Pierre Poilievre Archives - Page 7 of 15

The continued decline of our Parliament from a once serious and proud institution to a deeply unserious clown show accelerated at an alarming rate over the fall sitting, particularly in the House of Commons, thought the Senate has not been immune. As the world becomes an increasingly dangerous place, with the climate emergency now in full swing, the international rules-based order under assault by Russia and its allies, liberal democracy in the West under siege from far-right actors and the likes of Viktor Orbán as he tries to position himself as a leader in post-liberal politics, Canada is on a precipice. This should be a moment where our political class wakes up and realizes that we have a lot of challenges staring us in the face, and we should be serious adults in trying to address them. That is not what is happening, and the incentives are no longer there politically for this to happen.

Things began in late summer with a Cabinet shuffle and a Liberal caucus retreat that was about the party expressing their frustration in a leader who is getting long in the tooth, and whose staff have been creating problems for the caucus as a whole. It wound up with Trudeau surviving the day, and his caucus more or less coming together, but promised action on the housing crisis, which the federal government had finally woken up to, was still some weeks away. Meanwhile, trying to remind the government about their previous “deliverology” philosophy seemed to fall on deaf ears as they convinced themselves their plunging poll numbers was simply a matter of not communicating enough, rather than of not showing results.

Things seemed to pick up in late September when Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy arrived in Ottawa, and gave a speech to a joint session of Parliament, but the high of that event was quickly shattered in the days that followed when it became clear that the Speaker, Anthony Rota, had introduced a constituent in the gallery who had fought for a Nazi unit in the Second World War, and called him a “Canadian hero.” Rota epitomized the unseriousness that has beset our Parliament, more concerned with showing off and being everyone’s friend than he was in doing the serious work of being Speaker, and even after he spent a weekend being berated for his judgment in making that introduction in the Chamber, he still tried to hang onto his job before the House Leaders had to gang up on him and make it clear that it was untenable.

Once Rota resigned, and the process to elect his replacement got underway, MPs once again decided not to be serious about the task at hand. Rather than choose the woman who had been doing the job of assistant Deputy Speaker for years in competent fashion, and who had taken on non-partisan roles in the years leading up to this, they instead chose the much, much more partisan Greg Fergus, who while affable, had absolutely no experience in the role of being Speaker, and the Conservatives immediately tried to undermine him publicly. Fergus didn’t help himself as he started peacocking, and within weeks, found himself the subject of a privilege motion, and later a committee report recommending a fine and another apology, because he didn’t have enough foresight and judgment not to record a video for a provincial party friend while in his robes and in his official office. It remains to be seen if he can maintain his role with two opposition parties looking to remove him from the job.

The government, trying to recapture its economic credentials with the communications exercise of “Team Economy” press conferences every Tuesday morning, and some actually sound housing policies finally rolling out, stepped on yet another rake in announcing a “pause” on the carbon price for home heating oil nationally, but because Trudeau made the announcement with all of his Atlantic Canadian MPs behind him, it looked like he was trying to disproportionately benefit one region in order to salvage his polling numbers there. It also undermined the integrity of the carbon pricing regime, and set off a frenzy of demands for more carve-outs, for all home heating (never mind the price differential for heating oil versus other forms), and for on-farm fuels that aren’t already exempt, and this in turn led to some of the worst abuses of parliament in recent memory.

In the leadup to several votes making these demands, the Conservatives turned Question Period into a nihilistic exercise in clip-gathering, repeating the same scripts over and over again but changing the MP they are trying to single out for shitpost videos that would be triggers for their flying monkeys to harass and intimidate those MPs. This also got used against Senators who moved a routine procedural motion so that more senators could join the debate on a bill the Conservatives decided was a pressing wedge on the carbon price they could weaponized, and when a couple of Conservative senators also joined in with the intimidation tactics, one of them in person rather than simply online, things have become incredibly heated in that Chamber as well.

To cap off just how unserious this has all become, Pierre Poilievre spent the last couple of weeks shilling for a disinformation “documentary” on the housing crisis he produced, while engaging in some of the dumbest procedural tactics to try and force the government’s hand on carbon price carve-outs, with a vote marathon on the Estimates (which had nothing to do with the carbon price, and only served to punish the staff of the House of Commons who had to put in overtime to make this happen), and make empty threats to extend the sitting into the holidays, even though there is a fixed calendar and he couldn’t do that, plus it would actually benefit the government because they’d have additional time to push through their legislation. And in forcing the marathon, Poilievre seemed to actually unite the Liberal caucus, which had been grousing pretty hard over Trudeau in the weeks leading up to it.

The absolute decay in what is happening in Parliament was on full display, in large part because nobody is actually worrying about public policy any longer—nearly everything is now just about their comms strategies, and pushing it out over social media. Everything is just performance—substance has almost entirely left the building, and every party shares the blame in this. Canadians cannot afford for our political leaders to be taking their eye off the ball at such a critical juncture in history, and yet all we have to show for this are stupid games that are eroding our institutions. It’s time for all parliamentarians to grow up, before it’s too late.

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 Canada

The Conservatives have now had several votes regarding Ukraine, both around the trade agreement implementation legislation and the appropriations around extending funding for Operation Unifier, which sees Canadian troops training Ukrainians, and in each case, the Conservatives have voted against Ukraine’s interests. Days later, they began protesting that they were the real supporters of Ukraine and not the Liberals, but their proof of doing so dated to the Harper-era, and their accusations that the Liberals don’t are either non sequiturs or false conflations. It raises all kinds of questions as to just whom Poilievre is trying to send signals by these moves, and what the endgame is.

After the Operation Unifier votes, I’m not sure that we can satisfy ourselves with the explanation that Poilievre is trying to cast himself as a fighter against carbon pricing, and that he’s willing to go to cartoonish lengths to do so. That excuse never made any sense considering that Ukraine has had a price on carbon since 2011, that they will maintain it as part of their entry process into the European Union, and that the mention in the enhanced trade agreement has to do with possible border adjustments (because we will soon be entering into an era of carbon border adjustments as more countries and trading blocs adopt carbon pricing). While he has insisted that he didn’t vote against the operation, he was voting non-confidence in the government, that excuse is hard to swallow when you consider that they insisted on line-by-line votes for the Estimates, and that voting yes on this one line-item would have sent a stronger signal of multi-partisan support for the mission than the performative foot-stamping that were these 130 consecutive non-confidence votes tied to the spending allocations.

The games haven’t stopped there either. After the circus act at committee where they moved out-of-order amendments related to removing the carbon price or trying to add in wholly unnecessary language about arms sales (remember, this treaty has already been negotiated, signed and ratified—this bill is only about amending whatever domestic legislation needs to be adjusted to comply with the agreement), they proposed to force a vote in the House of Commons before heading home for the holidays, presumably to try and get it off the radar rather than let it hang over them over the holidays, and extend the beating they’re taking for a portion of their base. Government House Leader Karina Gould wasn’t going to give them that reprieve, and instead told the Commons on Thursday that she would delay scheduling the vote until the New Year so that the Conservatives can hear from their constituents and reflect on the vote, and then come back and vote in favour of the bill so that it can be unanimous and send that signal of support to Ukraine.

But sending signals are very much at the heart of what these votes are about, and the question becomes who the intended audience is for which message—because clearly, Poilievre is trying to have it both ways, believing himself to be clever enough to get away with both boasting that he and his party are supporters of Ukraine, while also being very visible in being seen to vote against this bill and the Unifier funding. The government has seized on the notion that this is the influence of MAGA Republicans, and one cannot deny that this is a base that Poilievre has been working hard to suck up to since before his leadership race began, when he was busy posing with so-called “Freedom Convoy” occupiers outside of Parliament Hill, and doing his best to sanitize their image over social media.

This is a voting bloc that he has calculated that can get him over the top in the next election without having to appeal to the political centre, because Conservatives have taken the wrong lessons from the previous two elections and the previous two leaders, who pretended to run on centre-right platforms even though everybody could see how transparently false this really was. And given how credulous this voter base really is, who huff every conspiracy theory they can find on the internet, particularly those about how Russia was trying to destroy “biolabs” in Ukraine, or how president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is a money-launderer or is secretly buying yachts and Florida resorts, Poilievre knows they will buy his lies about this being about the carbon price in the treaty or their trying to add in language about arms sales. At the same time, Poilievre also has a record of being oblivious to the fact that he has been a useful idiot for far-right extremists in this country.

This is why the chair of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress is so concerned about the Conservatives’ recent votes, and has been imploring that they change their minds. She is concerned that these votes are the “thin edge of the wedge,” akin to what we are seeing happening in Washington, where America First and isolationism are taking hold in the Republicans, and Poilievre is exhibiting some of these signs, dismissing the Liberals calling him out over the Ukraine votes as “fear and falsehoods over far away foreign lands.” This language was pounced upon by the Liberals, pointing to its use by both Donald Trump and Neville Chamberlain, but again, this was a signal to a particular base. So is the fact that Poilievre won’t talk about Ukraine over Twitter, but will let Michael Chong and James Bezan do it on his behalf. That doesn’t happen by accident.

But what if the signal isn’t just to the Convoy/MAGA crowd? This is the part that increasingly concerns me—that Poilievre and the Conservatives are increasingly playing to the acolytes of Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán, as he positions himself for what he sees as a coming “post-liberal” world, where “illiberal democracy” works to undermine institutions and opposition—because we have seen Poilievre engaging in those same impulses. Orbánism is also spreading to the MAGA crowd in the US, and it’s trying to find a purchase in Canada, including in Poilievre’s party as the Danube Institute, which is funded by Orbán’s government, treated several of his MPs to a lavish trip to London. If Poilievre sees being coy about Ukraine as a signal to this crowd, we may be in a lot more trouble than we realize.

Click here for more Canada

Lacking in both remorse and repentance, Liberal House Leader Karina Gould recently admitted to reporters that her government would not meet its 2023 deadline to enact pharmacare legislation.

“I don’t think we’re going to get it passed by the end of this year,” Gould told the press, “but we’ll definitely keep working” she added, almost cheerfully.

With the House of Commons holiday break fast approaching, her message shouldn’t have come as much of a surprise. By the time Gould finally acknowledged her government’s tardiness, there were only twelve sitting days left in the calendar year. As fellow Loonie Politics columnist Dale Smith has written, even 20 sitting days would likely have been insufficient to pass legislation. Twelve would have been unthinkable.

The NDP should have been the most frustrated by this development. After all, pharmacare is their signature policy demand.

Instead of ramping up the pressure, though, and lambasting the government for its poor punctuality, they meekly allowed the Liberals to continue procrastinating.

Perhaps they thought they could not leverage any more policy wins this year (after the Liberals tabled its anti-scab bill). Or perhaps the holiday season has made them overly charitable. Either way, they need to be much tougher on their supply-and-confidence partners.

Because believe me, the Liberals knew how long it would take to pass pharmacare legislation. They also knew all the necessary steps it would take to draft, introduce, and debate that legislation, before seeking its passage through both the House of Commons and the Senate.

But they dawdled and delayed, lingered and loitered, showing a complete disregard for the assurances they once made.

Now, as 2023 comes to an end, they have next to nothing to show for themselves. No Canada Pharmacare Act. No list of essential medicines from the National Drug Agency. No bulk purchasing plan. Nothing.

The answer why, is quite simple. It’s not a result of finite funds, or a struggling economy, as Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland has suggested.

Rather, it is because the wealthy pharmaceutical and insurance industries are hell-bent on maintaining Canada’s inadequate patchwork of drug coverage plans. And they have unleashed the full power of their lobbying efforts to keep it that way.

These industry types don’t care that approximately 7.5 million (one in five) Canadians either have no prescription drug insurance or lack adequate insurance, under the current status quo. Or that almost one million Canadians had to forgo heating their homes and spending money on food to fill their prescription. Or that three million others simply went without their necessary medication.

Immense profit is their only concern, and they’ll have it, so long as they can prevent the government from lowering the obscenely high price of prescription drugs in this country.

As many in academia, civil society, and leftist political circles have long advocated, a single-payer, universal pharmacare system is the best solution to bring drug prices down. At the same time, it will improve the health of millions of Canadians, while saving the country billions.

In a recent 2023 study, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that such a system would result in $1.4 billion in annual savings. By 2027-28, those savings would rise closer to $2.2 billion.

Others, like University of British Columbia professor Steve Morgan, and Carleton University professor Marc-Andre Gagnon, anticipate much greater annual savings. According to their estimates, pharmacare could save anywhere between $7.3 and $11.4 billion, respectively.

While various experts differ in their projections, all agree that pharmacare, and access to more affordable drugs, will reduce hospitalizations and emergency room visits.

Alas, as transformational as the system would be, the likelihood of it getting implemented, much less enduring beyond the current Liberal tenure in office, appears tenuous at best.

Even if the NDP succeeds in pressuring the Liberals to adopt a universal, single-payer pharmacare system – their preferred system – it may be too late to become effectively entrenched from C/conservative assault.

For the entirety of his eight years in office, Justin Trudeau has had to contend with fierce hostility from the Conservative Party of Canada. They have outright opposed – and even vowed to scrap – almost every policy they deem remotely progressive, regardless of its merit.

Take the carbon tax, for instance.

Knowing how controversial the new tax would be, Trudeau attempted to neutralize its threats. He allowed provinces to create and administer their own carbon pricing systems, sent rebate cheques to low- and middle-income citizens, and bought a multi-billion-dollar pipeline to help justify its existence. Still not satisfied, Trudeau also introduced carbon contracts to, among other things, help secure the survival of his emissions pricing scheme.

If you think that means the tax is safe, though, think again.

Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre has unequivocally promised to “axe the tax” should he become prime minister. And you can bet he will do the same to a future pharmacare program.

If the NDP wants to ensure pharmacare lives on after this government, they are going to have to demand an end to Liberal tardiness. Already, it may be too late.

Click here for more Canada

This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

Opinion poll guru Éric Grenier has recently noted that PM Justin Trudeau is “in a deep polling hole.” And “few prime ministers have dug themselves out this far out from an election.”

Assume, in other words, that the National Post is wrong. An “enfeebled Trudeau” does not have “the NDP seriously reconsidering its support.”

As the March 2022 supply and confidence agreement between the Liberals and New Democrats broadly envisions, the next federal election in Canada probably will take place not quite two years from now, in the fall of 2025.

Yet, Mr. Grenier points out, even with this kind of contest, historically only two federal leaders with equally bad (or worse) polling numbers this far away have gone on to win the next election.

Both were Conservatives. The more recent is Brian Mulroney. His party was 15 points behind in 1986, but then won a majority of seats in the 1988 election. (Justin Trudeau is 14 points behind in 2023, awaiting an election in 2025 — again probably.)

Some 30 years before this, John Diefenbaker’s party in 1956 was 16 points behind, under George Drew. Then Dief succeeded Drew that December. And the Diefenbaker Progressive Conservatives won the biggest election victory in Canadian history in 1958.

Both the 1958 and 1988 federal elections had unusual features. Quebec Premier Maurice Duplessis gave an unexpected boost to Diefenbaker in 1958. The Canada-US Free Trade Agreement was the key issue in 1988!

The Justin Trudeau who has already won three consecutive federal elections in 2015, 2019, and 2021 (albeit with two minority governments), is swimming against the historical tide in another way as well. The last Canadian PM to win four elections in a row was Wilfrid Laurier in 1908.

At the same time, today’s calculations stressing points behind the poll leader may be misleading.

Consider the latest 338Canada polling projections. They give the Conservatives an almost astounding 205 seats (where 170 is a bare majority) in a federal election held now. But they still show the Liberals and NDP together with more of the cross-Canada popular vote (45%) than the Conservatives (40%).

Moreover, if you add the Greens and (say) about half the Bloc Québécois vote to the progressive equation, the current broadest quasi-governing group in parliament, intermittently identified with PM Justin Trudeau, would get 52% of the popular vote in a federal election held right now.

Similarly, Jagmeet Singh’s New Democrats did recently support Pierre Poilievre’s Conservative motion to exempt all home heating from the federal carbon tax. But this was only after NDP House leader Peter Julian pronounced the Poilievre pitch “clearly not a confidence motion.”

(And, as it happened, the NDP only voted for the Conservative motion after Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet had announced that his MPs would vote against it, alongside the Trudeau Liberals. The motion was finally defeated 186 to 135 in the House.)

In such ways the second Justin Trudeau Liberal minority government, supported on crucial supply and confidence votes by Jagmeet Singh’s New Democrats (and others), does at the moment seem to stand a reasonable chance of surviving until October 2025.

Very recently the prime minister looked very strong in the House as well, in a spirited early November exchange with Official Opposition Leader Poilievre, on divisiveness in Canadian politics. More of this could help Justin Trudeau overcome dissatisfaction inside his own party, and run as leader again in 2025 (as his plan still does seem to be).

If current polling trends carry on into 2024 and beyond, whenever the next federal election exactly happens the Poilievre Conservatives may finally win something like the 211 seats won by the Mulroney Conservatives in 1984. (When John Turner replaced Pierre Trudeau as Liberal leader.)

On the other hand, however inexact they may be as Liberal models of 2023 and 2025, the Diefenbaker Conservatives in 1956 and 1958, and the Mulroney Conservatives in 1986 and 1988, do show that coming back from polling holes even somewhat deeper than Justin Trudeau’s at the moment is not historically unprecedented.

Much stirring of political plots around the world is in the air right now — along with many unpredictable human calculations. What, just as an example, if the part of the female vote that lately seems to have abandoned PM Trudeau returns to the fold?

As Kaniz Supriya at the online Business Standard site explained this past summer, “Justin … is probably one of the most good-looking prime ministers in history.”