Can Carney’s right turn be Lewis NDP’s opening?

Jennifer Howard, former Manitoba Minister of Labour and Finance, and 2025 NDP campaign director, joins Left East to West to talk about Mark Carney's direction for Canada, the Liberals undoing pharmacare, the NDP's unsolved strategic challenges and building a stronger brand for the NDP on jobs and economic development.

Nikki checks in with James Valcke from Viewpoints Research with an updated on a recent Nova Scotia poll showing a long-term care strike is accelerating Premier Tim Houston's slumping support.

Tom looks at the coal plant controversy in Saskatchewan, where leaked documents show a total refurbishment and operation cost of $26 billion, far more than previously admitted, after Premier Scott Moe shot-gunned the province in to the most expensive option possible when his government wasted time and ran out of runway.

And Nikki and Tom discuss Prime Minister Carney's meeting with BC Premier David Eby and the a tribute to former premier John Horgan.

Transcript

Welcome!

Nikki Hill 0:24

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

Tom Parkin 0:28

And me, Tom Parkin. And Nikki, I'm really looking forward to our discussion with Jennifer Howard today.

Nikki Hill 0:33

Me too. Jennifer's been in the center of politics for years, first in Manitoba, then in Ottawa, more than 25 years, in fact. Her most recent role was the director for the 2025 federal NDP campaign. And we're going to talk about that, some lessons that Jennifer has taken from it.

Tom Parkin 0:51

Yeah, hopefully it'll be a discussion that prompts more discussion in a positive way. And remember, uh, before she was in Ottawa, she was also a minister of labor and then a minister of finance in Manitoba. So we're going to talk about that experience and some maybe some longer-term thinking the Federal Party needs to work on as Abi Lewis and his team uh try to try to rebuild. And today you're going to chat with Polster James Valke from uh Viewpoints Research about the public reaction in Nova Scotia long-term care strike, the one that's giving kind of more of that sinking feeling to um premier uh PC Premier, Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston.

Nikki Hill 1:32

And some good news for and the NDP opposition leader, Claudia Chender, who we had on the show a few weeks ago. If you're curious about her, go back and give it a listen. It's a great discussion. And Tom, you're going to tell us about the Scott Moe government in Saskatchewan and coal-burning power plants that you find unintentionally hilarious.

Tom Parkin 1:52

So well, okay. Maybe it's me, but you'll have to wait and see. But a Scott Moe minister facing resignation calls tried to defend himself using some really tortured geopolitical analogies and ended up suggesting Daniel Smith might be an invading dictator. I'm I'm serious. That is that is the way it went down. It was pretty funny. Um and Nikki, folks, don't forget to follow Left East to West on your podcast because we have Shauna Sylvester from Urban Climate Leadership next week. And the week after that is Stefan Lofen, the former Prime Minister of Sweden and now the president of the Party of European Socialists. So when you follow the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or whatever, um what whatever you're listening on, it puts the episode in your feed when we launch it on Monday morning. So that you're reminded to check it out. So Jennifer Howard coming up, but before we get to that, let's look at this week below the fold, tracking a couple important news stories that didn't make national headlines. Nikki, we've been following the

Nova Scotia poll shows long-term care strike hurting Tim Houston

Tom Parkin 3:05

political shifts in Nova Scotia, had Nova Scotia NDP leader Claudia Chender on the show a few weeks back. Since that interview, about 2,200 workers at 25 long-term care homes across Nova Scotia have gone on strike. The starting wage for lowest paid workers is 1830, and union members say that they need a living wage. But the Houston government has offered 12% over four years. And Nikki, that's just 2.87% a year.

Nikki Hill 3:32

Yeah, it's just been a slow-burn story inside Nova Scotia, completely under the fold in the rest of Canada. So I connected in with polling analyst James Valkyrie, Director of Research and Strategy with Viewpoints Research to find out how Nova Scotians are feeling about the strike. Welcome to Left East to West, James. Thanks for joining us.

James Valcke 3:51

Thanks for having me.

Nikki Hill 3:51

Your work is showing us how the public is offside with the Houston government over this strike. Can you just take us through the findings and the polling on how people are seeing the issues?

James Valcke 4:01

Absolutely. Thanks, Nikki, and thanks for having me. Right away, I'll let you know that, you know, this was a poll commissioned by QP Nova Scotia to gather the uh opinion of 800 Nova Scotians. Um, but the results, as you mentioned, were really offside. Uh so seven in ten Nova Scotians, 70.5%, side with workers over the provincial government on this strike. That is a very decisive margin. We asked that to give them a choice. Yeah, exactly. Um, and then when we asked a little bit more, um, 91% of Nova Scotians agree that long-term care workers deserve a living wage. And when you hit that 91%, it is no longer uh like a partisan finding. This is near universal across parties, across demographics. Like everyone agrees that long-term care workers deserve a living wage. These are really big findings right off the bat. Um and and you mentioned, Tom, I believe, the government's offer. We tested that. Um, and less than 22% of Nova Scotians agreed that that is a fair deal. Um, on the flip side, nearly 63% side with the union, that which says that this offer does not keep up with the cost of living and workers deserve better. Like we literally put the numbers to Nova Scotians that the government is so proud to have offered, and less just over one in five Nova Scotians think it's fair, which means the vast majority think that's not a fair deal. Um when we unpacked even a little bit more on who's to blame, uh, we asked, you know, do you think it's a provincial government? Do you think it's the union? Do you think both sides are sharing responsibility? Forty-six percent of Nova Scotians chose provincial government only as the primarily responsible for the strike happening. Only 11% point to the union, and then another 31% say both sides share responsibility. But but even in that, like both sides framing, the government shares like the the bears the lion's share of the responsibility here. Like they are they are offside by a long shot.

Nikki Hill 6:04

Interesting. And so building into that, so you you took the pulse of the that broader public mood. So some of the right track, wrong track questions and evaluation of the premier. Can you tell us a little bit more about that as well?

James Valcke 6:15

Yeah, absolutely. Um uh close to and and to to to put it bluntly, this is all bad news with a capital B for Premier Houston. So close to 60% of Nova Scotians say Tim Houston and the PCs are on the wrong track. Uh and only 36% say they're they're they're in moving in the right direction. That's a significant net negative of negative 24%. Um that is that isn't just headwinds. He is he is standing in the face of a tsunami of public support that is going against him right now. Um and then we we dug in a little bit further. We we often we often have this question where we say, you know, uh overall, what is closest to your opinion of Tim Houston? We give them a series of options, just generic things, and we, you know, they're they're pretty balanced. We have about three or four that are negative, and we have an equal number that are positive. So only four percent see Tim Houston as a strong leader.

Nikki Hill 7:18

Oh wow, less than two percent. That's gotta be concerning.

James Valcke 7:23

But wait, it gets worse. Less than two percent say he's caring and compassionate, and just over one percent say he understands people like me. Um, these are atrocious personal numbers for Tim Houston. They're quite damaging. And uh, if you look at the other side of the equation, the other options that they were given, 21% say he has made so many mistakes, they're losing confidence in him, and 16% say he sides with businesses over working people. These are bad. Um, is this Tim Houston dead man walking? I don't know. I can't tell from this simple snapshot, but these are the kinds of numbers that once they start to move in this direction, they are very hard to reverse. Voters are reassessing their initial confidence in Tim Houston, and this strike is an accelerant for that reassessment.

Nikki Hill 8:14

Yeah. And so we are seeing with polls on several different companies polls coming out in recent months that softening support for Houston's PCs and then the upward trend for Chender's NDP. So your poll's the latest here. What are you seeing in some of the horse race numbers? And how does that break down inside the Halifax regional municipality versus outside?

James Valcke 8:35

Yeah, no, and thank you for that. And uh, you know, you're not gonna hear this from many um pollsters uh uh experts in the field, but I really don't love horse race numbers. They are the last numbers to move. Um so so they're important, but but they're they're numbers in your rearview mirror. By the time they don't like your party, don't like your positions, don't like your leader, those numbers change the last. So, but our headline findings are already informative. So, right away, the NDP are up to 31% and the PCs are at 32%. They're essentially tied. Um and for province Houston won a majority with in 2021, this is a quite a remarkable shift. Um the liberals, the Nova Scotia liberals are at 19%. And and that matters uh for seat math. In in many three-way races, the vote splits across different parts of the province. The NDP doesn't really need to be at 40% to win a lot of seats. Um now, you you did ask about inside uh HRM or Halifax Regional Municipality and outside. The the data that was been released doesn't include uh clean HRM versus outside HRM breakout. So I'm not able to speculate on the regional subgroups from the from the data alone. Unfortunately, QP didn't release that information. Um what I can say is that what we saw, and as you mentioned, seeing it repeated in multiple firms pointing consistently in the same direction, is that PC support has softened, led by the negative impression of Premier Houston. And NDP support has grown. This poll is consistent with that trend and really underscores the under the trends happening. And and to bring it like to bring it all back, the the long-term care strike is is is an accelerant. It is crystallizing existing doubts about Houston into something more concrete. Um, voters now have a specific ongoing event to pinpoint to say he that this is why he's on the wrong track. This is what he's getting wrong. Um the NDP's been able to frame this as a values question, caring for seniors, fair pay for workers, and that framing is really landing with the public and and these numbers bear it out. And and if we if we look, if we put this in this this this frame in the context of what happened during the budget and the reversal that Houston had to do. Um he is really they are in the ditch and he is having a hard time getting it out of the ditch, and the NDP is kind of collecting that positive support and that contrast position, and people are are opening their mind to to what what happens in Nova Scotia next.

Nikki Hill 11:12

Yeah, interesting. Yeah, and I think you know we've seen, I meant here in BC, obviously, and and we've seen you know negative responses to a lot of budgets across the country, but it does seem like this Nova Scotia one uh continues to have some of the biggest impact, I think, on government's perception. So thanks for having uh jumping for joining the show. Um and obviously we're we are seeing here that there is political capital loss for Tim Houston going on, and then the strike's drawing it down as you're saying. So interesting insights and would love to have you back at some point.

James Valcke 11:43

Wonderful. Thank you so much for having me both of you. I really appreciate it.

Saskatchewan's $26B coal plant controversy

Nikki Hill 11:47

Thank you. Okay, talk soon. Tom, you're tracking another electricity plan gone wrong story that's been pretty below the fold as well, but this time in Saskatchewan.

Tom Parkin 11:57

Yeah, we've we've talked here about a backlash to Nova Scotia Power, a privatized American monopoly, demanding and getting higher rates from the Tim Houston government. And and we know about the Ford government kicking the can down the road on power plant investments, forcing the province to fall back on old plants scheduled for phase out, uh and that have pushed fossil fuel generation up from 10% to about 10% to over 30% of Ontario's total supply. But the story coming from the Scott Moe government is like truly next level. Saskatchewan has coal fills in the southeast, uh, and ever since it's electrified, it's always relied on some coal burning power plants. But since 2012, federal rules have planned a coal phase out, and in 2017 that date was set for 2030. But the Scott Moe government, of course, did nothing, and now they are getting shotgunned into the most expensive option still available to them, which SAS power data shows will hike power rates by 95% uh by 2040. So last summer, Nicky, the minister responsible for SAS power, Jeremy Harrison, said rather than building new power generation, he'd refurbish and extend the life of old coal plants coming to end of life past the 2030 phase out deadline, and that that would cost 900 million dollars. Now, I I don't know what the SaaS party thought about the coal phase regs back when Harper made them in 2012, but now all of a sudden Scott Moe says that they're unconstitutional. So perhaps there's some orchestrating a game of chicken with Ottawa that he thought was good politics for him. But if that was the play, it's become a very expensive one. Uh and really it seems like it's Scott Moe government has played themselves. Earlier this year, Minister Harrison said he made a little mistake when he said the refurbs to extend these plants would cost 900 million. Uh he admitted the cost would actually be double that. 1.9 billion. So a big oopsies on that one. Yeah. And maybe they maybe they were positioning for the story of homegrown, you know, the hometown team defies the big city boys, uh boot dumb rules. Um, but the cost suddenly doubling started to change this into a story of like, are you guys uh are you guys okay? Um, because then in March, SAS Power asked the provincial regulator for two rate hikes, 4% this year, another 4% next year. Okay, so you know, you got people's full attention now. Uh and in the filings and support materials for the rate hike, SAS Power had a new surprise to cause to the cost to refurbish these power plants, coal plants, which he at first said was 900 million, then said was 1.9 billion, SAS Power document said was actually 2.6 billion. So this is going completely off the rails. And if you think that that's off the rails enough, just just wait a sec, Nikki. Because somebody near the heart of SaaS Power was obviously disturbed by all this, because what should fall into the hands of NDP critic for SAS Power, but some board documents with even higher costs for this project. Two weeks ago, Alina Young, the NDP MLA, told reporters that SAS Power documents showed the 25-year cost of refurbishing the coal plants is in fact $11.4 billion. $11.4 billion. And if SAS Power wants to put some coal in the plants for $25 years, that's going to cost another $13 billion more. So the total lifetime cost isn't $90 million, uh sorry, $900 million or $1.9 billion or even $2.6 billion. It's $26 billion. So a bit of a bombshell. Yeah. So Young says that the uh years of inter of inaction by Mo is left Saskatchewan facing the most expensive option. Uh the Mo government is ideologically opposed to solar and wind, won't even, you know, won't even do the math on whether it works or not. Uh nuclear is too long construction timeline, so they've they've screwed themselves on that one. Um and Nikki, you're gonna love why they won't consider less polluting and cheaper natural gas. Like I really dislike Daniel Smith, but I even I wouldn't go so far as to compare her with Vladimir Putin. But the but but the good but the Mo government does, the minister does, yeah. So SaaS power has coal, but not a lot of natural gas. Uh and we shouldn't become dependent on Alberta natural gas, said the minister, because how did that work out for Germany to become reliant on natural gas from Putin? So, yeah. Are you guys okay? That's where it is at in Saskatchewan. Um, I don't know, Nikki, I don't know who Scott Moe thinks Daniel Smith and her army are are planning to invade. Yeah. Um leading leading to embargoes that cut natural gas supplies to Saskatchewan. But your premier um, you know, might want to give Premier Mo a a call to find out what he knows. Because yeah, I do hear that your provinces are having some issues. So there you go. A quick update on the small province that used to elect governments that inspired a country, now doing energy planning by conservative politics, this most expensive way known to humankind. Well played, Scott Mo.

Nikki Hill 17:28

Yeah, an interesting thought process there too. Okay, we're gonna take a quick break and be right back with Jennifer Howard.

Jennifer Howard and the Federal NDP's unsolved strategic challenges

Nikki Hill 17:48

Jennifer Howard, welcome to Left East to West. Thanks for joining us. My pleasure. So, Jennifer, we're gonna dive into a lot today because you have been a health policy advisor to Manitoba Premier Gary Dewar, then an MLA in the Manitoba legislature, served as Minister of Labor, Finance Minister, and then later as executive director for the Public Service Alliance of Canada. And then after that, chief of staff to former federal NDP leader Jagmeet Singh. So that's a pretty impressive series of jobs. We are actually going to start with your last role, though, with Jagmeet Singh and the federal NDP.

Tom Parkin 18:28

Yeah, just wanted to, you know, think about the last election. One of the interviews uh I saw with you after, uh, you said the ballot question of federal campaign become became who is best to deal with Trump's economic attack. And your your your words were being the answer to questions about the economy is not often something that is a strong suit for the NDP. So we want to come back to that. But on economic management, especially in the last few months, we've seen Mark Carney take a turn towards privatizations and foreign ownership options that he never talked about with Canadians. Uh, how has that made you feel? Um where do you think Mark Carney is taking Canada?

Jennifer Howard 19:11

Great question. I mean, how does it make me feel? Sometimes it makes me feel like yelling at the TV that we were right. And uh not that that is feel like it are doing it. Sometimes I might do it. Um not that that is very productive, but you know, unfortunately. I know there are many people maybe who are surprised by the way he is governing. I am not surprised by the way he is governing. I think uh we tried very hard, not successfully, to tell people like this this is who he is. He has built his life and career with an abiding faith in the private market as the answer to all problems, whether that be housing or climate change or you name them, and that's how he's going to govern. And that is how he has governed. Um, and I think also, you know, I in politics have seen a few times people come in from a successful career in the private sector, in business, as CEOs, what have you, into politics. And they tend to try to run politics or government like they're running their business, in the sense that they don't really want a whole lot of input, they are in charge, they don't, they chafe at the accountability that is expected of you when you are in government in terms of having to face the media or the opposition. And I think we've seen all of that from him. So I'm not surprised by the way he is governing. Um I hope, we'll see. I hope that for all of those voters, and there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of them, who lent him their vote, who are typical New Democrat voters or describe themselves as progressive voters, I hope for them, um, you know, I don't want to suggest anybody was wrong in the way they make their voting decision. That is a decision you make, but I hope for them it shows the need for, if not an NDP government, at least a strong New Democrat caucus to act as an insurance policy. Like I do think that's also part of the story here. If there were 30 or 40 New Democrats elected strongly holding the balance of power, if a majority government had been out of reach, um, I think we would have been able to temper some of this. We would have been able to work with those progressives that are still in the liberal caucus, who apparently are too timid to even let their names be known. Uh, but you know, we would have been able to work with them to rein in some of the some of these things. And so, you know, I hope that is uh a reflection going into the next election. Like you need the NDP. You need the NDP um uh to make sure that those issues, whether it's labor rights, which I think we're now starting to see be eroded, or action on climate, or you know, just not putting all our faith into the market to fix everything, you need The NDP there to be making those arguments.

Nikki Hill 22:03

Yeah, definitely. And I, you know, I think we saw the the need for the NDP there um in the last uh parliament as well and and some of the progress made around things like the pharmacare project. 100%.

Jennifer Howard 22:14

Yeah. So those things don't happen with like pharmacare, you know, when we were in negotiations about the supply and confidence agreement, dental care was the easier win, honestly. Yeah. Pharmacare was the thing that they did not want to do. And they did not want to do it at every step of the way. We had to drag them into doing it. And they still don't want to do it, I think, as is pretty clear. Um so yeah, you're right. Those things don't happen without us there.

Nikki Hill 22:43

Yeah.

unknown 22:43

Yeah.

Nikki Hill 22:43

And what we're seeing too is, you know, recently when asked about if she'll cut the pharmacare plan, the federal finance, sorry, the federal health minister, Marjorie Michel, is saying no, but she is talking about those agreements with provinces expired, which is so core to the pharmacare plan. So that would be a a yes. So in terms of that uh confidence and supply agreement with Trudeau and playing into whether that was worth it, you have talked about how the deal did make it harder to attack the liberals, sort of harder to highlight that distinctiveness. But what are some of the other out other outcomes of the deal now? Are these now um ironically opportunities to for the NDP to actually assert how distinct the party is and to make some of those contrasts as they seem like they may be at risk?

Jennifer Howard 23:31

I think it can be. I think it can be if we choose to do that. And I think with something like pharmacare, um, the opportunity for us is to talk about it more as an affordability measure and less in the, you know, the way we typically talk about it is like this is the final part of Tommy's great vision of healthcare. And, you know, it's very like for us, it's a very much a moral imperative. But we should be also talking about it in terms of affordability, which it absolutely is. And I think, you know, you will know in BC the huge difference that um making contraception available with their cost has been in that province in terms of the choices that people make about what kind of contraception they don't have to worry about the bill, so they can be free to make a choice that works for them. Um and we know, and I think what we knew with dental care is that once people have something like that, once they have the benefit, very hard to take it away. Much easier to take away a theoretical construct. So on pharmacare, even though you know I would have loved to have been able to make more progress to go all the way, we knew that getting some deals on some drugs, getting some part of the way there would make it a little bit harder to take away, would give the NDP, the movement something to fight for that was real to people. And, you know, oftentimes that's the way these things happen. Like I I know, you know, there's a big debate about incrementalism, but uh in my career, change kind of does happen in steps by increments. So you get a step, you defend that ground, you try to push it to the next step, you defend that ground. And I think that's what pharmacare was in that agreement. I think dental care though is much more durable. Um, you know, and I still, God help me, sometimes watch question period, and it's always amusing to me. Like whenever the liberals are asked a question about affordability, what do they go to? Pharma care, dental care, childcare. Yes, all things that uh would not be there but for the NDP. And two of three of those things, child care and pharmacare, which they are systematically trying to undo right now.

Speaker 4 25:38

Mm-hmm.

Nikki Hill 25:39

Yeah, it's interesting too. I was at a um uh a speech last week or so at the Web Summit where the BC finance minister, Brenda Bailey, was talking about some of that incrementalism as well in finance. And she comes from business and she was, you know, was a pretty significant crowd on the main stage, and she was talking about that difference between being in business and testing um and being being able to take that risk versus government that sort of has to go step by step and and see it work, see if it works. And I think we see that with some of the pharmacare rollout. We certainly talked on the show before about the happy dances that people keep doing when they go get their uh now free HRT from the pharmacy in BC. So, and with affordability issues, that's huge right now.

Jennifer Howard 26:19

It's huge. I mean, those drugs are hundreds of dollars a month for for some people. I have spoken to many women who were like, but for this, you know, I would not be able to afford it, or I would be making compromises. I'd be like, I'm gonna do this much, but not that. I'm gonna take this part of the drug, but not that part of the drug. Absolutely. Yeah.

Tom Parkin 26:38

And I think there's another story in that one too, that that that maybe maybe somebody like Avi could be could be, because of who he is and the politics that he brings, can be good at telling, which is, you know, this is public enterprise shaving billions and billions of dollars off of really rich and kind of predatory global companies that are making you pay a lot, uh, but we can have this public option uh that brings down the price. So absolutely. Yeah at this point.

Jennifer Howard 27:10

I think that's the un unknown or uncelebrated part of pharmacare is how much it does also save the overall healthcare system because of the opportunity to purchase those drugs in a way that, you know, we're not enriching pharmaceutical companies as much. I think it's kind of ironic, like although he's doing it badly, like you know, this is what Trump is now trying to put out there is his own contribution. And he has been pretty vocal about taking on drug companies. And you know, we should hear that and know that like he is talking to the voters that we have to talk to in the way that we have to talk to them. Yeah.

Tom Parkin 27:46

For sure. But let's just come back to that comment you made uh when I saw you on TV, uh being asked about uh economic questions not often being the strong suit of uh the NDP. But you were a finance minister. Uh-huh. Uh you had to craft budgets and you had to sell budgets. Um what do you think, if you could kind of distill it all down, what do you think is the fundamental difference between a social democratic budget and economic approach compared to kind of neoliberal one? And for the NDP, are there uh policy gaps in the approach that we that we need to work out? That we need to uh you know, f fill fill out to to you know to color in the gaps and communications gaps that prevent our spokespeople from leaning in when it comes to questions of jobs and affordability rather than kind of react by maybe pivoting to something else. Um do you think there's some you know, what's what's the work to be done here?

Jennifer Howard 28:44

I think some of it is confidence, honestly. Like I think some of it is being confident in our abilities to manage economies, and we do a good job of managing economies everywhere we govern. And we you talk about the fundamental difference. For me, it was always that, you know, I saw our job as government in terms of the economy. Our fundamental job was making life better, fairer, easier for the people doing the work that is the engine of the economy. And I think liberal conservative governments see their fundamental job is making life better, easier, fairer for the businesses that are the engine of the economy. Now, we wanted to make things good for businesses in Manitoba, absolutely. But, you know, for every business that came into my office to lobby me on not raising the minimum wage or cutting their taxes, which would always be the opening, and we always say we're not gonna do those things. Um the next things were, you know, we need skilled workers. Uh we need to we need roads to our factories that people can get to work. We need affordable housing closer to where the jobs are. We need reliable public transit so people can get to work. We need child care so people aren't worried about their kids. We need home care for people's parents so they're not taking time off work to deal with elder care. And those are all the things that we provide. And so I just think it's a, you know, we have to talk about the economy in economic terms, but also explaining that to create a healthy economy, you need workers who can show up to work, be productive, be happy, be well trained, make a good living, feel like they're being treated fairly. And that is actually what fuels the economy. Um, you know, we should talk about things like infrastructure in that way. Building roads and bridges enables the movement of goods and people around. I think often, you know, we get trapped, not trapped, but we like to talk about these things in like we're doing the right thing for the sake of being good people and doing the right thing. And we don't make those connections. And and we should make those connections more clearly and more obviously. This is how childcare is not only going to help you, but is going to help our economy. This is how not having to pay health insurance premiums is a benefit when you're trying to attract businesses to Canada. We need to be more confident in our approach. I think, you know, New Democrats, we buy the myth that we're not good at these things. And so we always sound a little bit unsure of ourselves or we're quick to kind of abandon our belief system. Or, you know, I I always say like New Democrats, our reaction, you know, when somebody says, You guys are bad at the economy, we're like, oh, maybe we kind of are. I don't know, aren't we? Like we don't kind of stand our ground and say, no, we're not. And here's all the evidence.

Nikki Hill 31:34

Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. So I think aside from, you know, so that broad economic approach, and you started to touch on this a bit, in general, and I think even beyond where new democrats might be in government, do social democrats need to embrace and and maybe start to push more sort of a different political approach to budget making and economic development than neoliberals? Like what's that different role for economic partners as well? I think of you know, the labor movement. But I also think too of where there's uh, you know, sectors, well, we had an interesting conversation last week, for example, um, about watershed security and the role of watershed security in in the economy. So, you know, what are some of the approaches that you think maybe are could be pivot for social democrats?

Jennifer Howard 32:21

Well, I think one of the things we did in Manitoba that was smart, that has been done in some other places, is we put business and labor at the table together and gave and gave them a lot of opportunity, a lot of ability, a lot of influence. They spoke directly with the premier, but we also put them together when it was time to work out problems, you know, when we were gonna change labor laws.

Speaker 4 32:45

Yeah.

Jennifer Howard 32:46

We put them together in a room and they worked together on a committee, and both sides knew that we weren't gonna move forward uh unless they came to some kind of consensus. Like if they left it to us, they they could do that. They probably neither of them were gonna love the outcome. They had to work some of those things out. And I think it showed that they could work things out. Like I always remember being at federal provincial labor ministers meetings, and the lunchtime was usually we kicked all the staff out and all the ministers just talked to each other and nothing was on the record. And we got into this discussion about like how how long do you wait before you bring in back to work legislation? Like, how do you know when the right moment is? Because if you do it too soon, then the employer isn't gonna negotiate, and if you wait too long, then the public. And I just said, like, this is very easy for me. We never bring in back to work legislation. We never have, and both sides know that we never are. And so that means they all have to come to the table and get a deal. Like, we will provide um conciliators, we will provide arbitrators, we will provide a strong legislative infrastructure, a labor board that works, all of that, but we aren't gonna solve the problems for them. And so they have to do it. And and they did as a result.

Tom Parkin 34:03

Do you think just to carry Nikki's point on one step more, do you think the that sort of social partners approach can be pushed into areas that are like productivity or innovation? Absolutely. Where where we we often don't step?

Jennifer Howard 34:20

Yeah, I think so. I think you ha see many models in Europe where labor unions have seats on boards of companies and there is a kind of principle of co-development, co-governance. And and having those labor unions at the table, always being clear of everybody's role, right? Like that's not a uh replacement for collective bargaining, but having them at the table to talk about like how can we make this company more productive? What is the kind of innovations, what are the investments that can be made that are actually going to work to drive productivity? Um, you know, I I remember in Manitoba, we had the maple leaf plant in my hometown of Brandon that came to town, changed that city, brought in tons of temporary foreign workers. Uh, but the union, UFCW, and the employer worked together to make sure that those temporary foreign workers had a path to citizenship. We brought them in under our provincial nominee program. That meant they had a path to citizenship. We helped fund at work English as a second language program so that they had access to that training. The employer gave them paid time to take that. The union was a champion of it. That was government and the union and the employer all being together at the table to create a stronger workforce that could add shifts, add productivity, change the nature of that community, and add value to the agricultural product that was already coming. Instead of sending um, you know, hogs out to be finished somewhere else, we were doing it at home and selling the product to the world. And I think that is a great model. It works.

Tom Parkin 36:00

Shifting up a little bit, um, strategy, thinking strategically and you being in different parts of the country which are really operating in different strategic paradigms. Um in Manitoba, where you come from, like BC, like Alberta, like Saskatchewan, it's a two-party race. But then you shift you shifted up to up to that's subjective, um, federal politics into a multi-party situation, uh, more like what happens in Ontario or Nova Scotia or right now in in Quebec. Um what do you find about the differences? Like the the difference in dynamics, and how does that play into the strategies that would work perhaps in Manitoba or Saskatchewan, but strategically um they they really have to be thrown out in a multi-party federal politics situation. Uh what are some of those uh things that you've learned um in in in dealing with both?

Jennifer Howard 36:57

Yeah, I mean, I think the thing that I was never able to solve and I haven't seen a satisfactory solution is how do you counter that strategic voting argument that is so compelling to so many progressive voters. Like, I can't tell you the number of people that we talked to in focus groups at the doors that we heard from in polls who are like, I like the NDP, my mother always voted NDP, I like the leader, I think the policies are great, and I'm gonna vote liberal because I have to stop the conservatives, right? It's a very compelling argument. It's an argument we used in Manitoba, even though the liberals are less of a threat there, right? We only win when they are suppressed. And so we use the same argument, right? There are two choices. You gotta get on board with us because we're the ones that can win. Um Greens in BC or Greens and BC. Like we we also use that argument. So I didn't find the secret sauce there. I think we were closest in the dying days of the Trudeau government when we had started to overtake, you know, just kind of started to overtake the Trudeau government as an option. But there are two things that we found were essential that I think any NDP federally is gonna have to figure out. You have to prove to progressive voters that you can win, that you can beat the conservatives. You have to find a way to make that argument and to make it credible. And then you have to prove to voters that once you win, you can actually do the things that you're talking about doing. Both of those things you have to prove. I think people unfortunately are much less ambitious about what they think governments can do. That's why arguments like, you know, um acts attacks work because people are like, well, I know governments can can raise and lower taxes. That's a thing I'm confident they can do. Can they build me a house I can afford? I have never seen it. I don't know if that's a possibility. So, you know, we have that doesn't mean that we're modest in our ambitions, but we have to really compellingly explain to people how we can practically make their lives better. Um, and we have to show them we can win. And that's, you know, very difficult. I I don't think that we found the right combination to do that in a different electoral situation. If you have, you know, I think if if this last election was a contest between Carney and O'Toole, we would have done much better because of pretty similar people. I not as scary a guy. Um, but where things are so polarized is just very challenging for us. Maybe, maybe there's an argument we can make in the next election that, hey, you missed us, right? You kind of need us there, right? So, like, elect enough of us to make a difference. Maybe. But honestly, back of the board. Yeah, but honestly, like voters, I don't know that they make their decisions that way. Like for them, it's very people really felt that voting for the liberals and voting for Mark Carney was their patriotic duty in the last election. Sure, yeah. Right? And they were also like there was this weird thing where you know they were being told, I know you're a new Democrat. I know this means you have to sacrifice what you really believe, but it's a sacrifice for the country. And then people felt good about that, right? That that is pretty hard to I don't know what beats that, honestly.

Nikki Hill 40:21

Two weeks ago, Danielle Smith and Mark Carney stuck a new deal, lowering industrial carbon prices, promising more pipelines. We're certainly feeling the impact of that in British Columbia right now on decision making. And so the latest in a series of these grand bargains, each of which was supposed to be final, each of which then energy companies have reneged on. We're breaking past deals, demanding new ones that are more lucrative to companies and more costly to taxpayers. And so a lot of this really has been fueling uh the separatist movement. Now a referendum coming on referendums in Alberta and the far right. So we're we're in this um political context that Canada's not working, and another round of concessions here from the feds can can prove that it can to Albertans, apparently. So around we're going, and I certainly feel like people like Premier David Eby are feeling like it's it's a bit of an old movie back over again and some frustration. Um give us some polls, notes, history lessons on sort of the series of final grand bargains and their abandonment. What are your thoughts on how we get off this destructive political carousel?

Jennifer Howard 41:26

Yeah, I mean, I'm thinking a lot about, you know, Rachel Notley's government that kind of struck the first grand bargain that I think had real teeth, right? Like in exchange for getting a pipeline built, which uh we all still own, by the way. Um, you know, that we were going to have stronger regulations, stronger emissions caps, all of the things that they had agreed. That was the first grand bargain. And then, you know, unfortunately she lost, and the next government came in and they weren't going to keep their part of the bargain, even though we, you know, built the pipeline, owned the pipeline. As far as I know, it's doing what pipelines do, not to fill capacity. And then, you know, we heard about all the other things that had to be done to satisfy big oil and gas. And I think we should be clear, right? It's to satisfy the oil and gas industry. I don't actually believe it's about satisfying Albertans. It's mostly about satisfying the oil and gas industry. And I think like this thing.

Tom Parkin 42:24

Yeah, I guess so. It's it's about it's about get getting them sensitized and anxious and having these right-wing bigots do all kinds of stuff to say, you know, play into some old, old historic themes. Sure.

Jennifer Howard 42:37

And I like I do think that on our side, you know, we have to take some responsibility for some of the way some of us have spoken about Alberta and oil and gas. Yeah. You know, I think when you talk about people's jobs as being dirty jobs, when you kind of flippantly talk about the just transition with absolutely no meat on that for people, you know, when you talk about we're gonna leave it all in the ground. When you when you're that's the way you're talking about people's livelihoods, we shouldn't be surprised that folks get kind of freaked out about that. And and, you know, I think that I don't think that we, or frankly, in the environmental movement, has done a good enough job of really reaching out and incorporating people's real concerns and talking about a path forward. But, you know, one thing that I know about industry and companies, and I am not, I don't think they're evil, I don't think they're bad. I think what they are designed to do is to make as much money as possible. That is their thing, right? They are not social actors. They if they do good things for society, it's because there's profit in it or there's a choice to it. And so governments have to regulate. And and and I don't I don't know now where the big carbon capture storage, I don't know what the incentive for that is anymore, unless it's going to be regulated, unless there's going to be a law. Because there's no more economic. Economic incentive. Originally it was we're going to make it too expensive for you not to do this. I think that's gone now. So will Mark Kearney eventually legislate like he has said they have to build it. But what does that look like? Will he eventually legislate? Or is that the next domino to like, okay, well, you don't have to do that either?

Tom Parkin 44:18

Or or is he saying, Jennifer, it has to be built?

Jennifer Howard 44:21

Yeah, it has to be built. In other words, the the pain for it part of it. Yeah, yeah. So I I do think, you know, what you learn I mean, talk about parenting for a minute. What you learn as a parent, right, is every step forward you take, every like your kid backs up. So, you know, same is true when you're negotiating with company. Every time you move forward as a government and you give something, and you give something, they take it and they take it and they take it. Eventually, you have to draw the line and maintain the line. And and I, you know, and I so far we haven't seen Mark Carney. And what is it bought us, right? Like I watched um uh the broadcast from Danielle Smith where she said, you know, look, we're getting everything we want. Alberta's doing great, the government's giving us everything, and we'll be voting to separate. Yeah, here's a referendum. Yeah.

Tom Parkin 45:13

Yeah. And she'll pick up us uh some new things that um later. Absolutely. And I, you know, from her perspective. The knife to the throat.

Jennifer Howard 45:20

Yeah. I mean, she wants to be the premier. And in in her party, that's the only way you get to lead the party. But you know, what have we learned from this? Like this this all of this kind of giving, which is a cost to the rest of us, right? Like I keep hearing people, you know, start this conversation by the world has changed. Yeah. You know what hasn't changed? Science has not changed.

Speaker 4 45:44

Yeah.

Jennifer Howard 45:45

The things that were true five years ago, two years are still true. More fossil fuel emissions makes climate change worse, makes life worse for us and our kids. That is still true. Yeah. And and that still has to be reckoned with somewhere down the line.

Speaker 4 46:01

Yeah, absolutely.

Jennifer Howard 46:03

So, you know, I I feel for David Eby. I like, you know, I kind of so it kind of reminds me at high school when you're like watching the the the popular guy keep going after the people that don't like him, and you're sitting there going, like, what's what about me? I like you. I'm willing to work with you. I know. I'm like, you know we're friends. Why come on? Why don't you sit at my table for lunch? Why do you keep going to those mean girls over there who don't want to talk to you?

Nikki Hill 46:29

Yeah, uh yeah, it's been a bit of a wild time citing. I don't envy anyone in BC politics right now trying to navigate all of this.

Tom Parkin 46:37

Or or or somebody kind of being um catered to because they're the one who keeps uh threatening to you know leave the family or um and that's kind of what Daniel Smith does. And like there seems to be very much a pecking order of premieres now. Um and uh she's at the top of it by playing the game that she's played. It really makes me wonder whether Kearney is playing this the smart way or what are or maybe it's a smart way for the goals that he shares with her in some which is enrichment. So um at any rate.

Jennifer Howard 47:08

Yeah, I mean I think he does believe that getting oil out of the ground into markets is our economic future. I think he does believe that. And this is the way to do it.

unknown 47:15

Yeah.

Nikki Hill 47:16

No, yeah, I went to a speech earlier uh or last week and um in Vancouver, and I uh and I definitely think that it, you know, there was a heavy focus on electrification, but a very heavy focus on on BC being, you know, the the pathway through to new markets and and building out that independence. So, you know, it's it's all big picture pieces coming together.

Tom Parkin 47:38

All right. Now, Jennifer, you've you've worked as an elective official, a labor leader, senior NDP staffer. So so you've seen a lot of a lot of things, and um sometimes not always so great. Okay. This is uh recently I I saw you made some social media comments about um the culture that can exist inside of progressive organizations and inside the NDP itself. Uh and you've raised concerns about the work environment you've seen from time to time. Just do you want to just expand on that? Sure. Maybe offer some ideas. Yeah.

Jennifer Howard 48:14

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I I think, you know, not surprisingly anybody's worked in that field. It is can be a high stress, high stakes environment. Nobody gets enough sleep or sees sunlight or eats well, and all those things kind of can combine to make the tempers short. And but sometimes, and I think, you know, people can be given grace for like you lose, you lose your cool sometimes, you say things you shouldn't, you apologize. I think we can all move on from that. I think what is more disturbing to me sometimes is a pattern that develops where um people get blamed, staff get blamed when things aren't going well. And this is not about accountability when mistakes happen, but like we are trying to do a very hard thing in this country to be a social democratic alternative to govern is a very hard path. And we are losing everywhere at the moment in terms of social democracy. Like a few bright lights, you know, like BC and Manitoba and New York City, but globally, our side is not winning. And so the temptation can sometimes be to really like punch down or cast blame, or and that is not motivating to anyone. I remember, you know, talking to somebody about the last campaign, and I said, look, the thing, there's lots of things that were very hard. One of the things I'm proud of is like we did not create an environment where there was a lot of yelling and blaming. We heard horror stories out of the conservative environment. That was not our environment. And the person I was talking to is like, well, maybe there should have been more yelling. I'm like, well, I don't actually think that would have motivated anybody to do to work any harder than they were working. I I don't actually believe that making people feel bad and feel ashamed and feel like they're not good enough is motivating ever. And so, you know, I would like for our movement to walk the talk and just be a little more frankly literate about the damage to people's mental well-being when we when we take our stress and our worry and our anxiety and just kind of spread it all around us instead of you know owning it and trying to lift each other up and help each other out a little bit more.

Tom Parkin 50:27

I think you can drive good people away.

Jennifer Howard 50:29

It does drive good people away. Uh you know, I think there are many good staff that I said goodbye to, and it wasn't the hard work and it wasn't the long hours. It was feeling like nothing they could ever do was gonna be good enough for some of the people that they had to work with.

Nikki Hill 50:44

Yeah. Yeah. And I I think it's like we do see, you know, some um cross partisan attempts, particularly I think on the Hill, to to think about that staff or mental health as well. But I always think too, and just in in those general terms, is you know, we have this big job, like you say, and I think it needs every single person involved in it to to stick with it, whether you know it's their staff or volunteers or donors or or members, like it it's a big project. So we can't really afford to and social media has made it has made it worse, right?

Jennifer Howard 51:15

Like we have I think we have a really unfortunate culture among some of our members and supporters where they just feel free to unleash on social media against staff, against leadership, say very personally. And, you know, like my challenge to the new leadership would be to take that on and to be clear that it's not acceptable. We have a, you know, there's an opportunity to restart. Let's let's make it clear that in this hard work that we are doing together, there's not gonna be room for the kind of like psychological bullying and harassment that we've seen in the past.

Nikki Hill 51:53

Yeah. Okay. Well, we're gonna close on that note. And and so, Jennifer, thanks for joining us. I think, you know, there's some there's some provincial governments that really need to be defeated night now and that needs new democrats and some big work to rebuild the NDP that, as we said, sort of takes every single person. Uh, thanks for joining, giving us some frank insight on the challenges of doing all of those things. We're gonna take a quick break and be back with Love It or Heave It.

Tom Parkin 52:20

Thanks, Jennifer.

Tom asks Nikki if she is loving or heaving the PM's comments in BC

Nikki Hill 52:32

Before we wrap up, we've come to the part of the show that we like to call Love It or Heave It about something you love and want to keep, or something you'd like to heave and forever forget. What do you have this week, Tom?

Tom Parkin 52:44

Well, uh Nikki, if you don't mind, I I'm gonna turn the tables on you this week because I am really curious. We didn't have the time. Um are you loving or heaving the PM and the the Prime Minister's comments in Vancouver last week, which seem to be a bit of a triangulation linking federal support for major projects proposed by the BC government to whether BC is gonna support his pipeline, or or am I reading that wrong?

Nikki Hill 53:08

No, I think you're right. I think there was a bit too much in the speech to to love it or heave it either one way. There is, you know, there were some good elements to it and and some I think that probably raised some eyebrows, particularly for the the BC government. But I would say it was, you know, with about three or four days notice or over a thousand attendees at the Prime Minister's speech to the Greater Vancouver Border Trade, which I think is the first time a prime minister has done that sort of crowd here in Vancouver since about 2018. I couldn't remember off the top of my brain, but my my Googling suggests that's the case. So, you know, it was an important speech. It got people out for an early morning breakfast. And I think there was, it was definitely like a really interesting event to be at, but also because I always like to be at them to hear these narratives. And I think, you know, the emphasis here was not a not a new message from the prime minister. And I think, you know, Jennifer Howard touches on a little bit about what we know about this prime minister in our interview with her as well. And so I think, you know, clear messages continuing here about that need for Canada's energy independence, but also economic independence in the current geopolitical state that we're in, the pressures from the states. But I think, you know, given that the prime minister was going from that breakfast with a thousand people into a meeting one-on-one with Premier David Eby here in BC as well, coming out of that Alberta MOU continued negotiations and this pipeline piece that, you know, Premier EB's been very clear is frustrating because BC has put this long list of an increasingly long list this spring of major projects on the table, having some traction with the federal government, which I think, you know, Carney talked about a couple of times as well. But still, this pipeline to tide water concept isn't going away and certainly doesn't seem to be going away after the update between the Alberta and the feds on the MOU in recent weeks. So, you know, one of the things that that really jumped out was the emphasis from the prime minister on meeting ambition and this being the time to build, maybe going back to that, you know, Scott Moe conversation, getting it right now to really fulfill that energy independence. But, you know, at the same time, he talked a lot about the how important BC is to this picture, particularly with electrification here being so high and being at that clean energy focus of the BC government, giving opportunities nationally that other provinces aren't quite at yet. But um I think really there was still this emphasis on Canada being positioned to be, you know, a highly desirable, low-risk, low-carbon global energy supplier, BC being important to that and climate action economic growth being important. But a couple of quotes that really stuck out to me that I'm sure probably stuck out in uh Victoria as well and would love to be a fly on the wall for the conversation that happened after were, you know, what the prime minister said too, it you know, it's time to build. And I something that jumped out to a lot of folks, maybe outside of the business sector, where we don't want to hear what people are against, but rather what people are for. So, you know, pretty clear, yeah, pretty clear message there. But then, you know, as he headed out to meet with Premier EB, he also said that if progress stalls in BC on some of these projects, pipeline included, on these national interest projects, the federal government will be spending more time and money elsewhere in the country. So, you know, there are definitely uh BC reps in the crowd and and uh again, you know, having what is looking like negotiations as well with BC on some of these energy projects now. But, you know, I think as we talked about too, BC's been this this good player and partner and um and so a little bit of a a clear message coming out of this big speech to a large crowd.

Tom Parkin 56:53

Yeah, I just you know, the thing about I don't we don't want to hear what people are against, but rather what people are for. Yet Premier Eby has given the pre the the Prime Minister a list of major projects that he is for.

Nikki Hill 57:05

Dozens now, dozens, yeah.

Tom Parkin 57:07

But but but now the Prime Minister is the one who's saying, well, maybe I won't back them unless unless unless you get along play nice with Daniel Smith. It's like, what has that got to do with each other? And and if you're gonna make contingencies and linkages, why didn't you make any of those for Daniel Smith, who's out there boosting separatism and the destruction of our country? Like, I I just don't I don't get that. Um I used my spot because I wanted to hear from you on that one. But um uh Nikki, tell

Nikki loves a moment of tribute to John Horgan

Tom Parkin 57:37

me what are you loving or heaving this week?

Nikki Hill 57:40

Uh I'm getting a little love to sort of an ironic but also touching event that happened at the BC legislature last week. We're we're nearing into the final week of the session this week. So they're wrapping on May 28th. I think everybody will be happy for that wrap. It's been a very divisive session. So um, you know, I think nice to take an opportunity to bring people together, both from this current administration and from you know former premier John Horgan's administration, cabinet members, family, former staff to do a naming. Um, and there there is some irony to this. There were some tuckles, I think, with New Democrats and also in the announcement. So uh the province renamed the site C Hydroelectric Dam in Northeastern BC after the former premier John Horgan. And and so I think it was like the part I love was bringing people together in what has been a tough legislative session with some very big issues on the table and also happening at the same time as the BC conservative leadership race. Um but John Horgan and New Democrats have had many moments, many years of standing up against this dam because the dam was a controversial issue for decades in BC. So, you know, Ben became premier. And after having, I saw a lot on the news coming out of the naming of the Times that John was up in the Peace River protesting Site C. So Ben became premier and it was underway and decided to continue with getting it built. So he was sort of well known for having said, people have strong feelings about Site C. There are so many positions on Site C, and I've taken all of them. So there you go. You know, I think sort of bringing in that touch of something that was controversial, well timed coming out of those meetings with EB and Carney and focusing in on VC's clean energy future, because that, you know, the hydroelectric approach here. Um, but also I think, you know, no matter how you feel about the dam and many feelings will continue for the decades it it took to build it, probably kind of a moment to bring people together and remember a premier who uh done really identified challenges in governing and makes us still laugh in a in a heavy policy week.

Tom Parkin 59:46

Yeah. Well, okay. Love it, heave it. You've heard that from us. What about you, folks? Um, why don't you email us at left eastowest gmail.com with a short story about what you're loving or heaving, and we can talk about some of those next next show. And and next Monday, uh, we have Shauna Sylvester from the Urban Climate Leadership, and the Monday after, Stefan Lofen, former Prime Minister of Sweden, now the president of the Party of European Socialists. He's gonna join us. So uh tap the follow button on your podcast player to make sure you get a reminder in your podcast feed when these interesting interviews come out. So thank you for joining and have a great week, Nikki.

Nikki Hill 1:00:27

See you soon, Tom.

Speaker 1:00:28

Okay, take care. Thanks for joining Left East to West with hosts Nikki Hill and Tom Parker. 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 listen wherever you get your favorite podcasts. Just search for Left East to West and subscribe. I'm Doug Hamilton signing off for Left East to West. I'll see you next time.