Justin Trudeau Archives - Page 16 of 39

This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Already a subscriber?

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.

Click here for more

This content is restricted to subscribers

Click here for more

Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and NDP leader Jagmeet Singh signed a three-year confidence and supply agreement last March. A number of left-leaning policies, including a commitment to national dental care for low-income Canadians, a Canada Pharmacare Act and affordable housing were included in this political arrangement. For Trudeau, the primary reason was to hold on to power and protect himself from facing a vote of non-confidence in Parliament.

Yet, there’s a certain amount of irony that’s recently developed around this agreement. While the NDP is currently protecting the Liberals from losing power, one of its MPs recently presented a motion that could potentially bring them down.

Putting that scenario aside, Daniel Blaikie deserves credit for introducing this motion to the forefront. Several ideas have real merit, and deserve to be discussed and debated with a wider audience.

Blaikie, the son of late NDP MP and former provincial cabinet minister Bill Blaikie, is attempting to adjust the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. As explained on the official parliamentary website, these are the “permanent written rules under which the House of Commons regulates its proceedings. There are currently more than 150 standing orders, which provide a detailed description of the rules governing the legislative process, the role of the Speaker, the parliamentary calendar, the work of committees, and Private Members’ Business, among other things.”

The Manitoba New Democrat, who has represented his father’s old riding of Elmwood—Transcona since 2015, is seeking more clarity with respect to the confidence vote.

In his motion, M-79, it’s noted in point iv) that “the confidence convention has never been clearly codified and this has sometimes led to confusion among members and the general public as to the nature and significance of certain votes.” Hence, according to point v), “governments have sometimes abused the confidence convention to reinforce party discipline or influence the outcome of a vote that is not explicitly a matter of confidence or that would not be considered a matter of confidence by convention.”

Blaikie had a specific target in mind when he spoke with the media this week.

“The prime minister enjoys a lot of power in the Canadian system of government,” he told reporters on Monday, “but perhaps one of the most important powers that the prime minister has is the ability to dissolve or prorogue Parliament at will.”

In Blaikie’s view, “What that means is the prime minister can call an election at any time that he wants. And, at any point if he’s not happy with what’s going on in Parliament, he can he can tear up all that work, stop Parliament with a prorogation…This is something that I don’t think makes a lot of sense…because Parliament is the body that’s supposed to hold the government to account.” His motion would establish “meaningful democratic controls” around the confidence convention and remove the PM’s “unfettered” powers.

The Liberals and Conservatives likely won’t support M-79. While the two parties may privately agree with some measures, they didn’t originate with them. Plus, it would eliminate a political tool they’ve both used in previous parliamentary sessions.

Blaikie couldn’t resist temptation and injected some partisan rhetoric to this forthcoming political blockade. With respect to Pierre Poilievre, he said the Conservative leader has “a clear opportunity to go after the gatekeeping powers of the prime minister, and where is he? Nowhere. Nowhere to be seen.” That little left-wing curveball will surely eliminate any existing support within the Conservative camp.

Politics, thy name is irony.

Nevertheless, Blaikie’s motion does make a great deal of sense overall. The confidence convention has always been loosely defined and interpreted in our political process. This has raised serious questions over the years with respect to what should or shouldn’t be regarded as a matter of confidence. With an ever-changing Canadian political landscape and a significant increase in minority governments in recent federal elections, the tactic of dissolving or proroguing Parliament in times of political difficulty is hard to ignore.

Prime Ministers such as Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien, Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau have prorogued the House of Commons for different reasons. Some wanted to take short breaks from the heated political atmosphere and regroup, while others did it to protect their political hides. When prorogation used to occur, the parliamentary session ended and all existing legislation before Parliament was killed. The rules have since been adjusted, meaning most bills can now be revived from the previous session. That’s certainly more logical and even-handed.

Nevertheless, the confusion over a confidence vote still remains – and the PM maintains this crucial and questionable power.

If a New Democrat is the one who wants to establish clarity around the confidence convention, so be it. Maybe it’ll lead Singh, his party leader, to rethink his current stance about propping up the Trudeau Liberals until 2025. Doesn’t seem very likely, I readily admit, but stranger things have obviously happened.

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

Click here for more

Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently proposed an interesting political strategy for current Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre. His advice was to not only hold Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberals to account, but let them lead the country and its policy discussions.

In other words, do the opposite of what modern politics has largely become.

“Our country is badly in need of a Conservative renaissance at the national level,” Harper pointed out at the Canada Strong and Free Network conference in Ottawa on Mar. 22. His main priority was to identify the best route for Conservative leaders like Poilievre to achieve this important goal. At the same time, they need to ensure that Liberals and other progressives don’t push the political narrative in a direction that will ultimately hurt the Conservative party and movement.

“I worry that that’s what the liberal media here wants Pierre Poilievre to do – make himself the issue,” he said during his fireside chat with former Reform Party leader Preston Manning. “The time to tell people about your alternatives in detail is in an election campaign,” he continued. “I can tell you from experience that once you get into office, you better have some idea of what you are going to do because it ain’t going to fall into your lap.”

Harper, according to the Globe and Mail’s Ian Bailey, also reportedly said to the audience at the annual conference that he tells Conservative opposition leaders they “should not be saying how they would run the country, but rather be making the government wear its mismanagement, corruption and incompetence.”

In the former PM’s words, “That’s the job.”

Some believe Harper’s advice for Poilievre flies in the face of what he accomplished in the shift from Leader of the Opposition between 2002-2005 to Prime Minister in 2006.

Here’s an example. Toronto Star columnist Susan Delacourt wrote on April 1 that Harper “seems to have developed a case of amnesia about how the Conservatives rode to power in 2006 on the strength of five big priorities, which they hammered home with incredible message discipline and clever marketing in the 2005-06 election campaign.” Moreover, he “has also forgotten…that he came into office as one of the most media-friendly politicians of his era. He was a regular on TV political panels. He frequently held long, answer-filled scrums as Opposition leader. He spoke often to journalists like me, on and off the record. It was only after he became prime minister that he became overtly hostile to the media – an approach that Poilievre has clearly adopted in opposition.”

Poilievre may want to take this advice “with a grain of salt,” in Delacourt’s view. “Elder statesmen of parties aren’t always the best strategists.”

That’s true in some instances, but not all. Harper, unlike most elder party statesmen, has always maintained a razor-sharp focus when it comes to policy, ideology, strategy and communications. You may not like what my old friend and boss proposes, but you would be unwise to ignore or disregard him – or simply take it with a grain of salt.

What’s my view?

I believe Harper is right as a rule of thumb for Conservative leaders and parties in opposition. If there’s a centrist or left-leaning government in power, the goal is to hold them to account with respect to policies, statements, speeches, ideas and the day-to-day operation of politics. Meanwhile, the same centrist or left-leaning government must always lead policy discussion and political debate, not the Conservative opposition.

The reverse is also true for centrist and left-leaning parties if a Conservative government is in power. That’s the way politics works, by and large.

I have no issue with Poilievre introducing small doses of policy from time to time. It’s all in the way you do it. The videos that he’s put out as an MP, cabinet minister, opposition critic and party leader have been crafted in this particular fashion. Look at them more closely. While there have been some light policy details, it’s mostly been a mix of history, language, imagery, buzz words, and how the Conservatives would do things differently from the Liberals.

Poilievre may be expressing his basic political vision a little more than Harper would have been comfortable with. The meat of the matter will seemingly remain under wraps until the next federal election. There’s also no doubt the liberal media would prefer that Poilievre led the way on policy to deflect attention from Trudeau, their preferred candidate and choice for PM. He won’t do this, of course – and the press corps won’t be able to change his mind.

It goes without saying that Poilievre has been a different type of Conservative leader than Harper. This isn’t surprising; all successful political leaders need to establish a unique political identity, footprint and leadership style to earn and maintain caucus support. At the same time, their basic models of leadership, policy development, strategic communications and means of achieving electoral success are quite similar.

When you put it all together, Poilievre has basically been doing what Harper suggested he should do. So far, so good.

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