He waited too long, had to be driven from office by his own caucus and left a monumental mess in his wake, but Justin Trudeau’s departure, combined with the belligerent new attitude in Washington, has delivered a rare opportunity for Canada to shake its traditional torpor and seize on much-needed and long-delayed change.
Fortunately enough, the country has two major parties intent, or so they claim, on doing just that. The Conservative agenda pledges to be brasher and more aggressive, a wholesale shift in how Canada goes about managing its economy and delivering the benefits. Both the most likely successors to Trudeau as Liberal leader also claim they’re all in for sweeping change, though there’s a credibility question pertaining to former finance minister Chrystia Freeland, and a readiness issue about banker and financier Mark Carney.
The most immediate need to recognize the shift probably lies on Pierre Poilievre, who can no longer get by with endless repetitions of his plans to “Axe the Tax” if he hopes to retain the overwhelming lead he’s enjoyed for well over a year. Since Trudeau’s departure, polls show disillusioned Liberals have regained some of their mojo and nibbled away at Conservative support.
While Liberals remain focused on the leadership race, in truth the next election is already underway. Though the Tories remain well ahead, Liberal gains suggest much of voters’ deep desire for change was targeted at Trudeau himself and in his absence they’re open to options.
The Conservative camp has already begun to adapt, rolling out a series of detailed policy pronouncements aimed at issues on Canadians’ lengthy list of concerns. Poilievre’s response to the threat of Trump tariffs was quick and clear: Canada should retaliate dollar for dollar, while also acting to remedy the very real need for a tighter border and stronger defence. His most recent video was a seven-minute discourse on the heavy price Canada pays for the barriers it erects on interprovincial trade, and his plans to deal with it.
On Monday he unveiled a blueprint to significantly beef up Canada’s defence of its Arctic borders against increasingly blatant Russian and Chinese intrusions by building a permanent far north military base capable of overseeing expanded air and naval operations, adding two new icebreakers to a pair planned for the Coast Guard, and expanding the Canadian Rangers reserve forces that provide intelligence in addition to rescue operations and disaster relief.
The Conservative leader has shown himself to be an energetic and effective campaigner, but until lately he had an easy target in the discredited Trudeau regime. That could change once Liberals choose a new leader, depending to a considerable degree on which of the two most likely figures emerges on top. Current odds favour Mark Carney, the former central banker Trudeau tried so hard to recruit to his struggling team, over Chrystia Freeland, the finance minister he hoped Carney would replace.
Carney’s task for now only requires him to convince enough Liberals he’s a better choice than Freeland, which shouldn’t be the toughest job in the world, considering the extensive baggage she carries from her years as a Trudeau loyalist and second in command. Freeland says she’s running against the “Ottawa establishment” even though a more embedded member of that establishment is hard to imagine. She’s devoted much of her leadership bid to disavowing things she’s said, things she’s done and things she’s agreed to as a senior figure in successive cabinets, hardly a way to convince Canadians she’d represent a significant change from the past. Even if she’s sincere in her reversals, why believe someone so deeply implicated in past mistakes won’t just make more in the future?
In theory Carney represents a more formidable threat, though his recent popularity likely includes many people who don’t know much about him. While he boasts a professional resumé as long as your arm, Carney as a potential prime minister is more an idea than a reality. The bones are there but they need much filling out.
“I’m not a politician,” he’s careful to point out when addressing a crowd, as if to temper any overcooked expectations. If he didn’t tell them, they’d quickly figure it out for themselves. He’ll never win over a crowd with feverish rhetoric. Electric, he’s not. While unquestionably knowledgeable, as a speaker he’s about as exciting as the father of the bride who just wants to get through his speech in one piece so he can get to the bar.
Nonetheless, amid the usual bromides about the need to “build a better Canada” and bring “change that puts money in peoples pockets” there are signs he’s serious about recrafting the country away from the flabby naiveté of the Trudeau years. While not as brash as Freeland in disavowing the prime minister, there are clear digs at his record. Canada, he says, needs a government “that focuses on outcomes and not spending.” Voters “want a new positive leadership that ends division and builds together.”
His focus, he vows, would be riveted on the economy. “We have to stop holding back our own progress … Too often we’ve had permitting delays, regulations and red tape that have stopped or slowed economically critical projects, including ports, mines and energy infrastructure.”
But a lot remains unclear. What’s he mean when he says “we can and we must change our major trading partners.” Canada has trade deals all over the world and has been talking for eons about lessening its addiction to the easier U.S. market, to little effect.
How is “having large polluters pay Canadians to make climate-smart choices” any better than the carbon tax, assuming the big polluters will just pass on any added costs.
And just what is “the intelligence infrastructure of the AI revolution” he says is among the great Canadian strengths we can leverage towards a dynamic and rewarding future?
Carney promises to fill out the details “in the weeks ahead,” presumably if and when he becomes leader and prime minister. That won’t leave him much time, given how few weeks he’ll actually have before facing an election. He may not be a politician, but he’d best figure out how to imitate one if he hopes to hold voters’ attention long enough to convince them it’s safe to forget the past nine years.
National Post