The NDP was very clear in what it stood for, for a long time, partly because of its size. But now you have a much larger party with governments in different provinces, and you have lots of MPs from Quebec. How do you keep those different regions together together while maintaining that authenticity?

There might be some regional nuances and differences along the way, but these fundamental principles — human rights for all, protecting the environment, and building a sustainable economy — these are things that everyone will agree with.



But on some of these specifics, you have disagreements in BC and Alberta over energy and pipelines. You have a debate about religious accommodation in Quebec. They go to the heart of what a progressive party stands for. So on the pipelines, you took some time to make your opposition clear to Kinder Morgan. Why the delay?

I spoke with a lot of environmentalists, and they made it clear that to have a position on energy projects without having a position on the climate in general wasn’t befitting a leadership campaign. The leadership campaign should actually have a position on climate change in general, and in that climate change proposal there should be a position on energy projects. So I respected the advice I got from environmentalists on that. I also wanted to take some time to really understand the nuances given a government coming into power in BC and an existing government in Alberta, just understand some of the sensitivities that existed before I released my full position as well as a climate change plan.

Rachel Notley, premier of Alberta, has the most aggressive plan to tackle climate change in the country right now. Better than our federal government and better than any other province. So though there’s a disagreement on whether or not to approve an energy project in terms of Alberta’s position and BC's position, we know that her climate change commitment is credible. BC has made a position very clear on Kinder Morgan, but the principle of caring about the environment is the same between the two. They both care very deeply about it.

When it comes to Quebec, at the end of the day, Quebec MPs strongly believe in human rights and defending the rights of all people. There’s a certain nuance with respect to the experiences with the Quiet Revolution and the involvement of the Catholic Church in the day-to-day lives of people that people are very afraid of and don’t want to see happen again. Women’s right to choose was impacted, education was impacted, society was impacted. Quebec has experienced some fears around what happens when a religion encroaches on human rights, they have a bit of a particular position, but they’re still very committed to human rights. And that’s something that you’ll see with all New Democrats.

One of the theories about 2015 is that the NDP stumbled when the niqab issue came up because there was not immediately a strong position, and when Tom Mulcair did take a position against the niqab ban, the impression was that it hurt the party in Quebec. So if you do become leader, and you do have to wrangle all these different parts of the NDP, and you are a Sikh man who wears a turban and a kirpan, how do you think you will personally navigate that tension?

What I’ve realized, speaking to Quebec activists and NDPers in Quebec, and just generally speaking to progressives in Quebec, what they care about more than anything is they care about your values. And so I made it clear that I’m not trying to convince people whether they need to accept or not accept articles of faith as a leader, but what I would want to convince people of as a leader is that I’m someone that is committed to social democratic values, that I am someone that stood up for, consistently, the values and rights of all people, and that’s something they can rely on.

When it comes to LGBTQ issues, when it comes to the rights of women, when it comes to the rights of racialized people, when it comes to minority language rights, I’m someone that’s going to be a fervent defender of the rights of all people, and that’s a value proposition that’s going to connect to all Quebecers. That’s an issue that speaks to the hearts and minds of people.

They’re going to find what's troubling is not me, someone that has the same values, the same social democratic, progressive values. It’s going to be someone like [Conservative leader] Andrew Scheer, who doesn’t actually have any outward symbols, but inspired by his religious beliefs, is someone that’s against a women’s right to choose, who is against the rights of LGBTQ community. We’ve seen it in his policies and things that he’s voted on and things that he’s raised. We know that that’s a disconnect between his values and those of the people of Quebec. That’s going to be a very interesting dichotomy.

Some of your fellow candidates have centred their campaigns on some splashy ideas like free tuition, national pharmacare, a minimum income, and they’ve also occasionally accused you of being a little too cautious, tinkering at the margins, or even acting like a Liberal. What’s your response to that critique that you have played it safe or that you’re not providing a bold vision?



We were the first to come out with a plan on employment, which talked about tackling precarious employment directly. We were the first to come out with a plan that talked about having a minimum wage increase to $15, but also tackling temporary job agencies, which were exploiting workers, the first to talk about making sure that we have a reintroduction of labour rights at the federal level. We were the first to come up with a guaranteed income for seniors, a guaranteed income for Canadians living with disabilities.

We had the first climate change plan that came out, which was the boldest climate change plan, endorsed by experts and environmentalists around the country. We’ve talked about free tuition as well. We’re going to release a very bold policy around criminal justice, which is going to be far and above anyone else.

I think it’s very interesting that people are suggesting that when our policies have been some of the most progressive, the most bold.

We’ve heard a lot of talk about reconciliation in the last couple years. Many Indigenous leaders and activists have been disappointed by the lack of progress on this file, especially with this government. What would the NDP do differently to make reconciliation more than just words and turn it into deeds, and also to chip away at some of that skepticism that’s built up now?



What increases that skepticism is a party that campaigned saying that reconciliation is going to be a major component of our administration. Then that party becomes government and yet the prime minister that’s currently contravening four compliance orders from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on Jordan’s Principle, basically sending lawyers to appeal a decision that says that Indigenous children should get equitable funding. They’re denying that. I think as a starting point, reconciliation means that yes, Indigenous children deserve equitable funding. A New Democratic government would say yes, absolutely, and probably we need to go further than that.

I think that we need to tackle the issues that are impacting people on an infrastructure level. So housing for Indigenous community members as well as access to clean water. There needs to be immediate action on ensuring that everyone in Canada has access to clean water. It’s something that impacts people across Canada, but disproportionately those who are marginalized, so we need to immediately move on that.

And something that I think is really profoundly important, and there’s been some steps forward, but Indigenous languages should be treated as national treasures. We’re seeing Indigenous languages that are basically becoming extinct. We need to protect those languages with financial support from the federal level, encourage more learning of the languages and growth of the languages and protection. That’s another step forward in true reconciliation.

But I think at its heart, reconciliation means, as a nation, we have to confront the legacy of genocide, both direct and indirect, that’s been perpetrated against Indigenous people.