beloved Steve Paken for pointing out to me that Premier Doug Ford in Ontario, once he learned that there are still research facilities testing with dogs and cats, said, no, there are pets. and said, we're not going to allow that to happen anymore. And I will tell you that my dog, Georgia, and I both thank Doug Ford. That is a nice tradition when somebody from one party gives a good on you to somebody from another party. So that's okay. That's all fair. Dunn, have you got a good on you for us this week? Well, I do.

And being a middle child, I had searched to give a good on you to another party. But given where we're at in ours, I think we really need a good on you. to a new Democrat. So I'm going to pick Wob Canoe. And the reason is, I think was touched on a bit earlier, is I think, you know, this is, you know, first Indigenous Premier has got a really compelling backstory. And he's showing us what a powerful, pragmatic,

and kind of principled progressive government can look like in this country. And I think he might be one of the most popular premiers in the country. And so I think he's showing us new Democrats anyway, he's giving us hope of how someone can be a really positive and effective governor. And hopefully we can channel some of that energy at the federal level. It's interesting. He's one of the very few politicians I've encountered who clearly is in control of his own party, the new Democrats, but is also not seen as somehow being hostile to progressive conservatives or liberals. who even some of them consider him to be good examples of their party.

I've heard people say, you know, that Wab Knoos is a pretty good progressive conservative premier. So anyway, good on all three of you for coming up with such good, good on you's. And I want to thank, rather, Don Davies from British Columbia for joining us this week. He, the interim leader of the NDP, and we will continue to watch the fascinating road ahead for that party as Parliament comes back not too long from now. Peace and love, everybody. We'll see you next time on everything political. Thanks so much. Great to see you, Don. Thanks, John.

Great to see you all as well. Thank you. Thank you.