The chorus of Liberals demanding Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s resignation has swollen to the point that it’s now fair to ask just who the prime minister thinks he’s still leading.
Days after the Ontario caucus — the country’s biggest by far, with 75 members — concluded it was time for Trudeau to step aside, Atlantic Liberals sent a letter to the prime minister indicating that “time is of the essence, and our caucus is of the view that it is not tenable for you to remain as leader.”
Between them, the two caucus groups constitute two-thirds of Liberal seats in the House of Commons. Liberal representationacross the West is scarce, consisting of just 20 seats, mostly in British Columbia, which came within a hair’s breadth of electing a Conservative provincial government in October.
Quebec, with 33 Liberals, has issued no formal view on Trudeau’s standing, but an unnamed MP, quoted in iPolitics, said a consensus had been reached that Trudeau must go, with caucus chair Stéphane Lauzon assigned to deliver the message. Usually a Liberal stronghold, recent polls put the party in third place in Quebec, behind both the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois.
Added to the chorus of voices are those of prominent Liberals convinced that Trudeau’s leadership days are at an end. In a written assessment, Gerald Butts, former principal secretary and close advisor to the prime minister, depicts Trudeau as “sleepwalking toward electoral oblivion.”
Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland’s abrupt resignation had “the calculated precision of a Ukrainian drone strike,” Butts writes, adding that, “Both principals are now more likely to die (politically), and … set the stage for a perilous final act of the Liberal Party’s second Trudeau era.”
Eddie Goldenberg, chief of staff and right-hand man to former prime minister Jean Chrétien, thinks Trudeau might be better off leaving office to lead federal forces against a renewed swell of separation talk in Quebec. Should he stay to fight the next election and lose, Goldenberg says, “There is a risk of serious and potentially even fatal consequences for Canada of a decision by Mr. Trudeau to go out on his shield.”
While Goldenberg thinks Trudeau should quit now and let the caucus pick a replacement, Butts disagrees.
“If you want to know who can play hockey, put on a hockey game,” writes Butts, arguing for a full leadership race. “Canadians … will not take kindly to watching a handful of apparatchiks choose their prime minister. If Liberals arrogate that right to a few hundred people in Ottawa, I hope they’re alert to the risk that they could be selecting the party’s last leader.”
There is little sign of faith from within the Liberal ranks that Trudeau could somehow lead the party to another victory. In its place is fear that a party with such little public support is ill-positioned to deal with a potential tariff war with the new administration in Washington, and alarm at the possibility of a sweeping victory by Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives.
Each passing day seems to bring that likelihood closer: a new Angus Reid survey shows Liberal support among Canadians at just 16 per cent, less even than the 19 per cent garnered in 2011 — the party’s worst election result since Confederation.
In their missives to Trudeau, nervous caucus members were careful to offer praise for his record and appreciation for his efforts. Nova Scotia MP Kody Blois, informing Trudeau of the Atlantic caucus decision, assured him that, “Your leadership through the past nine years will absolutely leave a positive and consequential legacy on Canada.”
Goldenberg likewise assured Trudeau that, if he quits now, he would “have a positive legacy that would be remembered and respected.”
Butts recalls the Trudeau of 2015 as “a scrappy young leader with an admirable sense of optimism,” who brought the party “an unprecedented election victory.” But while Trudeau and Freeland “changed the party together,” he writes, after a nearly decade in Ottawa, “they have put their party right back into the position in which they found it” — deeply unpopular, faced with a disillusioned electorate and badly in need of a new name at the top.
What continues to roil MPs is how to select that new name, and who might be eager to take on the challenge. Liberal MP Chandra Arya said in a letter to Trudeau that his past support “stemmed from the lack of a viable and reassuring alternative,” but ended when Freeland’s announcement convinced him she would be better suited for the challenges ahead.
Other suitors may dispute that, but time is one benefit Liberals don’t have. The Conservatives, New Democrats and Bloc have all signalled they’ll vote to bring down the minority government as soon as a motion of non-confidence can be moved, likely by the end of the month.
Should that happen, the Liberals could find themselves vaulted into an election led by either a discredited prime minister, an interim leader or an appointee chosen by the caucus while a full-fledged leadership race is put off until some time after voters have decided their future for them.
Trudeau has remained mute over the holidays, skiing in British Columbia while “reflecting on his future,” as the sense of crisis in the party builds. In a display of frustration at the prolonged waiting game, Alberta MP George Chahal, occupant of one of just two government seats in the province, warned party president Sachit Mehra that Liberal troops “long ago lost the luxury of time or needless reflection,” and pressed him to begin plans for a leadership race without waiting for Trudeau to make a decision.
“Our leadership is not hearing Canadians and many Liberals are ringing the fire alarm,” Chahal complained. Should Mehra heed the advice, Trudeau could return from the slopes to find a party that’s made up its mind, even if he hasn’t.
National Post