by George J. Dance
The title of this article may not be the best, but unfortunately the one I would have preferred is one I had already used this week: "Trudeau to resign in future - what now?" Trudeau says he will resign in the future; but what about now? Most of what I have seen in the days since that earlier story has been focused on the future, pondering life without Trudeau or speculating on his successor. But none of that has happened, and (it being the future) no one knows for sure what will happen. I believe it is more important to begin with a focus on the present, on what we can know now.
As of today, Justin Trudeau has not resigned. He is still Prime Minister. For now, he still enjoys all the powers of his office. Those powers are extensive; due to our constitutional convention of responsible government that has never been enshrined in law, a PM enjoys all the powers of his office and all those of the Crown. What checks a PM's power, in the Westminster parliamentary system, is his dependence on the confidence of Parliament.
For now, though, Trudeau will be ruling without Parliament, for at least 2-1/2 months (as prorogations can be extended). During that time the opposition parties will be deplatformed, while the "Liberal" caucus (including his own cabinet) will become increasingly distracted by their party's leadership race. Trudeau still has all of a PM's powers, but never before so unchecked, never so much like the "basic dictatorship" model that Trudeau has always admired.
As for the future, we just cannot know. Trudeau may be gone by March 24, or he may not. At least one Canadian Prime Minister has announced his resignation (after losing an election, in his case), been persuaded to lead his party in one more campaign, and gone on to win a majority government and remain in power for another five years. That was Pierre Trudeau, Justin's father, in 1979-1980. Is that significant? Well, I have a theory that Justin Trudeau is by talent and training an actor, and that as Liberal leader and Prime Minister he has been playing his father – so yes, I do think that example has significance for him.
So where does that leave Justin Trudeau, now? As noted, he is still Prime Minister, now governing without Parliament. That means he has great, almost unchecked power. In addition, as Voltaire and Stan Lee would agree, with great power comes great responsibility. Trudeau's major responsibility, the one most on Canadians' minds right now, is dealing with the Trump administration taking power this month and its threatened 25% tariffs on all imports from Canada (which would throw Canada into a crippling recession).
Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau have no respect for each other, and neither one of them bothers to hide that. Trump, for instance, has spent more than a month repeating a tasteless joke he made about taking over Canada and making it an American state with Trudeau as Governor (though he later decided to replace Trudeau with Wayne Gretzky). Trudeau, for his part, has pontificated that Trump's election "shouldn't" have happened. It is easy to see their relationship degenerating further.
There is no reason for Trump to play nice with Trudeau: he is a lame duck president, who can say and do whatever he thinks, and his country has the power to get him whatever he wants in any case. But neither does Trudeau have a reason to play nice with Trump. On the contrary, he has every reason to escalate conflict,
- First of all, as Trudeau himself has noted, Canadians define themselves as "non-Americans" - and in addition, a majority of Canadian voters (those who traditionally vote Liberal, NDP, or Green) identify as actively anti-American. Those leftist voters are Trudeau's natural base, and standing up to the American Goliath would be his best way of rallying them to him.
- Second, that will keep Trudeau at the center of attention. Like him or hate him, Donald Trump has an undeniable flair for publicity. Whatever Trump says or does ends up as the day's top news and the more that involves Canada-U.S. relations, the more it turns Trudeau into Canada's top news.
- Third, it only makes sense for Trudeau to pick a fight with the only person less popular in Canada than he is. No one has more haters in Canada than Donald Trump. (And not just in Canada.) Legacy media in both Canada and the U.S.A. are riddled with Trump-haters, and a fight with Trump will rally both Canadian and American media to his cause as well. (Yes, American journalists cannot vote, but they can determine what many Canadian voters hear or read.)
- Fourth, this would marginalize Pierre Poilievre and the other opposition parties. Poilievre will indeed be in a difficult position. No one will want to hear what he has to say about the carbon tax (or for that matter what Singh or May have to say about corporate greed or climate change) – that's old news). Media will only want to know their opinion of the Trudeau-Trump fight. But what can Poilievre say? He can't support Trudeau, obviously. He can't support Trump and the U.S.A., either, or he alienates those habitually leftist, anti-American voters whom he needs (and currently has) to win a majority. He can't refuse to comment, or he'll be seen as ducking a most important issue.
Appealing to Canadians' patriotism, fighting with someone more hated than he is, rallying media and Canadian voters to him, marginalizing his real opposition; what is there for Trudeau not to like about this strategy? I have to conclude that this is the strategy he will choose.
But what will it give him? After all, he promised to resign in March. And there is a campaign going on right now to pick his successor.
One can look at the latter. So far the Liberal leadership campaign has attracted just two contenders (a backbench MP and a former MP) whom I have never heard of previously. No doubt there will be others, but the party's unprecedented $300,000 entry fee will limit their number. (When Justin Trudeau won the leadership, the fee was just $75,000.) Is that what a chance at being Prime Minister (for possibly as little as a week) is really worth?
I expect Mark Carney (who thinks the Liberals can win the election just by changing leaders) to enter the race. That's the Kamala Harris strategy that failed the U.S. Democrats in the last U.S. election; and I doubt it will work for Kamala Carney, either. But enough Liberals do think that all they have to do is change leaders to make Carney a contender. What, though, if Carney is the only contender? Does the party simply anoint him (making the Kamala comparison even more obvious)? Or do they cancel or postpone the race?
Here is where an unseen opportunity for Justin Trudeau lies. By this point he'll be a Canadian hero (in the eyes of many). If the leadership race is cancelled or postponed, he remains as leader. In addition, with Canadian-American relations in crisis, he can tell the Governor General to extend prorogation as long as he wants.
But what if the race goes on, and Mark Carney is the only candidate? Then the best opportunity for Trudeau would be to jump into the leadership race himself. There is precedent for that -- John Diefenbaker ran in the 1968 Conservative leadership race after he had been deposed. If Trudeau did run in the leadership race, does anyone doubt that he would win it?
If that happens, then Trudeau's way will be clear: he recalls Parliament, loses a vote of confidence, and calls an election. Then he can simply continue following the same strategy I have outlined, of saving Canada, in its dire moment of crisis, from Donald Trump and American takeover. He will do little personal campaigning, and there will be no national leaders' debates; Trudeau will be too busy saving us for any of that.
Will it work? Probably not; but it will be Justin Trudeau's best chance to retain power. It can succeed if it successfully pushes all the right buttons. those mentioned previously plus one more. Above all, the campaign's overriding message must be along the lines of:
This is a moment of national crisis. In these times, we cannot take a chance on an untried Prime Minister with no experience in governing. It is more important than ever that the experienced, proven national leader be the one in command.
That is a familiar gambit for incumbents. It was the message of Stephen Harper in 2015 and Paul Martin in 2006 (both unsuccessfully, but neither of those years were times of crisis). More importantly, though, it was also that of Pierre Trudeau in 1980, the message which successfully took him from announcing his resignation to winning a majority government in just months. Once again, I expect that Justin Trudeau is fully aware of that history.
The many roles of Justin Trudeau - from X.
.jpg)
.jpg)
