This content is restricted to subscribers
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.
Tag: Justin Trudeau
This content is restricted to subscribers
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.
This content is restricted to subscribers
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.
This content is restricted to subscribers
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.
This content is restricted to subscribers
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.
This content is restricted to subscribers
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.
This content is restricted to subscribers
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.
NDP leader emerged from the NDP caucus retreat in Montreal, trying to continue the “tough guy” routine that he declared “all bets are off” when the House of Commons comes back next week, and that he’s going to come in with legislation for price caps, not that it will matter because he’s already used his private members’ slot. Amidst his tough talk was a refusal to commit to continuing to support the carbon levy, claiming that he has his own plan on the way (or the “concepts of a plan” as every smartass on social media posted all day). Mere hours later, BC premier David Eby also said that he would scrap the province’s carbon price if the federal backstop were removed, because he too is apparently running scared of the BC Conservatives. While the NDP as a whole have pretty much abandoned any sense of ideological coherence in favour of more populist nonsense, Singh personally has lost any shred of credibility that he may once have held.
Singh’s intellectual bankruptcy has been on full display with the desire to renege on his agreement with the Liberals, acting in bad faith by refusing to uphold his end of a bargain that the Liberals lived up to. And yet he has tried to pivot to a message of looking to “restore hope” to Canadians when he has demonstrated that he won’t live up to his promises, and that he is fully living in a delusion that he somehow has a chance to form government during the next election, whenever that is (and while he’s full of big talk and spent the early part of the week announcing his campaign chair, the party is absolutely not ready for an election, nor do they actually want one before the “fixed” date). In no possible world is he “running to be prime minister” (which is in and of itself taking a cue from Pierre Poilievre), and pretending that he’s a contender while he tries to avoid a Nick Clegg-like decimation makes him look even more ridiculous than he already does.
What kind of “hope” does he think he’s offering if he’s “ripped up the agreement” (as he said tens of times) if he couldn’t even wait long enough for the pharmacare legislation to actually pass the Senate, and for an agreement with any of the provinces to actually be negotiated? Talk is cheap, as are promises, and implementation is always the sticking point, and the NDP have demonstrated time and again that they are willing to walk away from a deal before implementation has actually happened. (This happened with Jack Layton’s much-vaunted deal with Paul Martin). If his only policy wins are dental care and anti-scab legislation, then he should probably hold off on the applause because he and his point man on the file, Don Davies, insisted on a fully-federal program that is essentially just the federal government paying Sun Life to administer the program, which makes it extremely vulnerable to a future government simply scrapping the program. That sound so very hopeful, doesn’t it?
And then there’s the carbon levy. Singh has been somewhat non-committal about it for years now, but has consistently voted against Conservative motions to scrap it because they were supporting the Liberals against this kind of mischief. Nevertheless, it is indicative of more of his particular magical thinking because he thinks that there can be some form of climate action that won’t impact ordinary consumers or households. While the NDP had previously championed some form of cap-and-trade, Singh insists that he will have a new plan at some future date, which doesn’t exactly have the ring of credibility. If there’s any irony in this, the federal system was almost entirely patterned on the system developed for the NDP in Alberta during Rachel Notley’s government, albeit with a more generous rebate system (as the Alberta system recycled the revenues in slightly different ways). But no matter what system is proposed, there will still be an impact on consumers and households, no matter how much they dress it up as sticking it to big corporations, because costs are always passed along. The benefits of the existing levy are that it’s transparent, and that the rebates have an element of progressivity because eight out of ten households are getting more back than they spend, and it benefits the lowest income earners the most.
Let’s be clear—the Liberals opened the doors to the dooming the carbon levy when they granted the heating oil exemption for the sake of political expediency rather than simply offering a more enriched rebate to deal with the energy poverty of regions that rely on it as they worked to phase its use out. The fact that they did a shite job in explaining the carbon levy didn’t help either (and no, the media was never going to help explain it even though the Liberals keep deluding themselves into believing that will happen), and calling the rebate the “climate action incentive” was pretty much them shooting themselves in the foot. But again, anything the NDP does eventually propose will be more costly and less effective, and will delay climate action even longer when we’re already feeling the effects disproportionately, whether it’s with melting permafrost, forest fires, droughts on the prairies, or more extreme weather. Instead, they are taking the dishonest, populist route, and deserve to be called out for it.
As if this wasn’t bad enough, and it should be disqualifying, Singh’s plans for price caps on certain grocery items are pure fantasy. Consumer protection is a provincial power, and Canada isn’t France, and there is no Green Lantern ring that will let him bypass federalism if he just applies enough willpower. The lack of willingness to do what needs to be done on climate change and his complete and utter delusion elsewhere has certainly reinforced the notion that there are few, if any, good options in the next election, which just hurts everyone and damages democracy.
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.
At first glance, Jagmeet Singh’s decision to pull out of the Supply and Confidence agreement with the Liberals is a hard blow for Justin Trudeau. His government finds itself in a position of instability while the Liberal Party is at its lowest in the polls.
The ending of the Liberal-NDP alliance has been part of the conversation ever since the deal was signed in March 2022. This was also emphasized within the NDP ranks: “Leaving the agreement has always been and will always be on the table for Jagmeet Singh,” stated NDP Deputy Leader Alexandre Boulerice a few days ago.
In the fall of 2022, Jagmeet Singh was already threatening to break the agreement if the government did not find solutions to the children’s health care crisis. At last fall’s convention in Hamilton, NDP delegates voted unanimously for a resolution stating that the NDP would withdraw from the agreement if the Liberals did not deliver on pharmacare. Since the signing of the agreement, the Liberals have missed several deadlines that could have allowed the NDP to withdraw its support. Each time, the NDP preferred to buy time, sometimes even by raising the stakes.
So why now?
The measures provided for in the agreement were adopted and implemented, perhaps more slowly than the NDP would have liked. Still it is difficult for the NDP to claim that the Liberal Party stopped delivering on the agreement during the summer months.
Several NDP MPs were unhappy with the Trudeau government’s recent decision to impose binding arbitration to end the rail dispute. The party’s labour critic, Matthew Green, said there would be “difficult discussions” at the caucus retreat. By taking the lead, Jagmeet Singh avoided this umpteenth discussion on the future of the agreement.
A few days prior, Pierre Poilievre challenged Jagmeet Singh on the issue. “Canadians cannot afford another year of Justin Trudeau.” He invited Jagmeet Singh to fire Prime Minister Trudeau, accusing the NDP leader of being a sellout.
It’s hard to believe that Pierre Poilievre convinced the NDP by using such inflammatory rhetoric. In truth, the Conservative Party wanted to remind voters of the close association between the Liberals and the NDP. Orange-blue swing voters, the ABL type, Anybody but Liberals, are particularly numerous in the western provinces.
And many of them will get to vote on September 16, in a by-election in the riding of Elmwood-Transcona in Manitoba, an NDP stronghold targeted by the CPC. The Conservatives have finished second to the NDP ten times in the last 11 elections in this riding. They even won it once in 2011. They would love to take it again.
By distancing themselves from Justin Trudeau, the NDP could have a better chance of keeping the seat. As a bonus, distancing themselves from the Liberals in Lasalle-Émard-Verdun, could help to rally anti-Liberal voters behind their candidate Craig Sauvé, a popular municipal councillor.
Jagmeet Singh hopes that the NDP will take advantage of Justin Trudeau’s unpopularity to establish itself as the alternative to the Conservatives by attracting disappointed Liberal voters who are afraid of Pierre Poilievre. The framing was evident in his press conference in the aftermath of the breakup. Because the Liberals are “weak”, the “election is going to be about an important choice, between the cuts of Pierre Poilievre, and New Democrats who want to build a better future for you.”
In an ideal world, the drop in support for Justin Trudeau’s government in recent years should have benefited the NDP as much as the Conservative Party. However, polls show that at best, the NDP has been capped at under 20% since the signing of the agreement, while the Conservatives are up and the Liberals down.
Without momentum, the NDP was at risk of being swept away by the blue wave that is currently threatening the Liberal Party. A Léger poll, published on August 26, foreshadowed this phenomenon, with the firm showing the NDP down five points (from 20% to 15%) in one month (other, more recent polls are less clear on this point). It may not be directly linked, but clearly, the party no longer wants to pay the political price of supporting Justin Trudeau. Yet, NDP strategists realize that the conditions are not right to bring down the government.
In terms of public policies, the fall of the Trudeau government could jeopardize several of the initiatives brought forward by the NDP, such as dental care, pharmacare and the extension of the Rapid Affordable Housing Initiative. Indeed current polls show that there is a real risk of seeing a Conservative government hostile to these measures take power.
While the NDP emphasizes that the end of the agreement does not automatically send voters to the polls, the fact remains that the door is wide open.
By giving up his exclusivity on the balance of power, Jagmeet Singh is also giving Yves-François Blanchet and the Bloc Québécois the opportunity to take advantage of it. With several files causing tensions between Quebec and Ottawa, the Bloc could use it to extract concessions from the federal government and “make gains for Quebec” in this last year before the election, scheduled for October 2025. A comfortable chair for Yves-François Blanchet, who could prove the Bloc’s usefulness close to the election deadline and yet not worry about going to the polls now.
At any rate, the Liberal government will have to survive on a case-by-case basis. Confidence issues will arise quickly. The Liberals now know that they can no longer trust the NDP. If the Bloc Québécois refuses to dance with the government, the NDP will quickly be confronted with the consequences of its decision: either support the Trudeau government while getting little or nothing in return, or rush the country into an election while Pierre Poilievre has the wind in his sails.
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.
This content is restricted to subscribers
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.
