Is Justin Trudeau planning a snap election?

KAMOURASKA, QUE.—I was in Toronto last week at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities annual conference, which ran May 25-28. The meeting attracted thousands of municipal leaders from everywhere. As a councillor from a small Quebec village, it was gratifying to meet colleagues from across the country, most from much larger cities and towns, but some from communities as small as Kamouraska. And despite the enormous differences in language, region, culture, and challenges, everyone had something in common. On the second day of the meeting, there were plenary speeches, the first being a vaguely described “Political Keynote” without a speaker. As I had attended previous FCM meetings, it was no surprise when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stepped up to the microphone on May 26. The failure to mention his presence in advance was more than likely dependent on the unpredictability of his schedule, and the desire of his handlers to avoid protesters. The key focus of the meeting was housing and mass transit, and the prime minister led off discussing funding for both, in the billions of dollars. But then, in an unexpected turn to partisanship, he warned: “That is very different from the approach the opposition wants to take. They want to pick fights with you, to bully you while they cut funding and programs.” Then he sneered and, in a stage whisper, said “gatekeepers,” using Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s description of municipal officials whom he accuses of preventing development. Trudeau spoke glowingly of plans for new spending in industrial projects like the $13-billion for a battery factory in St. Thomas, Ont., and then pointed out, “the Conservative leader didn’t support this investment, but the local Conservative MP and the mayor sure did.” The difference between previous speeches I had seen the prime minister deliver at similar conferences was striking. This was not a standard “here is what we are doing for (insert the interest group here)” convention speech. This was a stump speech, far more common on the campaign trail. And quite frankly, delivering it to municipal officials of all political stripes was off-putting. But it appeared the PM and his entourage wanted to test drive this approach. The speech wasn’t filled with hyperbolic invective as many political speeches can be. But the attacks were still there: “Pierre Poilievre spends his time talking down Canada and promoting his ‘brokenist’ perspective. That is an awfully pessimistic and defeatist way of looking at the world.” He then asked the municipal leaders to “choose to build a Canada that works for all Canadians,” implying a choice between him and Poilievre. While the possibility of a fall election has only been touted by former NDP leader Tom Mulcair, I think he may be on to something. The prime minister is an unpopular and polarizing figure, but so is Poilievre. On one of my favourite podcasts, The Curse of Politics, the discussion recently revolved around the prospect of a Poilievre “pivot” from cultivating his base to seeking out a broader spectrum of voters who have been turned off by the Trudeau government’s profligate ways. To those who do not believe Poilievre can be anything but negative, I would suggest they examine his acceptance speech at the Conservative convention last September. He spoke of his own background and calls Canada “a country where the son of a teenaged mother adopted by two teachers can dare to run for prime minister.” If he were to pivot over the winter, it could be Trudeau’s undoing: Poilievre would campaign as an optimistic, determined pragmatist, not the fire-breathing fundamentalist Trudeau caricatures. However, if the prime minister goes to the people this fall, he could campaign over the summer, avoid a recession, let unpopular bills die on the Order Paper, leave the China controversy behind, and free himself from his supply-and-confidence agreement with the NDP. It would allow the Liberals to portray Poilievre as a man who is always “putting the country down,” as Trudeau said last week. And it would prevent the CPC leader from pivoting. It would be cynical, egregious, but more than likely result in a majority government. While this is now the “Trudeau Party” and not the Liberal Party of old, it still retains the latter’s ability to seize, and hold on to, the reins of power. Andrew Caddell is retired from Global Affairs Canada, where he was a senior policy adviser. He previously worked as an adviser to Liberal governments. He is a town councillor in Kamouraska, Que. He can be reached at pipson52@hotmail.com. The Hill Times

Is Justin Trudeau planning a snap election?

A summer campaign could avoid a Conservative pivot and allow the Liberals to portray Pierre Poilievre as a man who is always ‘putting the country down.’

Time for a shift: Canada must treat Alzheimer’s like other progressive diseases

Between wars and fears of fascism in the U.S., there’s plenty to be scared about

Poilievre can’t just ‘cat-call from the periphery’: Tom McElroy

The problem of political homelessness

Liberals have fumbled green energy transition, and Conservatives have zero interest

Trump alienates women and Puerto Rican voters

Poilievre’s briefing refusal is a sign of the end of collegiality on the Hill

Lobbying can play a positive role in Canadian governance

Poilievre’s parliamentary outbursts reflective of his dripping dislike for Trudeau

This year’s Bye Bye didn’t disappoint

PQ budget reflects an alternate reality

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Is Justin Trudeau planning a snap election?

A summer campaign could avoid a Conservative pivot and allow the Liberals to portray Pierre Poilievre as a man who is always ‘putting the country down.’

Get The Weekend Point of View Newsletter