Federal NDP brass are facing allegations of undemocratic decision-making and sidelining racialized and marginalized party members, according to leaked internal emails.
The flashpoint — which led to a member of the federal executive resigning — was a Sunday meeting in which the party’s high-ranking executives allegedly suppressed discussion about rules for the upcoming leadership contest to replace Jagmeet Singh.
As the party is currently operating, “we are not only failing to uphold democratic values — we are failing the very people who elected us to represent them,” Quebec representative Samah Khandker wrote in her resignation letter sent to federal executive members and the remaining seven MPs on June 23.
The push by top party executives for higher entrance fees and a shorter leadership race is just one of many concerns outlined in a series of emails obtained by Canada’s National Observer this week. Selecting a new leader is the first major step to rebuild after the NDP suffered historic losses in the 2025 federal election.
The resignation letter elicited supportive emails from NDP MP Leah Gazan and council member Ashley Zarbatany, who both raised further criticisms of the party brass, including many concerns about transparency, the need for a full post-mortem on the 2025 election, the “flawed” process to select an interim leader, undemocratic top-down decision-making and pervasive issues of racism and sexism.
The catalyst: ‘Flawed’ selection process of interim leader
NDP MP Don Davies’ appointment as interim leader made waves in late May when a letter penned by Gazan, Jenny Kwan and Lori Idlout was leaked saying they were not consulted about the decision. Since then, Davies has received the unanimous support of the six MPs. In the leaked emails, Gazan, Khandker and Zarbatany emphasized the issue is not and never was with Davies himself, but with the process the executives (known as “table officers”) used to select him, which Khandker described as “rushed, opaque, exclusionary, and insulated from meaningful input.”
This is not an isolated incident, Khandker wrote, and top-down decision-making is playing out again as the party tries to establish rules for the upcoming leadership race.
“These leadership rules don't just shape the leadership race, they shape the party’s future,” Khandker said in the interview. “They are not just there to determine who can run. They are there to determine whose vision is allowed to compete. And so, that's why so many of us on federal council are finally speaking out.”
At the Sunday meeting that prompted Khandker’s resignation, the table officers made a “unilateral decision” to draft their preferred leadership race rules and give federal councillors little time to respond, Zarbatany explained in her email. She said the process did not allow for councillors to ask grassroots members for input, provide meaningful feedback or propose alternatives.
“The entire process was rushed and problematic” despite the fact that deciding the rules for the leadership race could play a huge role in the party’s ability to rebound and rebuild, Zarbatany said.
This included three proposed entrance fees: $75,000, $90,000 or $100,000. Prospective leadership candidates have to fundraise the amount, determined by federal council, a percentage of which is paid to the party.
Zarbatany and Khandker thought $50,000 was a reasonable compromise (compared to $30,000 in the 2017 race) given that the party is strapped for cash and reeling from massive electoral losses. Zarbatany said no members on the party’s Indigenous Peoples’ Commission would support any fee more than $50,000, and noted members in BC also expressed “significant frustration” at the $75,000 minimum proposed by the party brass.
However, efforts to add the $50,000 option to the discussion were blocked by the table officers. The higher the entrance fee, the harder it is for candidates without name recognition to throw their hat in the ring. The same goes for the length of the leadership race — more runway gives less established candidates a chance to build a movement. The options for race length ranged from three months to six months. In 2017, the race ran for over a year.
Another federal council member, Élé Foulkes, told Canada’s National Observer they are “hearing a lot of concern from [Electoral District Associations] about the figure being too high.”
“I'm more concerned at this point about the process by which we get to make those rules fair, than I am about any particular figure, in terms of the entry fee,” Foulkes said.
Zarbatany didn’t mince words: “I have heard repeatedly from members that we should not be trying to “Outlib the Liberals” with elitist entrance fees in this race. I have also heard that a $100,000 entrance fee is not going to save a dead party.”
Rebuilding the party is a “formidable” task, Gazan wrote, and “cannot rely on a process entrenched in deceit, dishonesty, manipulation, lack of transparency.”
President’s promise ‘rings hollow’
In an emailed statement responding to the leaked emails, allegations and criticisms, NDP President Mary Shortall said the party takes the concerns seriously but maintained “the decision around interim leadership was made transparently and in line with the party’s constitution.”
She said the current table officers elected in 2023 “reflects a new generation of leadership” and “are diverse and committed women, volunteers who believe deeply in our party and we were elected to do things differently.”
“We are not here to repeat the past. We are here to rebuild trust, open up our governance, and make space for more voices,” Shortall’s statement said.
“A party-wide review and renewal process will launch shortly, and every member will have the opportunity to shape the path forward. That is the work we were elected to do, and we are committed to doing it openly and with integrity.”
To Khandker, “that promise completely rings hollow.”
“Has any party staff made a real effort to consult electoral district associations about what kind of leadership rules they want to see?” Khandker said in a phone interview. “No. Have federal council members been instructed to conduct grassroots consultation? No — and those of us who have tried to do it on our own are not being given the time to do so.”
The “renewal process” Shortall referred to is actually an email inbox for people to send suggestions, Khandker clarified.
Canada’s National Observer sent the NDP communications team follow-up questions for the table officers but the response did not answer any of the questions.
“The words are not matching the actions, and people are starting to see that, which is what brings us here,” Khandker said.
“When dissent within the party is quashed, it is unsurprising that people feel the need to use other methods to get their message across,” Foulkes, one of the Quebec executive representatives, said in a phone interview with Canada’s National Observer.
Marginalized members ‘sidelined’
Along with calls for a full, transparent post-mortem on the 2025 election, including financial transparency about how precious resources were spent, the leaked emails flagged longstanding concerns about racism and sexism within the party.
“Equity-seeking members — particularly women, people with disabilities, and those who are Indigenous, queer, or racialized — are routinely asked to show up, but not to speak up,” Khandker wrote in her resignation letter. “We are encouraged to help build the party, but not to shape its direction. Our presence is celebrated in public, but sidelined behind closed doors.”
Gazan’s response, thanking Khandker for her work and also bravery to state these truths, added that: “As an Indigenous woman, my experience in the party as an elected MP has been filled with racism, dismissal, and sexism. This is an issue that I have brought up with the party on numerous occasions.”
She said these matters “are very serious” and must be addressed if the NDP is to rebuild.
Gazan did not respond to requests for comment from Canada’s National Observer.
Grassroots up, not top-down
Gazan said in her email that it “baffles” her how the same individuals who were part of the decision-making that resulted in the worst electoral result in the history of the NDP are still allowed to decide on the direction it should take at this critical juncture.
“I am certain, if the same undemocratic processes are employed in deciding the leadership rules, that our party will have no hope of rebuilding.”
Calls for the party to get back in touch with the grassroots are also coming from outside the house: former MP Charlie Angus previously told Canada’s National Observer the party needs to put in the work to rebuild electoral district associations and engage in-person with members.
This principle is central to many of Zarbatany and Khandker’s concerns.
Foulkes agreed.
“We need to be out there actively trying to get the opinions of people through town halls, through community events, working with trade unions, show that we are in community with people, instead of an approach where people have to come to us,” Foulkes said.
In Foulkes’ short time on the federal council, they haven’t seen that work being done.
“But I hope that will change and I am committed to helping be part of that change,” Foulkes said.
After 10 years volunteering for the NDP and trying to bring about change from within by writing letters, working with other members and trying to influence bylaws and processes, Khandker made the decision to step down.
“I still believe in that fairer world we all dream of,” Khandker wrote. “I just no longer believe the NDP, as it currently exists, is willing or able to live up to those principles.”
Natasha Bulowski / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada’s National Observer
This article was updated at 3:20 a.m. on June 26, 2025 to correct a detail about the "renewal process."
Comments
If the NDP wants my support it will have to
(A) Get very serious about electoral reform, supporting the best system for the voters, that which gives them the most power, which is ‘Choice Voting’, otherwise known formally as Single Transferable Vote. As opposed to a Mixed Member Proportional system, beloved by the party as it gives the party much power.
(B) Get very serious about climate change, e.g. opposing pipelines, and other fossil fuel projects.
Electoral reform, frankly, is a dead end right now in Canadian politics. If the NDP goes down the path of advocating for electoral reform I strongly believe it will hurt their chances in the next election rather than help their chances.
I am pro-electoral reform but it simply isn’t a popular idea right now. The NDP needs to be proposing bold and progressive ideas that are actually popular with progressive voters. Rehashing a hot topic from 10 years ago isn’t the right way to build support
As with everything, I think, so much that determines an outcome depends upon the people involved.
I think there is value in an electoral system that has both elector-facing, constituency representatives (today's MPs, MLAs, etc.) and also some who do non-constituency work (such as public policy research; constituency support, perhaps).
STV has different meanings. Do you mean multi-member ridings (e.g. as proposed in BC) or ranked ballot? Some ridings across the country don't have populations sufficient, on the face of it, to warrant >1 MP or would be so enormous as to be unworkable. A mix of systems could reasonably account for the range of popn densities.
I disagree with another comment stating that electoral reform ought to be entirely removed from the platform; I think it should be there, though not, at this time, as a campaign plank. The NDP will not be in a position to force the policy anytime soon, especially now that the LPC has swung right and garners large support from the CPC.
Having a shorter election period would be advisable, in the modern era you have to create a buzz, the 2017 election created no buzz, the electorate and the media forgot there was an election, 3-4 months tops. So this creates an unequal playing field, what technology available today can be used to level the playing field?
It's up to the NDP to get its house in order through the old fashioned way of participation. If one doesn't like how something operates, get it changed using the rules the organization operates under. If I've doesn't like the rules, well, figure out how to use the existing rules to change them. Frankly, I couldn't care less about internal squabbling and have little time for "leaks" relating to same. Sort it out yourselves.
Looking at the NDP website, there are a lot of people elected or appointed to positions. Put those people to work. If all those DEI (if I may use the term non-pejoratively) positions are real and not merely performative, there's plenty to work with.
If they are, on the other hand, merely for appearance, either get rid of the positions or give them responsibilities and an actual say.
The only federal party with integrity left is the Green Party.
How I wish that were so. It wasn't that long ago the GP was doing its share of infighting. The NDP don't hold a patent on sorting its dirty laundry in public.
The GP ran a fake candidate in my riding while the riding staff were working on Jody Wilson Raybould's campaign as an independent after she was backstabbed by Justin Trudeau. Elizabeth May, a personal friend of Wilson Raybould's, admitted as much, and in doing so offended every potential Green voter who was looking for a genuine alternative to the LPC and the NDP who couldn't get their act together to provide a stronger candidate to the Libs and Cons. Paper candidates are too common today, and that outright act demonstrated thatvthe Green Party needs to grow up. JWR was elected largely on public sympathy toward her, not on any work GP workers did, and on anger at Trudeau's childish arrogance.
The cavalier attitude Ms. May demonstrated to thousands of voters in turn ruined support for the Greens in my neighbourhood, despite May's otherwise informed and intelligent rejoinders in the House. The NDP have a much better chance, but still requires a larger effort because this is a competetive riding with more wrenching dynamics than average, and is a strategic voting stronghold.