NDP election platform stays consistent on climate
The NDP is not joining the 'cheerleading' for more pipelines, critical minerals and nuclear energy that 'is increasingly apparent in the Liberal and Conservative platforms,' Mark Winfield, a professor at York University, told Canada's National Observer in a phone interview on April 22.
The NDP platform does not downplay climate and environment: it includes home retrofits for low-income Canadians, increased electric vehicle incentives, investments in public transit and more routes, eliminating fossil fuel subsidies by 2026, cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent by 2035 and more.
Though some might have feared the platform would be 'wishy-washy,' that is not the case, Winfield said.
'There is a degree of consistency here, which I think is noteworthy.'
While both Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre and Liberal Leader Mark Carney have said they want Canadian oil and gas to supply the world for decades to come (albeit to different extents and with different framing) and to speed up major project approvals in response to the US trade war, the NDP platform does not mention pipelines.
Instead, to make Canada more independent from the US, the NDP is pitching 'sector-specific industrial strategies for energy, mining, manufacturing, buildings and transportation' in consultation with workers and with the goal of decarbonizing essential industries such as steelmaking, cement-making and transportation.
The NDP is not joining the 'cheerleading' for more pipelines, critical minerals and nuclear energy that 'is increasingly apparent in the Liberal and Conservative platforms,' said Mark Winfield, a professor at York University
Winfield said this notion, although light on details, is a more thoughtful approach than some of the pipeline-heavy discourse from recent months.
The platform does not say how the NDP would approach more than $80-billion in clean economy investment tax credits the Liberals introduced in Budget 2023. In an emailed statement to Canada's National Observer, a party spokesperson said the NDP would maintain and strengthen these investment tax credits.
The word 'oil' appears six times in the NDP platform, including a commitment to end oil and gas subsidies, implement a cap on oil and gas sector emissions and keep the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act in place, the latter two of which Poilievre has promised to scrap. The Liberal Party platform did not include the yet-to-be-finalized emissions cap.
An East-West electricity grid features prominently in the NDP platform and talking points. The party stays committed to the federal government's current promise to achieve a net-zero electricity grid by 2035 — although the Liberals weakened the Clean Electricity Regulations after pushback from the provinces.
The NDP would keep the industrial carbon price, which is Canada's most impactful emission reduction policy, according to a March 2024 analysis by the Canadian Climate Institute. The NDP would not bring back the consumer carbon price.
This makes sense because the consumer price is 'just too unpopular,' Katya Rhodes, an associate professor at University of Victoria who analyzes climate policy, told Canada's National Observer.
'There is no point in losing voters over this issue.'
The NDP's platform does not clarify whether it would eliminate subsidies for carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) as part of its commitment to end all fossil fuel subsidies by 2026. NDP MPs, including environment and climate change critic Laurel Collins, previously criticized the Liberals for offering support and subsidies for carbon capture.
An emailed statement from an NDP spokesperson did not directly say the party would eliminate CCUS subsidies but seemed to suggest this, saying it 'will force oil and gas companies to reduce emissions through implementing production emissions cap, with clear requirements for them to do right by their workers, rather than relying on a CCUS tax incentive and hoping for the best.'
On April 22, Collins announced a commitment to launch a $500-million Youth Climate Corps to train and employ thousands of young people in climate emergency response, community resilience, and renewable energy projects across the country. The Greens and Liberals also support a youth climate corps, with the Liberals pitching a two-year, $56-million pilot project.
Winfield noted the NDP's 'very strong emphasis on reconciliations with Indigenous
Peoples, which is going to become an even more central issue if governments attempt to aggressively push these kinds of projects forward.'
The platform committed to 'replace mere consultation with a standard of free, prior and informed consent, including for all decisions affecting constitutionally protected land rights, like energy project reviews.'
In the French language leaders' debate on April 16, Carney said his government would never impose a project on an Indigenous nation opposed to it, while Poilievre said other nations would support it and his government would side with the majority.
The NDP platform also promises to pass an Environmental Bill of Rights and create an Office of Environmental Justice to address how different marginalized groups – like Black, Indigenous and racialized communities and youth — are disproportionately impacted by pollution. The NDP and Green Party have long pushed for legislation like this with some progress: Green Party Co-Leader Elizabeth May's private members bill to create a national strategy to tackle environmental racism became law last June.
The Environmental Bill of Rights 'is designed to counter the sort of deregulatory pressures that we're seeing, particularly from the Conservatives, but to a certain degree from the Liberals now as well,' Winfield said.
'There is, in fact, now a clearer differentiation between those parties (Bloc Québecois, NDP and Green Party) and the Liberals and Conservatives in terms of where they stand on environment and climate change,' Winfield said.
'That is an interesting development, how much it will actually affect voting choices, we won't know until election day,' he said, but it is possible some environmentally-minded voters could drift back toward parties like the NDP, Bloc Québécois and Greens, if they don't like the two main parties' rhetoric.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


National Post
15 minutes ago
- National Post
Letters: Liberty versus wildfire risk and other burning issues
Article content Prime Minister Mark Carney is so far out of his league when it comes to Israel, it's an embarrassment to all Canadians with a conscience. Firstly, Carney knows absolutely nothing about what it's like to live in a country that has had to defend its existence from the moment it became the State of Israel in 1948. Carney has never had to actually live in a nation where thousands of rockets and missiles have been indiscriminately fired into the country to kill as many as possible. Article content I don't recall Carney having any military experience in the Middle East on his resume. And yet he has the chutzpah to declare, on behalf of all Canadians, that Israel's plan for Gaza won't work. It may or may not work, but Carney has zero skin in the game and zero credibility to attempt to tell a fellow democracy how to manage the war that was started and will be ever perpetuated by Hamas. Article content Carney should be managing/focusing on the faltering Canadian economy rather than singling out and threatening Israel. Article content Article content Catherine Lévesque reports that Premiers Danielle Smith of Alberta and Doug Ford of Ontario agree that more pipelines are required to transport Alberta crude across the country. Article content So, with the quick passage of Prime Minister Mark Carney's Bill C-5 it would seem that all that is needed now is for a private-sector consortium to put forward a proposal that Ottawa deems is worthy of using Bill C-5 to bypass other existing Liberal legislation. Article content Perhaps it would have been more straightforward to follow the Conservative plan: i.e. Scrap the offending legislation — Bill C-69 (the no more pipelines act) and the bill prohibiting tanker traffic off the West Coast. In other words, to eliminate federal interference entirely. Article content Article content Article content The Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) and Canada as a nation reached a new low in the suppression of free expression and antisemitism by cancelling the showing of a documentary about the October 7 attacks by Hamas terrorists. Although it has since walked back that decision, and now says it will be showing the documentary, in its initial cancelling TIFF was either cowering in fear of anti-Israel activists or demonstrating support for Hamas.


CBC
2 hours ago
- CBC
Who controls the food supply? Proposed changes to seed reuse reopens debate
It's a small change that risks cultivating a big debate. On one side is the principle of farmer's privilege — the traditional right of Canadian farmers to save seeds at the end of a growing season and reuse them the next year. On the other is the principle of plant breeders' rights — the right of those who develop new seeds and plants to protect and profit from their discoveries. The issue has been dormant for a decade. Now, proposed changes to government rules regarding plant breeders' rights are reviving that debate. It also raises questions about how Canada gets its food and who controls what is grown. "Ultimately, it's about food security," said Keith Currie, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. The group supports the changes, which include narrowing the scope of farmer's privilege. "Not only keeping us competitive to keep food costs down, but also to make sure that we maintain new varieties coming forward for that food availability." In a notice dated Aug. 9, the government announced proposed changes to Canada's Plant Breeders' Rights Regulations — a form of intellectual property protection for plants, similar to a patent. The regulations give plant breeders a monopoly over the distribution of their product for a set period, as a way to to encourage investment and innovations such as varieties with higher yields or more resistant to drought or pests. It's a big business. Estimates of the economic impact of the seed industry in Canada range from $4 billion to $6 billion a year. The right to reuse The changes would remove the right of farmers to save and reuse seeds and cuttings from protected "fruits, vegetables, ornamental varieties, other plants reproduced through vegetative propagation and hybrids." For most plants recognized under the law, the protections last for 20 years. Personal gardens and many other kinds of crops such as wheat, cereals and pulses, where seed saving is more widespread, would not be affected. Among the other proposed changes is to extend the protection for new varieties of mushrooms, asparagus and woody plants like raspberries and blueberries to 25 years from the current 20 years. A public consultation on the changes runs until Oct. 18. NDP agriculture critic Gord Johns says the changes raise an important issue for Canadians. He questions why the government is holding the consultation in summer when most farmers are focused on growing and harvesting crops — not drafting submissions for public consultations. "They keep doing this over and over again," said Johns of the federal government. "They announce regulatory changes that impact farmers and their livelihoods [and] they schedule the consultation period during the busiest time of the year for farmers." Johns said companies producing new kinds of seed should be adequately compensated for their innovation and intellectual property. But he said farmers who grow and harvest the food Canadians eat shouldn't "be starved by big corporations choking off their seed supply." He wants the House of Commons agriculture committee to hold hearings and take a closer look at the changes being proposed. A spokesperson for Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Heath MacDonald said the government is "committed to encouraging innovation, investment, research and competitiveness in Canadian agriculture, horticulture and ornamental industries." The spokesperson said the government "will review all feedback before determining next steps." Access vs. innovation Former prime minister Stephen Harper's government triggered a debate in 2015 when it adopted measures to bring Canada's rules more in line with guidelines adopted by the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, known as UPOV 91. The rules are separate from patent law or technology use agreements which some seed companies use to prevent farmers from saving and reusing seeds. Changes to plant breeders' rules are now again on the table. Last year, a government consultation resulted in 109 submissions, the majority supportive of change. Meanwhile, lobbyists have been busy behind the scenes. According to the federal lobbying registry, 13 people from several different groups or companies are currently registered to lobby on plant breeders' rights including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Canola Growers Association, the Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association and Swiss-based Syngenta, owned by Sinochem, a Chinese state-owned enterprise. Cathy Holtslander, director of research and policy for the National Farmers Union, says the proposed changes risk hurting farmers while increasing profits and the power of seed-producing companies — often multinationals with foreign ownership. While the changes are focused on an area of agriculture where seed saving is less common, Holtslander warns the changes are a "slippery slope" that could lead to an erosion of the rights of farmers. "If they were to go after wheat with the amendment, there would be a huge uproar and people would really be angry and push back," Holtslander said. She said what's being proposed "paves the way" for other crops to be included later. "The seed industry does not want farmers' privilege to exist for any seed. They want to be able to require people to buy new seed every year," she said. Holtslander's group plans to fight the proposed changes. She said the issue goes beyond the question of individual farmers reusing seed. "If the big multinational companies control the seed, they control our food supply," she said. Lauren Comin, director of policy for Seeds Canada, acknowledges the issue can be controversial but argues Canada needs strong intellectual property protection if it wants access to the newest innovations to compete on the world stage. "It's incredibly important to have these frameworks to encourage investment companies, businesses, public entities, to know that they are going to somehow be compensated and protected," Comin said. She said that while the changes "provide that certainty and that incentive for investment," she wants them to go further. While acknowledging there isn't enough certified seed for all of Canada's cereals and small grains crop, Comin would also like to see farmers compensate plant breeders when they reuse seeds, as they do in Europe. "The farmer's privilege does not say that that use is free," she said. "[Farmers] can choose to buy the latest and greatest product of innovation, which means that there is a tremendous amount of investment and effort that went toward developing this improved variety. Or they can decide that they don't value innovation, and they can go back to a variety that's unprotected and grow that." Currie, an Ontario grains and oil seed farmer who saves and reuses seeds, says Canada needs to balance the two principles. He says farmer's privilege is key to Canada's competitiveness, but so is access to new varieties of seeds and plants. "While I do understand where some of the multinationals want to have better control, I believe in order for the industry to be viable, farmers have to have some control as well," he said.

CTV News
5 hours ago
- CTV News
Leger poll finds 54% of Canadians want cuts to the federal public service
Watch A new Leger survey finds more than half of Canadians feel the size and cost of government should be reduced in the years ahead, CTV's Abigail Bimman explains.