Is it R.I.P. for the federal NDP? Not quite, experts say
Social Sharing
The New Democratic Party's devastating electoral losses do not translate to a death knell for the party but are an important signal that some significant structural changes are needed, analysts say.
"I don't believe the claims that this is it for the NDP," said Andrea Lawlor, an associate professor of political science at McMaster University.
"But for them it is the type of organizational crisis that is going to require a lot of attention and soul-searching in order to get back on a footing where they are viewed by Canadians as a really fundamental third option."
The NDP, which held 24 seats at dissolution, is now projected to end up with just over six per cent of the popular vote and seven seats — resulting in the worst showing of the party's history. It was crushed in provinces like B.C., where it's projected to lose 10 of its 13 seats, and in Ontario, where it's projected to be wiped out, losing the five ridings it had held.
The results prompted NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh to announce his resignation, while his party's poor showing means it won't have official status in the House of Commons.
Without such status, the NDP will miss out on crucial parliamentary funding, be allowed to ask fewer questions during question period and likely be unable to participate in parliamentary committees.
It suffered a significant defeat before in 1993, when, led by Audrey McLaughlin, it won only nine seats and also lost official status.
Its heyday remains the 2011 election, when leader Jack Layton rode the "Orange Wave" to a record 103 seats and Official Opposition status.
Party suffered decline in vote share and seat count
But since that wave — believed to have been largely built more on Layton's personality than party policy — there's been a repeated decline in the party's vote share and seat count.
While its provincial cousins continue to maintain a presence in provincial legislatures, the federal party has suffered diminishing returns over the years.
"And crucially, a broader confusion about just what it is [the New Democrats] offer, what it is [they] stand for and what it is that [they] provide," said Tari Ajadi, assistant professor of political science at McGill University. "That's a massive issue."
Jonathan Malloy, a political science professor at Carleton University, said he believes the election night results mostly centred on voter fear of President Donald Trump, which drove NDP supporters to the Liberals.
"The party had a very bad night, but it could point to a specific reason why," he said. "So, that's the consolation for them."
But Ajadi said while the fear of Trump was a significant factor, it's the internal workings of the NDP that need to be scrutinized after many of its seats went to the Conservatives — more than they lost to the Liberals.
"That is a remarkable situation and that speaks to what I do think is an existential crisis for the party," Ajadi said.
The party has not managed mobilizing its support in any kind of meaningful way and, crucially, has forgot about or does not understand what makes up their coalition of voters, Ajadi said.
WATCH | Singh gets emotional as he announces he will step down:
Singh gets emotional as he announces he will step down as NDP leader
1 day ago
Duration 2:27
Jagmeet Singh announces that he is stepping down as leader of the NDP as soon as an interim leader can be named. At the time of his announcement, Singh was trailing in his B.C. riding of Burnaby Central.
"You can speak to your upper-middle-class, progressive voters in cities," he said. "But if you forget your base in terms of the autoworkers, in terms of working-class people … I mean, it's remarkable to me."
The party has not come across as a credible advocate for the working person in a long time, he said.
"In order for them to get back to a space where that coalition works out for them, they're not going to have to win back votes from the Liberals. They're going to have win back votes from Conservatives."
Lawlor said she believes there will be another incarnation of the NDP. But one of the challenges of this election was that a lot of the committed NDP voter base was disaffected and disappeared.
Loss of private sector union support to Conservatives
The loss of private sector organized labour to the Conservatives is a major issue and a real hit to the core of the party and the traditional view of what the NDP is, she said.
Lawlor said the party mistakenly believed that it could garner support from those who broadly identify as socially progressive. However, that coalition was not strong enough to uphold the party.
"They have to get back to attracting a young working-class voter base, if they want to rebuild the structure," she said.
Lawlor said there is a broad segment of voters out there who could form part of that base. She said they are at least willing to give the NDP a look at voting time to see if what they have on offer is attractive, even if it is just a place to park their vote.
"They can decide what foundation the next incarnation of the NDP is going to rest on, but they need something, some base coalition of voters that can be predictably relied upon so they don't end up with seven seats again, so they don't end up losing party status," she said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Star
an hour ago
- Toronto Star
Canadians favour other countries over Donald Trump's America, survey suggests
As G7 leaders gather in Kananaskis, Alta., a new poll suggests Canadians are souring on the U.S. and embracing relations with other world powers. The Pollara Strategic Insights survey found net impressions of the U.S. have plunged since President Donald Trump returned to office in January. At the same time, Canadians are feeling positive about the other G7 member nations: Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, France and Germany. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW 'We've kind of lost our best friend in the United States and maybe, as a country, Canada is now looking toward some of its older friends to reconnect with as a result of that,' said Dan Arnold, Pollara's chief strategy officer, referring to Trump's tariffs on Canadian goods that have led to a trade war between the neighbouring countries. Indeed, the firm polled people in Canada and the U.K. and found similar results on both sides of the Atlantic. Five out of six Canadians — 83 per cent — said the bilateral relationship with Britain was 'important' with only 17 per cent saying it wasn't. Across the pond, 76 per cent of Britons said their country's relationship with Canada was 'important' while about one in four said it was not. The British have a more positive view of Canada (+78 per cent) than any other country in the poll — ahead of Japan (+61 per cent), Germany (+60 per cent), France (+50 per cent) and Ukraine (+47 per cent). But the poll found they have a negative view toward India (-1 per cent), the U.S. (-3 per cent), China (-24 per cent) and Russia (-63 per cent). ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Among Canadians, Italy has a +66 per cent favourability rating followed by Japan at +64 per cent, the U.K. at +59 per cent, France at +57 per cent, Germany at +54 per cent and Ukraine at +41 per cent. China was at -27 per cent, India at -29 per cent, the U.S. at -47 per cent and Russia at -63 per cent. That's a 60 percentage point drop in Canadian sentiment toward the American since Pollara's survey last year when Joe Biden was U.S. president. Using online panels, Pollara surveyed 3,400 Canadians on May 16-20. While opt-in polls cannot be assigned a margin of error, for comparison purposes, a random sample of this size would have one of plus or minus 1.7 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. Similarly, the firm polled 2,511 Britons on May 2-16. The margin of error for comparable surveys is within 1.9 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. 'If the Americans aren't going to be the number-one ally in many respects for the next three years (of Trump's presidency) … then the Canada-U.K. relationship is something that bears some noting,' said Arnold, pointing out Canada's recently elected Prime Minister Mark Carney used to be governor of the Bank of England. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Because of that, 60 per cent of Britons are familiar with him, and of those, 80 per cent had a positive view of Carney, who succeeded Justin Trudeau as Liberal leader on March 9 and was elected April 28. Just seven per cent had a negative view and the rest had no opinion. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is not as well known among Canadians. Only 26 per cent were familiar with him. Of those, 58 per cent had a positive view with 30 per cent negative and the remainder had no opinion. That's an overall +28 per cent for Starmer, who won power last summer. The most admired foreign leader among Canadians was Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who will attend the G7 summit that begins Sunday. Zelenskyy, whose country was invaded by Russia in 2022, was at +53 per cent, ahead of French President Emmanuel Macron (+46 per cent), German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (+33 per cent), Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba (+31 per cent) and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni (+29 per cent). On the negative side of the ledger, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who will also be at the G7, was at -17 per cent, ahead of Chinese President Xi Jinping (-52 per cent), Trump (-66 per cent) and Russian President Vladimir Putin (-69 per cent). Neither Xi nor Putin was invited to Kananaskis. Politics Headlines Newsletter Get the latest news and unmatched insights in your inbox every evening Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. Please enter a valid email address. Sign Up Yes, I'd also like to receive customized content suggestions and promotional messages from the Star. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Politics Headlines Newsletter You're signed up! You'll start getting Politics Headlines in your inbox soon. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page.
National Observer
an hour ago
- National Observer
Ford's new energy plan for Ontario increases reliance on nuclear, fossil fuels
The Ford government is projecting a major shift toward nuclear power to meet rising electricity demand and support Ontario's transition to net-zero emissions by mid-century. Its newly released long-term Energy for Generations plan — billed as the province's first-ever integrated energy strategy — also shows an increased reliance on fossil fuels over the next decade, with emissions expected to rise before declining after 2030. The province describes the plan as 'a comprehensive roadmap to meet future energy needs, support new housing, and power the most competitive economy in the G7.' 'As energy demand soars, our plan leverages 'Made-In-Ontario' to build affordable, clean, and always reliable power, built by and for Canadians,' Ontario's Minister of Energy and Mines Stephen Lecce said in a statement. The plan will help the province meet growing electricity demand while achieving over 99 per cent zero-emissions electricity by 2050, he added. Critics say the plan misses key opportunities to scale-up renewables, puts energy affordability at risk and increases Ontario's dependence on foreign energy supplies. The plan projects total electricity production in 2050 to be just under 275 terawatt-hours (TWh), with nuclear making up the largest share at over 200 TWh. That means nuclear plants could supply more than 70 per cent of Ontario's electricity by 2050, up from about 50 per cent today. The plan projects the province could need up to 17,800 MW of new nuclear power by 2050, equivalent to building five new Darlington nuclear power stations. Currently, Ontario's nuclear fleet — Bruce, Darlington, and Pickering — provides 12,000 MW of capacity. The plan projects the province could need up to 17,800 MW of new nuclear power by 2050, equivalent to building five new Darlington stations. To support this buildout, the province says it is preparing new nuclear sites and has already begun early engagement with First Nation and local communities. A new nuclear technology panel will guide technology choices and project timelines, with input from Ontario Power Generation, Bruce Power, the Independent Electricity System Operator and government officials. The province says nuclear projects are complex and costly, and it plans to explore new ownership models and equity partnerships to attract private capital and help finance the expansion. It aims to attract investment from Canadian pension funds and institutional investors to 'keep more Canadian energy dollars working here at home,' the province said. 'This isn't a plan — it's a policy statement' Mark Winfield, professor at York University and co-chair of its Sustainable Energy Initiative, said the plan lacks a clear decision-making framework and basic accountability mechanisms. He said there is no process in place to evaluate whether the government's chosen energy path is the most affordable or lowest-risk for the province. 'There is no oversight or review process to assess whether this represents the least-cost or lowest-risk option for Ontario,' Winfield said. By 'review,' Winfield refers to independent assessments — such as those typically conducted by regulatory bodies or outside experts — that evaluate costs, risks, and alternatives before major infrastructure decisions are finalized. Winfield also questioned the long-term focus on nuclear. 'All of the proposed reactor technologies rely on enriched fuel that comes from the United States,' he said. 'This exposes Ontario to new energy security risks.' In recent months, the Ford government has committed billions to nuclear energy, announcing new builds and refurbishments it says will create tens of thousands of jobs. Earlier this year, it unveiled plans for a massive nuclear plant near Port Hope, projected to generate 10,000 megawatts — enough to power 10 million homes — though key details like costs and timelines remain undisclosed. Last week, the province introduced legislation to expand access to Ontario's public clean energy fund for nuclear projects. Industry groups welcomed Ontario's new energy plan, with major players praising the government's commitment to both nuclear power and natural gas. Enbridge Gas called the plan a 'clear affirmation' of the essential role natural gas will continue to play, citing its importance for affordability, grid stability and economic growth. The company said investments in gas infrastructure are foundational to Ontario's prosperity. The Organization of Canadian Nuclear Industries also applauded the plan, calling it a bold step toward clean energy leadership. The group highlighted Ontario's strong nuclear track record and said the proposed expansion — including large reactors and SMRs — positions the province to secure long-term clean energy supply. 'Where are the renewables?' Aliénor Rougeot, climate and energy program manager at Environmental Defence, said Ontario's new energy plan could lead to higher household bills, more air pollution and increased reliance on the US fossil gas. While she welcomed the idea of a long-term, integrated approach, she argued that the plan should be replaced with one built on publicly shared modelling. To Rougeot, the most glaring problem is the plan's failure to prioritize wind and solar — Ontario's cheapest and cleanest energy sources. 'I kept flipping through the document, asking: Where are the renewables?' Rougeot said. The supply forecast is particularly troubling to her, as it shows Ontario having less wind and solar in 2050 than in 2030. She believes the refusal to give renewable energy a central role in the province's future grid will come at a high cost — both economically and environmentally. Wind and solar make up approximately nine per cent and two per cent of Ontario's current electricity generation, respectively. In its plan, the government says their role is expected to grow over time. Starting in 2025, nearly 3,000 megawatts of energy storage will be added to the grid. However, the plan argues that nuclear is more cost-effective and land-efficient than wind and solar. It claims that to generate the same amount of energy as a proposed 10,000 MW nuclear station at Wesleyville, Ontario would need roughly 100 times more land for solar and 500 times more land for wind. But new analysis suggests solar doesn't require large tracts of land — for example, more than half of Toronto's electricity needs could be met through rooftop and parking lot solar alone. A new report from the Ontario Clean Air Alliance argues that wind and solar could meet the same energy needs as the proposed Wesleyville nuclear station much faster and at far lower cost — potentially saving the province up to $19 billion annually. It highlights Ontario's untapped potential for offshore wind in the Great Lakes and large-scale solar at the Port Hope site. Another report warns that electricity from new nuclear could cost up to 3.6 times more than onshore wind, three times more than solar, and 1.7 times more than offshore wind. Lia Codrington, a senior analyst at the Pembina Institute, said the province's new energy plan represents a positive step toward long-term planning, noting that many jurisdictions around the world are already moving quickly toward clean energy and decarbonization. She viewed it as important for Ontario to follow that trend — and even potentially lead — by modernizing its electricity system. Codrington questioned the government's argument that land use limits renewable energy expansion. She said wind turbines allow for shared land use — such as farming — and solar panels can be installed on rooftops, parking lots, and other built environments. In her view, decisions about land use should reflect what Ontarians want in their communities when it comes to energy sources, not just technical comparisons in megawatts per square kilometre.
National Observer
an hour ago
- National Observer
Carney shows his hand on infrastructure and trade bill
Ever since June 6, when Prime Minister Mark Carney declared that he expects Bill C-5 to become law before summer break, one question has loomed over Parliament: How? It normally takes months for a bill to become law. Proposed legislation (which is what a bill is) must go through several readings and committees run by MPs and senators alike, who all call witnesses to weigh in on the pros and cons, which trigger amendments, which then require further deliberation, all before a final vote is cast. If that sounds slow, that's because it is — and it usually takes even longer in a minority government, where Opposition MPs make up a big portion of the committees and so, have ample opportunity to bog the process down. So how did Carney expect to whiz his signature policy through such a quagmire in a mere two or three weeks? But on Thursday, June 12 – one head-scratching week after Carney unveiled the bill – he dropped his cards: a special parliamentary order that would, if Parliament votes for it, condense the entire process into five days. The order's formal name is ' An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act.' Or as NDP MP Alexandre Boulerice calls it, a super-motion. '[It] will, if passed, speed up the debate and study of that bill in an incredible and scandalous way,' Boulerice said in a phone interview soon after the Act to Enact the Act was introduced. Parliament will vote on this super-motion on Friday. It requires a simple majority to pass. If that happens, a parliamentary committee will be formed next week and given just two days to scrutinize Bill C-5, plus make whatever amendments they can squeeze in. The bill will go through the final two readings and hit the floor next Friday, June 20, for a final vote. On that day, according to the terms of the super-motion, '[t]he House shall not adjourn until the proceedings on the bill have been completed.' Meaning, in other words, MPs are stuck in their seats until the bill either becomes law or dies. The procedural mystery behind the prime minister's plan to rush his treasured legislation has been unveiled. Now it's Parliament's play. All of that hinges on the super-motion. If that passes on June 13, Carney will almost certainly get his legislation by next weekend. 'It's really against the rights of parliamentarians,' Boulerice said. 'It's really anti-democratic. It's all the horrible things that a government can do to shut down debate and pass a really controversial project through the throats of the MPs and the general public and First Nations and environmental groups.' Two Acts in one Bill C-5 is really two bills in one, both named in the unwieldy title. The first part is about breaking down interprovincial barriers to trade and labour mobility, and is, in general, less controversial than the bill's second part: the 'Building Canada Act,' which would give cabinet the power to deem certain megaprojects (from pipelines and electricity grids to ports and high-speed rail) in the 'national interest,' which would then put them on a two-year fast track to federal approval. It's the second part that Boulerice, along with many environmental advocacy groups and Indigenous leaders, have deep misgivings about. ''National interest' is so vague that they can put whatever they want [on that list], and after that, guarantee the two years maximum. … Once it's on the list, it cannot be removed. It cannot be blocked or stopped by anybody – provinces, First Nations, citizens, cities. I think it's the dream of Stephen Harper coming true.' Indeed, Conservatives do appear to like the bill – the party's members, not known for their shyness about legislation they dislike, didn't once mention it or the super-motion to accelerate its passage, in Thursday's Question Period. What's less clear is whether they want to hand Carney the political gift of having his signature policy turned into law in such short order against such odds. The Conservative Party did not immediately respond to an inquiry about their plans. It's far from a done deal yet, however. Boulerice is in talks with the Bloc Quebecois, both of whom are busy scouring the 'really big book' of parliamentary procedure for tools that might at least put the brakes on the super-motion. 'We will try some obstruction procedures,' he said. In addition to motions that could slow the day down, Boulerice said they might try splitting Bill C-5 into two parts, allowing the first to rush through, while reserving the second part on 'national interest' projects for proper scrutiny.' In a best-case scenario for Boulerice, the NDP and Bloc will be able to stall voting on the super-motion until Monday. In that case, 'we'll gain some time to raise awareness' with the public, in the hopes of generating enough bad press that the bill becomes too toxic for Parliament to support. But the government is already working on getting its own message out. In a separate briefing about wildfires, several cabinet ministers were asked by reporters to explain the rush embodied by this super-motion. 'We're in a very difficult situation right now,' said Tim Hodgson, minister of energy and natural resources. 'We have a trade war that is affecting sector after sector after sector. Canadian jobs are at risk, Canadian livelihoods are at risk, and quite frankly, the prosperity of the country is at risk … to deal with this, we need to do things that we have not done in a long time, in time frames we have not done since the end of World War II. What we are doing is allowing for debate – I spent four hours last night in a committee of the whole. There is going to be the same sort of process in the Senate. It is important that we start moving, or we will find ourselves in an increasingly difficult situation.' Asked if the Liberals have spoken with Conservatives for a sense of whether they'll support this push, Hodgson said, 'I don't think it's appropriate to talk about the private conversations that are going on.' Mandy Gull-Masty, the minister of Indigenous services and a former Grand Chief of the Cree Nation government in Quebec, was also at that press conference. Asked if the government had addressed the question of First Nation consultation and support for this legislation, Gull-Masty said that in her view, Bill C-5 is 'not just critical for the Canadian economy, it's also critical for Indigenous people.' She said the prime minister has made himself personally available to Indigenous leaders across the country, and felt that Section 35, which enshrines Indigenous rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, along with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, are both embedded in the process. 'I think this is something that is unique to the One Canada Economy Bill, is that we're not just inviting Indigenous partnership to the table, we're actually asking them, 'What is your process of consultation, and how can we work with you in collaboration to carry out those steps?'' For now, it won't be Indigenous groups, or environmental advocates, or anyone but the MPs inside the House of Commons who decide whether Gull Masty's faith in her new party's good faith is warranted. And of those parliamentarians, it is now the Conservatives who hold the future of Carney's prized legislation in their hands. They could choose to gift it to him all at once, delay it until after summer, or withhold it altogether.
