I don't even know how the narrative that it didn't flip the election makes it that much better. The fact that foreign interference appears to have captured at least elements within the party system is a real problem to me. Even if a single seat hadn't flipped, it still means that there are Federal MPs who accepted aid from a foreign (hostile) government to secure their nomination or seat. We don't want our MPs owing corporations favors, aren't hostile foreign actors at least an order of magnitude worse?
And let's also be clear to all of the liberals who decry the shift to the right that the CPC has taken...O'Toole's struggles have a lot to do with that. He may have been the last hope of a party leader who would stand up to the social conservative ends of the party. The fact that foreign actors helped to shoot him down hasn't exactly done wonderful things for our political parties, our government, or our social discourse.
Also, for those of them arguing that this isn't a big deal, you're also giving a lot of political cover for the CPC to (allegedly) accept support from Russian or Indian government actors.
No foreign interference is acceptable, "successful" or not. And from what I can see in the political landscape, if they were trying to divide and distract Canadians and our political leaders, it's been a very successful campaign.
All of what you are saying is true. I look at it this way. O'Toole has the dignity to at least try and protect the democratic prcess despite being harmed by the whole thing. He is trying to put the country ahead of his loss.
Everyone from O'toole on down through the media is taking great pains to frame this arount the overall election result. That is not the point! And the point isn't that someone like Parm Bains 'owes' some fealty to the CCP for swinging his seat. The issue is that Parm - and other parliamentarians - have to look at the bald fact that the Chinese were able to dump China-critical MP's from their jobs. In Parm's case, in his own riding. The CCP doesn't need to elect a pliant government. It's just as happy to have a house of commons full of MP's - gov't And opposition - who won't stick their necks out on China issues for fear of losing their jobs. The chilling effect is a disaster that has nothing to do with the overall horse race. For an MP, every election is Their election first. The media seems to think it's about how the numbers roll up. Whether the Conservatives would have made government or not, Kenny Chiu lost his job that day. That is the message from China to the entire HOC.
> you're also giving a lot of political cover for the CPC to (allegedly) accept support from Russian or Indian government actors.
Or Chinese government actors. The Chinese government doesn't really love the LPC. It's like a corrupt businessman who lavishly supports both political candidates, so no matter who wins, he's got that MP or PM in his pocket.
That they've been more successful with LPC politicians *lately* doesn't mean they're not successful at times with the Conservative Party or might get more successful in the future if we don't stop this.
My point is that it would be a bad idea to assume that the Chinese government won’t try to swing conservative party nomination races in their favour. They will.
They already did. Charest took a hard loss to Poilievre, but he was a very real candidate.
Charest’s McCarthy Tétrault services to Xi Jinping’s “national champion” surveillance-and-espionage telecom Huawei involved strategic advice on how to navigate through the Trudeau government’s political and bureaucratic maze. This deserves at least some credit for Huawei putting Canada at risk of being cut off from the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing protocols. They provide services to at least 20 other Chinese corporations, including enterprises directly owned by the CCP and Chinese banks that don't care about silly things like sanctions on Russia or Iran, which takes a lot of the air out of diplomacy/soft power, setting up the liberal democracies for potential hard power conflicts that we're really not looking ready for.
I had a hard time seeing Mr. Charest as a serious candidate. To me, his candidacy seemed on par with Hugh Segal or Joe Clarke running for the leadership then…. it seemed bizarre to me that he was so out of touch that me even fantasized that he had a hope of winning by then.
But you are indeed right. The “let’s make money with China and avert our eyes” faction has a Conservative Party wing.
This is what annoys be about the handwringing over Pierre's "uncivility" - Trudeau is just as hostile, but because he speaks with a ...soft affectation and uses the right kind of polite and pious language, he gets a pass. Pierre is direct and honest with his brashness, but Trudeau clothes the wildly offensive and divisive content of his speech in the language of compassion
*edit* Thats said, I do wish Pierre would take the high road and be a little more statesmanlike, but hey what can you do
True. It’s what gets him attention without spending any money. This is the only way he can compete without billions. Not saying it is right but the press falls for it.
plus because Trudeau's hostility is directed at people that the journalists think should have been "social outcast" and thus can be "othered". not many journalists willing to give the people that Trudeau attacked a fair hearing either.
I'd rather have a direct and brash PP than a soft spoken JT who speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
I've always abhorred "polite society" performative niceties, especially when accompanied by immoral gossiping and backstabbing behind the scenes of which JT in my opinion is the poster child.
That's why I could never be a diplomat, even if I wanted to.
Anyone accusing Poilievre of being "uncivil" is probably miscommunicating a more serious criticism. He is a rage-farmer who will say anything that can rile up partisan anger or anti-Trudeau hate amongst whatever crowd he is currently speaking to.
The incumbent Prime Minister is definitely capable of behaving like a bully and smearing others with insinuations, like he did with his non-apology towards Judy Wilson-Raybould. But Poilievre is not much different here, as he insinuates that he and the Conservatives are quite simply never wrong in any of the legislation that they put forward. Poilievre never says this outright, he just insinuates as such with his actions and his tone.
When I see a partisan buzzword like "rage-farming" brought up, I'm tempted to discount any point made after it. Same goes for "neoliberal" or "globalist." Talking of axing the tax is simplistic and dumb, but so is regurgitating talking points that may as well have come off a Mark Geretsen email chain.
Also, Poilievre isn't the leader of the country. He doesn't have ministers, doesn't pass legislation, and his hands aren't on the levers of power. The fact that polite, urbane Canadians have held the official opposition to a higher standard than the sitting government has enabled much of the misery and malfeasance we're living with today.
Poilievre has a record in a prior government, including as Minister of Democratic Reform. You know his record is not a pretty one, because he never wants to talk about it (which the media lets him get away with).
I barely pay any attention to Mark Geretsen. My observations of Poilievre come from over a decade of watching how the man disgraces himself when given a podium.
The Trudeau government has enough of a record of scandal that many Canadians have grown tired of it; I always felt at least mild cynicism towards Trudeau. But this government does not escalate tensions in response to criticism with the sheer regularity that the prior government did. Which is relevant to the present day, because whereas some Conservatives like Michael Chong were a moderating force of reason under the prior government, Poilievre was a sycophant who helped drag his party down in 2015 and yet got rewarded with the Leader's Office for it.
If only there were evidence that Poilievre had evolved, like say an expression of contrition for any one of the many instances of indefensible legislation that he voted for.
A politician who has never been made to suffer for any of his own mistakes is precisely the last person to evolve.
Hey, I am not a fan of quite a bit of his politics but yes, he is honest compared to Trudeau. He does not couch his words, he is who he shows us and he speaks very directly. You cannot deny the man that, and he is smart and on point and knows how to read a room. Those are qualities we want in leaders. It doesn't mean he has all the qualities we want but he certainly has more than the other two in spades. As I said...unfortunately .
He knows how to read a room, play it, and he spins like a ballerina. I find his comments manipulative, and devoid of details and substance. He shows us who he is. I couldn't agree more. And having shown that, there is a zero percent chance I can vote for him despite detesting the other choices. Trudeau is terrible in judgement; hell on so many levels. Pierre is worse.
Your jealousy of Poilievre's speaking talents--and its welcome by Canadians--is showing, Dave.
Show me "manipulative" in his Montreal synagogue speech. Show me "devoid of details and substance" in his apple-eating dress-down of an ill-prepared reporter.
Your vote for Trudeau nicely defines the depth of character of the others.
"Show me "devoid of details and substance" in his apple-eating dress-down of an ill-prepared reporter."
See, that is the mentality that proves the criticism. A real leader would be known for his eloquence in advocating for and explaining policies, not for his eloquence in sticking it to the "leftist elites".
Put Poilievre in front of a journalist who asks him about his voting record under the Harper government, and Poilievre's glass jaw will be broken quite quickly.
Stefan, your innocence at political campaigning is showing. How would you address a reporter who asked you "Stef, when did you stop beating your wife?"
I was just going to mention the Montreal synagogue speech.
This is what a leader should sound like. These are the speeches that don’t hit the media; perhaps because it is a calm and statesman like speech and doesn’t fit the media depiction of Poilievre.
Carole, we agree. That speech must rank with some of the finest speeches of all time--for clarity, delivery, audience suitability and political fearlessness. A true "barn burner"!
I'm not jealous of his talents at all. I think he's yelling from the top of a soapbox with a pile of garbage he can't deliver, or has no plan how to deliver on. It is welcome in your opinion. Killing the carbon tax won't deliver powerful paycheques, nor will it deliver affordable housing. He hasn't said a word about the deficit or the state of the military. It's hot air in an increasingly warm climate, for which he also has no plans.
I thought the apple eating was pathetic, and about as unleaderly as someone asking for a vote can behave.
You may find his confrontational style appealing. I think it's right out of the GOP handbook. And that group of idiots is he biggest threat to the concept of global democracy since Adolf Hitler.
A vote for Trudeau is holding my nose and picking the least objectionable of some very bad choices.
Without getting into the veracity of either politician's claims, what I am saying specifically is that he is up front and honest about his position when he is being "uncivil", whereas Trudeau uses soft flowery language to mask the offensive and hostile *substance* of what he's saying
I would say Pierre doesn’t equivocate like most politicians. Most politicians try to say something without lying and without upsetting people, so most sound like they aren’t genuine. Pierre just says stuff without equivocating. Even if what he is saying is pure BS, he comes across as “straight forward” and “genuine”.
It's true he doesn't equivocate in the same manner as many politicians. But IMO he does equivocate any time he's asked a policy question & launches into an 'it's all Justin's fault' rant - which seems to be most of the time. :-)
We'll agree to disagree. Don't get me wrong. Trudeau is terrible. But I think North American conservatism is far more dangerous. November in the US is huge.
Yes. I'm saying he's spins, manipulates, leaves out details, while presenting a world based on plan-less fabrications more than any politician in Canadian history. And since this is yet another FPTP election, you already know my opinion of Trudeau's credibility.
I am skeptical he is less honest than any other, after all, Trudeau uses race baiting (any inference that China was involved in the election was promoting Asian hate), making up facts about elections (FPTP indeed) , that the convoy was a bunch of Nazis etc.
And you are more than entitled to that opinion in the same way I'm entitled to ignore it. But let's revisit this conversation 4 years after he wins the predicted grand slam, and we can discuss how you feel about the losing your bodily autonomy. Because the fetal rights bill will come back, it will pass, there will be a court case that follows and you will lose control of your reproductive health. That is current North American conservatism. I wish there was a way to bookmark this.
How the whole foreign interference issue has been dealt with by the Prime Minister and his party is beyond bizarre. Stonewalling any investigation. Appointing family friend David Johnston who then writes a fantasy novel on what happened. Hogue granting standing to the "Government of Canada" (the Liberal party) but not granting standing to the Conservatives or other groups who were affected by the interference. Taking the Speaker of the House to court over the two Chinese scientists at our national lab who were working for the People's Liberation Army of China. The nasty comments after O'Toole's testimony.
None of this makes sense unless there is a massive shoe to drop (or will never come out, which probably is more likely). It is inconceivable to me that an innocent party would behave in this manner. Something is wrong here.
I think it is important to raise this point too. How do we know it just 9 seats? Why would not necessarily be more? It’s not like anyone in power has been doing anything to stop it.
Good column, Matt. And not just for the fact that you are calling out the PM. The attitude behind the comments of the two men deserves being aired and you did that. I am finding the comments from the PM regarding the carbon tax bears a resounding resemblance to the situation illustrated in your column.
This is exactly why I was so thrilled to discover Substack and the Line and am a happy subscriber. I don't always agree with your politics or op eds but they are invariably well reasoned and well informed and you are everything that is missing these days from the majority of main stream media. I have been, through my life , predominantly a Liberal voter. I flipped on them in the last elections and I was ardently hoping O'Toole would win or at least place well enough to remain CPC leader. He was in my mind our last hope at having a social conservative leader who actually cared about Canada and governance more than performative histrionics which is ...where we are headed, with Justin Trudeau paving the way for everyone. Have the Liberals not noticed that the rug they keep trying to sweep everything under is now smaller than the pile of shit they are pretending isn't there????? I voted for Trudeau enthusiastically the first time around and have been kicking myself ever since. I am so tired of 'put down' politics and the shambles we are in as provinces and as a country when it comes to actually getting things done and improving Canada. Who ever thought I would find myself listening to a Poilievre speak and have to admit he is the best statesman we have going these days? I will say this... I wish Matt Gurney could become special advisor on 'governance' to the PM.
Fair, but depending on who you ask and which way you interpret it our finances have been ruined almost every other election since i started paying attention and voting in the 80s. Finances are not fixed in a term, but governance can be. I agree with Matt's continual lamentation that we are not 'executing' on anything. This is the same problem Toronto had as a city until we had Tory as a mayor. Again, i would prefer to see things done to concretely achieve results even if I don't agree with the result or how we get it than to see our executive branch achieve and focusing exclusively on spin doctoring reality as opposed to doing something about it.
Out of the three choices we have at least Pierre seems to be a politician not afraid to actually act on his 'vision' and do what it takes to make it happen. Do I agree with all he proposes? No. But he at least has an actual Vision for Canada as opposed to being obsessed with the Vision Canada has of him.
I really don’t see any trustworthy vision on his part and I am particularly cynical about his pose as a potential working man’s friend. I just see negative spin, criticism and political opportunism.
I am therefore a little more forgiving of Trudeau for losing it toward a representative of the CPC. Just imagine being immersed in the constant experience of being subjected to Poilievre’s abrasive and non constructive criticism. If he were someone’s mother, he would be accused of emotional abuse and lord knows what kind of social misfits he would create!
Agree O’Toole was not like that, but it was clear that he wasn’t the man his party in its current manifestation wanted.
To be fair, they weren't in great shape when Trudeau inherited them, and every country on the planet spent like drunks o get through COVID. Worse, when in power, Conservatives quickly develop the spending habits of Liberals.
That's absolutely not true. Our finances were in far better shape at the Federal level. COVID is over and they still haven't halted the spending spree.
This is the same group of advisors that blew the budget while in power in Ontario. It's a feature, not a bug.
We were $750 billion in debt, and hadn't run a surplus since Chretien, and he only did that by downloading his costs to the provinces. Doug is spending more than Kathleen did. Conservatives when in power spend like Liberals, because you can't get elected telling people they have to give things up. We have to give things up.
Yeah, the number was off the top of my head. And while I disagreed with Trudeau promise that he would run deficits to start, things didn't balloon out of control until COVID. If the Conservatives had a shred of credibility for being fiscally responsible in power, I would agree with you completely. They don't, and Pierre has no plan of any kind to address it. https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/government-debt
Great job exposing a petty, mean spirited person who continues to demonstrate just how disinterested he is in being a Prime Minister and Statesman for all Canadians.
Trudeau is setting Canadians up for his own vainglorious views about foreign meddling when he testifies in the next few days. There will be lots of “taking things very seriously” and reminders that he won the 2021 election fair and square. Let’s hope some cross examination shines a bright light on his lackadaisical attitude towards foreign interference in elections and that interference in Conservative campaign politics seems to be fair ball.
Let's hope the right people ask the perfectly/meticulously crafted right questions ... and keep asking them until the famously elusive Prime Minister finally gets so worn-down and exasperated that he finally eventually caves ... and starts to answer them.
That would be nice, but he won't get worn down unless they start with the follow up question:
> Sir, you didn't answer my question. Are you refusing to answer it or would you like to try again?
I might even dream that the next reporter wouldn't let him move on either.
> Sir, I note that you didn't answer my colleagues question which seems really rude, so I don't have much hope you'll answer mine, but here goes nothing...
"Sir, I note that you didn't answer my colleagues question which seems really rude, so I don't have much hope you'll answer mine, but here goes nothing..."
YES!!! I'd like to see reporters do this with all non-answers by ALL politicians. I'm so tired of listening to non-answers - they all need to start answering the f.....g question. :-)
I’m not familiar with the rules of engagement, Mr. Gurney and others certainly will. Because Trudeau is the star attraction and because there will be lots of elbowing for time allotment, Trudeau can use that to his advantage and literally run out the clock without saying much of anything.
If there is a smoking gun for Trudeau to answer for it will most likely come from another direction.
Trudeau could of course refuse to take questions ever again from a reporter with the temerity to insist on an answer.
And if it were just one reporter doing this, he would probably do that and get away with it.
On the other hand, if it were more than one reporter, I think, Mr. Trudeau might find it a adepts problem for him if he was refusing to answer questions from 3/4 of the parliamentary press gallery. That’s not exactly “on brand” for him.
Good piece. The one positive thing I took away is that, as long as it took, the opposition did a good job here holding the government to accountability. There's a lot of bad news about our institutions so it's nice to see that we *are* looking into this issue and people like O'Toole are putting partisan politics (and legacy building) aside to help.
Any foreign interference is bad thing -- there are a lot of interested parties out there and there is no telling in what directions they could influence our politics and policy. Every single Canadian should want to get to the bottom of this and take measures to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Fantastic article. Whether foreign interference changed the election results or not is in many ways is besides the point now. The bigger question is what will be done to ensure future elections are fair and the results can be trusted? If people stop trusting that a democracy is functioning properly and believe that the government has no will to prevent interference, then things will devolve quickly - potentially to a place of violence we’ve not experienced in Canada before.
Yes Justin won the most seats -- but he acts like he got the most votes too. Remember that the CPC had the support of more Canadians than the LPC and that 67% of the country voted for anyone but Justin.
Absolutely -- that is our system. My point is that he speaks as if he believes his views represents those of most Canadians. I understand that he won the election and the right to form a minority government, but it was not a commanding mandate so he should do more listening and less pontificating.
Proportional Rep would lead to stalemate as parties would align with narrow interests.
I'd much rather see a Triple E Senate and true rep by pop in the Commons:
Province | 2022 Pop | Curr Seats | Proposed Seats | Seat Change | %
Ontario | 15,262,660 | 122 | 89 | -33 | -27%
Quebec | 8,751,352 | 78 | 51 | -27 | -35%
British Columbia | 5,368,266 | 43 | 32 | -11 | -26%
Alberta | 4,601,314 | 37 | 27 | -10 | -27%
Manitoba | 1,420,228 | 14 | 9 | -5 | -36%
Saskatchewan | 1,205,119 | 14 | 7 | -7 | -50%
Nova Scotia | 1,030,953 | 11 | 6 | -5 | -45%
New Brunswick | 820,786 | 10 | 5 | -5 | -50%
Newfoundland | 528,818 | 7 | 4 | -3 | -43%
Prince Edward Island | 172,707 | 4 | 2 | -2 |-50%
Northwest Territory | 45,602 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0%
Yukon | 43,964 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0%
Nunavut | 40,586 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0%
With a reduced number of MPs, salaries could be doubled to attract talent from the private sector and pensions could be eliminated to remove the incentive to prop up minority governments to qualify for a personal pension
You are definitely correct to point out that the CPC won more votes than Trudeau's LPC, but that does not quite justify your claim that "67% of the country voted for anyone but Justin". Part of the reason that the supply-and-confidence agreement with the NDP exists is that in fact most Canadians prefer a Liberal government to a Conservative government. The non-Conservative parties may be currently sagging in the polls, but even now they generally vote more with the Liberals than with the Conservatives, and outnumber the Cinservatives in cumulative polling support.
However, we may get a Conservative majority next year not so much because most Canadians prefer Poilievre over Trudeau, but because the Conservatives will likely get a large enough plurality to win a false electoral majority.
The only reason that the supply and confidence agreement exists is because the LPC would happily compromise their "principles" to stay in power so they made promises to the NDP that tramples on Provincial rights to do so. Canadians didn't vote for a LPC-NDP coalition.
I think you are confusing Liberal with liberal. In fact, the CPC is a liberal party (probably more so that US Democrats) and the NDP is socialist. The Liberal Party was, when it functioned, a centrist party that stole popular planks from the other parties to gain and keep in power. BTW how is it a false majority in our system?
That's your subjective opinion. Canadians are only allowed to mark one party preference on their ballot, and when one particular preference does not have majority support of the population, then the question becomes, which potential government has the support of most of the peoples' representatives?
The available evidence suggests that most of the non-Conservative parties in the House would rather work with a Liberal government than a Conservative one, when given the choice.
It is not subjective. It is reality. The two could have run as a coalition party then Canadians could have decided but they did not. I agree that the non-Conservative parties would rather work with the Liberals because they know the LPC would sell their souls (and principles) to stay in power.
"The two could have run as a coalition party then Canadians could have decided but they did not."
You are ignoring the way that Westminster systems of parliament work. It is the majority within parliament that chooses the government, not the plurality party. When no single party has the sole support of a majority of MPs, then whoever forms a government has *no choice* but to work with a second party to win a confidence vote.
"I agree that the non-Conservative parties would rather work with the Liberals because they know the LPC would sell their souls (and principles) to stay in power."
Maybe the LPC's "souls" are not invested in shunning cooperation with all other parties because most of their preferred legislation is not heavily controversial among non-Conservative parties. The Conservatives showed in the prior government that they can only pass their most desired legislation when in a position of power to steamroll all other parties (and that most of their legislation is repealed as soon as the Conservative majority ends). You are spinning being easier to work with and passing more sustainable legislation as some kind of flaw.
Don’t underestimate the powers of “convention” in our Westminster version of democracy. It is tradition for the party with the largest number of seats after an election to try to secure the confidence of the House.
Canadians clearly took the Liberal Party out behind the woodshed in 2021, refusing to give a majority mandate and a reduced share of the popular vote. In fact early in the election, the polls sagged and Trudeau was actually losing. To spring a majority mandate on Canadians through a (Safe) Supply and Confidence (Game) arrangement behind closed doors has legitimacy but reeks of bad faith politics.
"Sustainable legislation"? Seems the SOC disagrees. The government does have a choice about working with a second party -- they can write laws that appeal to the majority. Unfortunately Canada, unlike say the UK. has evolved the Westminster to the point where all MPs have to toe the party line if they want to keep the party's support and resources.
Trudeau's 2015 win was a false majority. The 2019 and 2021 elections did not give a false majority to any party.
Trudeau lied about 2015 being the last election under the current electoral system, and I have called him out appropriately. More recently a motion was before parliament to initiate a citizens' assembly to investigate electoral reform, which the Conservatives and most Liberals shamefully voted against.
i keep being told by political nerds that Canada doesn't technically vote for Prime Minister, we run 338 (soon to be 343) parallel elections to elect our MP. and thus, the fact that up to 9 of these 338 elections were interfered with should have been taken up seriously, especially by the committee that's specifically appointed to look into foreign interference in our election (which Trudeau kept pointing to as "not flagging anything suspicious, thus election was run fairly and squarely"). it's weird why this committee decided that they should only care if the scale of foreign interference can affect which party will form government and who become PM, as that's not what our election is (technically) about.
and i can't wait for Poilievre to re-quote this “I can understand where someone who lost an election is trying to look for reasons other than themselves why they might have lost an election.” to Trudeau after the next election. Liberal partisans are literally blaming everything under the sun (Conservative misinformation, Russian hackers, american owned media, dubious polls, political has been pundits, journalists with agenda, suffering plebeians that only want to see the world burn, uneducated masses that don't know what's good for them) except themselves on why they're double digit behind in the polls.
Great analysis and while I am no fan of O'Toole, the emphasis you placed on his words truly did, as you say, reveal statesmanlike characteristics. Wish we had seen more of that when he was leader.
That said, I was somewhat surprised to learn that you were surprised by Junior's reaction. You write: "among my many criticisms of the man, an unwillingness to use the profile of his office to say nice things about deserving people hasn't been one of them". I think this is largely true, however, it is clear that in his world, "deserving people" are only those with whom he does not have a disagreement. Junior obviously feels that O'Toole's testimony does not reflect well on him and therefore, by definition, O'Toole is not "deserving". It really is that simple. Nobody engages in more ad hominem attacks than he does - the baseless smearing of so many he disagrees with as racist, transphobic, having unacceptable views, etc. You even point out that early in the interference story "First, we were all lectured about racism". His reflexive reaction to anyone with whom he disagrees is to do precisely this type of thing. So he is not best characterized as "a man unwilling to use the profile of his office to say nice things about deserving people" but rather a man willing to personally attack anyone with whom he disagrees (especially if he can toss in an "ism"). In short, I think his reaction to O'Toole's comments was entirely predictable when viewed through this lens.
But your second point absolutely hits the nail on the head: "has Justin Trudeau not realized that he has even more reason to reach for a soothing narrative than Erin O’Toole does?" His comments truly were surprising for this reason. This was a glorious opportunity for him to strike a statesmanlike (dare I say Prime Ministerial) stance while simultaneously agreeing with a major takeaway that can only accrue to his benefit: i.e., any interference had no impact on the overall outcome of the election. Missing an opportunity to co-sign that with O'Toole was pretty dumb.
It drives me insane that the PM and his remaining supporters are still going the 'nothingburger' route with this issue.
If even one Canadian is sitting in parliament, collecting an MPs salary, due to foreign interference, it's one MP too many. Never mind 3 or 5 or 9. Never mind that it wasn't enough to sway the final standing in the election.
Good Lord, Twitter was aflame last year when it was revealed - *ominous drumming* - that Foug Ford served a local developer a hot dog at his daughter's stag & doe.
If any issue should rise above partisanship, it's this one, and plenty of outspokenly proud Canadians have shown a complete lack of principles by deflecting and running interference for the Trudeau Liberals. They think they stand for something. They don't.
Trudeau’s response to O’Toole seems defensive to me, as though Trudeau’s real concern is having the legitimacy of his election win questioned. That fits with his pattern of micromanagement and purging potential rivals from the Liberal cabinet: he’s insecure. Combine that with his tendency towards overweening self-regard to the point of arrogance, and it suggests that Canada is being led by somebody with a tendency towards narcissism. One of the characteristics of narcissists is their vicious response whenever somebody threatens their fantasy. Trudeau started out being compared to Obama; now he seems more like Trump.
More like Trump for sure -- neither thinks the laws apply to them, they've been proven unethical, they crave absolute power and control, they think they're smarter than everyone, they surround themselves with sycophants and get rid of potential successors, they don't take responsibility for their failures (or should I say they give us opportunities to examine ourselves), they believe people are out to get them ...
Justin regularly has shown gross errors in judgement. I can't help but wonder if this display of lashing out irrationally reflects the internal party voices in in his ear telling him he's screwed. Is he getting "Custer Syndrome"? And rather than addressing reality in a mature and reasonable way, he's attempting to deflect everything away from himself; even if reality says otherwise?
I don't even know how the narrative that it didn't flip the election makes it that much better. The fact that foreign interference appears to have captured at least elements within the party system is a real problem to me. Even if a single seat hadn't flipped, it still means that there are Federal MPs who accepted aid from a foreign (hostile) government to secure their nomination or seat. We don't want our MPs owing corporations favors, aren't hostile foreign actors at least an order of magnitude worse?
And let's also be clear to all of the liberals who decry the shift to the right that the CPC has taken...O'Toole's struggles have a lot to do with that. He may have been the last hope of a party leader who would stand up to the social conservative ends of the party. The fact that foreign actors helped to shoot him down hasn't exactly done wonderful things for our political parties, our government, or our social discourse.
Also, for those of them arguing that this isn't a big deal, you're also giving a lot of political cover for the CPC to (allegedly) accept support from Russian or Indian government actors.
No foreign interference is acceptable, "successful" or not. And from what I can see in the political landscape, if they were trying to divide and distract Canadians and our political leaders, it's been a very successful campaign.
All of what you are saying is true. I look at it this way. O'Toole has the dignity to at least try and protect the democratic prcess despite being harmed by the whole thing. He is trying to put the country ahead of his loss.
Everyone from O'toole on down through the media is taking great pains to frame this arount the overall election result. That is not the point! And the point isn't that someone like Parm Bains 'owes' some fealty to the CCP for swinging his seat. The issue is that Parm - and other parliamentarians - have to look at the bald fact that the Chinese were able to dump China-critical MP's from their jobs. In Parm's case, in his own riding. The CCP doesn't need to elect a pliant government. It's just as happy to have a house of commons full of MP's - gov't And opposition - who won't stick their necks out on China issues for fear of losing their jobs. The chilling effect is a disaster that has nothing to do with the overall horse race. For an MP, every election is Their election first. The media seems to think it's about how the numbers roll up. Whether the Conservatives would have made government or not, Kenny Chiu lost his job that day. That is the message from China to the entire HOC.
> you're also giving a lot of political cover for the CPC to (allegedly) accept support from Russian or Indian government actors.
Or Chinese government actors. The Chinese government doesn't really love the LPC. It's like a corrupt businessman who lavishly supports both political candidates, so no matter who wins, he's got that MP or PM in his pocket.
That they've been more successful with LPC politicians *lately* doesn't mean they're not successful at times with the Conservative Party or might get more successful in the future if we don't stop this.
Except it isn’t the Conservatives that are blocking things.
That’s true.
My point is that it would be a bad idea to assume that the Chinese government won’t try to swing conservative party nomination races in their favour. They will.
Malevolent foreign actors are motivated to keep incompetence in power in Canada. In the short term, that means the Liberals
They already did. Charest took a hard loss to Poilievre, but he was a very real candidate.
Charest’s McCarthy Tétrault services to Xi Jinping’s “national champion” surveillance-and-espionage telecom Huawei involved strategic advice on how to navigate through the Trudeau government’s political and bureaucratic maze. This deserves at least some credit for Huawei putting Canada at risk of being cut off from the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing protocols. They provide services to at least 20 other Chinese corporations, including enterprises directly owned by the CCP and Chinese banks that don't care about silly things like sanctions on Russia or Iran, which takes a lot of the air out of diplomacy/soft power, setting up the liberal democracies for potential hard power conflicts that we're really not looking ready for.
I had a hard time seeing Mr. Charest as a serious candidate. To me, his candidacy seemed on par with Hugh Segal or Joe Clarke running for the leadership then…. it seemed bizarre to me that he was so out of touch that me even fantasized that he had a hope of winning by then.
But you are indeed right. The “let’s make money with China and avert our eyes” faction has a Conservative Party wing.
This is what annoys be about the handwringing over Pierre's "uncivility" - Trudeau is just as hostile, but because he speaks with a ...soft affectation and uses the right kind of polite and pious language, he gets a pass. Pierre is direct and honest with his brashness, but Trudeau clothes the wildly offensive and divisive content of his speech in the language of compassion
*edit* Thats said, I do wish Pierre would take the high road and be a little more statesmanlike, but hey what can you do
Trudeau is just as nasty as Trump. He just wears a nicer suit and has better hair.
Respectfully I disagree. Trump is in a world of nastiness all to himself.
He’s just more boorish. Trudeau has said a number of inappropriate, nasty things unfitting of his position.
Trump is an institutional wrecking-ball in a way that almost no other politicians anywhere are.
True. It’s what gets him attention without spending any money. This is the only way he can compete without billions. Not saying it is right but the press falls for it.
plus because Trudeau's hostility is directed at people that the journalists think should have been "social outcast" and thus can be "othered". not many journalists willing to give the people that Trudeau attacked a fair hearing either.
That is a very good point Feb B. The media, like the liberals first reaction seem to be to look for racism (or whatever ism is in vogue).
Trudeau is very often guilty of doing what he accuses others of. Projection has been very obvious over the years, on so many occasions.
I'd rather have a direct and brash PP than a soft spoken JT who speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
I've always abhorred "polite society" performative niceties, especially when accompanied by immoral gossiping and backstabbing behind the scenes of which JT in my opinion is the poster child.
That's why I could never be a diplomat, even if I wanted to.
Anyone accusing Poilievre of being "uncivil" is probably miscommunicating a more serious criticism. He is a rage-farmer who will say anything that can rile up partisan anger or anti-Trudeau hate amongst whatever crowd he is currently speaking to.
The incumbent Prime Minister is definitely capable of behaving like a bully and smearing others with insinuations, like he did with his non-apology towards Judy Wilson-Raybould. But Poilievre is not much different here, as he insinuates that he and the Conservatives are quite simply never wrong in any of the legislation that they put forward. Poilievre never says this outright, he just insinuates as such with his actions and his tone.
When I see a partisan buzzword like "rage-farming" brought up, I'm tempted to discount any point made after it. Same goes for "neoliberal" or "globalist." Talking of axing the tax is simplistic and dumb, but so is regurgitating talking points that may as well have come off a Mark Geretsen email chain.
Also, Poilievre isn't the leader of the country. He doesn't have ministers, doesn't pass legislation, and his hands aren't on the levers of power. The fact that polite, urbane Canadians have held the official opposition to a higher standard than the sitting government has enabled much of the misery and malfeasance we're living with today.
Poilievre has a record in a prior government, including as Minister of Democratic Reform. You know his record is not a pretty one, because he never wants to talk about it (which the media lets him get away with).
I barely pay any attention to Mark Geretsen. My observations of Poilievre come from over a decade of watching how the man disgraces himself when given a podium.
If you hold the office in such a high regard, you must be incensed when the current leader if the country disgraced himself on a near weekly basis.
The Trudeau government has enough of a record of scandal that many Canadians have grown tired of it; I always felt at least mild cynicism towards Trudeau. But this government does not escalate tensions in response to criticism with the sheer regularity that the prior government did. Which is relevant to the present day, because whereas some Conservatives like Michael Chong were a moderating force of reason under the prior government, Poilievre was a sycophant who helped drag his party down in 2015 and yet got rewarded with the Leader's Office for it.
Good to know that Trudeau takes criticism well. Your glasses are obviously clear and in no way rose-colored.
Face it - Trudeau acts like a petulant, vindictive child, but you can't bring yourself to call a spade a spade.
Smart people evolve. I don't care what he did in the Harper years.
If only there were evidence that Poilievre had evolved, like say an expression of contrition for any one of the many instances of indefensible legislation that he voted for.
A politician who has never been made to suffer for any of his own mistakes is precisely the last person to evolve.
With all due respect (to both you and Mr. Gurney), may I suggest that you go away and ... just simply expire.
Pierre is honest?
Hey, I am not a fan of quite a bit of his politics but yes, he is honest compared to Trudeau. He does not couch his words, he is who he shows us and he speaks very directly. You cannot deny the man that, and he is smart and on point and knows how to read a room. Those are qualities we want in leaders. It doesn't mean he has all the qualities we want but he certainly has more than the other two in spades. As I said...unfortunately .
He knows how to read a room, play it, and he spins like a ballerina. I find his comments manipulative, and devoid of details and substance. He shows us who he is. I couldn't agree more. And having shown that, there is a zero percent chance I can vote for him despite detesting the other choices. Trudeau is terrible in judgement; hell on so many levels. Pierre is worse.
Your jealousy of Poilievre's speaking talents--and its welcome by Canadians--is showing, Dave.
Show me "manipulative" in his Montreal synagogue speech. Show me "devoid of details and substance" in his apple-eating dress-down of an ill-prepared reporter.
Your vote for Trudeau nicely defines the depth of character of the others.
"Show me "devoid of details and substance" in his apple-eating dress-down of an ill-prepared reporter."
See, that is the mentality that proves the criticism. A real leader would be known for his eloquence in advocating for and explaining policies, not for his eloquence in sticking it to the "leftist elites".
Put Poilievre in front of a journalist who asks him about his voting record under the Harper government, and Poilievre's glass jaw will be broken quite quickly.
Stefan, your innocence at political campaigning is showing. How would you address a reporter who asked you "Stef, when did you stop beating your wife?"
Yet journalist rarely do that. Reporters that ask leading questions deserve hostility.
I was just going to mention the Montreal synagogue speech.
This is what a leader should sound like. These are the speeches that don’t hit the media; perhaps because it is a calm and statesman like speech and doesn’t fit the media depiction of Poilievre.
Carole, we agree. That speech must rank with some of the finest speeches of all time--for clarity, delivery, audience suitability and political fearlessness. A true "barn burner"!
I'm not jealous of his talents at all. I think he's yelling from the top of a soapbox with a pile of garbage he can't deliver, or has no plan how to deliver on. It is welcome in your opinion. Killing the carbon tax won't deliver powerful paycheques, nor will it deliver affordable housing. He hasn't said a word about the deficit or the state of the military. It's hot air in an increasingly warm climate, for which he also has no plans.
I thought the apple eating was pathetic, and about as unleaderly as someone asking for a vote can behave.
You may find his confrontational style appealing. I think it's right out of the GOP handbook. And that group of idiots is he biggest threat to the concept of global democracy since Adolf Hitler.
A vote for Trudeau is holding my nose and picking the least objectionable of some very bad choices.
Good work proving Godwin's Law in record time!
Dave, unless Poilievre makes some fatal mistake, Canadians will elect him by the largest majority in years.
Name me a politician who isn't, in some way or other, manipulative.
Everything has varying degrees.
Without getting into the veracity of either politician's claims, what I am saying specifically is that he is up front and honest about his position when he is being "uncivil", whereas Trudeau uses soft flowery language to mask the offensive and hostile *substance* of what he's saying
I would say Pierre doesn’t equivocate like most politicians. Most politicians try to say something without lying and without upsetting people, so most sound like they aren’t genuine. Pierre just says stuff without equivocating. Even if what he is saying is pure BS, he comes across as “straight forward” and “genuine”.
It's true he doesn't equivocate in the same manner as many politicians. But IMO he does equivocate any time he's asked a policy question & launches into an 'it's all Justin's fault' rant - which seems to be most of the time. :-)
He is as honest as any other federal politician.
We'll agree to disagree. Don't get me wrong. Trudeau is terrible. But I think North American conservatism is far more dangerous. November in the US is huge.
So you are saying he is less honest than any other politician?
Yes. I'm saying he's spins, manipulates, leaves out details, while presenting a world based on plan-less fabrications more than any politician in Canadian history. And since this is yet another FPTP election, you already know my opinion of Trudeau's credibility.
I am skeptical he is less honest than any other, after all, Trudeau uses race baiting (any inference that China was involved in the election was promoting Asian hate), making up facts about elections (FPTP indeed) , that the convoy was a bunch of Nazis etc.
I think they are neck in neck honestly.
Once again, I believe you are incorrect.
And you are more than entitled to that opinion in the same way I'm entitled to ignore it. But let's revisit this conversation 4 years after he wins the predicted grand slam, and we can discuss how you feel about the losing your bodily autonomy. Because the fetal rights bill will come back, it will pass, there will be a court case that follows and you will lose control of your reproductive health. That is current North American conservatism. I wish there was a way to bookmark this.
Is part of ignoring my comment getting in one last lecture and the last word? Seems it is.
How the whole foreign interference issue has been dealt with by the Prime Minister and his party is beyond bizarre. Stonewalling any investigation. Appointing family friend David Johnston who then writes a fantasy novel on what happened. Hogue granting standing to the "Government of Canada" (the Liberal party) but not granting standing to the Conservatives or other groups who were affected by the interference. Taking the Speaker of the House to court over the two Chinese scientists at our national lab who were working for the People's Liberation Army of China. The nasty comments after O'Toole's testimony.
None of this makes sense unless there is a massive shoe to drop (or will never come out, which probably is more likely). It is inconceivable to me that an innocent party would behave in this manner. Something is wrong here.
Well said. I cannot fathom why this path was chosen as the best one.
I think it is important to raise this point too. How do we know it just 9 seats? Why would not necessarily be more? It’s not like anyone in power has been doing anything to stop it.
Good column, Matt. And not just for the fact that you are calling out the PM. The attitude behind the comments of the two men deserves being aired and you did that. I am finding the comments from the PM regarding the carbon tax bears a resounding resemblance to the situation illustrated in your column.
This is exactly why I was so thrilled to discover Substack and the Line and am a happy subscriber. I don't always agree with your politics or op eds but they are invariably well reasoned and well informed and you are everything that is missing these days from the majority of main stream media. I have been, through my life , predominantly a Liberal voter. I flipped on them in the last elections and I was ardently hoping O'Toole would win or at least place well enough to remain CPC leader. He was in my mind our last hope at having a social conservative leader who actually cared about Canada and governance more than performative histrionics which is ...where we are headed, with Justin Trudeau paving the way for everyone. Have the Liberals not noticed that the rug they keep trying to sweep everything under is now smaller than the pile of shit they are pretending isn't there????? I voted for Trudeau enthusiastically the first time around and have been kicking myself ever since. I am so tired of 'put down' politics and the shambles we are in as provinces and as a country when it comes to actually getting things done and improving Canada. Who ever thought I would find myself listening to a Poilievre speak and have to admit he is the best statesman we have going these days? I will say this... I wish Matt Gurney could become special advisor on 'governance' to the PM.
The bigger problem is that there is only so much PP can do. This mess is not going to be easy to fix. The nation's finances have been ruined.
Fair, but depending on who you ask and which way you interpret it our finances have been ruined almost every other election since i started paying attention and voting in the 80s. Finances are not fixed in a term, but governance can be. I agree with Matt's continual lamentation that we are not 'executing' on anything. This is the same problem Toronto had as a city until we had Tory as a mayor. Again, i would prefer to see things done to concretely achieve results even if I don't agree with the result or how we get it than to see our executive branch achieve and focusing exclusively on spin doctoring reality as opposed to doing something about it.
Out of the three choices we have at least Pierre seems to be a politician not afraid to actually act on his 'vision' and do what it takes to make it happen. Do I agree with all he proposes? No. But he at least has an actual Vision for Canada as opposed to being obsessed with the Vision Canada has of him.
I really don’t see any trustworthy vision on his part and I am particularly cynical about his pose as a potential working man’s friend. I just see negative spin, criticism and political opportunism.
I am therefore a little more forgiving of Trudeau for losing it toward a representative of the CPC. Just imagine being immersed in the constant experience of being subjected to Poilievre’s abrasive and non constructive criticism. If he were someone’s mother, he would be accused of emotional abuse and lord knows what kind of social misfits he would create!
Agree O’Toole was not like that, but it was clear that he wasn’t the man his party in its current manifestation wanted.
I will forgive Trudeau nothing! Pierre Poilievre is at least ten times the better human than Trudeau.
To be fair, they weren't in great shape when Trudeau inherited them, and every country on the planet spent like drunks o get through COVID. Worse, when in power, Conservatives quickly develop the spending habits of Liberals.
That's absolutely not true. Our finances were in far better shape at the Federal level. COVID is over and they still haven't halted the spending spree.
This is the same group of advisors that blew the budget while in power in Ontario. It's a feature, not a bug.
We were $750 billion in debt, and hadn't run a surplus since Chretien, and he only did that by downloading his costs to the provinces. Doug is spending more than Kathleen did. Conservatives when in power spend like Liberals, because you can't get elected telling people they have to give things up. We have to give things up.
660 billion. What’s 100 billion with the Liberals in charge?
Yeah, the number was off the top of my head. And while I disagreed with Trudeau promise that he would run deficits to start, things didn't balloon out of control until COVID. If the Conservatives had a shred of credibility for being fiscally responsible in power, I would agree with you completely. They don't, and Pierre has no plan of any kind to address it. https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/government-debt
Harper took federal spending to a post-war low and nothing broke. That implies he was on the right track and could have taken it lower.
I still think he wanted to lose in 2015. He could of, but he lost. Speculation is pointless unless you own a DeLorean.
Fine thinking, fine analysis, fine writing. Side note: being a patriot does not sound trite to me.
Great job exposing a petty, mean spirited person who continues to demonstrate just how disinterested he is in being a Prime Minister and Statesman for all Canadians.
Trudeau is setting Canadians up for his own vainglorious views about foreign meddling when he testifies in the next few days. There will be lots of “taking things very seriously” and reminders that he won the 2021 election fair and square. Let’s hope some cross examination shines a bright light on his lackadaisical attitude towards foreign interference in elections and that interference in Conservative campaign politics seems to be fair ball.
Let's hope the right people ask the perfectly/meticulously crafted right questions ... and keep asking them until the famously elusive Prime Minister finally gets so worn-down and exasperated that he finally eventually caves ... and starts to answer them.
A person can hope.
Stranger things have happened.
That would be nice, but he won't get worn down unless they start with the follow up question:
> Sir, you didn't answer my question. Are you refusing to answer it or would you like to try again?
I might even dream that the next reporter wouldn't let him move on either.
> Sir, I note that you didn't answer my colleagues question which seems really rude, so I don't have much hope you'll answer mine, but here goes nothing...
I mean... if you can hope, I can dream right?
I think the same thing every time I see reporters putting questions to Trudeau.
"Sir, I note that you didn't answer my colleagues question which seems really rude, so I don't have much hope you'll answer mine, but here goes nothing..."
YES!!! I'd like to see reporters do this with all non-answers by ALL politicians. I'm so tired of listening to non-answers - they all need to start answering the f.....g question. :-)
Yer darned tootin' ...
I’m not familiar with the rules of engagement, Mr. Gurney and others certainly will. Because Trudeau is the star attraction and because there will be lots of elbowing for time allotment, Trudeau can use that to his advantage and literally run out the clock without saying much of anything.
If there is a smoking gun for Trudeau to answer for it will most likely come from another direction.
Trudeau could of course refuse to take questions ever again from a reporter with the temerity to insist on an answer.
And if it were just one reporter doing this, he would probably do that and get away with it.
On the other hand, if it were more than one reporter, I think, Mr. Trudeau might find it a adepts problem for him if he was refusing to answer questions from 3/4 of the parliamentary press gallery. That’s not exactly “on brand” for him.
But if PP does that, it’s uncivil.
And it is. Mr. Poilievre should answer questions.
So should every politician. Or refuse. They have that option too. We can judge if the question was unfair.
Good piece. The one positive thing I took away is that, as long as it took, the opposition did a good job here holding the government to accountability. There's a lot of bad news about our institutions so it's nice to see that we *are* looking into this issue and people like O'Toole are putting partisan politics (and legacy building) aside to help.
Any foreign interference is bad thing -- there are a lot of interested parties out there and there is no telling in what directions they could influence our politics and policy. Every single Canadian should want to get to the bottom of this and take measures to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Fantastic article. Whether foreign interference changed the election results or not is in many ways is besides the point now. The bigger question is what will be done to ensure future elections are fair and the results can be trusted? If people stop trusting that a democracy is functioning properly and believe that the government has no will to prevent interference, then things will devolve quickly - potentially to a place of violence we’ve not experienced in Canada before.
Yes Justin won the most seats -- but he acts like he got the most votes too. Remember that the CPC had the support of more Canadians than the LPC and that 67% of the country voted for anyone but Justin.
True, but do you say that about every government? Because Mr. Harper didn't pass 50% of the popular vote. And Mr. Poilievre won't either.
And fair enough if you do say that, but then you're advocating for a very different system. (One that does NOT fit Canada in my opinion.)
Absolutely -- that is our system. My point is that he speaks as if he believes his views represents those of most Canadians. I understand that he won the election and the right to form a minority government, but it was not a commanding mandate so he should do more listening and less pontificating.
Yes, I am consistent in advocating for a change to the electoral system. I have volunteered with Fair Vote Canada.
Fair enough then.
I don’t like proportional rep at all. I think it fails on a vital purpose of elections: effectively turfing bad governments.
If you’re going to pick another option, I think the next best after FPTP is a ranked ballot.
Proportional Rep would lead to stalemate as parties would align with narrow interests.
I'd much rather see a Triple E Senate and true rep by pop in the Commons:
Province | 2022 Pop | Curr Seats | Proposed Seats | Seat Change | %
Ontario | 15,262,660 | 122 | 89 | -33 | -27%
Quebec | 8,751,352 | 78 | 51 | -27 | -35%
British Columbia | 5,368,266 | 43 | 32 | -11 | -26%
Alberta | 4,601,314 | 37 | 27 | -10 | -27%
Manitoba | 1,420,228 | 14 | 9 | -5 | -36%
Saskatchewan | 1,205,119 | 14 | 7 | -7 | -50%
Nova Scotia | 1,030,953 | 11 | 6 | -5 | -45%
New Brunswick | 820,786 | 10 | 5 | -5 | -50%
Newfoundland | 528,818 | 7 | 4 | -3 | -43%
Prince Edward Island | 172,707 | 4 | 2 | -2 |-50%
Northwest Territory | 45,602 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0%
Yukon | 43,964 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0%
Nunavut | 40,586 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0%
With a reduced number of MPs, salaries could be doubled to attract talent from the private sector and pensions could be eliminated to remove the incentive to prop up minority governments to qualify for a personal pension
You are definitely correct to point out that the CPC won more votes than Trudeau's LPC, but that does not quite justify your claim that "67% of the country voted for anyone but Justin". Part of the reason that the supply-and-confidence agreement with the NDP exists is that in fact most Canadians prefer a Liberal government to a Conservative government. The non-Conservative parties may be currently sagging in the polls, but even now they generally vote more with the Liberals than with the Conservatives, and outnumber the Cinservatives in cumulative polling support.
However, we may get a Conservative majority next year not so much because most Canadians prefer Poilievre over Trudeau, but because the Conservatives will likely get a large enough plurality to win a false electoral majority.
The only reason that the supply and confidence agreement exists is because the LPC would happily compromise their "principles" to stay in power so they made promises to the NDP that tramples on Provincial rights to do so. Canadians didn't vote for a LPC-NDP coalition.
I think you are confusing Liberal with liberal. In fact, the CPC is a liberal party (probably more so that US Democrats) and the NDP is socialist. The Liberal Party was, when it functioned, a centrist party that stole popular planks from the other parties to gain and keep in power. BTW how is it a false majority in our system?
"Canadians didn't vote for a LPC-NDP coalition."
That's your subjective opinion. Canadians are only allowed to mark one party preference on their ballot, and when one particular preference does not have majority support of the population, then the question becomes, which potential government has the support of most of the peoples' representatives?
The available evidence suggests that most of the non-Conservative parties in the House would rather work with a Liberal government than a Conservative one, when given the choice.
It is not subjective. It is reality. The two could have run as a coalition party then Canadians could have decided but they did not. I agree that the non-Conservative parties would rather work with the Liberals because they know the LPC would sell their souls (and principles) to stay in power.
"The two could have run as a coalition party then Canadians could have decided but they did not."
You are ignoring the way that Westminster systems of parliament work. It is the majority within parliament that chooses the government, not the plurality party. When no single party has the sole support of a majority of MPs, then whoever forms a government has *no choice* but to work with a second party to win a confidence vote.
"I agree that the non-Conservative parties would rather work with the Liberals because they know the LPC would sell their souls (and principles) to stay in power."
Maybe the LPC's "souls" are not invested in shunning cooperation with all other parties because most of their preferred legislation is not heavily controversial among non-Conservative parties. The Conservatives showed in the prior government that they can only pass their most desired legislation when in a position of power to steamroll all other parties (and that most of their legislation is repealed as soon as the Conservative majority ends). You are spinning being easier to work with and passing more sustainable legislation as some kind of flaw.
Don’t underestimate the powers of “convention” in our Westminster version of democracy. It is tradition for the party with the largest number of seats after an election to try to secure the confidence of the House.
Canadians clearly took the Liberal Party out behind the woodshed in 2021, refusing to give a majority mandate and a reduced share of the popular vote. In fact early in the election, the polls sagged and Trudeau was actually losing. To spring a majority mandate on Canadians through a (Safe) Supply and Confidence (Game) arrangement behind closed doors has legitimacy but reeks of bad faith politics.
"Sustainable legislation"? Seems the SOC disagrees. The government does have a choice about working with a second party -- they can write laws that appeal to the majority. Unfortunately Canada, unlike say the UK. has evolved the Westminster to the point where all MPs have to toe the party line if they want to keep the party's support and resources.
But Stephan if the Conservatives get a false electoral majority, just.what the hell were Trudeau's last wins?
Trudeau's 2015 win was a false majority. The 2019 and 2021 elections did not give a false majority to any party.
Trudeau lied about 2015 being the last election under the current electoral system, and I have called him out appropriately. More recently a motion was before parliament to initiate a citizens' assembly to investigate electoral reform, which the Conservatives and most Liberals shamefully voted against.
i keep being told by political nerds that Canada doesn't technically vote for Prime Minister, we run 338 (soon to be 343) parallel elections to elect our MP. and thus, the fact that up to 9 of these 338 elections were interfered with should have been taken up seriously, especially by the committee that's specifically appointed to look into foreign interference in our election (which Trudeau kept pointing to as "not flagging anything suspicious, thus election was run fairly and squarely"). it's weird why this committee decided that they should only care if the scale of foreign interference can affect which party will form government and who become PM, as that's not what our election is (technically) about.
and i can't wait for Poilievre to re-quote this “I can understand where someone who lost an election is trying to look for reasons other than themselves why they might have lost an election.” to Trudeau after the next election. Liberal partisans are literally blaming everything under the sun (Conservative misinformation, Russian hackers, american owned media, dubious polls, political has been pundits, journalists with agenda, suffering plebeians that only want to see the world burn, uneducated masses that don't know what's good for them) except themselves on why they're double digit behind in the polls.
Great analysis and while I am no fan of O'Toole, the emphasis you placed on his words truly did, as you say, reveal statesmanlike characteristics. Wish we had seen more of that when he was leader.
That said, I was somewhat surprised to learn that you were surprised by Junior's reaction. You write: "among my many criticisms of the man, an unwillingness to use the profile of his office to say nice things about deserving people hasn't been one of them". I think this is largely true, however, it is clear that in his world, "deserving people" are only those with whom he does not have a disagreement. Junior obviously feels that O'Toole's testimony does not reflect well on him and therefore, by definition, O'Toole is not "deserving". It really is that simple. Nobody engages in more ad hominem attacks than he does - the baseless smearing of so many he disagrees with as racist, transphobic, having unacceptable views, etc. You even point out that early in the interference story "First, we were all lectured about racism". His reflexive reaction to anyone with whom he disagrees is to do precisely this type of thing. So he is not best characterized as "a man unwilling to use the profile of his office to say nice things about deserving people" but rather a man willing to personally attack anyone with whom he disagrees (especially if he can toss in an "ism"). In short, I think his reaction to O'Toole's comments was entirely predictable when viewed through this lens.
But your second point absolutely hits the nail on the head: "has Justin Trudeau not realized that he has even more reason to reach for a soothing narrative than Erin O’Toole does?" His comments truly were surprising for this reason. This was a glorious opportunity for him to strike a statesmanlike (dare I say Prime Ministerial) stance while simultaneously agreeing with a major takeaway that can only accrue to his benefit: i.e., any interference had no impact on the overall outcome of the election. Missing an opportunity to co-sign that with O'Toole was pretty dumb.
Excellent points.
It drives me insane that the PM and his remaining supporters are still going the 'nothingburger' route with this issue.
If even one Canadian is sitting in parliament, collecting an MPs salary, due to foreign interference, it's one MP too many. Never mind 3 or 5 or 9. Never mind that it wasn't enough to sway the final standing in the election.
Good Lord, Twitter was aflame last year when it was revealed - *ominous drumming* - that Foug Ford served a local developer a hot dog at his daughter's stag & doe.
If any issue should rise above partisanship, it's this one, and plenty of outspokenly proud Canadians have shown a complete lack of principles by deflecting and running interference for the Trudeau Liberals. They think they stand for something. They don't.
I would go as far to say if one vote changed due to foreign interference it is an issue.
Trudeau’s response to O’Toole seems defensive to me, as though Trudeau’s real concern is having the legitimacy of his election win questioned. That fits with his pattern of micromanagement and purging potential rivals from the Liberal cabinet: he’s insecure. Combine that with his tendency towards overweening self-regard to the point of arrogance, and it suggests that Canada is being led by somebody with a tendency towards narcissism. One of the characteristics of narcissists is their vicious response whenever somebody threatens their fantasy. Trudeau started out being compared to Obama; now he seems more like Trump.
More like Trump for sure -- neither thinks the laws apply to them, they've been proven unethical, they crave absolute power and control, they think they're smarter than everyone, they surround themselves with sycophants and get rid of potential successors, they don't take responsibility for their failures (or should I say they give us opportunities to examine ourselves), they believe people are out to get them ...
This,100 percent.
Justin regularly has shown gross errors in judgement. I can't help but wonder if this display of lashing out irrationally reflects the internal party voices in in his ear telling him he's screwed. Is he getting "Custer Syndrome"? And rather than addressing reality in a mature and reasonable way, he's attempting to deflect everything away from himself; even if reality says otherwise?
A small man with small thoughts.