LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

Former finance minister Chrystia Freeland’s departure from Cabinet by way of a grenade dropped in Trudeau’s lap was in every sense a final straw. After having lost the battle against the incredibly stupid plan for the GST “holiday,” and unwilling to keep shilling for the planned $250 “rebates” in the face of a potential major economic blow by the proposed Trump tariffs, Freeland was told on Friday that she would be shuffled out of the finance portfolio. While that’s not unusual in and of itself—ministers serve at the pleasure of the prime minister—she was apparently offered a ceremonial minister-without-portfolio role of Canada/US relations, with no department and no levers of power to come with it, meaning it was a full-on demotion in spite of years of hard work being the go-to minister to fix problems, and being incredibly loyal in the face of a lot of really stupid things that this government has done. But he still expected her to read the Fiscal Update regardless. Freeland was well within her rights to pull the pin on that grenade, and time it for maximum disruption, and she succeeded at that.

Her resignation letter was not only scathing, but it effectively undercut Trudeau’s plan to save his own skin instead of meeting the moment with the incoming Trump administration. Aside from pointing out that she clearly didn’t credibly enjoy his confidence or possess the authority that comes with it, she plunged in the knife:

That means keeping our fiscal powder dry today, so we have the reserves we may need for a coming tariff war. That means eschewing costly political gimmicks, which we can ill afford and which make Canadians doubt that we recognize the gravity of the moment.

[…]

Inevitably, our time in government will come to an end. But how we deal with the threat our country currently faces will define us for a generation, and perhaps longer. Canada will win if we are strong, smart, and united.

She’s right that the costly gimmicks of the GST “holiday” and the rebate cheques were something that Canadians could see through as the desperation moves that they were, particularly as MPs and ministers publicly humiliated themselves to sell them to Canadians. And the fact that she very explicitly let it be known that this was a PMO-driven idea that she resisted puts that desperation move squarely on Trudeau and his staff, which makes it harder for him to launder the blame for as it fails to land with Canadians. And with no dance partner willing to agree to the cheques as originally proposed, and resistance to expanding them in a way that would make the costly gimmick even costlier, Trudeau may have to swallow that promise as well.

It also lays bare just how exhausted the current government is that they have resorted to vote-buying rather than doing the hard work of delivering for Canadians, like they pat themselves on the back for doing when in fact, much of that is just a communications exercise. A lot of their program implementation remains unfinished, and they are claiming victory on things that have not happened yet—like pharmacare, where not a single province has fully signed onto the nascent plan, so it’s hard to insist that they are delivering this for Canadians who need it. And government-by-communications-exercise is not working, and can’t keep going forward as though Canadians aren’t bitterly disappointed that the very things they have been promised aren’t being delivered. I’m not going to ignore that the provinces aren’t a factor in this, but part of communication also means being frank about which partner isn’t living up to their end of the deal.

It’s hard to see how the caucus can continue to support Trudeau if he would treat his most loyal lieutenant—his deputy leader who got him out of so much hot water over the past nine years—like this. Putting her in an untenable situation and setting her up for humiliation was not on, and why any other MP in the caucus would want to serve in a Cabinet where this was going to be an option put to them at some point makes it hard to see how he could possibly continue to dangle Cabinet posts to ensure loyalty when it is clear that said loyalty isn’t going to be returned. It’s also clear that most of the caucus fully knows at this point that, no matter how fierce a campaigner Trudeau is, he is now the biggest liability the party has. The writing has been on the wall for a while now, and his caucus has been trying to warn him, but Trudeau has steadfastly ignored them, but it’s going to be pretty much impossible to do so any longer.

Following the emergency caucus meeting on Monday night, Trudeau indicated that he’s going to take the holidays to think about his future and whether he will step down as an increasing number of his MPs are calling for, but he can’t wait too long. There is already precious little runway left, so “after the holidays” had best mean the first week of January to make a decision rather than waiting for the House of Commons to return at the end of the month, because that will already be too late. As I laid out a possible pathway for this to happen in a previous column, the best would likely be for him to stay on in some kind of “caretaker” capacity, to ensure continuity as an accelerated leadership process happens rather than appoint some kind of dubious “interim” prime minister (which is not a real thing—His Majesty cannot be without someone who commands the confidence of the Chamber to give him advice, and even if that person is an “interim” party leader, prime minister is prime minister), and to ride through the early days of the incoming Trump presidency. A prorogation would also likely be necessary, which would have the added benefit of finally ending the interminable privilege filibusters, so when Parliament resumes, likely under the new leader, they would have a path to pass a few more bills with the few sitting weeks remaining.

If this does happen, we can expect to see a lot of Pierre Poilievre screaming that it’s “not fair” or “not democratic” if Trudeau leaves without an electoral defeat, but he’s wrong there. This is how a Westminster system operates, and a prime minister’s name is not on the ballot (except in the riding he or she runs in) because that’s how our system works. Nevertheless, Trudeau can’t credibly remain in office any longer, and if he wants to give his party a fighting chance to save the furniture, let alone avoid handing a victory to Poilievre without a fight, he needs to leave as soon as possible.

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.


One of the cleverest moments in Canadian politics will commence on Thursday.

It’s a publicity stunt, plain and simple. The concept is heavily politicized from top to bottom. There’s no chance that it will succeed in Parliament.

At the same time, it’s so brilliantly conceived, designed and laid out that it should be analyzed for posterity’s sake.

What is it? NDP leader Jagmeet Singh will vote against a Conservative non-confidence motion that’s largely inspired by – wait for it – his own words.

This relates to the Common Sense Conservative Motion, which is as follows:

Whereas the Leader of the New Democratic Party said he “ripped up” his supply and confidence agreement with the Liberal government, 

Whereas the NDP Leader said, “the Liberals are too weak, too selfish and too beholden to corporate interests to fight for people”,

Whereas the NDP leader said, “the Liberal government will always cave to corporate greed, and always step in to make sure the unions have no power”, in response to the Liberal Labour Minister’s referrals to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board that ordered the workers of Teamsters Canada Rail Conference and the ILWU 514 to resume their duties, violating their right to strike;

Therefore, the House agrees with the NDP leader, and the House proclaims it has lost confidence in the Prime Minister and the government.

Singh’s NDP signed the supply and confidence agreement with Trudeau’s Liberals on March 22, 2022. It wasn’t an official coalition, and no NDP MP ever sat in a Liberal cabinet. Rather, the NDP agreed to “support the government on confidence and budgetary matters” while the Liberals agreed “to govern for the duration of the agreement.”

The two parties identified several “key policy areas where there is a desire for a similar medium-term outcome.” The introduction of a dental care plan for low-income Canadians, for instance. Passing the Canada Pharmacare Act by late 2023. Initiating large-scale emissions reductions by 2030. Ensuring ten days of paid sick leave was in place. A fairer tax system. Removing barriers to voting and participation – and more.

Dental care and pharmacare were both part of the NDP playbook. The overall costs of implementing these two programs would have been through the proverbial roof. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated in an Oct. 7, 2020 report that the NDP plan for a federal dental care program alone would have cost $1.4 billion during the 2020-21 fiscal year. Expenses would have escalated to $4.6 billion in 2021-22 as more Canadians shifted into the program, and then averaged $1.7 billion between 2022-23 and 2024-25.

Hence, these NDP proposals (among others) were rejected by most Canadian voters for being too costly, too bureaucratic and too inefficient. That’s not terribly surprising if we use history as a guide. Magic beans and free money growing on trees may appeal to a limited number of socialist thinkers and left-wing radicals, but most mainstream people know better than to support this nonsense.

Singh and the NDP failed to get most of what they wanted out of the supply and confidence agreement. And what they did get was far from what they truly desired.

The $13 billion Canadian Dental Care Program for low-income Canadians was launched on May 1, but has largely been a failure. Less than half of all oral health care providers had signed up by July, and the needle hasn’t moved much since. Two-thirds of Canadians who are supposed to be covered by this plan still weren’t eligible as of Oct. 31. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said her province will opt out of the plan in 2026, and I wouldn’t be surprised if more premiers follow her lead. How the Liberals are going to get this dental plan in working order by January 2025, as they’ve suggested, is a mystery.

As for the Liberal-NDP pharmacare program, which was supposed to be in place by late 2023, it finally received royal assent on Oct. 10, 2024. The Liberals are hoping to have all the provinces on board in the spring of 2025. Don’t count on it, however.

Long story short, the NDP propped up a massively unpopular Liberal government for two and a half years, achieved little to nothing, and hurt their own electoral fortunes in the process. This helps explain why they abandoned the supply and confidence agreement in a huff on Sept. 4.

Singh can try to run away from his own words, but he won’t succeed. He said all of these things in a campaign-style video. You can watch it in its entirety here.

The NDP leader has already announced that he won’t support the forthcoming Conservative non-confidence motion. “I’m not going to be playing Pierre Poilievre’s games. I have no interest in that,” he told reporters in part on Dec. 3.

Yes, it’s a game. Of chess. And the Conservatives just got him at checkmate.

Singh will be forced to reject a Conservative non-confidence motion containing his own words in the House of Commons. There’s a way out of this, of course, but he’s already indicated he won’t follow that path. Hence, it’s going to make him look very foolish and will lead to several embarrassing campaign ads that he can’t ever escape.

Like I said, it’s all rather brilliant. Kudos to Poilievre and the Conservatives.

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.


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.