Inadvertently or otherwise, New Democratic Party leader Jagmeet Singh did Justin Trudeau a favour when he dramatically upped the cost of the prime minister’s Christmas giveaway.
Trudeau’s idea of a festive gift was already a turkey. Far too pricey, disconnected in its concept and all-too-silly in its content, it put the Liberals’ already-restive caucus in the uncomfortable position of defending what many of them must have recognized as a bad idea. By demanding the costly package be expanded to include a broad new range of recipients — thereby hiking the price tag into unexplored territory — Singh handed the government a convenient path for retreat. The prime minister can now invoke the need for prudence and restraint — notions that obviously slipped his mind in the original iteration — as just cause to cancel the whole plan.
Backtracking won’t come without a cost of its own, in underlining once again the prime minister’s ongoing weakness for performance arts over responsible governance. But it’s an opportunity he didn’t previously have and might want to seize while he can, given the response his handout was generating. It’s just my opinion, and I’ve been wrong before, but spending $6.3 billion on a tax break for junk food and snacks, and a cheque to arrive if he stills happened to be in power by the spring, didn’t strike me as the secret sauce likely to reawaken voters’ taste for his bedraggled Liberals.
There are a number of reasons for this.
It’s pretty little and pretty late: Canadians have had nine years to form their current opinion of the prime minister, during which he’s borrowed and spent in the neighbourhood of $600 billion, on top of the trillions generated by taxes and other revenue. The debt has doubled in that period, interest payments have soared and new programs introduced offering limited assistance for dental care, school lunches, pharmacy bills and the like. Nonetheless the Liberals have been trailing Conservatives by margins of 15 to 20 points, falling short in virtually every region of the country. At most the government has about 10 months before the next election has to be called, possibly a lot less. Expecting a $250 payout and a brief break on beer to offset almost a decade of extravagant spending and growing public disenchantment is a lot to ask.
Precedent is against it: Just over a year ago the prime minister sought to shore up Liberal support in Atlantic Canada by offering to violate his otherwise inviolable carbon tax regime in their favour. The tax has been a signature initiative of his time in office, proof of his unwavering determination to lower Canada’s carbon output no matter the cost or the limited impact on global emissions. Then suddenly he announced a three-year exception for heating oil, which is just as bad for climate change as other fossil fuels but is more heavily used in the Maritimes than elsewhere in Canada.
The result hasn’t been a notable success: Liberal fortunes remain dire throughout the region, other provinces are upset that special favour was shown to some provinces but not others, and support for the tax itself has declined noticeably now that its status as sacrosanct has been cast aside.
It carries a nasty smell: When former prime minister Paul Martin was fighting for re-election, his campaign was rattled when a top aide disparaged a Conservative child-care plan. “Don’t give people 25 bucks a week to blow on beer and popcorn,” he sneered, forcing Martin to veer off his preferred messaging to insist “There’s no doubt in my mind that parents are going to use (the money) for the benefit of their families.” The blunder served to remind voters of the innate arrogance and sense of entitlement that seems bred in the bone of the Liberal body politic. Two decades later Trudeau announced his temporary tax break on snacks and beer while standing by a grocery shelf display of potato chips. It’s not obvious that beer and chips is a better vote-winner than beer and popcorn, but it certainly carries a similar odour.
A lot of people are against it: Seniors are upset that they aren’t included in the handout. The government’s line is that the money is meant for “hard-working Canadians,” which is fair enough, but what about Canadians who spent decades in the workforce and now have to get by on fixed incomes. What are they, chopped liver? Anyone on social assistance is also disqualified, as are many disabled. Several provinces are angry that they weren’t consulted on a plan that will cost them millions due to the harmonized sales tax system. Economists say that adding another $6.3 billion to a deficit already anticipated at $40 billion isn’t the smartest use of money, and retailers say retooling cash registers and point of sale machines for a short-term binge that won’t start until Dec. 14 won’t be easy, and might not achieve much if shoppers just put off purchases until then. Singh’s demand would force inclusion of the unincluded but at vastly greater price; perhaps even too high a price for a government that’s rarely let cost stand in the way of a spending splurge.
It didn’t work for Kamala: U.S. vice-president Kamala Harris spent much of her presidential campaign trying to convince voters the U.S. economy was in much better shape than they believed it to be. It happened to be true, but didn’t work for her: people don’t care much what the International Monetary Fund says if homes are unaffordable and you need an emergency loan to pay the weekly grocery bill. It’s not easy to convince Liberals that aping U.S. Democrats isn’t always the best idea, but Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland had a shot at it anyway, suggesting Canadians’ financial woes are all in their heads. They’re in a “vibecession” she said, arguing they need to snap out of it because “that’s shaping their economic behaviour in ways that are not great for the Canadian economy.” Oh, so it’s all our fault, is it? Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre recognized her remarks as the gift they represented, retorting, “What’s (Freeland’s) message to people who are hungry and homeless after nine years of her government? … That they just need to get with her vibe?”
It’s always possible that Canadians will awaken en masse one day to decide they appreciate the Trudeau government far more than they’ve been indicating to pollsters, and will march to the polls brandishing their $250 cheques chanting “Four more years! Four more years!” Stranger things have happened. It just doesn’t seem very likely, no matter how many Liberal-branded potato chips they wash down with tax-reduced beer. The prime minister has a reputation for obstinacy, and might well decide to call Singh’s bet and set off a staring contest. That, in turn, could force the NDP leader to finally quit propping up an exhausted and unpopular government and force a much-needed election.
We can only hope.
National Post