Social democrats who built Canada

Dave McGrane, University of Saskatchewan political studies professor and “Social Democrats of the North” podcast host, tells the history of Canada’s social democratic impulses, and the movements and people that have advanced them.

Through Canada’s labour and farm movements, Dave tracks the women and men who fought to take power from old extractive elites and  democratized and modernized the Canadian economy. 

Transcript

Nikki Hill 0:24

Welcome to Left East to West with me, Nikki Hill.

Tom Parkin 0:27

And me, Tom Parkett. And Nikki, do you think this Mark Carney plan to sell off the airports and ports is is really going to happen?

Nikki Hill 0:35

Oh, jumping right into it today. I mean, it's it's a surprise. Uh, but you know, also a surprise in 2016 when the then finance minister Bill Morneau proposed the same thing. So, and then then Justin Trudeau had to read the backlash. So, I think you're gonna watch that public support and public response to it. Morneau ended up backing off and quit, complaining about the pre the prime minister's office. So, you know, we'll see where we go next on this adventure.

Tom Parkin 1:02

Although this time maybe it's being driven by the PM himself. I mean, it kind of sounds like his signature rather than the finance minister. Um, and then, you know, where's Mr. Poly Abs you going to oppose this thing? Anyway, this is all kind of an interesting discussion at a time when the idea of public option and affordability is back on the table in Canada. Uh, something we're gonna talk about in our uh interview with political scientist Dave Lagraine.

Nikki Hill 1:28

We are indeed, uh, largely because Dave is a University at Saskatchewan professor who does a podcast series for the Broadbent Institute, which is focusing on biographies of early social democrats. And a lot of that is the histories of people building movements that wrested power from old elites to get a better deal for Canadians. And these are also people who looked at investments and nationalization of programs, looking at better public options. And sometimes that meant rewiring how our economy works. But before we get today, we're gonna get to this week below the fold, taking a look at a couple of important stories that maybe didn't make national headlines this week. Tom, tell us why it surfaced again this week in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Tom Parkin 2:31

Yeah. Well, Tony Wakem is the relatively new premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. The PC uh leader was torn into office last fall. Um and his last week, his his health minister made a very public expression of concern about the Kearney government that they were not treating her province fairly, refusing to come to the table and negotiate entry into the National Pharmacare Plan, which is something they wanted to join. Uh in Minister Evans' words, Newfoundland Labrador was excluded from pharmacare, the door was closed by by Mr. Kearney. Now, uh folks will remember that uh the Liberals promised National Pharmacare for years and years. Nothing happened until their 2021 minority, when then NDP leader Jag Meet Singh pushed them into it. Don Davies and Stick held implementation talks with the Liberals, and legislation became law in uh late 2024 October. Uh and then just after that, in the next few months, the Trudeau government negotiated deals with BC, Manitoba, PEI, and UConn, providing federal funds to cover diabetes medication, birth control, uh, and the BC and Manitoba plans also cover menopausal hormone replacement therapy. And we've talked about that uh in your experience with that program uh in BC, Nikki. Yeah? Something you've used.

Nikki Hill 3:55

Yeah. Well, I think also, you know, it's funny how you talk about it everywhere now because now that it's free, women are talking about it, which is always half the battle on these issues. I would spend probably an hour at the spa the other night talking about it with everyone there. So it's a big topic. Residents want it.

Tom Parkin 4:09

Yeah. And and those coverage were coverages for those items, diabetes, birth control, and HRT, was supposed to be um just the initial step towards a bigger program which would use uh global public bulk buying power to force pharmaceutical companies to shave billions off their prices. Uh of course, Big Pharma didn't like that. Uh drug insurance carriers also not uh big fans uh of taking a haircut uh for the benefit of Canadians. Um and that larger vision really appears nowhere in the agenda of the Carney government. But the thing that um our friends from sorry, Newfoundland Labrador were concerned about is that even that initial step, even that initial step, the door was closed to them in having this discussion. Um this is kind of an interesting story because uh i it it's being driven in an interesting way by Newfoundland Labrador NDP leader Jim Din, who spent a lot of his question period time keeping this story alive, like why are we not joining? There's there's you know, other provinces are doing it. So he'd used a lot of question period time asking why the province wasn't uh taking up the federal cash for a pharmacare program. Um at that time, before Wacom, it was uh Liberal Prime Minister uh Premier Fury. Um and he'd kind of like just not give non-answers really about why he wasn't proceeding. But uh suspicion would be that he didn't want to proceed because he knew that Carney really didn't want to proceed either, and he didn't want to say all those kind of things out loud, so he mumbled them instead. Uh but then the Liberals got swept out and and and Wacom, a conservative, is is in as of last October, and he started saying to the federal government, um let's get to the table and start building this program for us. Back in mid-November uh uh a reporter directly asked Mark Kearney about whether his government was open to expanding the existing coverage plan to other provinces because uh he he really hadn't said much, and his Minister of Health was being very closed-mouthed about it. And Kearney said, yeah, my government uh does want to expand coverage to what he called the outstanding provinces. So he won't that's what he said. Um but this is that was then, that was November, and this is now May. And according to Wacom, in the last six months, he's twice written to the Federal Minister of Health and twice directly spoken to Mark Kearney about starting talks to you know get the pharmacare deal, this national uh program that is supposed to be available, and the Kearney government has not named anyone for him to um have these talks with. So the door is closed, as the minister said. Now I think that's an interesting story in itself, but there's kind of an interesting dynamic that uh I also find inter well valuable. Um in Canadian politics is often a general strategy for building federal political strength that's always worked well. Identifying issues, a federal leader identifying issues where provincial governments or provincial parties need Ottawa to push some federal policy lever uh but aren't getting the help. Um and and and then being their advocate, being their ally, and and trying to put the pressure on uh to get a win. Um it certainly will get a national leader into provincial headlines, it shows they're listening, shows they're relevant, and you know, you get to have conversations with people in different parts of the country um i in in a joint project, which you know you can establish relationships that are handy down the road. So in thinking about this and thinking about how important really pharmacare is. I mean, it's good politics and good policy perhaps for Abi Lewis to reach out to Jim Din and Tony Waker um and offer to make uh offer his help to make Mark Carney live up to his words on pharmacare. That departure might force Carney to live up to his words, uh is show show the value of the federal NDP and you know, hopefully, uh get the good people of Newfoundland and Labrador some farm care coverage like you folks have in DC and they have in Manitoba too. So that would be a win.

Nikki Hill 8:24

Yeah, and there's like an interesting equity issue that I would imagine is going to emerge here because we were talking to Karate and Tender about this a few weeks ago. It's like a couple provinces have it. It's not just, you know, we celebrate the HRT on this show because of women of a certain age, but you know, contraception, diabetes medication, all these things that are life-changing medications that people need access to now are being inequitably available across the country because some provinces went down this path with the Fed. So I think it, yeah, it's it's huge. So I think it might become a bigger issue in the future.

Tom Parkin 8:55

Mm-hmm. And you know, the labor movement put a lot of time and effort into the into pushing for this for for many years. So that's yeah, I'm assuming still there, um, latent, ready to get retapped by whoever wants to pick up the ball and push it forward. Yeah. I thought um you I thought uh culture war conservatives hated global institutions, Nikki. That that was always my, like just from following the mega you know theatrics, uh, that they hate hated global institutions, especially the ones that tell people what to do. Um, and that I would have thought they would really hate mandatory genetic testing. Um but apparently some of the BC conservative leaderships uh candidates um really love the idea. What what's that all about?

Nikki Hill 9:44

Yeah, it's so interesting. I think this will probably be the last episode for now that we talk about the BC conservative leadership race, although it bundles up into a global issue that's been bugging me lately. Um because until we get at least past the May 30th uh deadline because for their vote and find out who their leader is, because now they're into that stage where like we talked about last week, so different phases, but also policy development time and platform release time for candidates. There have been a couple of debates since our last episode with the full candidate slate, which hasn't happened yet. And we are really seeing where divisions and differences in opinion are aligning up here in the last five solidified slate here. But there's a thread here to a global issue that, like I said, it's been like a little bit of a puzzle for me. And I think, you know, you're right, Tom. When I I talk, I have friends who are, you know, maybe traditional conservatives wouldn't classify themselves as like the new right conservatives, um, but are, you know, also asking these questions about why there are this conservative in Canada and VC debate about uh policy issues, which do really do come into the bedroom or really uh would be impactful on people's personal lives. In a way, conservatives haven't looked at those types of issues in the past. So um we are seeing an interesting dynamic, though, that's emerging in and VC having a leadership race for a conservative party is seeing some maybe what we call above-the-fold dynamics happening, um, you know, editorials, more debate about if it's whether it's important for conservatives right now to continue to focus on the so-called culture war and or if they should be moving into the issues that the public, you know, when we look at polls, say are most important to them, like the economy, healthcare, housing. And so there's an interesting debate publicly going on between conservatives themselves about digging in on maintaining this culture war concept. And we're seeing this in the BC leadership debate too, but some growing distinctions on candidates. Um, and so we also saw it sort of on that vein of trying to, you know, look at other issues and what's important to the public. Um, we've got some policy positions coming up from different BC conservative leadership candidates. In the past week, we saw a platform release by candidate Ian Black. He called it his five-point premier's plan. So it was really more centered on some of those things the public saying that they're prioritizing. So that healthcare jobs affordability. Um, although it does have a plank on social engineering, which is speaking to the base of the party that is probably making a couple of these candidates lean into culture war issues. Uh, I think sometimes in our our below the fold, we're talking about things that are like, what are progressives missing about what's going on the right and what attracts voters to the right? And so I my question here is also, you know, maybe twofold before we dive into the to the issue at hand, which is also why is the culture war even a feature in a competitive race? And maybe we'll probably keep seeing more of that because it's certainly been in the public discourse of conservatives debating each other nationally right now. But I want to dim into one plank that is actually being pushed by a couple of candidates in this race and not just here in BC, but it ties into the recent International Olympic Committee's ruling that eligibility for any female category event at the Olympic Games or any other IOC event, including individual and team sports, is now limited to biological females determined on the basis of a one-time SRY gene screening. So back to that testing we started with here, Tom. So I just want to be really clear for listeners because I think we see sort of the cultural war framing of this. But what this means is it's a new role for anyone who wants to, anyone who wants to commit, compete as a female athlete in those categories. So this is going to apply uh to the LA Olympic Games in 2028 and beyond. Despite the evidence, we've had um any clear evidence here that we had transgender women poised to participate in these games. But what we're now seeing is a more plan for more intrusive scrutiny of women's bodies that's gonna be in place for sports. So we um, you know, again, beyond the BC conservatives race here, we had a policy that's been really pushed heavily by the U.S. and particularly Donald Trump. Last year, Alberta passed Bill 29 to ban transgender athletes from competing in female amateur sports. And so, you know, there are additional threads here beyond our borders uh here in BC. This is one of those issues that is being raised by others across the country. Again, we're not seeing evidence of why it needs to be addressed. And I do think, you know, women and many men would feel pretty safe saying that anytime Donald Trump pushes a policy that relates to women's bodies, it's probably a bad sign when it's especially being framed as protecting women. So what's also important, I think, is this isn't new to BC conservatives, their former leader just in 2024, John Rustad, brought forward a bill to legislature, which didn't make it pass first reading because it was rule discriminatory and it did propose to use biological sex to classify participants in publicly funded sports teams and events, effectively banning transgender athletes. So a couple candidates here, we got Erie Former has a commitment to protect women-only spaces and girls in women's sports. Carolyn Elliott's been really leaning into this, I think, uh, with the debates that they've been having on the contest, framing it in terms of ensuring fairness and safety in women's sports by ensuring biological females are able to compete against other biological females. She was actually interviewed after one of these debates saying she would go as far as to use the notwithstanding clause to ban transgender searcheries for minors and ban biological males from accessing women's spaces. So, you know, we've got lots, lots going on here.

Tom Parkin 15:37

Nikki, just help me out here for a second. Like, yeah, uh, you know, going to the Olympics, that's a very different thing than being involved in l local amateur sport. I mean just to to think of it from that perspective, I mean, how how how far do they want to intrude uh to what level of you know involvement uh in sport? I mean, is this just like if I want to be in my neighborhood league or something, or if I'm at a university sport?

Nikki Hill 16:06

Yeah, some of these provincial policy, and the Alberta certainly is is very still focused on amateur on amateur support sport as well, right? Where I think the OIC, and I think the challenge is if you're entering into amateur sport, you may have your eye on professional sport um on the Olympics. But now if you actually go through your life and you're participating in in the female category at something that's world ranking, you have no matter what, you now have to undertake that mandatory genetic screening and testing. So just for the sake of being an athlete who's a woman, you don't actually get a pass while they try to put into place this policy um around the gene assessments and tests. So and I think that's a good question, Tom. Like, what are we actually trying to solve for here? Like, why are provincial politicians or leadership candidates been trying to address, you know, amateur sports, women's sports, and places we're not seeing other mentions of women in these platforms like funding women's sports. Yeah.

Tom Parkin 17:05

You know, the the the the IOC also has all kinds of rules about doping and things like that. I mean, it's just operates at a completely different level than people who want to go and have a little bit of fun and enjoy themselves doing sport, and now the state is intruding on your, you know, wants you to do a DNA test. That's seems a bit of a lot of people. Yeah, yeah.

Nikki Hill 17:25

And right now the OIC is up to the Olympic level. And I think where we're seeing these conservative politicians is just um, I don't think, identifying how they would ban people who are trans from participating in women's sports, but you can certainly see where those policies are shaping up. I think one of the other challenges is that when you introduce this concept, and I think what we'll see here and what some of the high concern is, is you're not just barring transgender women from competition, you're actually targeting other women and you'll target and disqualify cisgender women who maybe have a difference in sex development, those like tomboys. So we're talking amateur sport, when you're putting into question who's allowed to compete, all you're gonna see, I think, are those tomboy kids, right, being questioned about their sex, having adults bullying them, being harassed. And one of the things I think that's important here too, and we're gonna talk a little bit more about sport later in the show, is also we just saw the Future Sport of Canada Commission final report, and it actually really focuses in on when it went to the feds, talking about addressing issues like discrimination, safety, and harassment that are keeping people out of entering sports, particularly underrepresented people. So I think, you know, at the bottom line here, it's like why when we're not seeing evidence of these being issues in local communities in amateur sports, when the experts in sports are on the opposite thread, which is let gets get more people and stop harassment. We're seeing this push on sort of these culture war issues that are are have huge ramifications. So it's women's bodies being policed now by conservatives under the auspice, I think, of the culture war and a regressive policy now too that's actually going to impact everyone's kids if they wish to participate in professional sports at some point or go to these world rankings. So really fascinating to watch it play out and the why. I think we're still, as I said, not seeing any evidence that even at that OIC level that there were trans women planning to participate in 2028. So, but there's yeah, this huge debate and a huge amount of policy change to get ahead of a problem that doesn't seem to address whether on the counter, there's so many other issues to address for women and girls in sports right now.

Tom Parkin 19:34

It always seems when we get into some of these culture war issues that it's it's really about conservatives being real busybodies. Um, you know, just just get involved in stuff that's none of your damn business.

Nikki Hill 19:47

Which I think a lot of traditional conservative voters would agree on it. Certainly, but I talk to folks about and they're like, uh, this isn't my issue. Like get back to the economy, right? So I think but we're seeing that sort of there's an air-no-tool debate this week with some of the younger new right people. Um, so I think this is, you know, what one to watch. And for quite progressives to try to really understand what it is that that brings this culture or concept into the public domain so much. Okay, we're gonna take a quick break and come back with Dave McGrain.

Tom Parkin 20:16

Sounds good.

Nikki Hill 20:27

Welcome to Left East to West, Dave McGrain. Thank you for joining us.

SPEAKER_00 20:32

Great to be here.

Nikki Hill 20:41

And author of almost 40 books, journal articles, and book chapters, but also importantly a podcast host, so famous, um, working with the Broadband Institute to bring us monthly episodes of Social Democrats in the North, a history of early social democrats. And Tom wrote your bio. So he forgot to mention something I'm sure was really formational for you in your career, which was being a former member of the New Democratic Youth of Canada exec with me many moons ago. But as I think about that, it's probably pushing into 30 years. We're not going to talk about it, moving on from that. So great to have you on the show. Can you tell us a little bit about the podcast to start and where we can find it?

SPEAKER_00 21:20

Well, it's on kind of all major platforms, Apple, uh, all those other ones. And uh, yeah, it's it's by the Barber Institute. It's really a uh kind of a deep dive into some of the more foundational figures of Canadian social democracy and history of Canadian social democracy, people that you probably haven't heard about before, but nonetheless played a really important role in defining uh what Canadian social democracy is today. And it also gives some tips for your activism as you move forward in trying to uh push Canada in a more social democratic direction.

Tom Parkin 21:49

Yeah. It's i it it's a really enjoyable series. And um yeah, the people I that you're talking about, they're they're kind of biograph, uh biographical pieces, and the people Talking about I'm not familiar with, and uh so well, some, but um by and large not. And you trace back uh in your show that that you make the argument that probably the first political social democrat was a guy named uh Medric Lac Langteau, who ran as a labor candidate in Montreal and organized uh the first Union Federation in Canada in 1867, which uh not coincidentally, it was the year of confederation and not coincidental to him. Um his constant was opposition to the English speaking uh Engl and owning elite of Montreal, but he sort of shifted his politics over a life, uh moving from kind of a liberal to very clearly a social democrat. And then he has this other interesting link that his father uh had been part of the 1837 rebellions, one of the Patriots, um, and the calls that he was making very much fit into what the Parti Québec started to s say strongly in the 1960s about being, you know, Maitrocher New, masters of our own house. So kind of an interesting thematic um position uh for you to trace back and say, well, this is the first guy who really started talking about politics, labor, and it all wraps around uh, in his case, uh, Quebec identity.

SPEAKER_00 23:24

Yeah, yeah. So I mean what's interesting about Longteau is he establishes a tradition uh within Quebec social democracy of being very uh separate uh from English Canadian social democracy. And so that they're really, you know, it's a little like twin separated at at birth, despite the fact that the values are quite similar uh, you know, of of Lancto and his English Canadian uh, you know, uh counterparts, they just don't cooperate. Uh and part of that's linguistic, but it's also because uh he's very much a strong kind of like uh you know French Canadian nationalist. Now, what's interesting is this sort of separation of English-Canadian social democracy and Quebec social democracy lasts all the way up until uh the Parti Quebeccois and the Quiet Revolution, but all the way almost up until today, really. I mean, I was struck by uh kind of what happened uh with uh Alexandre Bolleris, who uh you know, jumped ship over to the Quebec Solidaire, which is a sovereignist party. And little, you know, little known fact about Lancto, he was actually a sovereignist as well. He called for uh you know he called for the uh the creation of a separate Quebec state that was not in Canadian Confederation back in 1867. So you have stuff that Bollaris is saying in 2026 is not all that different than what uh Long Thou was saying uh in 1867, and really shows you, I think, uh a crucial uh divide between English Canadian social democracy and Quebec social democracy that really, in a lot of ways, I don't think has healed um, you know, all the way until today.

Nikki Hill 24:51

Well, that's interesting. I think throwing in that current parallel is we we talk recent news here too. Um so in your podcast, you also talk about how long to brought focus to the Montreal elite's control over prices and rents. And so that idea of marketplaces dominated by an extractive and in some ways foreign elite also driving into the the farm movement and forming governments uh there in Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba in 1919, 1921, and 1922 was some help of the smaller labor parties. So the farm movement and government create some solutions to bring more market power to them, a slightly different take on that being in control of our own destiny concept. How do they try to rewire Canada?

SPEAKER_00 25:34

Well, what's interesting about that too, and again, there's some parallels to today, um, is that uh what really these farmer movements are about, particularly on the prairies, is a form of left-wing Western alienation. Uh they are very clear that the exploiters aren't necessarily just the bourgeoisie, but the bourgeoisie located in uh Montreal and Toronto. And so they uh they create a regionalization um within English Canadian social democracy itself. Uh and they and they really rally against the big business interests of what they called Eastern Canada. And uh and again, the the parallel is actually there till today. Uh you know, you still, I think, see some of those differences of opinion uh in Western Canada uh compared to Eastern Canada. Uh, you know, we have uh possibly an Alberta referendum going on here. Uh and how, you know, how does the federal NDP relate to a Alberta referendum? Uh and particularly when there's some tensions, as you both know, between uh the two uh two of the prairie sections and the federal NDP. So, you know, in this sense, I think it's it's fascinating to see that that this realisation takes place within uh English Canada as well. And uh and it's and it's something I think that again kind of lasts till today.

Tom Parkin 26:45

Yeah, and but they uh these farm governments they they they kind of reorganize the economy a little bit to to give themselves uh a better deal, more power, um restructure to some extent. Uh so you know uh what um in what way do you think maybe these movements that we're seeing, you know, in both the farm movements in Western Canada and uh the working class but separatist movement that we're seeing in Quebec uh back in the 18 late 1800s, uh into the early part of the 20th century, you know, kind of reflect um uh I guess maybe a a natural tendency uh that was set up at the beginning of this country. Um in early colonization, they're trying to reset uh an economy that was built around um an old colonial elite uh in Montreal and Toronto, uh uh York, um and you know, the people, their successors who were really kind of still uh still with it uh with us. So do you think that once they're sort of they're democratizing forces, but maybe also modernizing forces?

SPEAKER_00 28:00

Yeah, no at all. I mean, they're they're talking about the modernization of Canada in a in a lot of ways. Um but what's interesting about it is that it's not kind of a a straightforward class analysis, right? It's not sort of uh the politics versus the bourgeoisie as you would see, you know, in places like Europe uh during this time period by social democratic parties and socialist parties. And so already at a very early stage uh within uh Canadian social democracy, you do have this, you know, this kind of economic populism, but it's regionally based. Uh and that and that creates, I think, some interesting uh types of uh you know, types of challenges uh for social democracy in Canada because it's always social democracy in Canada always gets cut across by these geographical or regional or linguistic or religious lines. Uh and again, yeah, it's sort of like I keep on coming back, it's kind of back to the future. We're sort of having a similar problem right now. And I think about Avi Lewis and how Avi Lewis is is uh you know is is is trying to ch is challenged, I think, in a lot of ways, by these same I think he wants the economic populist message, but he's challenged by the same sort of geographical and uh and indeed linguistic uh cleavages that uh exist in Canada in 2026.

SPEAKER_04 29:14

Yeah.

Nikki Hill 29:14

I mean, one of my uh favorite and key storylines here in the farmers movement is also the women leaders. You tell a story of uh Francis Marion Veynot and Agnes McDale, the women who really challenged their movement for inclusion in the early 1900s, change it and change the country, arguably. Can you trace their histories for us a bit?

SPEAKER_00 29:33

Yeah. I mean, well, I guess what's fascinating about farm women is that, and a lot of people don't think, you know, recognize this, is how important they were to the farms. Uh it was well documented at the time that if you were just a single man, you could not be a successful farmer. It was absolutely impossible. You absolutely needed uh the labor, the unpaid labor of women in order to run a farm effectively. And so these women, you know, were doing all this work on the farm 12, 14 hours a day. And essentially at the end of it, they got what? Unplaid labor. But also, if there was a farm that uh, you know, their their their husband died, it actually the property passed not to them, despite the fact they built up the farm, but to uh to their sons or even a distant male crazy male relative. Like how unfair is that? So you you see a lot of the early, um, the most kind of radical social democratic feminists in Canada coming out of the prairie farm movements and exactly. And and really decrying this type of uh exploitation of women. Uh and and this uh and this goes to something that I uh kind of a running theme within the podcast is the the impact on uh Cain history of social democracy. I mean, obviously liberalism and conservatism is important for understanding can history. I'm not gonna deny that, but so is social democracy. And you can see here that the early feminist movements and early mi women movements were driven by social democrats, particularly are in the prairies. And so some of the uh, you know, hopefully a lot, or even maybe you know, a lion's share of the gains made by women uh in Canadian history in this early time period were driven by social democrats. Uh and that's something I think the uh you know social democratic movement uh in Canada can be rightly proud of.

Tom Parkin 31:13

Yeah, Agnes McPhail was uh from Ontario, a farm farm in Ontario was elected as an MP, uh then came back as uh MPP um at some point in Ontario and um played an important role in the farm movement uh but because she got the what was then the the the UFO, I love that, um the United Farmers of Ontario, uh which did form that brief government in 1919 to 1922 or three or something, um got them to affiliate to the CCF when it was formed in 1932. So it becomes like like we have labor affiliates now, but you know, in my I've never heard of that before. So she got got them to affiliate, and it was a strong uh piece in the beginning, but then they withdrew within a couple of years. So one of the interesting So tell us a little bit about what you know, so we've got uh Quebec identity getting bound up with working class movements, we've got agricultural movements, we've got uh you know, egg uh agricultural farm movements. Um but uh that doesn't play into the Ontario situation much. It it kind of gets pushed, it falls beside, as it never has, never did in the West, um and also in BC. Um never much of a farm movement to propel the movement. It became more of a labor uh orientation. So um just to give us a little uh idea how the kind of the difference in the actual basis of those parties uh um made for different leaders and and different orientations uh in the CCF and NDP.

SPEAKER_00 32:59

Yeah. So I mean I think I could talk a long time, I I won't, but about the founding of the CCF, particularly in 1930, there's about three, three, three different uh types of uh three different meetings in the early 30s, a call name of the 1933 meeting in Regina. Uh but I think what's important to understand about the 1933 meeting in Regina, when the CCF gets together, is that these people aren't long-lost friends. They're actually kind of suspicious of each other. Uh you have uh, you know, number one, you you have nobody from Atlantic Canada, you have nobody from Francphone, Quebec, you have some unionists from Ontario and some farmers from Ontario and some prairie farmers, you have some feminists, you have what's called social gospelers, which were Protestant ministers, and then you got a bunch of Marxists coming out from BC where Nikki is.

Nikki Hill 33:42

And so you can't like it out here, yeah.

SPEAKER_00 33:48

The weather's nice.

Nikki Hill 33:49

So yeah.

SPEAKER_00 33:49

So it's motley crew, if I use that term, of all these people. And it's only under the pressure of the uh Great Depression, where like you know, you really have to do something because people are literally starving in the streets, that they all sort of of have come together. Uh so the two things to note there obviously is that Quebec's completely absent. Uh and and uh and actually the CCF gets condemned straight away in Quebec, right away, uh by the clergy and by, and actually not only by clergy, but other kind of left-wing forces and and unions. But already at that very early stage, uh, you know, it's an uneasy alliance between kind of farmers that are a bit more liberal, kind of left-wing liberal, uh, you know, unionists from Ontario that are kind of middle of the road, social democratic, but more kind of Fabian, if I could use that term, and some of the more radicals from the uh from the from the West Coast there. And so these divisions um are present in the party, and hence the whole term, uh it's something small, but it was really big at the time, was that they call it the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. It wasn't actually not called a party, it was actually a federation. And so you have these sort of ideological divides uh between radicals and moderates and different occupations straight away uh quite early in Canadian history. And again, I think that shapes in the CCF into the NDP and what happens uh even again until today.

Nikki Hill 35:09

Yeah, it's so interesting to see origins and then as you say, some of the threads still still stand in our geographic differences. Okay, so I don't think you're allowed to be a new Democrat unless you know that Tommy Douglas became Saskatchewan premier in 1944, or at least have a sense of that. Um so in phases over the next two decades, that government created universal health care and pulled other provinces along. So still a lot of pride there in those origins. But also for the first time, the CCF's in the driver's seat on economic development. So at the heart of Tommy Douglas's plans are the crowns. Uh and that's an approach that probably hits a high note with Alan Blakely's 1970s MVP and the Saskotash Corporation. How does this crown development model address the story of extraction and development independence that we've been tracking?

SPEAKER_00 35:58

Yeah, well, I mean, I mean, the the the idea, and I don't think this idea is around as much anymore, was that if we were going to develop Canada's resources for the good of all Canadians, they should be publicly owned. Because after all, who else is going to really uh develop them for the common good? And particularly we should not let them be owned by, you know, big American resource companies. Uh so so the crowns in terms of the that's a bit later on in the story, I guess. The crowns in terms of sort of resource development, which is never, you know, outside of Saskatchewan never really actually catches on. Actually, actually a little bit, a little bit in Quebec, actually, with the uh Pre-Quebecois and as bestis. Um but nonetheless, the the crown, there's kind of two sorts of crowns that sort of start out um during this time period. Uh the first crown is, like I said, the natural natural resource extraction crowns, which you know don't really catch on in a big way. Um but the more enduring crowns are the public utilities, uh telephones, uh, which again is only one left now, one nationally, uh I guess provincially owned telecom. But the things like uh, you know, uh nationalization of electricity uh and other public utilities, uh, you know, and again, and the reason why you have that is because uh these public utilities do a couple things. Uh number one, they provide uh a crucial service that people need at a reasonable cost because the government owns them and not trying to make a profit. But also they are very important for pushing these services out into these remote areas where it was simply not profitable for a private company to establish uh phone phone lines or electricity lines, stuff like that. So this uh, you know, this is uh a tradition, I think, that gets established uh within Canadian social democracy, both in Quebec uh and actually in English Canada, and is something I think that we sort of bequeath uh to the rest of Canada in terms of the importance of public ownership. And again, drawing more parallels, it appears possibly we have the privatization of airports on the agenda. So, you know, this is yeah, and this is something where so where social democrats have to uh are able to have a big impact on Canadian history historically, but also even today, standing up and saying, hey, you know, this is not a great idea to privatize uh airports.

Nikki Hill 38:06

Yeah, I think we've had different threads on the show about just the impact of privatization on crowns in like across a series of provinces in the country right now that people are dealing with. So, you know, ongoing impact there of adjusting the model into privatization.

Tom Parkin 38:19

Yeah. And and in Saskatchewan, even though you've had a conservative government for for 15 years now, I guess, or maybe a bit more, unfortunately. Yeah. Um you still got SAS Tel is a Crown, right? Is Crown Corporation. Sask Energy, which delivers uh natural gas to people's houses, yes. Um Sask Oil still um exists?

SPEAKER_00 38:44

No, no, no. It's gone. Okay. Conservatives got rid of that.

Tom Parkin 38:47

Um, and this and and the the Sask bus line got also.

SPEAKER_00 38:52

Well, they got rid of that too, the conservatives.

Tom Parkin 38:54

But these are all really interesting that you know, there's still there's this fairly large crown sector in the province. But the case that I always find I always find most compelling and interesting is um this this thing that Blake Blakeney did with uh potash. Saskatchewan has I don't know, whatever massive amount of the global share of potash under its um underground. Um and he had a really bright bright idea about how to um capture that and make it into a uh a resource for the for the province. You just detail that a little bit in the story.

SPEAKER_00 39:32

So just uh just a bit more broadly before I get into the potash thing is that one one of the most interesting um things we look back at Canadian social democratic history is that there's sort of three things that has really changed massively. The way social democrats view race is completely different, the way social democrats view gender is completely different. But what maybe, and that could be respected, right, is because you know things have changed in society, but what maybe gets underplayed a bit is how public ownership completely falls off of the radar of social democrats really from the 1990s onwards. I mean, nobody's talking about uh, you know, nationalization and from the 1990s onwards, not just liberals and conservatives, but social democrats either, right? And so, you know, things like Avi Lewis talking about the public ownership of grocery stores, for instance, is actually kind of an interesting throwback to the way social democrats used to think about things. Um, and so you see like the potash, the potash was a was a a great example of how the Blakeney government nationalized potash, um, uh partly because there was some problems with actually especially Congress and the nation involved a bit because the federal government was taxing uh the uh the potash so heavily that the people that the people of Saskatchewan and the provincial government weren't getting any any rents from it. But the bigger point was that uh the potash was the idea of like we will nationalize this natural resource and the benefits of its extraction are gonna go straight to the people of Saskatchewan. Um and that's how uh you know we're gonna more short more fairly share uh the wealth of our of our resources. And um and now you it's you know it's it's just almost unheard of in Canada for any anybody to say, hey, let's nation nationalize um natural resources, right? Uh that's just not even we can nationalize a pipeline for some weird reason.

Nikki Hill 41:22

By a pipeline.

SPEAKER_00 41:24

But for but but for but for the the weird reason that like we we didn't really want to, we're forced to because uh the private sector didn't want to do it. And so that's why the liberals ended up doing it. But uh but the whole the whole discourse around public ownership, I think I personally think would be interesting to re-reinvigorate a little bit uh and talk about more. We don't have to nationalize everything, but we can nationalize the odd thing here and there. And uh, you know, I'm critical of Lewis in a lot of ways, but the grocery store thing is kind of intriguing. I think that's an interesting thing to uh thing, a conversation starter anyway.

Nikki Hill 41:54

Especially in the context of all the work provinces and the feds are trying to do on things like major projects. Like BC added another 17, 18 major projects to their list this week, right? Like it's looking at that context on this this old model about natural resources. And as a new model, we haven't seen decision makers, we haven't seen decision makers, I think, lean into a new model in response to the US administration changes as we've pivoted so heavily into that natural resources as the the nation building projects.

SPEAKER_00 42:22

Yeah. Yeah, we can we we could use public ownership to nation build, um, and province built, by the way, both of them. Uh so we could we could use that. And we and we that's all that's just not a uh a tool that's in the toolboxes anymore of of of uh of provincial governments or federal governments. And and and and I can guarantee you that the older social democrats back you know in the CCF days or the early days of the NDP would be rolling in their graves at the what? You've given up on public ownership. That's what the five is the social democrats.

Tom Parkin 42:52

Yeah. It was uh seen as a kind of a fundamental tool of development. And um you know, now SAS potash is being privatized. It's called nutrient. Nutrient? Nutrient.

SPEAKER_04 43:04

Yeah. Right.

Tom Parkin 43:05

Nutrient? Nutrient, yeah. Okay. Uh still based in Regina, though, right? Um and I I believe. And Chicago. Oh, okay. Okay. See, this is what starts to happen, right?

Nikki Hill 43:17

I was like, oh, now I know which one we're talking about. But now T-Rippled.

Tom Parkin 43:22

Yeah. But one of the other things I certainly recall from uh the Romano era, for example, was that the crowns um played not only an important role in keeping prices down, but uh they paid a dividend to the province to help pay for health care and education and keep taxes low. So there's kind of a lot of different ways you could spin that story for those who don't like paying taxes, which is kind of a constituency of the right, or has become that. You know, there was a story to tell then. Uh that this is in fact.

SPEAKER_00 43:54

Yeah, even around affordability. Like affordability is is is the issue of our times. How do you Increased affordability. Well, you have very uh you know decent prices when it comes to basic things like electricity and telephones, uh, water and things that people need. So uh the affordability piece, uh and that was really a huge one back in the day. It was the affordability piece.

Tom Parkin 44:15

It it was you know, here in Ontario, the slogan of the formation of Ontario Hydro was power at cost. Yeah, that that was the idea. It's like we need cheap power to keep the lights on and and and make our factories run.

SPEAKER_00 44:27

And the CCF pushing that in the legislature in Ontario, right? Like there was a large CCF contingent under Jaw Left in that legislature. So the the story of you know provincial CCFs and provincial NDPs uh maybe hasn't been as well told. And that's why sometimes I get rankled a little bit. Well, historically speaking, some of the most important things that social democrats have done have been at the provincial level. So let's you know, let's not forget that piece. Uh and I and I think it's unfortunate when particularly the national media sort of you know yell out, oh, it's you know, it's oh social democracy is dead because you only have five MPs with six MPs. Well social democracy is way bigger than just you know the federal NDP or the federal CCF used to be. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

Tom Parkin 45:12

Yeah, two premiers and uh five opposition official opposition leaders. So you know um it's actually more M more MLAs, MPPs, MHAs, and all those uh for the new Democrats than than uh liberals by far in this country. So, you know, a very expensive math provincial. Yeah, very strong provincial um presence, right? And but nonetheless, it's made an important contribution to the entire country. But let's sort of take us into the kind of the what-ifs a little bit. You can certainly argue that in a country with the geography of Canada, uh social democratic movements that push aside elites and try and bring power closer to themselves, uh cut themselves a better deal, but also are trying to be interested in cooperation on national projects where they can, although, as we've said, difficult because there's kind of different bases, and we have language, we have a religion that has divided people. Um but give me your thoughts about you know, what if uh what if the CCF and NDP you know didn't exist, provincially or federally? Um what kind of country do you think this would be? How would it be different?

SPEAKER_00 46:24

Well, I I th I think we'd look a lot more like the United States, essentially, right? Uh you know, we'd be we'd be the 51st state in all but name if we didn't have social democracy, right? Um so you know what's the thing.

Nikki Hill 46:36

You're welcome, everybody.

SPEAKER_00 46:39

Don't know this. But like so think of all the things that social democrats have done that have differentiated us from the United States, right? Uh we've off touched a lot of them, public ownership, uh social programs, um, I would argue a different view of multiculturalism, even and uh ethnic and racial racial diversity, uh the women's movement. So all these things you see are like, yeah, I mean, really, what do Social Democrats do over history? Well, they make us into being a country that's a lot more collectivist uh and less individual than the United States. And also I think a country that's a lot more cooperative. Like I think we have a, and hence the whole name, talk then about the cooperative Combo Federation. We do have a sense of more cooperation here than the United States, where it's sort of every person for themselves. So I I think that you know you would have a um a Canada that looks almost indistinguishable indistinguishable uh from the United States politically and maybe even culturally uh without social democrats there. So that that that's a big, that's a big accomplishment that uh that social democrats, both at the federal and provincial level and within Quebec as well, uh, can be rightly proud of.

Nikki Hill 47:48

Dave, thanks so much for this great historical tour of the social democratic movement. I think it's you know needed more than ever right now. And congrats on your podcast. We're looking forward to the next episode. So we're gonna take a quick break and be right back with Tom and I giving some big love or maybe a big heave to a couple of stories from the week. Before we wrap up today's show, we've come to the part that we like to call love it or heave it, about something one of us would like to keep or one of us would like to get rid of. So love it or heave it, and forever forget it. What do you got this week, Tom?

Tom Parkin 48:33

Well, I'm really heaving this idea from Mark Carney about selling off our ports and airports. And these are critical pieces of infrastructure, and importantly, they are monopolies. Uh here in the Toronto area, a PC government 26 years ago sold Highway 407 for $1 billion. Uh and last year, Ferrovial, a Madrid-based global investment fund, bought just a 5% share of that company of the of that highway for $2 billion. 5%, $2 billion. So that makes the total value of the company, market value $40 billion. So what that tells me is that somehow this asset increased by um 3,900% in 25 years. Um I I think we would all like to see that in our happening for me. Uh but the road hasn't changed. It's not bigger or better. It's not worth that much because uh of anything that's being improved. It's worth that much because that is the price that will be paid to buy a profit stream that is that lucrative. And we pay for it. Uh people in this part of the world, in the GTA, certainly are familiar with the with the uh with the highway and how expensive it is. Um Thatcher kicked all this stuff off a long time ago. In 1987, she privatized London Heathrow. Today those shares are owned by just six entities: the Qatari monarchy, the Saudi monarchy, the Chinese government, the Singapore Wealth Fund, and Australian Pension Fund in Ardain, a big French investment uh firm. Heathrow's 2024 annual report showed revenue of 3.6 billion pounds, 917 million of which 25% of it went to profit. It went to those six investors as profit. That's a 25% skim that is paid for by the traveling public in the price of airfare tickets. So why does everything feel so expensive? Well, part of it is politicians handing over monopolies like airports to private capital. Uh and even as he said last week that his uh uh focus is on affordability, um that is what Mark Carney seems to be planning to do.

Nikki Hill 50:58

Interesting, especially in the context of the conversation we just we had with Dave McGrain about nationalization. So um and new models. This sort of seems like an old idea coming back up again. It didn't work or didn't float the first time.

Tom Parkin 51:10

Uh yeah. Well, all right. Um we we did you know fight it off. It was pushed off whatever, five ten years ago, I guess now.

SPEAKER_04 51:20

Yeah.

Tom Parkin 51:20

But these ideas, you know, they keep coming back. Um what about you? What are you loving or or heaving?

Nikki Hill 51:29

This is the part where we see if my friends actually listen to the show. Um because anyone who knows me well will laugh that my love this week is uh given that I'm not a sports person. Um we had the spring federal economic statement and we saw a lift from sports from the Carney government. So why does someone like me who categorizes all sporting games as sports ball care? Uh, well, just because my own preferences are sort of punishing myself with gym challenges, it doesn't mean I wouldn't appreciate the attempt to infuse community-building elements of sports with these investments. And I think it's been an interesting uh fallout to sort of watch people think about why sports investments are so critical right now. And I I really lean into not only, you know, we are seeing some of those investments needing to go to these big ticket items, like reasons I'll be avoiding downtown Vancouver in most of June and July, like FIFA, because of the chaos that's heading our way and that's needed there. But others for national sports organizations who have been asking for funds have been underfunded for a long time and really identifying here the needs to target participation around children and youth, particularly underrepresented communities. Um, and then safe sports systems. So I think we, you know, we have all seen these big headline, horrifying stories about harassment, um, sexual harassment, physical harassment within sports in the public domain. And now some of this money is to help support some of those safety measures. But also I think there's a really critical community-building element that we are missing. And I think we're still missing it from the pandemic, where when we think about in our local communities and what these sports organizations offer in terms of team building and health and but social connection as well, which I think, you know, as we see sort of that rise of the disconnect of the public from each other as we talk to complicated issues. I think that really some of the intent here is the social infrastructure aspects of sports funding and bringing back where there's been defunding that I think there's some real ramification. So follow you actual sports fans for not me. Uh that is good for building our competitive spirit for sure and and world stage status. But uh, I think there's some other underlying elements we saw in this announcement from the feds and its inclusion of sports that do speak to what we're trying to do and different type of nation building approach.

Tom Parkin 53:50

That's interesting. Yeah, and in a in a in a time where we're concerned about teenagers and young adults scrolling so much and and the impact of that, you know, having amateur sports, soccer, go play baseball for a while, whatever, just that culture.

Nikki Hill 54:08

Yeah, inclusively welcome. Welcome to some of those people who are not being represented in sports. Yeah. Yeah, it's a very progressive.

Tom Parkin 54:16

Well, that's our show for this week. Uh, but we're gonna be back next Monday with Josh Bijak. Uh he's the executive director of the Douglas Caldwell Leighton Foundation. He's gonna tell us a little bit about um some of the work that his organization is doing across the country. Um and I think it'll be an interesting talk that in a way connects with what Dave McGrean talked about today. Uh because he'll talk about kind of the different different approaches to social democra democracy uh in different parts of this country. So we'll we'll see you next week, Nikki. Have a great have a great week.

SPEAKER_04 54:49

Sounds great, have a great weekend.

Tom Parkin 54:51

All right, see ya.

SPEAKER_01 54:57

Thanks for joining Left East to West with hosts Nikki Hill and Tom Parkin. We love to hear your comments, ratings, follows, and shares. It helps people find us. To become a Left East to West community member and to help us reach even more Canadians. Subscribe using the link in the show notes. You can watch us on YouTube or lesson wherever you get your favorite podcast. Just search for Left East to West and subscribe. I'm Doug Hamilton signing off for Left East to West. See you next week.