With the Liberal Party trending steadily upwards in public opinion polls, while the Poilievre Conservatives are sliding steadily backwards and the NDP is apparently in freefall, there is no question that tectonic plates are shifting. In such a period of unprecedented turmoil the results of next week’s polling on party standings, let alone the next federal election, are impossible to predict. But whatever happens in the next few weeks or months, there are already three very clear losers in the current political situation brought about by the Liberal leadership race: Jagmeet Singh, Chrystia Freeland and Pierre Poilievre. And make no mistake, the problems of each are entirely of their own making.
Start with Mr. Singh. True, he has always been a liability for the NDP, who temporarily took leave of their senses by selecting him as their leader. How a lawyer from Toronto wearing Armani suits and a Rolex was supposed to relate to their union base is a great mystery, as is their apparent belief that someone with no federal political experience could somehow learn on the job. Not surprisingly, his failure to make an impression over the past seven years, (only five of which were as a sitting MP, having had to wait nearly two years to run in a BC by-election), has been well documented.
In that context Singh’s decision to sign the Supply and Confidence Agreement with the Trudeau Liberals, after the 2021 federal election delivered a minority government, was both sensible and somewhat surprising. Evidently his advisers must have spelled out the sobering situation the party faced – in fourth place in the House, with only 25 seats compared with the 44 they held before he took over, with no money and no organization. Plus the agreement, which still allowed them to criticize or vote against the government on other issues, gave them a chance to influence the governments’ policy priorities. Most notably, they persuaded the Liberals – as the NDP has often done in the past, in its role as the so-called “conscience of parliament” – to move somewhat faster and perhaps somewhat further on a centre-left social policy agenda than they would have done with a majority. There may have been little political advantage for the NDP in the deal, as those who remembered the NDP/Liberal coalition in Ontario worried, but it did result in the Liberal government’s commitment on the national pharmacare and dental care plans, and it also allowed time for the NDP to regroup.
Alas, Singh and his advisers succumbed to their lesser instincts by the fall of 2024 and dramatically ripped up the agreement, even though there was a year to go before the next scheduled federal election. No doubt they were motivated by a number of political developments, such as the rapidly falling fortunes of the Trudeau Liberals and their own wishful thinking that they might return to Official Opposition status if an election were called sooner rather than later. Some observers may also add that the House was increasingly paralyzed by the antics of the Poilievre Conservatives. But of course that was only made possible by the NDP’s rash decision to terminate the agreement. It was also only possible because the NDP withdrew from any supportive role to the government. They could have stopped the bizarre Conservative filibuster in its tracks, or prevented it in the first place by not supporting certain committee reports, but they chose to aid the obstruction. And that obstruction led to the government’s inability to proceed with several other progressive pieces of legislation that the NDP had not only supported but in several cases had called for. Yet Singh persisted in saying that he wanted to bring the government down and demanded an early election. Now they are almost certain to be getting one, albeit with a new Liberal leader.
So where is the NDP now? First of all, they are in danger of losing both pharmacare and dental care if the Poilievre Conservatives form a government, something they could have easily predicted. Second, the Liberal leadership race has apparently rejuvenated the governing party, while the NDP are falling faster than a lead balloon in the polls as voters decide the Liberals, not Singh’s NDP, are the best bet to defeat the Poilievre Conservatives. Meanwhile the NDP dream of Official Opposition status has turned to dust as the party looks increasingly likely to lose nearly half of its current 25 seats. And who will take the blame for this humiliating fiasco? Obviously Mr. Singh himself. At a guess, Mr. Singh will be returning to his law practice in Toronto much sooner than he thought.
This brings us to the role that former Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland has, sadly, played in her own demise. No doubt many in the general public supported Ms. Freeland’s decision to resign as Finance Minister in mid-December, believing she was right to be upset over her perceived unfair treatment by the prime minister. This is, of course, a perfectly normal reaction for those unfamiliar with party politics or the role of cabinet ministers. But for veteran party members, her behaviour was more likely to be viewed as the ultimate act of sabotage, and one for which she is unlikely to be forgiven because of the chaos it unleashed.
To begin with, Ms. Freeland was not fired, she was offered an alternative cabinet post which she refused. Nor did Ms. Freeland simply resign from cabinet. Instead, she posted a vitriolic and highly critical letter to the prime minister on social media, without even informing him in advance that it was coming. She made it abundantly clear she did not go willingly. And she did it on a Friday evening. This left Mr. Trudeau and his government scrambling, first, to find a replacement to deliver the economic update she was supposed to present on Monday, and, second, to shuffle cabinet on the fly. Her letter and behaviour also created the image of a government in turmoil, which saw both Trudeau’s and the party’s standing in public opinion polls plummet to their lowest levels in a decade in the space of two or three days.
Party members know Ms. Freeland’s public snit was not the way to handle the situation. First and foremost, they know that cabinet posts are given, and taken away, by prime ministers at their discretion. No one has the “right” to stay in a particular post, or even to stay in cabinet at all. Clearly incompetence or misbehaviour could be a reason for removal from cabinet, but there are many many other considerations as to why moving an individual to a different post or removing them entirely could be considered necessary by a PM, even if an individual is doing a good job. Good Liberals go quietly. They might decide to leave the political arena entirely by resigning as an MP, but never immediately thereafter. They might also live to fight another day.
Two excellent examples of how to do this correctly are former Justice Minister David Lametti and former Immigration and Public Safety Minister Marco Mendocino. Upon their involuntary departure from cabinet both men posted short notes indicating it was an honour to have served in cabinet, and they believed they had accomplished important objectives during their time in office. Period.
The upheaval Ms. Freeland created was directly responsible for the prime minister’s resignation in January and the unexpected, hasty calling of a Liberal leadership race that, by necessity, excluded a number of the obvious candidates (such as Leblanc, Joly, Champagne and Anand) because they were obliged to stay in their cabinet posts and run the government. And that was before the Trump crisis required all veteran Liberal soldiers to stay at their battle stations.
These developments, in turn, were responsible for the collapse of a carefully planned strategy for the next election, in which several key policy announcements could be made over the winter and early spring, and, if necessary, a well-organized leadership race could take place in late spring or summer with all of the potential candidates involved.
The irony is that Ms. Freeland would no doubt have been a leading candidate in such a race if she had simply accepted a change of portfolio, or left cabinet quietly. Certainly she would likely have been the recipient of a good deal of sympathy and even more appreciation for her lengthy and loyal service to the party and in the House. All of which would have translated into concrete support for her campaign. Instead, her behaviour has made her an outcast in her own party and an also-ran in the truncated leadership race.
Before her tumultuous departure, she could well have expected to receive the support of the vast majority of cabinet and caucus members, especially given that her likely opponent would have been outsider Mark Carney. Instead, Freeland was promptly humiliated as the vast majority of her former cabinet colleagues and caucus members stampeded over to the Carney camp, leaving her with only a few meagre supporters from the parliamentary wing. And that was primarily before the Trump tariff/annexation crisis really took hold. (Yes, Carney has unexpectedly turned out to have qualities that are seen to be useful in the current crisis, and many are willing to overlook his lack of political experience. But keep in mind the portfolio Freeland was offered, and refused, was to be in charge of Canada-US negotiations with the Trump administration.)
Freeland is now running a very distant second to Mark Carney, who has raised 8-10 times more money for his campaign and is found to be 3 to 4 times more successful as hypothetical Liberal leader in public opinion polling.[i] Her vision of becoming, if only briefly, the first female Liberal prime minister has quickly faded. The only real question now is whether she has any kind of future in federal politics.
The same question might possibly be asked of the third real loser of the Liberal leadership race, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre. Of course it is far too soon to draw conclusions about the ultimate levels of support for his party and the embattled Liberals in the next federal election, but the trend lines are certainly interesting, to say the least. From a period of almost two years in which they were far ahead in the polls (by nearly 20%) and almost certain to form a majority government, possibly the largest majority in Canadian history, the Conservatives have fallen to the point where they are barely ahead of the Liberals. With Carney hypothetically as leader, they are in a statistical tie. Meanwhile the Liberals, who at one point not so long ago were in danger of losing Official Opposition status and possibly finishing in fourth place, are still heading straight up in terms of public support. In short, there is now a horse race.
Let us be clear. This dramatic turnabout is not simply the fault of external factors like the Trump tariff threats. Yes Mark Carney and even Chrystia Freeland have turned out to be the right candidates for their party at this time. But the more important point is that Pierre Poilievre is so obviously not the right leader of the Conservatives. And this became obvious to many voters shortly after the Liberal race began.
First and foremost, Poilievre spent the past two years as leader defining the election question. It was to be about the carbon pricing system (Axe the Tax) and about the prime minister personally (“Trudeau lies. He lies about everything.” He is a “dictator” and a traitor.[ii] And so on.) Unfortunately for Poilievre, that strategy quickly backfired the moment he, like Singh, got what he wished for, an early election. His party’s antics in the House throughout the fall, up to and including the absurd self-inflicted filibuster, were designed to bring down the government and force an early election. But now that one is surely coming, there is no carbon tax and no Trudeau to kick around anymore. What is a poor opposition leader to do? He has no idea. And that was before the Trump tariff crisis really developed. His automatic instinct was to keep on saying the same thing. Freeland and Carney were “just like Justin.” And they were also “Carbon Tax Freeland” and “Carbon Tax Carney” even though they had pledged to repeal it. After all, they were “sneaky” Liberals who would probably bring it back with a different name. Needless to say, this quickly became a failed strategy.
Poilievre’s second problem was even more significant. Confronted with new actors who behaved like adults, Poilievre almost immediately began to be seen by many potential voters as a petulant, nasty adolescent. As public opinion polls demonstrated, he began to bleed votes almost immediately. Most pollsters attributed this to the fact that many voters had been essentially parking their votes with the Conservatives because they disliked Trudeau. With Trudeau gone, they had no reason to stay, especially since they did not actually like Poilievre[iii]. Put another way, with Trudeau still in the game, all Poilievre had to do was be “not Trudeau.” But with Trudeau gone he is increasingly expected to look like a mature adult with a gameplan and character, which many voters feel is a bridge too far.
True. it has also been almost impossible for Poilievre to rebrand himself as a positive, patriotic Canadian in the face of the Trump threat, given his two years of constant repetition that “Canada is broken.” Wrapping oneself in a Canadian flag, or standing at a podium in the middle of the tundra to declare oneself Captain Canada, is simply not going to work. (Note that Doug Ford has not had this problem because he has never been so constantly negative.) Simply put, this is what happens if one’s political capital is entirely invested in criticism. Pivoting to a positive agenda is next to impossible, especially if one was not expecting to have to do it.
Unfortunately for him, there is yet another reason why this particular Conservative leader is finding himself hamstrung. Much of his base, as many observers have noted, is actually not opposed to Donald Trump’s message, although it is also true that they are unlikely to appreciate the negative consequences of Trump’s actions for them personally. And Poilievre cannot afford to alienate them, or he will lose them back to the far right People’s Party of Maxime Bernier, from which he so assiduously weaned them over the past two years with his support for the Trucker’s Convoy, anti-vaxxers, crypto currency and conspiracy theories. [iv] As a result, Pierre Poilievre’s recent ads and appearances have tried desperately to graft a few positive thoughts about the future of Canada onto the end of his predictable litany of complaints, but this is looking as half-hearted as he is.
At the end of the day, Poilievre and his Conservatives are beginning to hear little feet. His inner circle is sharply divided about what to do. They are worried that their ‘sure thing’ massive majority may melt away, leaving them with a tenuous majority or, worse still, a minority. The prospect of the Liberals recovering sufficiently to form their own minority is simply not to be contemplated. And if anything but a solid majority is delivered by Poilievre’s election campaign, Conservative knives will start to be unsheathed. He will be known as the leader who frittered away an election that was theirs to lose, and he will pay the price.
[i] https://angusreid.org/liberal-leadership-carney-freeland-trump/ and https://globalnews.ca/news/11023442/liberal-leadership-race-mark-carney-fundraising/
[ii] https://www.business-standard.com/external-affairs-defence-security/news/trudeau-is-lying-canada-oppn-leader-poilievre-on-pm-s-recent-testimony-124101701246_1.html and https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-trudeau-carbon-protest-alex-jones-diagolon-1.7183430
[iii] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-conservatives-message-1.7449835
[iv] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-trudeau-carbon-protest-alex-jones-diagolon-1.7183430
