LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

Over the past week, as the WE Imbroglio has picked up steam, two opposition parties have now suggested that Justin Trudeau step aside, whether temporarily or permanently, while the situation is investigated and sorted out.  The Bloc were first out of the gate, suggesting that Trudeau essentially go on leave while Chrystia Freeland takes over in his stead, for the duration of the investigation something that could take over a year if the Ethics Commissioner's past investigations are of any indication.  Andrew Scheer, meanwhile has stated that if Liberal backbenchers don't call for Trudeau's resignation, they will be complicit in his "corruption."

"If they allow him to continue, if they don't demand that he resign, then they are telling Canadians that they are comfortable with his corruption," Scheer stated in a press conference on Monday.  "Each and every one of them has a choice to make."

Granted, this is mostly Scheer's usual empty bluster, given that he has jumped the gun on demanding resignations in the past.  It's difficult to say that this is actual criminal corruption poor optics and a case where Trudeau should have recused himself from the decision because of the conflict-of-interest involved, but it's still a far sight from actual corruption.  It's also ironic that Scheer's own political demise came to a head after revelations of his own abuse of party funds, so it's cute that he's trying to be on the ethical high horse.

Regardless, I think it bears some examination as to why the opposition is so keen to be rid of Trudeau rather than let him go down with the ship, assuming that it is taking on water.  For the Bloc, the calculation is pretty naked without Trudeau in charge, they think that they can make gains in Quebec since there is no longer a "Quebec general" at the helm of the party.  For the Conservatives, however, there seem to be a few different considerations in play.  In the short-term, there is doubtlessly a worry that the longer Trudeau stays in the current situation, that he will be given the benefit of the doubt by voters, and that Canadians will keep buying his apologies.  The longer-term consideration, however, is that when future ethical lapses happen because that seems to be a given with this prime minister, as he has a blind spot where these issues are concerned, and nobody in the PMO to warn him against them the Conservatives can point to the backbenchers and tar them with the fact that they didn't stop Trudeau when they had the chance.

This, of course, is more difficult than it sounds, because there are no longer any effective mechanisms by which the caucus or the party could conceivably oust him they didn't subscribe to the (garbage) Reform Act provisions that would allow caucus to trigger a leadership contest, and Trudeau saw to it that the party constitution was changed so that the only way a leadership review vote can be held is after they lose an election.  This makes the bar high for internal pressure, where you need enough discontented voices who threaten to go public, and a few who actually do, before Trudeau can read the room and realize that he can't oust all of his dissenters and that it's time to go.  It's also made more difficult by the fact that you have a party who is gun-shy about rallying around a potential successor after the damage caused by the Chrétien/Martin feuds of yore.

There is also the question of the party brand Trudeau is central to it because we have ensured that parties are personality cults more than they are ideological vehicles.  The party doesn't want to go through another decade of aimlessly wandering in the opposition benches while they try to find their next Messiah.  Of course, this isn't unique to the Liberals Conservatives remain a personality cult to Stephen Harper because Scheer was largely devoid of a strong enough personality of his own and sold himself on being Harper with a smile; Jagmeet Singh turned the NDP from Mulcair's "good, competent public administration" to whatever the "justice Democrats" or Bernie Sanders are serving up and repeating it verbatim, with the added moral weight of having a racialized leader to deliver those same messages.  What party brand there is left for the Liberals outside of Trudeau is being damaged by these ethical lapses because they simply remind the voting public of the very same post-Gomery image that the rank-and-file members of the party were trying hard to stamp out, only for Trudeau to bring it all rushing back.

So is there a possibility that Trudeau could be sidelined by his own party?  We do know that MPs are feeling far less beholden to him after the last election, and a feeling that many of them won in spite of him rather than because of him.  I'm hearing that there is discontent with how the WE Imbroglio has happened, and that the discontent may finally be penetrating with Trudeau.  But who would take his place?  It's not exactly a secret that there are two camps starting to form within the caucus, one under Chrystia Freeland, and the other under François-Philippe Champagne.  It sounds like Champagne is mostly getting support from segments of the Quebec caucus, but not the whole of it.  Freeland, however, currently has the aura of being the woman who saved NAFTA from Donald Trump, and this is carrying a lot of weight within the party right now, on top of the fact that her Alberta roots insulate her from the accusation that the party is too Toronto-centric something she has apparently made good use of in her role as intergovernmental affairs minister in dealing with the provinces.

None of this is to say that Trudeau is ready to take the proverbial walk in the snow and consider his future, but I think recent events may have pushed him closer to that eventuality.  Timing will be a real question as the pandemic continues to roll along for the next year at least, but I'm beginning to suspect that Trudeau may not fight another election.

Photo Credit: Jeff Burney, Loonie Politics

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.