HOW GREEN WILL THE NDP BE? REALLY!
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2026 5:15 pmHOW GREEN WILL THE NDP BE? REALLY!
"An Environmentalist asks some Serious Questions of the Federal NDP Leadership Candidates" - by D’Arcy Hande - March 2026
This year, I took out a membership in the federal New Democratic Party so that I could participate in the vote for their new national leader. It is my small attempt at encouraging the left-of-centre party towards a more convincing stance on environmental issues.
I became involved in anti-nuclear activism in Saskatchewan about 15 years ago as I witnessed the intense efforts by the nuclear industry, backed by the provincial and federal governments, to conscript support from Indigenous communities for uranium mining and a nuclear waste disposal site in the North. Research indicated that the nuclear industry was not so much working against the fossil fuel industry, as the two were working in tandem with each other, strange as that may seem. It led to my collaboration with Dr. Mark Bigland-Pritchard in publishing the article "Green Bitumen?!": Nuclear reactors in the tar sands in The Dominion magazine, August 2012. [ https://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4570.html ] Our concerns back then remain even more pertinent today. As an example, take a look at Andrew Nikiforuk’s September 2025 article in The Tyee, "The New Nuclear Fever, Debunked: Politicians who push small reactors raise false hopes that splitting atoms can make a real dent in the climate crisis". [ https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2025/09/22/ ... -Debunked/ ]
Nikiforuk explains, “According to [Premier Danielle] Smith, nuclear generators will not only help power scores of artificial-intelligence data centres in rural Alberta but also help to double oil production from the oilsands.”
So much for nuclear factoring into our green future!
Trying to make an informed choice in my upcoming vote for the new NDP leader, I sought clarification from all the leadership candidates on what for me are the three most crucial questions about Canada’s future. The answers I received via e-mail might also help in making your own choices over the next few weeks.
Please note that Rob Ashton’s campaign chose not to respond, despite a reminder to do so.
QUESTION #1
"Will you as NDP leader definitively reject further government support (in policy and in subsidies) for the fossil fuel industry? That includes discontinuing coal mining and further subsidies for drilling oil, tar sands development, and pipeline construction."
ANSWERS:
- Tanille Johnston’s campaign: Yes. Policy is a crucial component of undoing implicit subsidies to fossil fuels, that is, costs incurred by Canadians at a societal level (ie: greater healthcare expenses due to pollution) that go beyond direct dollar subsidies. In fact, Tanille has made the elimination of further fossil fuel subsidies a campaign priority. Government policies should broadly look not just at straightforward monetary costs; they must also account for social and environmental costs, and this definitely extends to fossil fuel subsidies.
- Avi Lewis’s campaign: As part of our policy for a Green New Deal for Canada, is the commitment to no new fossil fuel infrastructure. This means that there will be no federal approvals for new pipelines, offshore oil projects or liquified natural gas terminals. It also includes a commitment to Make the oil and gas companies pay. We'll go after the fossil fuel companies that have made extraordinary profits at our collective expense, implement a tax on oil and gas exports to the US, and institute a windfall profits tax to help finance the energy transition and sustainable jobs.
Additionally, the plan includes A major cleanup of aging and inactive oil and gas wells across the country funded by the industry that drilled and profited from them. Following the legal principle of "Polluter Pay", industry-funded cleanups will also begin in communities impacted by mining and oilsands development – creating tens of thousands of jobs, restoring the watershed and putting millions of acres of land back into active use. It's common sense, and 92% of Albertans support it.
- Heather McPherson’s campaign: Heather has called repeatedly to end federal subsidies to oil and gas. She was also able to get the federal government to require impact assessments for coal projects. Her motion and bill were adopted as policy and that led to the cancellation of the Green Mountain and Tent Mountain coal mines.
- Tony McQuail: YES. The MOU between Mark Carney and Danielle Smith is insane, a further death wish for Mother Earth and an invitation to join them in suicide. It might better be labelled a MOMU – A Memorandum Of Mis-Understanding. M isunderstanding how the ecosystem works. You and I are part of the Current Carbon CYCLE. Plants take Carbon Dioxide out of the air, (photosynthesis). We eat the plants and animals that eat plants. Some of that Carbon becomes us (people are about 18% carbon) and the rest gets sent back to the air and the plants take it back out. That is a cycle. If I remember my high school science correctly, over millions of years photosynthesis, along with corals taking C to make their Calcium Carbonate reefs, sequestered high levels of atmospheric CO2 and created a breathable atmosphere for animals AND us. This was a FLOW OF CARBON from the atmosphere into Geologic storage as Coal, Oil, Natural Gas and Coral Reefs. Life as we have known it Coevolved with the atmosphere created by removing most of the carbon.
Now our “leaders” have been reversing that FLOW OF FOSSIL CARBON back into the atmosphere. I’m tired of following them. It isn’t going well with wildfires, floods, rising oceans and rising temperatures. It is going to end BADLY if we don’t reverse the FLOW and heal the damage:
Investing in communities – not pipelines and ports.
I believe we are in serious environmental trouble. When I first ran in 1980, we had time to make a thoughtful and gradual transition to a lower energy and resource use society. Instead, we have continued to encourage exponential growth of both while talking about "sustainable development". We are poisoning our planet by releasing fossilized carbon. But that is just a symptom of a bigger problem - We are using too much energy. We need to redesign how we live our lives to use less energy and materials. We need to stop building pipelines, including the Keystone XL and from Alberta to BC. Then we need to get serious about working with communities across Canada to figure out how they can redesign their local transportation, heating and food systems to use less energy while relying on local and renewable sources. It needs to be done quickly and with the urgency that the British felt when they grew victory gardens and rationed fuel during World War 2. Our politicians and economic leaders have squandered the 45 years we could have been transitioning to an abundant but low energy society. Now we have to get creative and cooperative from the household and community up. If the Government of Canada wants to do "nation building" in our current context, they need to be supporting and investing in local communities across Canada and not in mega energy projects, pipelines and ports. I'm suggesting we take the $30 Billion that the Federal Government gives the Fossil fuel companies in annual subsidies and invest it in a Regeneration and Redesign fund for local community groups and organizations for Regeneration and Redesign projects. I'd also divert the money going to Carnies nation building projects to this fund.
QUESTION #2
Will you as NDP leader definitively reject further government support (in policy and in subsidies) for uranium mining and for development of more nuclear reactors in Canada? Uranium mining, nuclear reactors, AND the inevitable accumulation of toxic "forever" nuclear waste can NOT be considered sustainable, clean, renewable energy.
ANSWERS:
- Tanille Johnston’s campaign: Your concerns surrounding the environmental hazards of nuclear power production are poignant; we will take those concerns under consideration. Tanille has not taken a stance in favor of or against nuclear power expansion on this campaign. We urgently need to get off of fossil fuels and the reality is that any conversation surrounding the 'how' we're going to do that will have to include all options. We have to invest in solar, wind and other clean, renewable sources of energy to address the climate crisis, there also needs to be carbon neutral energy sources for areas or situations that can’t be covered by those energy sources; this is especially true for our most remote and isolated communities. This campaign's position sees this as a conversation that needs to be had at all levels of government including First Nations to ensure equitable outcomes and environmental and nuclear safety experts to ensure we limit the scope of our environmental impact of any potential alternative energy sources.
- Avi Lewis’s campaign: Having grown up in the last decades of the Cold War, Avi used to have a classic anti-nuclear position - both with regards to weapons and power generation. As a 21st century climate activist, though, Avi’s position has evolved. Canada continues to relentlessly increase oil and gas production, while utterly failing to join the global surge in renewable energy investment. In light of this, Avi supports keeping existing nuclear generation online - it is an important, zero emissions contributor to our current power grid, especially in Ontario.
When it comes to new power generation projects, Avi believes there is a genuine dilemma. Nuclear power generation is expensive and slow to develop, but it provides baseload power and is already a heavily unionized sector. Renewables like solar and wind are much faster and less expensive to deploy, but they are currently under-unionized and don’t pay salaries comparable to either nuclear power plants or fossil fuel production.
That’s why Avi strongly supports both public ownership and full unionization in the power sector. When we’re dealing with something as critical as energy transition, only public ownership guarantees that it will be done in a way that serves workers and the public interest rather than cronyism and profits. And as long as we’re fighting for public ownership, full unionization, and creating huge numbers of family-supporting jobs, Avi believes that renewables will create more of all those things faster than new nuclear power plants.
But Avi doesn’t see this as a zero-sum game. Our campaign believes that the goals of full unionized employment and zero emissions energy under public ownership offer plenty of common ground. We don’t think it’s necessary to frame this as a strict either/or of nuclear vs renewables in order to fight together for a clean and dignified future for all.
- Heather McPherson’s campaign: I will forward to the policy team. [Nothing further received.]
- Tony McQuail: YES! I was a researcher and presenter for the Ontario Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility in the mid 1970's and wrote several chapters of our submission "Half Life - Nuclear Power and Future Society." You are being misled about renewable energy technology. It’s worth looking to understand the powerful DIFFERENCE between RENEWABLE energy sources and fossil fuels and nuclear.
The advantage to coal, oil and gas (and nuclear) is to those who can monopolize and control supplies — something all but impossible with freely available wind and sunlight.
Burning extracted fuels is an outdated, wasteful, polluting way to power societies, and it’s putting our health and survival in jeopardy.
QUESTION #3
Will you as NDP leader definitively commit to respecting Indigenous rights in future natural resource development, including in disputed and unceded Indigenous territories across the country? I hope you agree that Canadians cannot afford to fast-track, neglect or ignore Treaty and Indigenous rights when considering the impact of resource development for future generations.
ANSWERS:
- Tanille Johnston’s campaign: Yes. As the only Indigenous candidate in the race, Tanille recognizes the necessity of repealing bill C-5, reforming the Major Projects Office, and strengthening the Indigenous Advisory Council. Not only must Indigenous communities have the power to say no, but engagement with them must be proactive. The federal government cannot continue to unilaterally decide what projects they wish to pursue and only then seek a rubber stamp from affected Indigenous communities. Instead, the government must approach Indigenous communities proactively to learn what projects they wish to pursue or are already pursuing.
- Avi Lewis’s campaign: When it comes to development on Indigenous lands, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent must be fully respected and honoured. This requires true, meaningful consultation in partnership and collaboration with First Nations, Métis, and Inuit governments, including with traditional governance systems and structures. Meaningful consultation includes ensuring that all community voices who wish to participate are included in the formal process for projects, but additionally that communities are able to have continued dialogue with the federal government should new issues arise during project development and operations.
Additionally, Tanille Johnston’s plan for Indigenous reconciliation and empowerment is an outstanding document that our campaign fully supports.
- Heather McPherson’s campaign: Heather has pushed the government to respect Canada's commitment to UNDRIP and was a very vocal critic of Bill C-5 which undermines Indigenous rights. She has raised this issue in the House of Commons and spoken and written about it.
- Tony McQuail: YES!
D’Arcy Hande is a retired archivist and historian in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. After early retirement in 2006 he became a freelance journalist, [ https://briarpatchmagazine.com/contribu ... ande-darcy ], a Freedom of Information activist,[ https://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-n ... researcher ] and twice a Green Party candidate. [ https://globalnews.ca/news/172447/saska ... andidates/ ]
"An Environmentalist asks some Serious Questions of the Federal NDP Leadership Candidates" - by D’Arcy Hande - March 2026
This year, I took out a membership in the federal New Democratic Party so that I could participate in the vote for their new national leader. It is my small attempt at encouraging the left-of-centre party towards a more convincing stance on environmental issues.
I became involved in anti-nuclear activism in Saskatchewan about 15 years ago as I witnessed the intense efforts by the nuclear industry, backed by the provincial and federal governments, to conscript support from Indigenous communities for uranium mining and a nuclear waste disposal site in the North. Research indicated that the nuclear industry was not so much working against the fossil fuel industry, as the two were working in tandem with each other, strange as that may seem. It led to my collaboration with Dr. Mark Bigland-Pritchard in publishing the article "Green Bitumen?!": Nuclear reactors in the tar sands in The Dominion magazine, August 2012. [ https://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4570.html ] Our concerns back then remain even more pertinent today. As an example, take a look at Andrew Nikiforuk’s September 2025 article in The Tyee, "The New Nuclear Fever, Debunked: Politicians who push small reactors raise false hopes that splitting atoms can make a real dent in the climate crisis". [ https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2025/09/22/ ... -Debunked/ ]
Nikiforuk explains, “According to [Premier Danielle] Smith, nuclear generators will not only help power scores of artificial-intelligence data centres in rural Alberta but also help to double oil production from the oilsands.”
So much for nuclear factoring into our green future!
Trying to make an informed choice in my upcoming vote for the new NDP leader, I sought clarification from all the leadership candidates on what for me are the three most crucial questions about Canada’s future. The answers I received via e-mail might also help in making your own choices over the next few weeks.
Please note that Rob Ashton’s campaign chose not to respond, despite a reminder to do so.
QUESTION #1
"Will you as NDP leader definitively reject further government support (in policy and in subsidies) for the fossil fuel industry? That includes discontinuing coal mining and further subsidies for drilling oil, tar sands development, and pipeline construction."
ANSWERS:
- Tanille Johnston’s campaign: Yes. Policy is a crucial component of undoing implicit subsidies to fossil fuels, that is, costs incurred by Canadians at a societal level (ie: greater healthcare expenses due to pollution) that go beyond direct dollar subsidies. In fact, Tanille has made the elimination of further fossil fuel subsidies a campaign priority. Government policies should broadly look not just at straightforward monetary costs; they must also account for social and environmental costs, and this definitely extends to fossil fuel subsidies.
- Avi Lewis’s campaign: As part of our policy for a Green New Deal for Canada, is the commitment to no new fossil fuel infrastructure. This means that there will be no federal approvals for new pipelines, offshore oil projects or liquified natural gas terminals. It also includes a commitment to Make the oil and gas companies pay. We'll go after the fossil fuel companies that have made extraordinary profits at our collective expense, implement a tax on oil and gas exports to the US, and institute a windfall profits tax to help finance the energy transition and sustainable jobs.
Additionally, the plan includes A major cleanup of aging and inactive oil and gas wells across the country funded by the industry that drilled and profited from them. Following the legal principle of "Polluter Pay", industry-funded cleanups will also begin in communities impacted by mining and oilsands development – creating tens of thousands of jobs, restoring the watershed and putting millions of acres of land back into active use. It's common sense, and 92% of Albertans support it.
- Heather McPherson’s campaign: Heather has called repeatedly to end federal subsidies to oil and gas. She was also able to get the federal government to require impact assessments for coal projects. Her motion and bill were adopted as policy and that led to the cancellation of the Green Mountain and Tent Mountain coal mines.
- Tony McQuail: YES. The MOU between Mark Carney and Danielle Smith is insane, a further death wish for Mother Earth and an invitation to join them in suicide. It might better be labelled a MOMU – A Memorandum Of Mis-Understanding. M isunderstanding how the ecosystem works. You and I are part of the Current Carbon CYCLE. Plants take Carbon Dioxide out of the air, (photosynthesis). We eat the plants and animals that eat plants. Some of that Carbon becomes us (people are about 18% carbon) and the rest gets sent back to the air and the plants take it back out. That is a cycle. If I remember my high school science correctly, over millions of years photosynthesis, along with corals taking C to make their Calcium Carbonate reefs, sequestered high levels of atmospheric CO2 and created a breathable atmosphere for animals AND us. This was a FLOW OF CARBON from the atmosphere into Geologic storage as Coal, Oil, Natural Gas and Coral Reefs. Life as we have known it Coevolved with the atmosphere created by removing most of the carbon.
Now our “leaders” have been reversing that FLOW OF FOSSIL CARBON back into the atmosphere. I’m tired of following them. It isn’t going well with wildfires, floods, rising oceans and rising temperatures. It is going to end BADLY if we don’t reverse the FLOW and heal the damage:
Investing in communities – not pipelines and ports.
I believe we are in serious environmental trouble. When I first ran in 1980, we had time to make a thoughtful and gradual transition to a lower energy and resource use society. Instead, we have continued to encourage exponential growth of both while talking about "sustainable development". We are poisoning our planet by releasing fossilized carbon. But that is just a symptom of a bigger problem - We are using too much energy. We need to redesign how we live our lives to use less energy and materials. We need to stop building pipelines, including the Keystone XL and from Alberta to BC. Then we need to get serious about working with communities across Canada to figure out how they can redesign their local transportation, heating and food systems to use less energy while relying on local and renewable sources. It needs to be done quickly and with the urgency that the British felt when they grew victory gardens and rationed fuel during World War 2. Our politicians and economic leaders have squandered the 45 years we could have been transitioning to an abundant but low energy society. Now we have to get creative and cooperative from the household and community up. If the Government of Canada wants to do "nation building" in our current context, they need to be supporting and investing in local communities across Canada and not in mega energy projects, pipelines and ports. I'm suggesting we take the $30 Billion that the Federal Government gives the Fossil fuel companies in annual subsidies and invest it in a Regeneration and Redesign fund for local community groups and organizations for Regeneration and Redesign projects. I'd also divert the money going to Carnies nation building projects to this fund.
QUESTION #2
Will you as NDP leader definitively reject further government support (in policy and in subsidies) for uranium mining and for development of more nuclear reactors in Canada? Uranium mining, nuclear reactors, AND the inevitable accumulation of toxic "forever" nuclear waste can NOT be considered sustainable, clean, renewable energy.
ANSWERS:
- Tanille Johnston’s campaign: Your concerns surrounding the environmental hazards of nuclear power production are poignant; we will take those concerns under consideration. Tanille has not taken a stance in favor of or against nuclear power expansion on this campaign. We urgently need to get off of fossil fuels and the reality is that any conversation surrounding the 'how' we're going to do that will have to include all options. We have to invest in solar, wind and other clean, renewable sources of energy to address the climate crisis, there also needs to be carbon neutral energy sources for areas or situations that can’t be covered by those energy sources; this is especially true for our most remote and isolated communities. This campaign's position sees this as a conversation that needs to be had at all levels of government including First Nations to ensure equitable outcomes and environmental and nuclear safety experts to ensure we limit the scope of our environmental impact of any potential alternative energy sources.
- Avi Lewis’s campaign: Having grown up in the last decades of the Cold War, Avi used to have a classic anti-nuclear position - both with regards to weapons and power generation. As a 21st century climate activist, though, Avi’s position has evolved. Canada continues to relentlessly increase oil and gas production, while utterly failing to join the global surge in renewable energy investment. In light of this, Avi supports keeping existing nuclear generation online - it is an important, zero emissions contributor to our current power grid, especially in Ontario.
When it comes to new power generation projects, Avi believes there is a genuine dilemma. Nuclear power generation is expensive and slow to develop, but it provides baseload power and is already a heavily unionized sector. Renewables like solar and wind are much faster and less expensive to deploy, but they are currently under-unionized and don’t pay salaries comparable to either nuclear power plants or fossil fuel production.
That’s why Avi strongly supports both public ownership and full unionization in the power sector. When we’re dealing with something as critical as energy transition, only public ownership guarantees that it will be done in a way that serves workers and the public interest rather than cronyism and profits. And as long as we’re fighting for public ownership, full unionization, and creating huge numbers of family-supporting jobs, Avi believes that renewables will create more of all those things faster than new nuclear power plants.
But Avi doesn’t see this as a zero-sum game. Our campaign believes that the goals of full unionized employment and zero emissions energy under public ownership offer plenty of common ground. We don’t think it’s necessary to frame this as a strict either/or of nuclear vs renewables in order to fight together for a clean and dignified future for all.
- Heather McPherson’s campaign: I will forward to the policy team. [Nothing further received.]
- Tony McQuail: YES! I was a researcher and presenter for the Ontario Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility in the mid 1970's and wrote several chapters of our submission "Half Life - Nuclear Power and Future Society." You are being misled about renewable energy technology. It’s worth looking to understand the powerful DIFFERENCE between RENEWABLE energy sources and fossil fuels and nuclear.
The advantage to coal, oil and gas (and nuclear) is to those who can monopolize and control supplies — something all but impossible with freely available wind and sunlight.
Burning extracted fuels is an outdated, wasteful, polluting way to power societies, and it’s putting our health and survival in jeopardy.
QUESTION #3
Will you as NDP leader definitively commit to respecting Indigenous rights in future natural resource development, including in disputed and unceded Indigenous territories across the country? I hope you agree that Canadians cannot afford to fast-track, neglect or ignore Treaty and Indigenous rights when considering the impact of resource development for future generations.
ANSWERS:
- Tanille Johnston’s campaign: Yes. As the only Indigenous candidate in the race, Tanille recognizes the necessity of repealing bill C-5, reforming the Major Projects Office, and strengthening the Indigenous Advisory Council. Not only must Indigenous communities have the power to say no, but engagement with them must be proactive. The federal government cannot continue to unilaterally decide what projects they wish to pursue and only then seek a rubber stamp from affected Indigenous communities. Instead, the government must approach Indigenous communities proactively to learn what projects they wish to pursue or are already pursuing.
- Avi Lewis’s campaign: When it comes to development on Indigenous lands, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent must be fully respected and honoured. This requires true, meaningful consultation in partnership and collaboration with First Nations, Métis, and Inuit governments, including with traditional governance systems and structures. Meaningful consultation includes ensuring that all community voices who wish to participate are included in the formal process for projects, but additionally that communities are able to have continued dialogue with the federal government should new issues arise during project development and operations.
Additionally, Tanille Johnston’s plan for Indigenous reconciliation and empowerment is an outstanding document that our campaign fully supports.
- Heather McPherson’s campaign: Heather has pushed the government to respect Canada's commitment to UNDRIP and was a very vocal critic of Bill C-5 which undermines Indigenous rights. She has raised this issue in the House of Commons and spoken and written about it.
- Tony McQuail: YES!
D’Arcy Hande is a retired archivist and historian in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. After early retirement in 2006 he became a freelance journalist, [ https://briarpatchmagazine.com/contribu ... ande-darcy ], a Freedom of Information activist,[ https://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-n ... researcher ] and twice a Green Party candidate. [ https://globalnews.ca/news/172447/saska ... andidates/ ]