Trudeau Must Go? Not So Fast

There are widespread reports of a petition circulating within Liberal Caucus calling on Justin Trudeau to step down as leader. I heard it when I was there and I hear it even louder now five years later: the Canadian public is sick of hearing his name and seeing his face. They blame him for all the ills of the world, offering little credit for what he has accomplished. They want him gone — and they want Liberals to know it.

I would be the first to admit that I am frustrated by some aspects of his leadership. His insular, urban inner circle has no understanding of rural Canada, in spite of the strong efforts of the ever-shrivelling rural caucus. They have made a very Montreal-Toronto-Vancouver-centric government that does not speak to small towns and their issues. As they lose their ever-smaller largest ridings, survivor bias causes them to listen only to the ever-higher proportion of the remaining caucus from the big cities, and the death spiral aggravates. But that’s not the point here.

The issue of his leadership is different from how it is presented by a nervous caucus and many observers. First of all, Trudeau cannot state that he is leaving until he is ready to walk out the door, or his ability to govern will be compromised. The Americans call this the “lame duck” period as, in their country, the President remains in the role for a month and a half after their own election — even if defeated — by constitutional design. Announcing his intention to depart would immediately place him in the same zone. Even if he is planning to go, he can’t tell anyone yet. Publicly telling him he is done would only serve to make him lose face on his way out.

There are several factors that make it uncertain whether he is, in fact, planning to go. Not least is the impression that Pierre Poilievre may have peaked too early; that, after another year of listening to his profoundly negative rhetoric about how bad Canada is, people will start to realise that he has more to do with hurting Canada than helping it. It is part of a belief by his team that Trudeau is a strong campaigner who is routinely underestimated.

Donald Trump’s increasingly weird behaviour will also provide ammunition in the next campaign, by showing the clear links between Poilievre and Trumpism. Liberal tacticians will no doubt be looking for ways, especially closer to the official campaign when it is harder to recover, to paint them with the same brush and hope that it leaves a mark with electors.

There is likely a belief by enough people in his inner circle that he can still win that he is willing to give it a try. Jeremy Broadhurst’s recent and surprise departure as national campaign director shows that the feeling is not unanimous.

Poilievre may well have peaked too early — and Trump may be terrifying — but it does not matter. A common comment I hear now from otherwise intelligent, rational people is that Justin Trudeau has “destroyed Canada” and it is “unfortunate that Pierre Poilievre is the one that has to replace him.” In other words, Canadians just don’t want to hear from Trudeau any more and don’t really care who replaces him as long as he — and everyone associated with him — is, in fact, replaced.

There is, though, a much more important reason Justin is staying on: succession. If he leaves tomorrow, who replaces him as leader? The Biden resignation offered hope to many Liberals that the same thing would happen here, but there is no obvious Kamala Harris waiting in our wings. Chrystia Freeland would be the closest, but the centre seems to have lost interest in her in favour of a shinier object after being set up over the past few years as the obvious successor. François-Philippe Champagne would mount the most competent team and credible campaign if no successor is anointed and it were to be a genuinely open race. If a new leader were to take the reigns today, their role would principally be to take the blame for defeat and cleanse Trudeau’s legacy, much as Kim Campbell did for Brian Mulroney.

It is increasingly clear that Mark Carney is Trudeau’s planned successor. I have heard from those still in Ottawa that he already has a campaign team in place; his ambitions for succession, unlike others, is not a mere matter of speculation, though whether he is leading the team or the team is leading him is less clear. Carney is an accomplished national banker and in an era of economic uncertainty, someone who understands the financial system at his level would be pitched as the man to save the economy and therefore the country. I’m not convinced, as I have written before, that Carney is either the right choice to be leader or ready to take over the party and the country.

Whether he is the right choice is subjective; whether — or not — he is ready is rather more evident. For the Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament this fall and call a leadership race to bring Carney in as the new leader during the winter, able to preside over the spring session of Parliament going into an election, would be to marry the liabilities of Michael Ignatieff and John Turner. Worldly, intelligent, capable, and utterly out of his depth, found to be running the country without a seat in the House for a single half-year session, up against an experienced and ruthlessly dishonest adversary, getting on at the door of a government that has overstayed its welcome.

Ignatieff, after a career as a leading intellectual, was paraded home by party insiders who over-estimated their own importance and influence to come back and save the party and the country. Politics was not his profession and it showed through quickly, ultimately leading the Liberal party to far and away their worst electoral showing ever.

Turner was, until now, the only Liberal Prime Minister in the history of Canada never to table a balanced budget. In fact he was not in office long enough to table any budget at all. He was the only Prime Minister in Canadian history from any party never to hold a seat in the House of Commons during his time in the role.

Put together, one might find a seatless, politically inexperienced Carney returning from overseas to have a brief stint as Prime Minister — without having so much as the basic benefit of Parliamentary Privilege, earning little more than the right to a portrait on the wall. If you believe the Liberals wouldn’t do this to themselves, consider that Turner and Ignatieff were both duly elected leaders, supported by the party establishment.

Trudeau must, then, carefully consider whether his hand-picked successor should only come in following the election. Let Trudeau fall on his sword, take the full blame for the defeat, resign on election night, and give Carney a fresh start and a proper term to build his team and establish his reputation and credibility, without starting with a John Turner- or Kim Campbell-esque premierhip or being directly attached to the defeated government. Better still, in this context, if it is opposite a majority, giving him four stable years to build his team, plan, and reputation. Long term, this is the better play if we are going to have Carney as leader anyway. It requires, however, a deep breath and a lot of patience from a long list of Liberal MPs facing the imminent prospect of involuntarily joining the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians.

It also assumes that Poilievre would, in the interim, govern the country in good faith, something that is far from certain. His refusal, in spite of being a member of the King’s Privy Council, to update his security clearance to read the NSICOP report on foreign interference when there are allegations swirling about his own campaign should be ringing alarm bells throughout the justice system.

If the petition were presented to me for signature, I viscerally understand the motivations to sign it. Trudeau is an electoral albatross around the necks of the same Liberal MPs who got there on his coattails in the first place. There are few good job prospects for those defeated in a general election, the mythical life-long pension Canadians still assume exists being long gone. The vitriolic hatred they are no doubt experiencing at events and at the doors would be overwhelming. I have been out of office for more than five years and I still feel it from anyone who learns of my past role, and they aren’t gentle about it, immediately verbally attacking me for ever having supported Trudeau. From there, I would be hard pressed to turn the petition down. The line reserved for my signature on the sheet would be loudly calling out to me. Like many, I would be at a breaking point, wanting to just end the carnage and the never-ending hatred directed at the Prime Minister through me. Put me out of my misery!

If the list were to be published and is as extensive as the media reports suggest, either the Prime Minister will be forced to step down immediately, or a whole lot of MPs will find themselves with their nominations not signed, unable to run as Liberals in the hastened and disorganised next election — and those outcomes are not mutually exclusive, both resulting in a dysfunctional and chaotic governing caucus for the remainder of the 44th Parliament.

Objectively, it is not clear that dumping Trudeau at this point in time is, in fact, the right play. It may be satisfying, but it is unlikely to save the Liberals in the next election, and it would only both make the next Liberal leader’s life more difficult, and more than likely make the time the Liberals spend in opposition longer. Changing leaders is not a magic elixir and promotes the Liberals’ long-time problem of having a messiah complex. Moreover, the window of opportunity to change leader before the next election and have a realistic chance to win has likely already closed.

If presented with the petition to oust Trudeau, would I have signed it?

Probably.

Should I?

Probably not.