Jagmeet Singh Archives - Page 7 of 9

The current atmosphere in the House of Commons is pretty volatile. Party leaders of the left and right rarely see eye-to-eye on issues. Bipartisanship seems like a figment of the imagination. Rigid partisan politics ranges around Level 3 or 4 on the danger levels – and occasionally flirts with the dreaded Level 5.

Yet, there appears to be one point of agreement on Parliament Hill. When it comes to Bill 21, no-one wants to touch it with a 10-foot pole – or any feet, for that matter.

Bill 21, or An Act respecting the laicity of the State, was introduced by Quebec Premier François Legault and the Coalition Avenir Québec on March 29, 2018. It’s the first piece of Quebec law to have ever stated the following, “The State of Québec is a lay State.”

The bill had four main principles: equality of all citizens, separation of state and world religions, the state’s religious neutrality, and freedom of conscience and religion. All religious symbols, regardless of shape and size, would be prohibited for public employees who carry weapons (police officers, prison guards, bodyguards), work in schools (teachers, principals, vice-principals), and the judiciary (crown prosecutors, government lawyers, judges).

What did this mean for Quebec? One of the world’s strongest religious societies with deep roots in the Roman Catholic Church would be transformed into a secular state.

This didn’t bother many residents in La belle province, truth be told. An Oct. 27 Ipsos poll showed that 76 percent of Quebeckers supported the previous legislation, Bill 62, which banned people wearing face coverings for religious purposes from delivering and receiving public services. In fact, 70 percent of Canadian respondents to the Angus Reid Institute’s Oct. 27, 2017 poll said they would support “legislation similar to Bill 62.”

Bill 21 passed on June 16, 2018 by a vote of 73-35. The CAQ and Parti Quebecois supported it, while the Liberals and Québec solidaire opposed it.

Religious Christians, Jews and Muslims were furious, and remain furious, over Bill 21. Organizations like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and National Council of Canadian Muslims filed unsuccessful challenges to overturn this provincial law. They all felt this bill was a direct attack on their religious freedom in a democratic society.   The recent removal of Fatemeh Anvari, a third-grade teacher in Chelsea, Que., for wearing a hijab in her classroom caused an eruption. It was viewed as an unfair and undemocratic decision. A growing number of Canadians wanted their political leaders to speak out and condemn it.   They haven’t, for the most part – and they won’t anytime soon.   For the record, I’m fundamentally opposed to Bill 21 and believe it’s a direct attack on religious freedom – and I’m agnostic! That being said, it’s not hard for me to understand why our political leaders want to stay out of this fight.  First, it’s a provincial matter.   Bill 21 was passed democratically. If Quebec chooses to maintain this law during Legault’s leadership and beyond, there’s not much that Ottawa can do. They can criticize it to their heart’s content, and attempt to intervene at a certain level. They don’t have the constitutional right to bring down this provincial law, however.   Second, Ottawa doesn’t want to start another war of words with Quebec.   Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has flip-flopped on several occasions in terms of getting involved in this debate. On Dec. 13, he said that he “deeply” disagrees with Bill 21 and “I don’t find that in a free and open society someone should lose their job because of their religion and this is no longer a theoretical issue.” At the same time, he stated “I think the important thing is the province passed the law and Quebecers are defending their rights through the legal process in Quebec.”

Conservative leader Erin O’Toole and NDP leader Jagmeet Singh have basically taken similar stances. Both are frustrated on a personal level, but begrudgingly respect Quebec’s democratic right to pass controversial and non-controversial bills on a provincial level.

Third, Quebec has been (up until recently) a critical piece of the electoral puzzle.

The old political playbook in federal politics was clear: if you can’t win Quebec, you can’t win the election. Hence, parties on the left and right all tried to play nice – or pander, if you prefer – when it came to this province. Policies and programs were announced, and taxpayer money was either ear-marked or doled out. It led to frustration and resentment from the rest of Canada, causing everything from western alienation to support for booting out Quebec. When Quebeckers felt their needs weren’t being met, it led to a rise in separatism and threats to break apart Canada.

Winning Quebec isn’t the prime electoral strategy any longer. Alas, political leaders still walk on eggshells when it comes to this province. They try to avoid as much conflict as humanly possible. In the case of Bill 21, they would rather stay out of this fight than get involved and cost them a few seats in future elections.

Doesn’t make it right, of course. It makes them look weak and ineffective.

Trudeau, O’Toole, Singh and other federal leaders should band together and help bring down Bill 21. If nothing else, it would be nice to see the House of Commons sitting at Level 1 or 2, even for a short spell.

Michael Taube, a long-time newspaper columnist and political commentator, was a speechwriter for former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper.

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.

Click here for more

Erin O’Toole may not be the best man at winning elections. But boy he sure can spread a rumour like no one else.

With the tenacity of a prying neighbour or a gossipy teenager, O’Toole spent much of early November spreading the bizarre, unsubstantiated story that the Liberals and NDP were planning on forming a coalition government. According to O’Toole, such an arrangement between the two parties is a “radical” concept that would require “billions of dollars of new spending to buy Jagmeet Singh’s silence” making it a “disaster” for the economy. This would make Canada a “a poor and less relevant nation” and “threaten” both “the livelihood of millions of Canadians” and “national unity” itself.

It’s quite the story and O’Toole is quite the storyteller.

But make no mistake about it: it’s all a work of fiction.

While NDP MP Charlie Angus did confirm that Singh and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had “an initial conversation” about co-operation and shared legislative priorities, a Liberal source made clear that there was no “formal agreement” nor even any ‘talk to have a formal agreement.”

Singh himself reiterated this point at a recent news conference.

When asked point blank by a reporter about the coalition rumours, Singh could not have been more categorical in his response.

“There is no discussion at all of a coalition and that is a firm no for me,” he said. “There’s not going to be any coalition at all.”

As for O’Toole, well he’s the one guilty of spreading the rumours in the first place. Or, as Singh put it, “making stuff up.”

It’s hard to find much fault with Singh’s version of events.

Most formal coalitions require the sharing of cabinet positions. And last time I checked; Trudeau allocated no positions in his bloated cabinet for NDP MPs. If he had, we might have witnessed some truly inspired cabinet appointments, like Charlie Angus being assigned to Indigenous Affairs, Alexandre Boulerice to Labour, or Singh himself as Deputy Prime Minister.

But of course, that didn’t happen.

Instead, all of Trudeau’s cabinet appointments went to his cabal of loyal Liberal followers, leaving little possibility for a coalition agreement with other parties to be hashed out.

For Trudeau – a man not particularly renowned for sharing power or for reaching across the aisle and establishing constructive relations with opposition parties – this was certainly his preferred outcome. The same goes with Singh and the NDP.

For years, the spectre of the failed 2008 coalition attempt by Stephane Dione, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe has enveloped Ottawa and suffocated any enthusiasm or mindful considerations into the merits of a coalition government. Never mind that the chief reason for that coalition’s abysmal failure was more to do with the incompetence of its leaders and the inclusion of separatists as a governing faction than anything else. The Liberals and NDP still fear another voter rebellion against them, should they attempt anything even remotely similar.

It’s a shame, because despite all the fearmongering coming from O’Toole and other Conservatives, the formation of more coalition agreements would really be a benefit to Canada’s democracy. Not only are they perfectly legitimate, but they can help foster inter-party cooperation and dial back hyper-partisanship. Furthermore, when compared to the one-party rule of majority governments (most of which rarely secure over 50 percent of the popular vote) coalitions have the added advantage of ensuring that a greater percentage of voters are represented around the cabinet table.

The strengthening of democracy isn’t the only reason to consider the formation of more coalition governments.

In the current context, a coalition between the Liberals and the NDP would have helped facilitate and accelerate the implementation of more progressive policies in Ottawa. This would benefit everyday Canadians, yes, but also the political parties responsible for implementing said policies.

After two disappointing election cycles, the Liberals must realize by now that their lack of progressive achievements – the ones that actually bolster the socio-economic well-being of working-class Canadians – are wounding them. Its probably too late now, but the influence of the NDP in a formal coalition might have been exactly what Trudeau needed to cement a more admirable and robust legacy before his inevitable retirement.

As for the NDP, they’d have received more publicity for policy accomplishments, and would gain the credibility and experience of governing in Ottawa; something that they’ve long sought after. They’d just have to be wary of being swept up by the Liberal’s token progressivism – and being punished for it later at the ballot box.

Regardless of these and other potential pitfalls, the NDP, the Liberals and indeed, all of Canada’s political parties should really get over their fear and aversion to the idea of coalition governments. They’re anything but the “radical” notion O’Toole claims they are, and voters will recognize as much when the democratic rewards from them begin to accumulate.

Plus, it would just be nice if for once the Liberals and the NDP actually gave the Conservative leader something truthful to gossip about.

Click here for more Canada

The latest federal Throne Speech opening the 44th Parliament has attracted the usual wave of criticism. Some comments are thoughtful while other complaints should be dismissed out of hand.

Those who point out the lack of emphasis on inflation, labour shortages or concerns about future deficits in the Throne Speech have raised valid points worthy of a constructive debate.

Other complaints about the vagueness of the Trudeau’s government statements are less well-founded, given the history of Throne Speeches in most parliamentary democracies. They have rarely been specific.

Mr. Singh’s constant refrain that the Liberals repeatedly promise programs and do nothing would be more compelling if he did not routinely ignore major achievements such as a national carbon levy or a substantial child care program.

The strangest epithet hurled against the latest Throne Speech that I read was “like his father, Prime Minister Trudeau is determined to establish a legacy – and hang the consequences.” Some consequence – patriation of the constitution and the charter of rights and freedoms.

This criticism aligns with Erin O’Toole blasting Mr Trudeau’s ‘ideological’ approach to policy making. Funny how those words could well apply to the vagaries of Conservative policy-making.

But there remains a distinctly anti-democratic tinge to some of the criticism.

Imagine a government actually wanting to focus and implement the platform on which it just ran in the recently concluded election. Is that not the purpose of an election, to give the public choices to make?

One media commentator, writing in a national newspaper, started his column by implicitly questioning the Liberal government’s mandate to press ahead with reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, combatting climate change, new housing supports and the national child-care program.

He notes “ in the last federal election, the Liberal Party received the support of less than one-third of the voters. No federal political party has formed government with a weaker public mandate”.

The column continues that ‘the Liberals appears determined to push forward with a weak electoral mandate and despite warnings from the central bank that interests rates are about to climb’.

The commentator then suggests that the failure of the Liberals to win the popular vote in five of the last 7 elections speaks in part to ‘declining legitimacy’ of political institutions in the country.’

There are numerous caveats that should be applied to these types of analysis.

The first is recognition that the NDP, the Greens and the Bloc Quebecois campaigned in favour of a host of policies which mirrored a number of these Liberal agenda items. Adding together their collective vote, almost two thirds of Canadians supported focus in these areas.

Depending whether you count the Conservative flip flops on climate change and their support for a tax-based child-care program, it would be reasonable to argue that an even greater number of the electorate support at least some of these policy thrusts.

The second is the reality of a minority government. Unless the Liberals secure the support of at least one other party (other than the Greens) for each piece of specific legislation, the initiatives will fail to pass.

With the emergence of more flexible voters, prepared to switch their votes among parties, politicians have to work harder than ever to adapt to the changing public mood rather than count on entrenched supporters.

What could be more democratic.

Cutbacks to the CERB and other Covid relief programs will be enacted because of announced support from the BQ and perhaps the Conservatives. The NDP has signalled its support for the continuation of a hybrid Parliament, thereby ensuring its passage.

What troubles me the most is the recurring suggestion that minority governments and adapting governance processes to meet Covid somehow delegitimize a government.

For centuries, whoever gets the most seats in a ‘first past the post’ Westminister system has been given the right to try to form the government. Casting aspersions about legitimacy of a duly elected government trying to advance its agenda is a far greater threat to our democratic institutions than innovative efforts of governing.

As to those critics who believe that an opposition and the media can only hold a government to account through ‘in person’ sittings of Parliament, I say welcome to the 21st century. We are working on changes to the way Canadians vote [electronic], interact with parliamentarians and the public service [virtually, electronically rather than pure paper bound and in-person processes]. We continue to explore in some jurisdictions changes to the ‘first past the post’ system to include ranked ballot or proportional representation.

Canadians so inclined can immediately access from start to finish the details of every question and important debate as well as committee sessions on widely available public channels.

As to complaints that hybrid or virtual sessions diminish the value of Question Period, its value will be established only by the quality of the questions and the analysis they are based upon.

Sadly, since the advent of broadcast sessions, all sides including the Opposition play primarily to their own constituencies. That includes the use of visual aids and theatrical pranks

To truly hold government accountable, the challenge keeps coming back to the need for better quality research, investigations and analysis. That includes raising the bar for the Opposition, media, special interest groups including business and union groups , academics and think tanks.

With broadened access to Information legislation, transparency measures such as enhanced lobbyist registries and empowered independent officers of the legislature such as the Parliamentary Budget Office and the Auditor General, the Opposition and media have never been better equipped to hold governments to account. This is particularly true in minority governments where many important committees are chaired by opposition members.

Instead, in the prevalent ‘horse race’ type of analysis, too much reliance is placed on the interpretation of public opinion polls to evaluate government programs.

There remain many challenges to democracy in Canada today. Minority government and governments following through on their current election platforms are not among them.

Click here for more

This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

Canada and the U.S. have long been great friends, allies and trading partners. At the same time, they both think independently and often follow different paths. When it comes to “woke culture,” for instance, only one of these countries has woken up out of its left-wing slumber… and it’s exactly the one you probably guessed it was.

America’s unexpected love affair with progressive politics appears to be a fait accompli.

Virginians elected Republican businessman Glenn Youngkin as its new governor over former Democratic chairman (and governor) Terry McAuliffe. New Jersey Democratic Governor Phil Murphy was nearly toppled by Republican businessman Jack Ciattarelli, while longtime New Jersey Senate President Steve Sweeney was upset by neophyte Republican Edward Durr, a truck driver who ran his campaign on a shoestring budget of $2,300.

It’s great to see the U.S. rediscovering its political sensibilities. Canada remains deep in the heart of wokeness, however.

What on earth is wrong in the Great White North?

Canada has always historically been more left-leaning than the U.S.. This, in turn, means it’s been more open to embracing progressive ideas like wokeness in spite of interludes from right-leaning governments.

Canada’s King of Wokeness (or Court Jester, if you prefer) is undoubtedly Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. If there’s a progressive cause, he’ll find it. If there’s a new left-wing toy to play with, he’ll be the first in line to get it. If there’s an issue that requires heaps of compassion, emotion and fluffy rhetoric, he’s the politician to do it.

Trudeau took a knee for Black Lives Matter with cameras watching his every move. He talks breathlessly about women’s rights and LGBT rights. He demands that Liberal MPs and candidates must be pro-choice on abortion. He’s wasted billions of taxpayer dollars on environmental pet projects like a crippling national carbon tax that even U.S. President Joe Biden wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot pole.

The PM has failed on just about every front. The litany of Trudeaupian foolishness ranges from three instances of blackface, spats with (mostly) female MPs and cabinet ministers, foolish jokes and/or praise of totalitarian countries and Communist leaders, and the preposterous use of lines like “peoplekind,” “the budget will balance itself” and his critics “experience things differently.”

It’s definitely hurt him at the polls. Trudeau has only had the support of roughly one-third of Canadian voters in the past two federal elections. Enough for his government to survive, but a clear sign that faith in his leadership has declined.

Yet, many Canadians, both young and old, seemingly want to be part of Trudeau’s politically woke culture – even if he’s at the helm of this voyage.

Why? Canadians tend to be a remarkably forgiving lot, which is why the thrice-blackface PM is still in power. Millennials and first-time voters see Trudeau as being young, hip and more “with it” when it comes to their beliefs and values. Plus, his personal brand of wokeness is probably viewed as being silly, softer and less threatening than the violent mobs and political radicals that destroyed statues and burned buildings in the U.S. and elsewhere.

This largely explains Trudeau’s recent flag flap.

He ordered Canadian flags at most government buildings to be lowered to half-mast after the horrific discovery of more than 1,300 unmarked graves at the abandoned sites of former Native residential schools. The gesture on its own was commendable. Few would have batted an eye had the flags stayed lowered for a week or two to honour their memories. Instead, he kept the flags at half-mast from late May until early November – and refused to return them to full mast until, as he said in September, “it is clear that Indigenous peoples are happy to raise them again.”

Trudeau clearly did this to curry favour with the Indigenous peoples. Much like other matters, he’s been all talk and no action. Improving relations with the Indigenous community, a high priority when he was first elected in 2015, has been a large-scale failure. He even had the audacity to take a surfing trip to Tofino, B.C. on the first-ever National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, which led to a series of apologies for this national embarrassment. If he believed keeping the flag at half-mast would make up for his past indiscretions, he’s got another thing coming.

Other left-leaning parties enjoy competing with our woke PM, too.

The New Democrats decided its first big issue before the return of Parliament on Nov. 22 would be to focus on scrapping the House of Commons’ “archaic” gender-based dress code. That’s right. NDP leader Jagmeet Singh wants to do away with more than 150 years of parliamentary decorum, including male MPs wearing (oh, the horror!) suits and ties to make transgender, non-binary and two-spirit members feel more included.

In a time when politicians of all stripes should be laser focused on COVID-19 and preventing further economic decline, Singh, like Trudeau, prefers to deal with the frilly and silly.

When it comes to shedding wokeness, it’s abundantly clear that Canada needs to follow America’s lead and wake up – now.

Michael Taube, a long-time newspaper columnist and political commentator, was a speechwriter for former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper.

Click here for more Canada

This content is restricted to subscribers

Click here for more

This content is restricted to subscribers

Click here for more Canada

This content is restricted to subscribers

Click here for more

Poking through the detritus of this week’s federal election results, the general contours of its impacts have emerged although the specific detail is yet to be refined.

The lack of change in total seat counts suggests that both the Liberals and the Conservatives will be held accountable in different ways.

Mr. Trudeau will need to find a way to recover from the personal character scars inflicted effectively by his opponents during the campaign. The party has a proven track record of reinventing itself; the search to attract new star candidates and a clearer post pandemic economic focus starts now.

The smouldering internal Conservative policy debate over the long term rewards of shifting from Harper lite to Liberal lite ones will likely flare up and consume the agenda for the next few months. That conflict may well decide Mr O’Toole’s future.

The next scene of the Green’s internecine warfare will determine not only Annamie Paul’s leadership but the party’s future itself.

While a post-pandemic populist party may be difficult to sustain nationally, the People’s Party may leave a more lasting impact on the shape of provincial politics in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Despite an improved campaign, Mr. Singh still has to manage the expectations of critics for not returning the federal NDP to its halcyon days under Mulcair and Layton. How can the NDP avoid being squeezed again in future elections, given its likely support of the whole Liberal minority agenda beyond a few calculated tweaks? Will this necessitate yet another internal review of whether the NDP best serves as a party or a movement?

Several truisms about political campaigning have also been reinforced that our chattering classes including the media would do well to remember in their future election analysis.

Campaigns do matter, no matter the pre-election polls. Mr. O’Toole’s initial well calibrated campaign shift to the political centre including the early release of an un-costed platform appeared to take the Liberals and media off-guard.

The resurrection of Liberal fortunes from mid-campaign doldrums remind us that even short campaigns are marathons, not sprints; victory is never declared after three weeks.

Both Mr Trudeau and Mr. Singh proved to be formidable campaigners; Mr. O’Toole’s interventions increasingly lacked spontaneity .

Did the Conservatives peak too early? Did their early success focus more media attention on the inconsistencies in their platform and drive the Liberals to unveil their time tested and proven ‘fear ‘strategy to drive progressive voters their way (mid-town Toronto, as well as Vancouver)?

Political apparatchiks are constantly reminded that the final vote shift, especially among undecideds, takes place in the last 5 to 10 days of the campaign. A summer election reinforces this conclusion even more because most citizens are not paying critical attention at the outset of the call.

The quality of local candidates and incumbents’ effective attention to constituency needs between elections counts even more when faced with negative reactions at the door to an unpopular leader. Those are factors harder to quantify in aggregated polling.

While the Liberals lost a couple of so-called swing ridings (e.g. Peterborough Kawartha), they retained others (Oakville) in the competitive constituencies of the 905 for these very reasons.

Another consequential lesson is that ground games do matter, especially when dealing with pandemics and lower voter enthusiasm.

Identifying each party’s vote and getting them to the polls trumps amassing Tik Tok followers, likes or dislikes on Twitter, or general regional or national polling swings.

According to numerous media reports, a number of Conservative candidates could not find sufficient volunteers for their all-important E-day teams.

For the third federal election in a row, we are reminded in a first past the post system that efficiency of votes counts more to win a larger number of seats than racking up large majorities in a number of ridings that falsely skew the aggregated numbers.

Managing surprise events remains an ever present reality. While Afghanistan and the Delta variant dominated the early news, the provincial Tory vaccine passport flip flops refocused the campaign from the phoney war about the need for an election during the pandemic to the more Liberal friendly issue of management of the crisis. Indeed, it can be argued that Mr Kenney cost the Conservative campaign its national momentum at a critical juncture of the election.

Looking forward, Liberal last minute musings about changing the first past the post electoral system [where have we heard this before] and the likelihood of the broad implementation of the Liberals child care scheme with the remaining provinces may prove to be even more existential threats to the Conservative goal to topple the current Liberal regime.

Make no mistake. Beyond the numbers, a lot has changed in Canadian politics.

Click here for more Canada

As we reach voting day, we are going to hear a lot of talk about whether the Liberals will “deserve” a majority parliament, or the oft-told hope that they can be kept in a hung parliament so that the NDP can exert influence and hold their feet to the fire. We’ve also heard some NDP proxies assert that it shouldn’t be too big of a deal if the Conservatives happen to form government in a hung parliament, because then the NDP can hold them to account. This is untrue, and history has shown us time and again that this dynamic never actually plays out.

Something that NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has been wildly proclaiming since the beginning of the pandemic was that many of the benefits that kept Canadians going throughout the various states of lockdown/mockdown were thanks to them and them alone. Singh frequently cites things like the level of wage subsidy as an NDP “victory,” when he had absolutely no influence on the decision at all – Bill Morneau’s office was consulting with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and the Canadian Labour Congress, and they both quickly convinced him that the ten-percent subsidy would be insufficient, and he changed course to 75 percent by the time that weekend was over. The NDP like to take credit for this when they were not inside the tent being listened to. Nevertheless, Singh repeatedly taking credit for it is frequently cited by NDP partisans and it has become part of their mythology.

Likewise, with the extension of certain benefits, Singh likes to say that it was thanks to his negotiation that they were prolonged in exchange for a confidence vote, when there was no way the Liberals would have let those benefits expire while people still needed them. He pushed on an open door, and then declared victory – something that happened time and time again over the course of the last parliament. Meanwhile, the budget implementation bill for the fall fiscal update, which contained a number of new COVID-related supports, took six months to get passed thanks to the five months of procedural warfare that the NDP were gleeful participants in alongside the Conservatives and Bloc, but they don’t like to say that part out loud.

Regardless of recent history, the notion that any incoming government with in a hung parliament will be kept in check is hokum. We saw this during the Stephen Harper years, and in several provinces where there have been minority legislature situations over the past few years. In spite of the tough talk that so-called kingmakers, like the NDP aspire to be in the federal situation, they will almost never flex their muscles because of one simple fact – nobody wants to go to an election right after they’ve had one – and if they did, and there was another viable government that could be formed in the current legislative context, the Governor General or Lieutenant Governor would say no, and let the other viable group test the confidence of the chamber. It’s not only the constitutional architecture that that would prevent them from bringing down a new government right away – it’s also because all parties are generally exhausted and financially depleted after an election, and the NDP are most especially so, usually in many millions of dollars of debt that they need to pay off before they can even contemplate another election.

This is what tends to give new governments, even those in a hung parliament, a freer hand to make moves. This is something that Harper tested very successfully during his two hung parliaments – most especially in 2008, right after the election, when his announced plan to end the per-vote subsidy, which would severely hobble his rival parties, and led to the prorogation crisis. Even though the other parties threatened to bring his government down, and had cobbled together what they claimed to be a viable governing coalition – with a supply and confidence agreement from the Bloc to prop them up – Harper was able to stare them down over the prorogation break, and that would-be coalition crumbled before they could threaten to bring Harper down a second time. In no way was he kept in check by the NDP during those years, nor would they under a hypothetical O’Toole government.

Sure, the NDP in such a hypothetical situation would huff and puff and threaten to blow the government down, but they wouldn’t. It’s also just as likely that in such a scenario, the Bloc would be the party exercising the balance of power and would be willing to prop up a Conservative government because the Conservatives have spent the past two years trying to out-Bloc the Bloc and have promised to fully implement the entire Bloc agenda (minus separatism) as a means of debasing themselves in order to win Quebec premier François Legault’s favour, and lo, they got it – sort of. Legault did say that he would prefer a Conservative government in a minority parliament (as though people can somehow mark that on their ballots), as the Conservatives have promised to roll over to him at every opportunity, and the Bloc would see it in their interests to prop up that kind of government – especially as they can claim that they are setting the agenda and getting results in Ottawa.

It will all come down to the arithmetic of seats once the votes are all cast and the counted, but the NDP’s quest to play kingmaker could come with dire consequences for the very things that they say they are in favour of – universal childcare, national pharmacare, continued action on climate change that will actually meet targets, and completing the work of lifting the boil-water advisories on the remaining First Nations reserves around the country. If they think they could convince a potential prime minster Erin O’Toole to carry on with these programs under the threat that they’ll bring his government down if he doesn’t, they’re sadly mistaken. It’ll be 2006 all over again, with national childcare and the Kelowna Accords, because of the romance with minority parliaments that never pans out in reality.

Tag: Jagmeet Singh

Click here for more

Click here for more Canada

Click here for more

This content is only available to our subscribers!

Already a subscriber?

Click here for more Canada

Click here for more

Click here for more Canada

Click here for more

Click here for more Canada

Click here for more Canada

loonie politics

premium content