Multiverse theory suggests that somewhere out there, in a more just and politically courageous Canada, ABC (Anyone But Conservative) voting was more than just a tired Liberal campaign tactic.
In that alternate timeline, 2011 was a breakthrough moment: the NDP surged under Jack Layton and actually won, ousting Stephen Harper and forming a left-populist government with a real mandate to redistribute power and wealth.
That victory forced the Liberal Party to shed its neoliberal skin and reconnect with its so-called progressive roots, lest it become irrelevant.
Canada, in this universe, becomes one of the few nations to effectively resist the global wave of right-wing faux-populism, not by meeting it halfway, but by offering a compelling, hopeful, and bold alternative.
Conservatives, shut out of power for decades, are forced to confront their own ideological rot.
Meanwhile, ordinary people (workers, renters, students, immigrants) feel tangible improvements in their lives.
Housing becomes a human right, not a speculative asset.
Climate action isn’t negotiated with oil execs.
Healthcare and dental care are fully public. Wages rise.
The ultra-wealthy sweat.
But that’s not the Canada we live in.
We live in this version of events.
The one where the NDP leadership under Tom Mulcair, after its 2011 “Orange Wave,” catastrophically misread the room.
Instead of building on Layton’s populist momentum, they tried to make themselves palatable to Bay Street.
They flirted with neoliberal orthodoxy—embracing free trade agreements, parroting austerity dogma, and chasing the mythical “centre”—only to get decimated in 2015 by a Liberal Party that weaponized progressive rhetoric with zero intention of delivering it.
Then came the post-2015 era: Trudeau’s Liberals campaigned like Bernie Sanders and governed like Mitt Romney, while the NDP, under Jagmeet Singh, played the reluctant sidekick.
They talk tough on billionaires, but continually prop up a Liberal government that shields them. They talk like radicals, legislate like technocrats, and are rewarded with little more than crumbs and broken promises.
Pharmacare? Pathetic half-measures.
Dental care? Delayed.
Climate action? Bent around pipelines and corporate interests.
And with each concession, the NDP further narrows its identity, trapped in a role where it absorbs the blame of governing without the power of it.
This isn’t just about electoral strategy. It’s about whether the NDP is still capable of acting as a meaningful vehicle for working-class power, or whether it’s been structurally absorbed into the very neoliberal order it once sought to dismantle.
With a federal election looming, and the same old forces gearing up to offer the same old false choices, it’s time to take a clear-eyed look at what the NDP is offering, and whether it breaks from the hollow consensus that’s left so many Canadians behind.
Because the clock’s ticking. And in this version of Canada, the right is on the rise, the Liberals are bleeding credibility, and the window for a left alternative is closing fast.
The NDP would put in place a $16-billion strategy to support building affordable homes. They would replace the housing accelerator fund with permanent funding for two new programs: the Canadian homes transfer and the communities first fund. The party is aiming to build three million affordable homes in the next five years. They would redesign and double the Public Land Acquisition Fund, investing $1 billion over five years to build more rent-controlled homes. They would set aside all suitable federal Crown land in order to build more than 100,000 rent-controlled homes by 2035. They would speed up approvals on lands owned by the federal government to build homes sooner. They also say they would require the CMHC to offer low-interest, public-backed mortgages. The New Democrats are promising more money for the Rental Protection Fund — a federal program that supports community housing projects. They say they would ban corporate landlords from buying existing affordable rental properties and stop providing them with low-interest federal loans and mortgage loan insurance if they gouge tenants. They would “rescue at-risk home-building projects impacted by tariffs,” with the aim of stabilizing housing markets and creating jobs in construction. - CBC
The NDP has promised to put a cap on oil and gas emissions. The party says it would also eliminate public subsidies and tax breaks for oil and gas companies, at an estimated savings of $18 billion over 10 years. Funds will be redirected to a massive effort to retrofit 3.3 million homes in Canada (around 20 per cent of all dwellings) with energy efficient upgrades such as heat pumps. The party says the program will support thousands of “good union jobs” in manufacturing, construction, installation and auditing. - The Narwhal
Let’s get one thing out of the way up front: Canada’s housing crisis wasn’t born out of scarcity. It was manufactured by decades of austerity, deregulation, financialization, and successive governments treating homes as investment vehicles rather than basic human rights.
The Liberals love to talk about building homes "faster" while quietly propping up the same market actors driving the crisis.
The Conservatives pretend it’s just a matter of getting rid of “gatekeepers” while their Bay Street donors buy up entire neighbourhoods.
Meanwhile, Jagmeet Singh and the NDP have spent the last few years occupying a strange space, shouting from the sidelines while still propping up a government that let corporate landlords run wild.
But 2025 is different. Or at least, that’s what they want us to believe.
The NDP is finally swinging for the fences with a $16-billion housing strategy that blends social housing, community ownership, and aggressive measures to roll back corporate control of the market.
It's the kind of policy menu that would’ve been branded “radical” a few years ago, and that now looks more like common sense to a generation locked out of home ownership and stuck paying $2,200/month to live in a shoebox with black mold.
📌 Replace the Housing Accelerator Fund with permanent funding for two new programs: the Canadian Homes Transfer and Communities First Fund
📌 Build 3 million affordable homes in the next five years
📌 Double and redesign the Public Land Acquisition Fund, investing $1 billion over 5 years for rent-controlled housing
📌 Reclaim and repurpose federal Crown land to build 100,000 rent-controlled homes by 2035
📌 Fast-track federal land development approvals to accelerate non-market housing builds
📌 Empower CMHC to offer low-interest, public-backed mortgages
📌 Expand the Rental Protection Fund to shield community housing from market speculation
📌 Ban corporate landlords from buying existing affordable rental units
📌 Revoke federal loans and mortgage insurance for landlords that gouge tenants
📌 “Rescue” at-risk housing projects hit by tariffs to stabilize construction jobs
📌 Retrofit 3.3 million homes with green upgrades like heat pumps, creating thousands of union jobs
🟩 Who benefits?
Renters stuck in unstable or predatory housing situations
Young people and new immigrants shut out of homeownership
Unionized workers in construction, retrofitting, and green manufacturing
Community housing co-ops and non-profits seeking long-term viability
Municipalities with federal land that can finally be turned into housing—not parking lots or condo towers
🟥 Who pays the price (or gets ignored)?
Corporate landlords and real estate investment trusts (REITs) who treat housing like a stock portfolio
Developers banking on endless federal handouts without affordability guarantees
Wealthy homeowners who see densification or public housing as a threat to their property values
Anyone hoping the market alone will fix things (spoiler: it won’t)
⚠️ Who holds the power if this becomes law?
Federal government agencies like the CMHC, reimagined as tools for housing justice, not market stabilizers
Community housing providers, co-ops, and municipal governments with new funding streams
Labor unions involved in green retrofits and large-scale builds
The NDP, if they’re able to pull the Liberals left instead of getting steamrolled again
This is bold policy—on paper.
The sheer scale of ambition (three million homes, land repurposing, REIT crackdowns) is exactly the kind of left-populist approach needed to address a crisis driven by greed and hoarding.
The focus on non-market housing, rent control, and public land use sets this apart from the tired "incentivize developers" playbook.
But the big red flag? Power.
The NDP is running on the promise of doing this without governing. That means the best-case scenario is another confidence-and-supply dance with the Liberals, who are allergic to upsetting wealthy donors or the finance sector.
Without real governing power or a serious political movement behind these ideas, there’s a real danger that this becomes another laundry list of demands shouted into the void.
Cut off exports of critical minerals such as lithium and cobalt to the U.S. Dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs, 100 per cent tariff on Teslas. Change procurement to use more Canadian-made steel and aluminum for domestic construction and manufacturing. Zero GST on Canadian-made vehicles. - National Post
Raise basic personal amount from $15,000 to $19,000, saving $505 for those earning between $19,500 and $177,882. Permanently remove the GST from various essentials, including prepared grocery meals, baby accessories and monthly cell, internet and heating bills. Keep the planned increase to the capital-gains tax hike passed in the 2024 budget. Double the Canada Disability Benefit. - CBC
New Democrats are in favour of retaliatory tariffs. They would put “every dollar” collected from retaliatory tariffs toward supporting impacted workers in industries such as auto manufacturing, steel and aluminum. If U.S. President Donald Trump applied a tariff to all Canadian goods, New Democrats would impose a 100 per cent tariff on all Tesla products. To strengthen the economy during the trade war, an NDP government would issue five- and 10-year “Victory bonds” that Canadians could buy through a payroll deduction. Those bonds would pay an interest rate that is 0.25 per cent higher than an average five-year bank-issued guaranteed investment certificate (GIC). It would bar Trump from the G7 summit in Kananaskis, Alta., in June, due to his undermining Canadian sovereignty. The party would ban U.S. companies from all federal government procurement contracts and projects when Canadian workers are available. It says it would stop U.S.-based corporations from “stripping valuable assets from Canadian plants” after receiving government bailouts. It would exempt Canadian-made cars and trucks from the GST.
- CBC
There’s something almost refreshing about watching the NDP rediscover its inner economic nationalist—and this time, it’s not just symbolic.
In the face of a right-wing U.S. resurgence and ballooning corporate profiteering at home, Jagmeet Singh’s platform reads like a warning shot across the bow of both Wall Street and Bay Street.
Gone is the meek, technocratic language of "incentivizing" fairness. Instead, we get Tesla tariffs, GST exemptions for working-class essentials, and a flat-out ban on U.S. firms leeching taxpayer money while hollowing out Canadian jobs.
The NDP seems to understand what the Liberals and Conservatives won’t say out loud: neoliberal trade dogma has left the Canadian working class exposed and disposable.
This isn’t just about saving pennies at checkout—it's about regaining some control over the economic levers our country has handed over to billionaires and foreign-owned conglomerates.
📌 Raise the basic personal exemption from $15,000 to $19,000 — a $505 tax break for low/mid-income earners
📌 Permanently eliminate GST on prepared grocery meals, baby gear, internet, cell plans, and home heating
📌 Keep the capital gains tax increase from the 2024 budget to make the rich pay their fair share
📌 Double the Canada Disability Benefit
📌 Impose 100% tariffs on all Tesla products in response to U.S. trade aggression
📌 Ban U.S. companies from federal procurement when Canadian workers are available
📌 Cut off exports of critical minerals like lithium and cobalt to the U.S. if trade war escalates
📌 Use Canadian steel and aluminum in government infrastructure projects
📌 Remove GST on Canadian-made cars and trucks
📌 Launch five- and ten-year “Victory Bonds” for Canadians to invest directly in the country’s economic resilience
📌 Reinvest every dollar from retaliatory tariffs into worker support programs
📌 Ban U.S.-based corporations from stripping assets from Canadian plants after bailouts
📌 Bar Donald Trump from the G7 summit in Alberta for undermining Canadian sovereignty
🟩 Who benefits?
Low- and middle-income Canadians getting squeezed by rising prices and regressive taxes
Disabled Canadians finally receiving a meaningful income boost
Canadian auto workers, steel workers, and unionized labourers targeted by predatory U.S. trade policy
Everyday families facing brutal telecom, grocery, and heating bills
Communities sick of seeing foreign firms take bailouts, then take the jobs and run
Nationalists and progressives alike who believe Canadian resources and industries should benefit Canadians first
🟥 Who pays the price (or gets ignored)?
Wealthy investors and asset hoarders facing a higher capital gains tax
U.S. multinationals (Tesla, looking at you) who treat Canada as a subsidiary, not a sovereign partner
Corporate welfare recipients who think they can take the money and bail
Neoliberal trade worshippers in Ottawa who panic at the idea of asserting economic sovereignty
Anyone making a living off exploiting loopholes, offshore tax shelters, or low regulatory standards
High-income earners who were hoping a Singh government would mean more vibes and less redistribution
⚠️ Who holds the power if this becomes law?
The federal government, reclaiming its ability to set trade rules that actually benefit working people
Workers and unions who gain leverage through targeted reinvestment and industrial policy
Canadians themselves, through Victory Bonds and domestic procurement
Potentially, a newly energized left coalition able to rewrite the rules of globalization from the ground up—if the NDP stops playing sidekick and starts pushing for power
This is arguably the most aggressive trade and cost-of-living platform Canada’s seen from a major party in a generation. It breaks with neoliberal orthodoxy by treating the economy like a battleground instead of a spreadsheet.
The GST cuts on real household expenses are smart, grounded, and immediate. And the trade retaliations? Symbolic, yes, but finally in a direction that punishes the powerful instead of the poor.
The only knock is feasibility.
The NDP still isn't promising to govern outright, and any plan to slap tariffs on U.S. companies without controlling the PMO is more wish list than war plan.
But the vision is clear: decouple from dependence on the U.S. where necessary, support workers with real policy, and call out corporate freeloaders by name.
This platform isn’t moderate. It’s necessary.
The NDP committed to rehiring “every border officer cut by the last Conservative government” to curb the number of illegal guns entering Canada. To prevent tax evasion, the New Democrats would end tax agreements with known offshore tax havens like Bermuda and require corporations to provide a “genuine business reason” for using offshore accounts. If elected, an NDP government would implement public country-by-country financial reporting to prevent multinational corporations from hiding profits.
- CBC
An NDP-led government would hire back at least 1,100 border officers to stop the illegal flow of firearms into Canada. - CBC
While the Conservatives desperately try to whip up crime panic, and the MSM happy to play its part parroting false claims about retail theft. As Pierre Poilievre demands a tougher, meaner police state, the NDP's approach is, at best, cautiously technocratic.
They want more border agents, tighter financial transparency laws, and a crackdown on offshore tax dodging. And sure, these are important, but they don’t confront the rot at the heart of Canada’s justice system: the over-policing of Indigenous people, the criminalization of poverty, and the growing surveillance state that’s being quietly normalized.
In a political climate where peaceful protesters are being surveilled, harassed, and even arrested, the NDP’s silence on civil liberties and police overreach is deafening.
If they want to reclaim the mantle of justice for the people, they’ll need to speak up about who justice is actually protecting—and who it’s punishing.
📌 Hire back at least 1,100 border officers cut by the previous Conservative government to reduce smuggled firearms
📌 End tax treaties with known offshore tax havens like Bermuda
📌 Require corporations to provide a “genuine business reason” for using offshore accounts
📌 Implement public country-by-country financial reporting to stop profit-shifting and tax evasion by multinationals
🟩 Who benefits?
Border enforcement agencies receiving more staff and funding
Canadians who want less U.S.-made firepower showing up in their communities
Tax fairness advocates sick of watching billion-dollar corporations hide profits offshore
Public institutions relying on revenue lost to corporate tax avoidance
Journalists, whistleblowers, and watchdogs who finally get more transparency from multinationals
🟥 Who pays the price (or gets ignored)?
Protesters, Indigenous land defenders, and civil rights activists, left exposed to police surveillance and repression
Racialized and poor communities over-policed under the guise of border security and crime prevention
Canadians concerned with authoritarian creep, digital surveillance, and the unaccountable power of police unions
Victims of wrongful convictions, cash bail systems, or overburdened public defenders—none of whom get a mention
Those hoping the NDP would champion police reform, abolitionist frameworks, or even basic police accountability
⚠️ Who holds the power if this becomes law?
Border Services and CBSA, which will expand their operational scope without matching scrutiny or civilian oversight
The CRA and financial regulatory bodies, who may finally gain tools to curb white-collar impunity
Multinational corporations, who will be forced to disclose where their profits actually go (if enforcement is real)
But ultimately, the existing carceral and surveillance institutions still get to define the rules of the game
There’s nothing bad about these promises. Cracking down on tax havens and corporate fraud is long overdue, and limiting illegal firearms via smarter border enforcement is a reasonable goal.
But the absence of any real commitment to justice system reform, especially in a time of deepening authoritarianism and police overreach, makes this feel incomplete.
The NDP doesn’t echo the CPC’s dystopian crime hysteria, but it also doesn’t centre the lived experience of those most harmed by the system as it exists.
No mention of ending carding.
No plan to demilitarize police.
Nothing on community-based safety models, cash bail reform, or stopping the erosion of protest rights.
In other words: a good start… on a completely different test.
The New Democratic Party has promised to keep the industrial carbon price. Additionally, the party has promised to introduce a “border carbon adjustment” to tax overseas producers. According to the federal government, border carbon adjustments “account for differing carbon costs incurred in producing goods” that are traded with Canada. They may take the form of import charges or export rebates, which can be applied to incentivize trading partners to adopt stronger climate policies and support Canadian manufacturers who may face higher costs due to domestic regulations. - The Narwhal
The NDP has promised to protect critical mineral projects from being “sold off or exploited by foreign interests,” and to incentivize processing of raw materials within Canada.
- The Narwhal
(Same quote from Housing) The NDP has promised to put a cap on oil and gas emissions. The party says it would also eliminate public subsidies and tax breaks for oil and gas companies, at an estimated savings of $18 billion over 10 years. Funds will be redirected to a massive effort to retrofit 3.3 million homes in Canada (around 20 per cent of all dwellings) with energy-efficient upgrades such as heat pumps. The party says the program will support thousands of “good union jobs” in manufacturing, construction, installation and auditing. - The Narwhal
End any subsidies or tax credits for oil and gas companies. Retrofit 2.3 million low-income households with heat pumps, air sealings and other energy-saving modifications.
- National Post
The NDP supported the removal of consumer carbon pricing. The party would keep the industrial carbon price. It would introduce a border carbon adjustment mechanism to tax imports from countries that don’t have comparable carbon pricing. The NDP says it would cut “$18 billion in oil and gas subsidies,” but did not specify which. It is against building an LNG pipeline in Quebec and believes the province should have the right to veto energy projects on its territory. The party opposes the Energy East project but isn't shutting the door to pipelines. It would prioritize creating an east-west electricity grid. It would continue the 100 per cent tariff on Chinese-made electric vehicles. It would rebate Canadian families and businesses $10,000 for buying or leasing over 12 months a Canadian-manufactured zero-emissions vehicle and $5,000 for buying or leasing a zero-emissions vehicle manufactured elsewhere. - CBC
The NDP is trying to walk a tightrope: sounding like climate champions while still holding onto resource sector voters.
They’re promising to finally rip away the billions in subsidies gifted to oil and gas giants, money that could be redirected to actually help people through job creation and energy retrofits.
That’s a huge deal, especially as the climate crisis accelerates and working-class Canadians are stuck between rising living costs and a decaying environment.
But there are contradictions baked in.
They oppose LNG pipelines in Quebec and the zombie Energy East project, while still leaving the door open to “some” pipelines elsewhere.
They want a climate plan that’s also a jobs plan (great!), but they’ve quietly backpedalled on consumer carbon pricing since it was stripped down by Carney, which means major emitters are getting a better deal than regular folks.
The industrial carbon price stays, but there’s no guarantee that enforcement will match the rhetoric.
Not that it matters, I guess.
With the bare framework left by Mark Carney and the Liberals, the carbon pricing is ripe for slow dismantlement anyway.
At the end of the day, this is an NDP trying to be both worker-first and climate serious.
The challenge?
You can’t thread that needle forever.
At some point, you either stand up to oil lobbyists or you end up talking like a Liberal with a better haircut.
📌 Maintain Canada’s industrial carbon pricing system
📌 Remove consumer carbon pricing from the equation
📌 Introduce a border carbon adjustment to tax imports from high-polluting countries
📌 Eliminate $18 billion in oil and gas subsidies and tax breaks over 10 years
📌 Retrofit 2.3 to 3.3 million homes with energy-efficient upgrades like heat pumps and insulation
📌 Offer $10,000 rebates for Canadian-made zero-emissions vehicles; $5,000 for others
📌 Block LNG pipelines in Quebec; oppose Energy East; allow provincial veto powers
📌 Protect critical minerals from foreign exploitation and prioritize domestic processing
📌 Continue 100% tariffs on Chinese-made EVs
📌 Prioritize building an east-west electricity grid to support national clean energy transmission
🟩 Who benefits?
Canadian workers in the trades, construction, and clean energy sectors, especially unionized ones
Low-income and working-class households who get retrofits that lower bills and improve comfort
Canadian EV manufacturers and auto workers
Climate-conscious voters frustrated with Liberal greenwashing
Public services that benefit from reinvested oil subsidy funds
Provinces like Quebec, who would gain more autonomy over local environmental decisions
🟥 Who pays the price (or gets ignored)?
Communities still living next to abandoned wells, tailings ponds, or polluted waters—no mention of cleanup justice
People living near future pipeline or mineral processing sites (no real environmental justice framework here)
Anyone hoping for clear opposition to all fossil fuel expansion, vagueness leaves room for backpedalling
Indigenous nations who continue to be left out of decision-making unless they’re explicitly mentioned
Everyday people who still face rising costs of living while big emitters get to keep playing regulatory hopscotch
⚠️ Who holds the power if this becomes law?
The federal government, particularly the departments overseeing natural resources, environment, and infrastructure
Clean tech, EV, and retrofit manufacturers—especially those based in Canada
Provinces and territories, depending on how far the NDP is willing to devolve power (especially re: veto rights)
Oil and gas companies lose a chunk of their gravy train, but might still be courted with ambiguous pipeline language
Border enforcement and trade negotiators gain leverage with the carbon adjustment framework
This is the most comprehensive climate plan on offer from any of the major parties so far (the Green Party might give the NDP a run for its money, though).
It targets emissions, creates jobs, supports domestic industry, and takes a rare swing at corporate freeloading.
The push for home retrofits is not just climate policy, it’s an economic justice policy that touches people’s lives in real, tangible ways. But the party’s discomfort with confrontation shows.
The refusal to draw a clear line on pipelines, the lack of firm accountability for cleanup and land remediation, and the retreat from carbon pricing for consumers all hint at a fear of backlash.
This is solid groundwork. But a climate plan that tries to please everyone ends up pleasing no one if it's not backed by power, courage, and follow-through.
Cancel Canada’s F-35 contract with Lockheed Martin. Build replacement fighter jets in Canada. Increase NATO-target defence spending to two per cent of GDP by no later than 2032. Invest in Arctic defence infrastructure such as marine search-and-rescue stations and small-craft harbours. Give Canadian Rangers raises, reimbursements for the use of their equipment. - National Post
New Democrats would increase defence spending to two per cent of Canada’s GDP by 2032. They would cancel the contracts for U.S.-built F-35 fighter jets and P-8 Poseidon aircraft. They would establish new marine search and rescue stations — including in central Nunavut — and build new small craft harbours. They would attempt to re-establish a full-time military base in Inuvik, N.W.T., set up a base in Iqaluit as well as a new CAF Reserve Unit in Whitehorse. They would aim to complete construction of a deep-water port in Nanisivik, Nunavut. They would also work with Indigenous communities and the territorial government to establish more deep-water ports, including in Qikiqtarjuaq and Grays Bay. - CBC
The NDP’s defence policy is one part anti-corporate, one part Arctic sovereignty, and one part “peace-through-preparedness” nationalism.
Unlike the Liberals and Conservatives, who keep doubling down on military hardware and war-profiteer contracts, the NDP is drawing a clear line: no to the F-35 fighter jets, no to U.S.-built Poseidons, and yes to building made-in-Canada replacements.
But this isn’t a pacifist stance. They’re still pledging to increase defence spending to meet NATO’s 2% GDP target by 2032.
The difference is in where that money goes. Instead of ballooning airstrike budgets or throwing billions into international intervention, the NDP plan is laser-focused on Arctic sovereignty, search and rescue, and local resilience.
It’s a northern-first, sovereignty-focused plan that tries to centre local communities, especially Indigenous ones, in how and where that investment happens.
Is it perfect? No.
It still buys into NATO benchmarks, and it’s unclear how the NDP squares military-industrial job creation with a non-interventionist foreign policy.
But compared to the usual defence industry lovefest, this is a serious attempt to put Canadian workers, remote communities, and sovereignty at the centre of the conversation.
📌 Cancel contracts for F-35 fighter jets and P-8 Poseidon aircraft from U.S. defence contractors
📌 Build Canadian-made replacements for air defence hardware
📌 Increase defence spending to 2% of GDP by 2032 (NATO target)
📌 Invest in marine search-and-rescue stations, including in central Nunavut
📌 Build new small craft harbours across the Arctic
📌 Re-establish a full-time military base in Inuvik, N.W.T.
📌 Establish a CAF Reserve Unit in Whitehorse and a military base in Iqaluit
📌 Complete construction of the deep-water port in Nanisivik, Nunavut
📌 Work with Indigenous governments to build deep-water ports in Qikiqtarjuaq and Grays Bay
📌 Raise pay for Canadian Rangers, reimburse them for use of personal equipment
🟩 Who benefits?
Northern and Arctic communities, especially in Nunavut, Yukon, and the N.W.T.
Canadian manufacturers, who would build replacements for cancelled foreign jet contracts
Canadian Rangers (many of whom are Indigenous) and other local defence personnel
Coastal and remote communities needing better search-and-rescue infrastructure
National sovereignty advocates who want Canada to invest in defending its own borders and infrastructure
🟥 Who pays the price (or gets ignored)?
U.S. weapons contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing—bye-bye to multi-billion dollar deals
Defence industry lobbyists expecting a blank cheque from Ottawa
Advocates of a truly non-militarized future—this is still a pledge to boost defence spending
Climate-conscious voters who may question the emissions impact of new defence construction and manufacturing
Canadians looking for a foreign policy rethink—this plan doesn't address peacekeeping, NATO mission creep, or arms exports
⚠️ Who holds the power if this becomes law?
Northern Indigenous governments and communities would gain influence over port and base planning
Canadian defence manufacturing firms would become major players, depending on who gets the replacement contracts
The federal government maintains tight control over military direction and funding allocation
The Canadian Armed Forces could gain more influence over Arctic policy and domestic operations
NATO retains soft leverage via the 2% GDP pledge, even if the NDP focuses it inward
This is one of the most refreshingly nationalist (and not in the toxic, flag-waving, xenophobic sense) defence platforms Canada’s seen in decades.
It puts the country’s vast, under-defended Arctic region at the centre, tries to localize military jobs, and throws cold water on the idea that our sovereignty depends on writing billion-dollar cheques to arms dealers.
The raise for Canadian Rangers is long overdue.
The deep-water port investments are serious.
The shift toward made-in-Canada defence procurement could be a game-changer.
But it’s still tethered to the NATO spending benchmark, which sets a ceiling on the party’s anti-militarist ambitions.
And it doesn’t challenge Canada’s broader role in U.S.-led global policing, which leaves a major blind spot when it comes to foreign deployments, peacekeeping, and arms exports.
It’s a compelling attempt to reclaim defence as something grounded in people, place, and sovereignty, but it’ll need bolder follow-through to become transformative.
New Democrats would undertake a major construction program and require only Canadian steel to be used in all federally funded infrastructure projects. They would prioritize creating an east-west electricity grid. They are against building an LNG pipeline in Quebec and believe the province should have the right to veto energy projects on its territory. The party opposes the Energy East project but isn't shutting the door to pipelines. They would favour Canadian companies in the bid selection process, as well as suppliers and contractors with a unionized workforce. - CBC
The NDP’s infrastructure plan is a direct challenge to the race-to-the-bottom economics we’ve been stuck in since the 90s.
Instead of treating public infrastructure like a fire sale for foreign contractors and privatized bidders, Singh’s party is pushing for an unapologetically Canadian-first model, where publicly funded projects use Canadian steel, prioritize Canadian companies, and reward union labour over exploitative temp workforces.
There’s a clear rejection here of the Liberals’ cozy relationship with global capital and the Conservatives’ all-pipelines-no-matter-what dogma.
The NDP is threading a needle: pro-investment without greenlighting every energy megaproject; pro-development without selling out the environment or local consent.
It’s not fully post-extractive, but it’s certainly moving the needle.
Where this plan really shines is its emphasis on national coordination—a push for a pan-Canadian electricity grid that links provinces and cuts emissions, instead of competing provincial energy silos.
And unlike Poilievre’s version of “build stuff,” this isn't just deregulation and corporate handouts. It's actual planning. With strings attached, and Canadian jobs at the centre.
📌 Launch a major national construction program funded by the federal government
📌 Require Canadian-made steel in all federally funded infrastructure projects
📌 Build an east-west electricity grid to connect and decarbonize provincial energy systems
📌 Oppose LNG pipeline development in Quebec; support Quebec’s right to veto energy projects
📌 Oppose the Energy East pipeline project, but leave the door open to other energy proposals with conditions
📌 Prioritize Canadian companies in infrastructure contract bids
📌 Give preference to unionized suppliers and contractors for federal projects
🟩 Who benefits?
Canadian steelworkers and manufacturers, especially in regions like Hamilton and Sault Ste. Marie
Unionized trades and contractors who’ve been iced out of federal bidding wars by “low-cost” non-union firms
Quebecers and Indigenous nations asserting jurisdiction over land and energy development
Canadian companies, especially small and medium firms that struggle to compete with multinationals
Climate and grid advocates pushing for energy interconnection and decarbonization
🟥 Who pays the price (or gets ignored)?
Multinational corporations used to landing federal contracts by undercutting domestic bidders
Non-union construction outfits that rely on cheap, precarious labour
The oil and gas lobby, especially those banking on LNG export terminals and pipeline expansion
Energy East revivalists and petro-nationalists in Alberta
Provinces or industries hoping for a laissez-faire, project-by-project approach to energy infrastructure
⚠️ Who holds the power if this becomes law?
The federal government gains new leverage over infrastructure procurement, especially via Buy-Canadian mandates
Organized labour gains a seat at the table through preferred contractor policies
Quebec and other provinces gain more power to assert project vetoes, especially on energy matters
The construction and steel sectors would be heavily shaped by government incentives and regulations
Corporate lobbyists lose influence over federal tendering—at least in theory
This is a strong, worker-first infrastructure vision that isn’t afraid to say the quiet part out loud: Canada should build things for Canadians, by Canadians.
It tries to repair decades of damage done by neoliberal procurement policies that favoured the cheapest bidder over the best one.
It’s a major departure from the “public-private partnership” model that often funnels public dollars into corporate profits with little local return.
The reason this doesn’t score an A?
It stops short of a bold new public works vision.
It doesn’t fully nationalize or remunicipalize key infrastructure.
It gestures toward a green grid but doesn’t pair it with mass public energy ownership.
And the ambiguity around pipelines (opposing some, open to others) could leave the door open to concessions.
Still, in a landscape where both Liberals and Conservatives view infrastructure as a corporate gravy train, the NDP’s plan is a rare attempt to flip the script: build publicly, hire locally, and make sure workers, not CEOs, get the benefit.
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh was in Toronto, where he pledged to hire more nurses. NDP aims to bring more docs, cheaper food and better roads to region (Northern Ont. Plan) - Sudbury Star
Deliver full public pharmacare within four years. Expand dental care to all households with incomes of less than $90,000. - National Post
The NDP would strengthen public universal health care by expanding pharmacare, dental care and mental health support for Canadians. The party plans on delivering full public pharmacare within four years, starting with 100 of the most prescribed medications, such as pain medication, antibiotics and antipsychotics at estimated cost of $3.5 billion. It would ban U.S. companies from buying Canadian health-care businesses. It would enforce the Canada Health Act to end privatization of health care and require provinces seeking federal funding to uphold public health-care standards. - CBC
In a country where even basic dental work can send families into debt, and where “universal health care” has become a hollow phrase for anyone waiting months to see a specialist or get a family doctor, the NDP’s 2025 platform lands like a long-overdue corrective.
This isn’t just about defending public health care from creeping privatization. It’s about expanding what health care actually means.
Singh is doubling down on a bold vision that adds dental care, pharmacare, and mental health to the list of rights, not luxuries.
And unlike the Liberals’ performative rollout or the Conservatives’ open-door policy for U.S. health profiteers, the NDP is naming names, setting timelines, and drawing clear red lines.
Their plan doesn’t just pour money into the system—it reshapes it.
By capping access based on income for new benefits like dental care and targeting the 100 most prescribed drugs first, it leans toward a smart, focused rollout that centres the people who need it most.
At the same time, it refuses to cede any ground to the growing wave of privatized “alternatives” popping up across the country, backed by hedge funds and two-tier ideologues.
📌 Deliver full public pharmacare within four years, starting with 100 essential medications (pain relief, antibiotics, antipsychotics)
📌 Expand dental care to households making under $90,000
📌 Strengthen public mental health support services
📌 Ban U.S. companies from buying Canadian health-care businesses
📌 Enforce the Canada Health Act to block health-care privatization
📌 Require provinces to uphold public standards in exchange for federal health transfers
📌 Hire more nurses, especially in underserved communities
📌 Launch a Northern Ontario Plan to bring more doctors, cheaper food, and better infrastructure to neglected rural and remote regions
🟩 Who benefits?
Working-class families stuck between low coverage and high out-of-pocket costs
Seniors and disabled Canadians living on fixed incomes and juggling multiple prescriptions
Rural and northern communities that have been ignored or under-resourced by provincial and federal governments alike
Women and marginalized people disproportionately impacted by the gaps in mental health and dental coverage
Public health care defenders demanding action against encroaching privatization
🟥 Who pays the price (or gets ignored)?
Private health-care operators, especially those eyeing Canada as the next profit frontier
Wealthy households earning over $90k/year who don’t qualify for new dental benefits (but are still far from the 1%)
Provinces that are enabling privatization and may balk at new federal strings attached to funding
Big Pharma lobbyists who have long fought against universal pharmacare
Corporate-friendly politicians and pundits who treat “healthcare reform” as code for “market opportunities”
⚠️ Who holds the power if this becomes law?
The federal government gains new leverage to enforce national health standards through conditional transfers
Health Canada and provincial ministries would become major players in rolling out bulk drug purchasing, dental coverage, and staffing targets
Public sector unions and health worker associations would gain stronger footing in pushing for better wages and working conditions
Private health conglomerates would be put on notice—or locked out entirely
Voters would hold real power in shaping the future of care, with clearer accountability for broken promises or slow rollouts
This is an unapologetically pro-public-healthcare vision.
It’s detailed.
It’s time-bound.
It names the villains (private profiteers) and lifts up the victims (overworked nurses, underinsured families, isolated communities).
The commitment to banning U.S. ownership of healthcare infrastructure is a direct rebuttal to the neoliberal trend of selling off core services to the highest bidder.
The only thing holding it back from a straight-A grade?
The $90,000 income cap on dental care, while well-intentioned, creates a weird middle-class cutoff that could leave many struggling Canadians in a grey area.
And while pharmacare rollout starts with 100 meds, the four-year promise would need sharp political discipline to avoid death by delay or watering down.
Still, in a moment where both the Liberals and Conservatives are flirting with two-tier care (either through neglect or ideology), the NDP plan is a line in the sand. A clear, populist appeal: no more excuses. No more privatization. Real care, for real people.
(Same quote from Housing and Climate) The NDP has promised to put a cap on oil and gas emissions. The party says it would also eliminate public subsidies and tax breaks for oil and gas companies, at an estimated savings of $18 billion over 10 years. Funds will be redirected to a massive effort to retrofit 3.3 million homes in Canada (around 20 per cent of all dwellings) with energy efficient upgrades such as heat pumps. The party says the program will support thousands of “good union jobs” in manufacturing, construction, installation and auditing. - The Narwhal
New Democrats would expand Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) “super-priority” protections for workers to include post-employment benefits, (e.g., unpaid wages, severance). It would raise the cap on the Wage Earner Protection Program (WEPP) to cover the wages people are owed. WEPP is currently capped at $8,844. They pledge to strengthen and enforce directors’ liability for unpaid compensation and create a mechanism for workers to be made whole through trust-held funds or federal guarantees. The NDP wants to stop “predatory foreign takeovers” by applying “net benefit” to economic and employment criteria, in particular, unionized jobs to prevent foreign companies from buying Canadian assets with the intention of dismantling them and firing workers. It would increase transparency about promises companies may have made in their takeover bid and it would include unions in the review. - CBC
The NDP’s 2025 vision for economic justice has plenty to say about workers, especially when it comes to job security, union rights, and keeping corporate greed in check. But when it comes to education? The silence is deafening.
As Canadians drown in student debt and young people are told to retrain for a greener economy on their own dime, the NDP has oddly chosen to punt on one of the most obvious planks of any serious left-wing platform: universal education.
Unlike the Greens, who are campaigning on free tuition, or even the Liberals, who toss around various forms of student loan relief like candy during a leadership race, the NDP offers little in the way of vision.
In fact, the “accessible education” page on their site has disappeared—scrubbed quietly, like an awkward memory.
Still, what they do offer in the realm of jobs and training leans into their traditional strengths: standing up for workers, stopping corporate vultures from picking apart Canadian industry, and ensuring that the so-called “just transition” doesn’t mean “just unemployed.”
📌 Redirect $18 billion from oil and gas subsidies toward energy retrofits for 3.3 million homes—creating thousands of unionized jobs in manufacturing, construction, and auditing
📌 Expand worker protections under the CCAA to include post-employment benefits (like severance and unpaid wages)
📌 Raise the cap on the Wage Earner Protection Program (WEPP), which is currently limited to $8,844
📌 Strengthen directors’ liability for unpaid compensation
📌 Create a worker-first guarantee mechanism (via trust-held funds or federal guarantees) to ensure employees get paid if companies go bust
📌 Block predatory foreign takeovers and require employment/economic benefits—including union jobs—as part of “net benefit” reviews
📌 Force transparency on corporate takeover promises and require union involvement in review processes
🟩 Who benefits?
Union workers facing layoffs, bankruptcy, or buyouts from foreign firms looking to asset-strip Canadian industries
Tradespeople and skilled labourers who would gain good-paying green jobs through home retrofits and manufacturing
Gig economy and low-wage workers who often fall outside the safety net and need stronger wage protection enforcement
Rural and blue-collar communities who are too often told they have to choose between dirty jobs and no jobs at all
Canadians who want climate action and economic dignity, not one at the expense of the other
🟥 Who pays the price (or gets ignored)?
Students and young workers facing tuition hikes, rising debt, and job precarity—completely ignored in this platform
White-collar workers in precarious roles or ununionized environments, who are left out of the protections offered
Corporate executives used to golden parachutes, who now face potential legal consequences for stiffing their workers
International conglomerates that view Canada as a cheap acquisition target for liquidation and profit-taking
Green innovation sectors that may struggle to scale if all job creation is narrowly defined through retrofits and union pipelines
⚠️ Who holds the power if this becomes law?
Federal regulators would gain stronger oversight on mergers, acquisitions, and wage theft
Organized labour and unions would hold a larger seat at the table in corporate restructuring decisions
Workers could actually enforce their rights in bankruptcies, rather than being last in line behind creditors and CEOs
The federal government could shape the green transition not just as a climate project, but as a labour revolution
But without education reform, post-secondary institutions and provinces still hold the reins over student access and affordability
This is a platform that understands the assignment… if you’re a unionized tradesperson, especially in the manufacturing or energy sector.
There’s real substance here for working people in danger of being bulldozed by globalization, corporate greed, or the hollowing-out of Canadian industry.
But the gaping hole is education.
If you're 18, in debt, and wondering how to get one of these mythical “green jobs,” this platform doesn’t speak to you.
There's no plan for tuition.
No strategy for student debt.
No new model of workforce training.
In a world where automation and AI are reshaping labour at warp speed, the NDP seems stuck defending yesterday’s jobs without a clear path to tomorrow’s.
Their fight for wage justice and worker-first economic policy is commendable and essential. But without matching that with a bold education promise, they risk alienating the very people who should be at the centre of their movement: young, working-class Canadians looking for something better.
New Democrats would aim to contribute 0.7 per cent of gross national income to international aid and invest in the foreign service. They would create a 500-member Quick Reaction Force, which would be ready to deploy in UN peacekeeping missions. They would ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. - CBC
To increase government revenue, the party would eliminate bearer shares that hide stock ownership and boost compliance funding to Canada Revenue Agency's enforcement section dealing with international and corporate taxation. The party says it would strive toward balancing the budget, but would be willing to borrow “when required” to support Canadian families. - CBC
For a party that claims to champion justice on the global stage, the NDP’s foreign and governance platform feels less like a bold vision and more like a polite briefing note.
Canada’s role in the post-neoliberal, post-American political world order is up for grabs, and the NDP seems to be reaching for band-aids whilst the global operating system fries.
Gone is the Cold War binary.
Gone is unchallenged American hegemony.
The institutions that were supposed to safeguard peace and justice (the UN, the ICC, NATO) are buckling under the weight of their own contradictions.
And instead of confronting this head-on, the NDP is pledging a peacekeeping force like it's 1993, promising a token international aid target, and hoping a nuclear treaty ratification will do the work that diplomacy and economic sovereignty should be doing.
On the governance side, there are glimmers of promise: tackling tax evasion, scrapping bearer shares, and investing in tax enforcement.
But without a full-frontal assault on offshore capital flight, corporate tax avoidance, and trade treaties that handcuff Canadian democracy, it’s just tinkering around the edges.
📌 Contribute 0.7% of Gross National Income to international aid (meeting a long-standing but rarely fulfilled global commitment)
📌 Create a 500-member Quick Reaction Force for deployment to UN peacekeeping missions
📌 Ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
📌 Eliminate bearer shares, a loophole used to hide beneficial ownership of assets
📌 Boost funding to the CRA’s international and corporate tax enforcement
📌 Strive to balance the budget, but allow borrowing when “required” to support families
🟩 Who benefits?
The global South, at least symbolically, if Canada actually meets the 0.7% aid commitment—something most rich nations conveniently forget
International justice advocates, peace activists, and nuclear disarmament campaigners, who’ve long been sidelined in Canadian foreign policy
Canadian tax authorities and the public purse, with marginally more tools to pursue international corporate tax cheats
Multilateral institutions like the UN that could use a few more “responsible” member states taking their obligations seriously
🟥 Who pays the price (or gets ignored)?
Any serious rethinking of Canada’s alliances, arms trade, and role in imperial supply chains—not even considered
Palestinians, Yemenis, Congolese, and countless others caught in conflicts where Canada is complicit via arms sales or silence
Canadians seeking foreign policy that doesn’t just check boxes but challenges power—NATO is holy, US alignment unquestioned
Global justice activists hoping for leadership that doesn’t hide behind the UN’s broken structures and symbolic gestures
Anyone looking for a real plan to dismantle the systems that allow kleptocrats, corporate giants, and war criminals to operate with impunity
⚠️ Who holds the power if this becomes law?
The federal bureaucracy and foreign service would gain some modest expansion and visibility
The CRA’s enforcement wing would have marginally more firepower against white-collar international crime
The UN might get another reliable troop contributor, but with zero influence over Security Council gridlock
The ruling economic paradigm (the rules of globalization, trade, and capital flow) remains untouched
And behind it all, Western power structures and alliances remain intact, unquestioned, and insulated from democratic scrutiny
There’s some symbolic good here: nuclear disarmament is long overdue, peacekeeping has roots worth rewatering, and international tax dodging is a real crisis that needs attention.
But there’s no strategy.
No theory of how Canada repositions itself in a rapidly shifting global order.
No appetite to question alliances that feed the war machine.
No willingness to imagine a world where justice isn't subject to US vetoes, ICC bias, or the whims of “rules-based” order architects who never follow their own rules.
This isn’t post-neoliberal foreign policy. It’s technocratic clean-up duty.
What would ambition look like?
Canada backing a reformed UN system where no state has veto power.
An independent arms embargo regime.
Automatic recognition and enforcement of ICC warrants, regardless of who they’re for (American, Israeli, Chinese, or Russian, it doesn’t matter).
Public control over key Canadian exports that affect global peace and security.
A financial system that slams the doors on offshore tax havens and fossil-fueled capital.
Instead, we get peacekeeping nostalgia and balanced budget rhetoric.
It’s not bad. It’s just nowhere near enough.
The party has not set an immigration target but has said levels should match Canada's needs and take into account whether there are enough resources to welcome newcomers. They would end Canada's closed work permits and provide temporary workers with open work permits to help them avoid abusive employers. - CBC
In an era when fascist rhetoric is going mainstream and the liberal centre is collapsing into xenophobic dog whistles, you’d expect the party of working-class solidarity to show up swinging.
Instead, the NDP’s immigration platform is seemingly designed to not scare the horses. It’s humane in tone, mildly reformist in content, and fatally allergic to ambition.
There’s no immigration target, no principled stand on refugee rights, and no real effort to expand status or regularize undocumented people.
What we do get is one solid policy: ending closed work permits. That’s a big deal for migrant workers in abusive situations. But without broader status regularization, PR pathways, or a vision for immigrant inclusion, it risks being treated as a bureaucratic tweak instead of a transformation.
In a moment where Trump is openly engaging in mass deportations, including of pro-Palestinian voices, and where Canada’s own government is flirting with austerity-infused dog whistles, this platform doesn’t meet the moment.
You don’t defeat xenophobic economics by moderating your language. You confront it with a full-throated vision of solidarity across borders.
📌 No specific immigration target, but levels should “match Canada’s needs” and be tied to resource availability
📌 End closed work permits, which tie migrant workers to specific employers, and replace them with open work permits
🟩 Who benefits?
Migrant workers, especially in agriculture, domestic work, and other precarious sectors, who face rampant abuse under closed permits
Labour organizers and workers’ rights advocates who’ve been calling out the modern-day indentureship of employer-tied permits
Employers committed to ethical practices who are undercut by exploitative competitors relying on temporary foreign workers with no recourse
🟥 Who pays the price (or gets ignored)?
Undocumented workers and international students who are completely unacknowledged in the platform
Refugees and asylum seekers navigating an increasingly securitized and outsourced border regime
Migrant justice coalitions fighting for permanent status for all—this platform leaves them hanging
The broader immigrant community, who need a bold defence in the face of rising scapegoating, not lukewarm technocratic responses
Anyone hoping the NDP would push back on the “resource scarcity” framing of immigration, which echoes right-wing talking points
⚠️ Who holds the power if this becomes law?
Employers lose some power over temporary foreign workers, which is a real shift, but without broader structural changes, exploitation will find other routes
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) retains its vast discretion, including over immigration levels, processing times, and status decisions
Government technocrats and economists are implicitly empowered to set “needs-based” levels, without democratic input or accountability to immigrant communities
The political class keeps control over the narrative, as the NDP opts to manage perceptions rather than reshape them
There’s one strong promise here: ending closed work permits is a clear win for justice. But one good policy in a sea of caution doesn’t cut it.
We’re in a moment that demands moral clarity and political courage. The NDP offers neither.
There’s no pathway to permanent residency.
No regularization plan.
No meaningful refugee commitments.
No challenge to the idea that immigration should be rationed based on how much we’re “willing to share.”
In fact, they legitimize that very idea with their resource-based framing.
If we want a society built on solidarity, not scapegoating, then immigration policy has to be about justice, not labour market flexibility.
It has to centre people, not economic forecasts. That means status for all. That means reining in CBSA abuses. That means taking a principled stand even when it’s unpopular.
The NDP may not be feeding the fire of xenophobia, but they’re not putting it out either. And silence in a crisis is complicity.
New Democrats would support the Nunavut Housing Corporation plan to build 3,000 housing units. They would pave the Cambridge Bay runway in Nunavut to help make air travel more affordable and reliable. They would work with local partners and the territorial government of Nunavut on the Kivalliq Hydro-Fibre Link, a terrestrial and telecommunications link, to improve energy security and northern sovereignty. The party would aim to complete construction of a deep-water port in Nanisivik, Nunavut. It would attempt to re-establish a full-time military base in Inuvik, N.W.T., set up a base in Iqaluit as well as a new CAF Reserve Unit in Whitehorse. It would also work with Indigenous communities and the territorial government to establish more deep-water ports, including in Qikiqtarjuaq and Grays Bay. The party would fully adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and implement recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. The party supports the implementation of Jordan’s Principle to support First Nations children. It wants the federal government to co-develop a process with the National Children’s Chiefs Commission for future negotiations on First Nations child welfare. - CBC
The NDP’s Indigenous rights platform attempts to thread the needle between meaningful commitments to justice and deep-state nationalism in the North.
On one hand, they’re promising to fully adopt UNDRIP, implement key recommendations from both the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the MMIWG Inquiry, and support Jordan’s Principle. These are foundational steps, long overdue and desperately needed.
On the other hand, the platform leans heavily into federal infrastructure development in the North—deep-water ports, military bases, and sovereignty-based energy links.
That might sound like northern investment, but let’s be real: some of this smells more like Arctic militarization than reconciliation.
Are these investments for Indigenous self-determination, or to plant the Canadian flag on resource-rich territories as climate change opens up extraction routes?
You can’t have reconciliation while doubling down on settler-state control. You can’t say “we hear you” to Indigenous nations while planning more federal military infrastructure on their lands.
📌 Fully adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)
📌 Implement Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommendations
📌 Implement recommendations from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)
📌 Enforce and expand Jordan’s Principle to ensure First Nations children receive equitable public services
📌 Co-develop a process with the National Children’s Chiefs Commission for future First Nations child welfare negotiations
📌 Support the Nunavut Housing Corporation plan to build 3,000 homes
📌 Pave the runway in Cambridge Bay to improve affordability/reliability of northern air travel
📌 Advance the Kivalliq Hydro-Fibre Link project to boost energy and communication infrastructure
📌 Complete a deep-water port in Nanisivik and build others in Qikiqtarjuaq and Grays Bay
📌 Attempt to re-establish a full-time military base in Inuvik (NWT) and set up a base in Iqaluit
📌 Establish a new CAF Reserve Unit in Whitehorse
🟩 Who benefits?
Indigenous children and families, particularly if Jordan’s Principle is fully enforced and child welfare negotiations are actually nation-to-nation
Inuit and Northern communities needing critical housing and improved access to healthcare, food, and travel
Local communities in Nunavut and the Arctic who have long been ignored by the federal government’s infrastructure funding
Advocates pushing for TRC/MMIWG implementation—this promises more than symbolic gestures
🟥 Who pays the price (or gets ignored)?
Indigenous nations still fighting for land sovereignty, not even mentioned in the platform
Land defenders opposing Arctic militarization or resource development projects disguised as “sovereignty” investments
Indigenous voices skeptical of militarized infrastructure being used to secure resource corridors rather than Indigenous autonomy
The environment: deep-water ports, hydro links, and military bases all come with ecological consequences, especially in fragile Arctic ecosystems
Indigenous governance structures that risk being bypassed when decisions are co-developed only with territorial governments
⚠️ Who holds the power if this becomes law?
The federal government still calls the shots, especially on military and infrastructure projects—this is a reconciliation-flavoured form of paternalism
CAF (Canadian Armed Forces) and defence bureaucrats gain influence over Northern land use
Territorial governments hold more leverage than Indigenous nations, depending on how “local partnerships” are defined
Federal departments retain power over how Jordan’s Principle and MMIWG/TRC implementations are funded and enforced—no independent accountability mechanisms proposed
The NDP hits some important notes here. Jordan’s Principle, UNDRIP, and both TRC and MMIWG recommendations are solid pillars of any just Indigenous policy.
But instead of building a platform around Indigenous sovereignty, self-determination, and land back, the party fuses genuine reconciliation measures with a nationalism-lite Arctic policy that raises more questions than answers.
The platform leaves out core issues like land restitution, urban Indigenous support, or the role of the Indian Act.
There’s no plan for how to shift power away from colonial governance structures, nor any clear commitment to dismantle the carceral systems (police, child welfare, prisons) that continue to disproportionately harm Indigenous peoples.
And while some infrastructure projects could benefit communities, others smell like Trojan horses for resource extraction and military expansion.
Reconciliation without decolonization isn’t reconciliation—it’s rebranding.
If the NDP wants to be the party of justice, it can’t just build houses and hope no one notices the barracks going up next door.
So, where does all this leave us?
Frankly, this NDP platform reads less like a vision for transformation and more like a desperate grasp at relevance. It plays scared. It panders.
It swaps out left-populism for "popularism" (a shallow, poll-chasing strategy that’s allergic to real ideological commitment).
It’s the kind of platform that says, “Don’t worry, we’re not that different from the Liberals; please don’t be afraid of us.”
But here’s the thing: people aren’t afraid of bold, redistributive ideas. They’re afraid of more of the same. And this NDP platform delivers exactly that.
This isn’t some misstep by a rogue leader. As tempting as it is to pin all this on Jagmeet Singh—and yes, there’s plenty to critique in his leadership—this rot runs deeper.
We saw it with Trudeau too: a leader once cast as a radical progressive who was quickly disposed of the moment the Liberal Party establishment felt power slipping away for good.
So who’s driving this ship? It’s the party leadership structures, the backroom strategists, the donor class that whispers “play it safe” as the house burns down.
If we’re calling balls and strikes here, let’s be honest: Singh, like Trudeau before him, is more symptom than cause.
The party brass, the national council, and the consultant class are the ones steering the NDP away from movement-building and into the same tired electoral triangulation that’s already eaten the Liberal Party alive.
And while there are still genuine fighters in the NDP (MPs who show up in Hansard armed with working-class rage and clarity of purpose), they have no real power.
The party line is tight, the messaging is sterilized, and anyone pushing for transformative change ends up muzzled or sidelined.
I’ll paraphrase something Nora Loreto once articulated on Bluesky: even the most radical NDP candidate will hit a hard ceiling the moment they step into Parliament, where the whip ensures loyalty to strategy over values. So, why even run for office? Why even believe?
Now, to be fair, the NDP keeps getting dealt an offsuit 2-7 in this political game of Texas Hold’em, forced to make impossible decisions when facing a semi-decent flop, under pressure and then blamed for the outcomes. And sure, it’s easy to criticize in hindsight—but that’s all we can do now.
The evidence is in. This is a party drifting with the Liberals into the riptide of a global rightward shift, rather than anchoring itself as the necessary left pole in our politics.
We don’t need a slightly kinder manager of neoliberal decline. We need a party that dares to reject the premise entirely. A party willing to name corporate power, to break with elite consensus, to back land back, housing as a right, nationalized healthcare, and worker power without apology.
But this platform plays it too safe. And in an age where fascism is knocking louder, cowardice isn't just disappointing—it's dangerous.
Canada needs a political party that’s unafraid to speak to working-class anger, that organizes instead of polls, that punches up instead of sideways. If the NDP wants to be that party, it’s going to take a revolution within before it can ever spark one beyond.
Until then, disillusionment isn’t just understandable—it’s inevitable.
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.