The four NDP leadership candidates each recently met with the Star’s editorial board to discuss the campaign and defend their policies. The following are edited transcripts of those meetings.

JAGMEET SINGH:

‘Power can never come at the cost of principles’

How is the campaign going so far?

One of the key things we wanted to do in the campaign was to grow the party and to excite and inspire new people. It was my proposition that one of the key aspects of value that I could bring to the party and to the campaign was that ability to inspire people and bring people in. Most of our fundraising was from new members and we were able to sign up a host of new members from across the country, including significantly from Quebec.

Your platform is quite strong on anti-poverty measures but contains less specifically aimed at inequality, what would you do to address that?

There is policy we put forward towards poverty reduction focused around those who are the most unequal in society: seniors in poverty, the working poor and Canadians with disabilities. We also coupled that with the Better Work Agenda focusing on people who are in precarious work, as well as how we can build better work. We also want to end unpaid internships with no exceptions and to reinstate the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act to ensure there are high standards of labour rights protections for workers at the federal level — which would encourage more equity and fairness for workers.

RELATED:

The four candidates who would lead the NDP

Jack Layton led the NDP to a breakthrough, but can any of the four leadership candidates recreate the Orange Wave?

What role do you see for universal programs by the federal government?

I am absolutely committed to not only maintaining universal, publically delivered, one-tiered, social programs but expanding them. As New Democrats we already agree on universal daycare; we already agree on universal pharmacare, and so the policies I put forward are ones that I can add my own personal angle or touch. I wanted to bring forward policy agendas — like in the crime agenda or in the criminal justice agenda — that are unique to my personal work experiences and life experiences.

Are you in favour of any of the current pipeline proposals?

I have said no to Energy East and Kinder Morgan and most recently Keystone XL.

Are there any circumstances under which you could support a pipeline?

For energy projects there are three criteria that I rely on in terms of informing my decisions: Respect for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which entails that there must be prior informed consent from Indigenous communities on a project; any energy project that we invest in or allow has to comply with our climate change targets; local jobs and opportunities must be considered, as opposed to strictly focusing on exporting raw goods or raw petroleum.

If an Indigenous community was opposed to an energy project should they have an absolute veto right?

If we truly want a nation-to-nation relationship, then we can’t have projects on the land of another nation without that nation’s consent. It’s pretty fundamental, there really isn’t any way around that; it’s a real step towards reconciliation.

What went wrong for the NDP in the last election?

There was a great platform that was very progressive and included very meaningful advancements for society, but there was also something lacking between this objective platform and the campaign. The campaign lacked emotion and didn’t connect with people. I think that it didn’t feel like the party was progressive. The one concrete problem was the saying that the NDP would have a balanced budget. The problem with that message is that it has been used by conservatives to advocate cuts or austerity, very contrary to New Democratic values.

One of the big debates in the campaign is the eternal tug of war between power and principles. How do you balance this perpetual tension in the NDP?

There is no question that we need power to influence change but for me there is no doubt that power can never come at the cost of principles. There is an absolute way to pursue both your principles and the pursuit of power and that is what I have been committed to doing.

What is your Quebec strategy and what is your experience been like campaigning there?

We have signed up more members than any other candidate in Quebec. We are going to grow in Quebec. We are going to reach out to people who never considered voting for NDP before and we will inspire them to vote for us. We will have new fertile ground in Montréal for ridings that are diverse that were not thought of as NDP ridings before. I am confident that the values that the New Democrats have and the ones that I will put forward are values that resonate with people in the province.

How important is it to have personality over policy in this election when facing Justin Trudeau?

You need both — there is no question about it. You need to have an ability to get your message out to people and that requires personality and to be able to convince people. People have to feel a certain trust and a certain affinity towards the person that is delivering the message. So I think we can’t ignore the reality that it is something really important and I can go toe-in-toe on personality with Trudeau.

Will you go back to Queen’s Park if your message doesn’t resonate with federal New Democrats?

I ran to win and we are running a campaign to win and my only plan is to be the federal leader and running for a federal seat.

NIKI ASHTON

The Liberals ‘better mobilized my generation, the millennials’

Where’s your campaign at right now and what’s at stake in this leadership campaign?

From the beginning we’ve made it very clear that “progressive politics” is “smart politics” and that this race is an opportunity for us to reconnect with our roots and our principles as New Democrats — and also reflect on why we lost significant ground in the 2015 election, especially in Quebec, Atlantic Canada and the GTA. We allowed the Liberals to “out-left” us, permitting them to come across as more progressive and inspiring. They certainly better mobilized my generation, the millennials, so going forward we need to better engage young people and that will be accomplished with ideas that attack the two biggest issues of our time: growing inequality and climate change.

Do you risk losing support with the broader electorate by focusing too much on movement activists on the left?

In the last election we talked a lot about “winning” — about “winning government.” But I think we played it too safe taking positions that weren’t reflective of strong NDP principles such as the commitment to balance the budget at all costs. As inequality increases and more people are pushed to the margins you see people looking for a bolder kind of politics. And that’s what our campaign is about. We’re absolutely interested in working with movements — building a movement — but it has to be based on ideas that are salient to the challenges the millennial generation faces. They will be the largest voting block in the next election — 37 per cent of eligible voters — and it’s a generation at risk of living lives much worse than their parents. It’s also a generation more open to progressive politics and challenging the status quo whether it’s free tuition, or public ownership, or progressive global policies on the environment.

What would you say to folks sympathetic to your radical progressive approach who believe it makes you unelectable because you’re too radical?

I believe “principles” are compatible with “power.” I’ve seen it from where I come from. The NDP achieved power in Manitoba by being very clear about whose side they were on: working people and those on the margins. I believe you saw a similar dynamic in Alberta and more recently in B.C. And I would add that Canada is changing. That was apparent to me on my precarious employment tour. It showed that inequality is rising and the degree to which the millennial generation is rejecting the status quo. Two years ago I may have been hesitant about whether the politics of Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn would resonate here in Canada. But what I experienced then was a real appetite for a much bolder kind of politics — and a bolder pushback against the rise of the right, which is not only extremely divisive but also really dangerous.

Could you expand on the importance of precarious work to you?

The rise of precarious work clearly indicates this country’s increasing inequality. Let me share just one story that touched me. A young woman I met on the tour had just moved back in with her parents so she could pursue a third degree because the first two didn’t result in full-time employment. But she also mentioned she’d likely never have children because she wouldn’t be able to give them the life her parents gave her. That story spoke to me about the dysfunctional breakdown caused by precarity and growing inequality.

On a more immediate public policy issue, is there any pipeline policy that you support?

Our campaign opposes the proposed pipelines — Kinder Morgan, Keystone, Energy East — based on certain key principles, including first, the need to respect the UN Declaration on the Rights on Indigenous People. It is critical that governments prioritize not just consultation but consent, and we know these pipelines do not have the consent of many First Nations across the country.

Second question: Do they meet our climate change targets? They don’t.

I believe we need to move away from the current energy model and instead look at investing in clean renewable energy, and I have proposed creating a new crown corporation that will direct federal funding towards helping create a carbon-free economy.

As prime minister, you’d be called upon to decide what’s in the national interest. How does that apply with energy projects?

What’s in the national interest is confronting climate change and building new pipelines won’t help meet those commitments. Renewable energy will create thousands of much more sustainable jobs than those in the boom-and-bust energy and resource sectors.

GUY CARON

‘I don’t want to make everyone equal but you want to level the playing field’

Where is the race right now?

My first task was to get myself better known by putting forward policies that would be seen as out-of-the-ordinary and I think my Basic Income Proposal achieved that goal. My second task was becoming a “competitor.” With my new endorsements and the positive response to my performances in debates, I’m where I want to be.

You’re the only Quebecer in the race but we’re a long way now from the Orange Wave. You got into politics because of Jack Layton’s belief the party’s success ran through Quebec. What happens if you don’t win?

Well, we still have 35 per cent of the vote in the province and we were neck-and-neck in the last election; 2019 will strengthen the party in Quebec and our path to forming government in Canada still runs through the province. But challenges remain: we had 12,000 members in the province; now it’s down to 5,000. To be a force in Quebec, you have to understand Quebecers and their politics.

There are many interesting ideas in your platform. Your tax plan is very ambitious and your signature proposal — a Basic Annual Income — is very bold, indeed, but there are no new universal programs that have been for decades the bread-and-butter of social-democratic electoral platforms. Why?

I wanted to move in a slightly different direction. It strikes me that the NDP has had the same platform for two or three elections and, as you know, universal daycare, a provincial jurisdiction, was a proposal of ours in 2015, and Premier (Kathleen) Wynne said she wouldn’t work with an NDP government on it. The beauty of my proposals is that we can execute them without the support of the provinces.

But aren’t you breaking with a long-standing NDP belief that Ottawa should be the leader? Isn’t this a radical shift?

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Well I do believe that Ottawa can play a leadership role in health care, for instance, but not by imposing programs — and for a good reason. Initially, it paid half the bill for public health care, now it’s less than 25 per cent. It’s hard to impose a “national vision” when the provinces are picking up most of the tab.

But your signature social program is a case where Ottawa can act alone and arguably it will likely define your run for NDP leader. Your Basic Income Plan guarantees people living below the “low-income cutoff” an annual income. Curiously, this very innovative policy has split the left: people like you believe it will eliminate poverty but others are suspicious that it will provide cover for politicians to slash existing safety-net programs. Will it?

Basic Income provides for basic needs like food, lodging and clothing and I believe it will have a huge impact reducing poverty. But it won’t work if a province uses it as an excuse to off-load their responsibilities. If that happens there will be a way of taking them off the program. Basic Income will have a huge impact on minimizing income insecurity in the face of rapid changes already underway in the workplace.

The Liberals have run into trouble “selling” a loophole elimination that nets just $200-million in new revenue. Your tax plan is much bigger, generating $31 billion in new revenue, correct?

That’s about right.

You’re talking about netting $2 billion from an inheritance tax and $12 billion from a wealth tax. Won’t you have to bring in the army to sell it? Is it too ambitious?

Canada needs to reform a tax system that hasn’t changed in decades. This is a vision that’s ambitious and bold but these are not taxes on labour income but on unproductive capital. We need to address economic inequality. We are one of the few advance countries without an inheritance tax. I don’t want to make everyone equal but you want to level the playing field and the tax system is not playing its role. My plan proposes a reasonable increase in corporate taxes, but otherwise I’ve been careful not to tax money intended for investment in the productive real economy.

Here’s another hot-button issue. Is there any pipeline proposal you support?

Nope. Any interprovincial pipeline goes through the National Energy Board, and the NEB has no credibility. An NDP government would reform it, so the consultation process doesn’t exclude 90 per cent of those keen to be heard. And we need a separate process seeking First Nations’ consent.

Do First Nations have veto rights on pipelines, etc.?

Yes, if it’s a nation-to-nation relationship, we can only proceed with their consent.

How much time would you spend in Ottawa if you win?

I’ll be in the House two days a week; otherwise I’ll be out there reconnecting with Canadians.

CHARLIE ANGUS

‘Class is a fundamental issue in this country’

To start, do you want to give us a sense of how the campaign is going?

I see a growing sense of economic uncertainty. I have a sense that people don’t believe the politicians speak for them. I think people of all political parties have become more disconnected. And I think that the role of a social democratic party in 2017 is to say: ‘We have to restore some level of believability for people who are [being] left out of the game.’ And that’s been my approach.

I think the issue of class is a fundamental issue in this country. The fundamental divide in this country is economic. And that divide is cutting across a different kind of class strata. It’s no longer the traditional blue-collar class. The new working class is white collar.

The day I launched I met a university professor that I know. And she started to cry when I was asking about her work. I mean, she’s on perpetual contracts, she can’t pay her bills. Our kids pay enormous amounts of money to universities that are more like corporations, and they treat their faculty more like Tim Hortons workers. Fifteen years ago, that was the cream of the middle class, and that’s gone. And so we’ve got to start calling this out: the issue of class.

But despite this emphasis on class, you don’t have much of a tax plan, in terms of tax reform, and tax surely is a major tool for redressing inequalities. Where’s your tax plan?

We need a proper tax plan in order to address the fact that corporate Canada doesn’t pay their share anymore. We were told this myth — this was Paul Martin’s myth, this was Jean Chrétien’s myth, this was Stephen Harper’s myth: You keep giving them corporate tax breaks, and they’ll reinvest, and create good jobs, and we’ll have a great new economy. And [instead] we’ve got the KPMG scandals. They don’t pay their pension benefits anymore. We’ve got them walking away on Sears. And so, tax overhaul is crucial.

Coming up with a coherent tax policy is something I do with the party, with our electoral team. Not as a leadership candidate trying to say I’m going to get this point versus that point raised. It has to be a coherent strategy. So I’ve talked about the general principles, which I think is what a leader does in a leadership race. You talk about your values and your principles, but I go back to the party and say ‘OK, how do we make this credible?’ That’s my focus.

Are you in favour of any of the current pipeline proposals?

Right now, no. I got into politics to fight the Adams Mine. And I got involved in that because that was such a bogus, broken, fraudulent system for review. And when I look at what happened with the National Energy Board, it is much more bogus and fraudulent than even Mike Harris’s Ontario system was…So if you’re going to have a mega-project, you have to have a credible process for public input.

Are there any circumstances under which you could support new pipelines?

In a low-carbon future, we need copper, we need aluminum … and we will need oil. So we have to talk about transportation. Certainly trains are a very, I think, unwise way to move heavy bitumen, particularly since they move through so many urban areas. So we have to look at a review process.

If a First Nation is opposed to a resource project, should they have an absolute veto right?

That’s complicated, but the fact is without social licence, projects are not going to go ahead. But I’ll tell you, when I was working for the Algonquin nation before I was elected, we were having to run blockades all the time because nobody was coming in to talk to a First Nation. Now they do … If government was at the table the way industry has been at the table, we would probably be in a much different position than we are right now. Industry understands that they need social licence on the ground.

I’m just wondering if you think that splitting Indigenous Affairs into two is going to solve the problems, or what would you be doing?

I don’t care how many ministers you put in that broken system. When you have an attitude that it’s up to the federal government to decide what money they need to spend, and how to spend it, it is a black hole of in-accountability.

This is a system that was built to destroy the Indian people, it has done a damn good job for 150 years, and it has to be dismantled.

All of the stories you tell, on Indigenous, NAFTA, losing all our jobs, unaffordable housing, why aren’t Canadians revolting? Why isn’t there a revolution? Why aren’t they flocking to the NDP?

Canadians are very patient. They’re enormously resourceful, but more and more are working full out. They’re just trying to get by. … I think what you need to do is offer a vision where we say it doesn’t have to be this way.

Your notion of class: how is it different from Justin Trudeau’s notion of supporting the middle class and those attempting to join it?

I think Justin and I grew up in a different middle class. Because, I mean, look at his middle-class tax credit, right? If you make $40,000 a year and less you get nothing, and if you make between $150,000 and $250,000 you get the whole bang for your buck.

The middle class that Justin Trudeau’s talking about, it’s disappearing. And I find it really insidious to say, “and those wanting to join it.”

My notion of the working class is that it is blue collar and white collar. There are people who’ve been downsized, professors, people who are working for the federal government on perpetual contracts at 12 bucks an hour when they have masters and PhDs in international development and can’t pay their bills. That to me is the new working class.

It’s shame on us that we are not being the voice for those communities, and if we’re not being the voice for those communities, political arsonists like Donald Trump step in. And I am not, on my watch, seeing the Andrew Scheer’s of the world pretend that they represent working people. I don’t believe they do. So that’s my mission.

The four NDP leadership candidates are making their final case to party voters before balloting begins on Monday. National caucus chair Daniel Blaikie says the NDP will advocate for the same issues regardless of who becomes leader.

Read more about: